Los administradores de TransicionEstructural no se responsabilizan de las opiniones vertidas por los usuarios del foro. Cada usuario asume la responsabilidad de los comentarios publicados.
2 Usuarios y 50 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Lanzo una hipótesis. Los grandes fondos (Blackstone y compañía) han ido colocando sus viviendas en rentabilidad a una miríada de medianos propietarios durante los últimos años. Esos medianos propietarios son mucho más cutres y están mucho peor informados que los grandes y, básicamente, han ido picando, comprando toda la morralla que les han ido pasando los grandes fondos a precios astronómicos. Por supuesto, los nuevos propietarios han comprado el relato de que esto va para arriba y esperan, a su vez, dar el pase en cuanto puedan, con una revalorización considerable.(Otra variante serían las SOCIMIS varias que cotizan en BME Growth y similar. Ahí el papel de primo entiendo que lo ejercen los accionistas.)Lo que no han calculado bien estos nuevos jugadores es que, por un lado, los que quieren comprar para vivir hace tiempo que están fuera de juego. Y, por otro lado, los futuros himbersores pueden desaparecer espontáneamente en cuanto el mercado "dé muestras de agotamiento". Además, ellos son los que se van a comer toda la conflictividad social que se avecina... cosa que me aterra, porque estos cutre-propietarios se juegan su ruina económica si no consiguen las rentabilidades esperadas.No tengo pruebas de esto. Es un presentimiento que me viene de las noticias que van saliendo en la prensa con cuentagotas, pero estaría bien confirmarlo.
La compraventa de viviendas decreció un 7,7 % en febreroLa compraventa de viviendas muestra un retroceso generalizado en España, en un contexto de evolución desigual del mercado inmobiliario y financiero. Frente a esta caída de la actividad, el precio del metro cuadrado mantiene su dinamismo, con un incremento interanual del 5,4%, mientras que los préstamos para la adquisición de vivienda apenas avanzan un 0,2%. Por su parte, la creación de nuevas sociedades registra un fuerte aumento, del 25,6%.La compraventa de viviendas disminuye en 14 CC.AA., con caídas destacadas en Islas Canarias (-21,0%), Navarra (-19,2%) e Islas Baleares (-18,6%), mientras que solo aumenta en tres comunidades, destacando los incrementos en Castilla-La Mancha (14,0%), Cantabria (6,5%) y La Rioja (1,3%).El precio del m² sube un 5,4% interanual en España. Destacan los ascensos en Cantabria (18,3%) y Comunidad Valenciana (17,4%), así como las caídas en Navarra (-13,7%) y Extremadura (-3,5%).Los préstamos para adquisición de vivienda aumentan un 0,2% interanual en España. Crecen en ocho CC.AA., destacando Castilla-La Mancha (13,8%), Cantabria (7,3%) y Comunidad de Madrid (6,6%), y caen en las nueve restantes.La constitución de nuevas sociedades crece un 25,6% interanual en España. Destacan los aumentos en Extremadura (67,9%), Cataluña (44,7%) y Comunidad Valenciana (36,5%) y los retrocesos en las Islas Baleares (-11,9%), Navarra (-5,8%) y Cantabria (-0,4%).Informe compraventas, préstamos hipotecarios y sociedades de febrero-2026 (PDF) (1049 Kb)Anexo tablas series estadísticas correspondientes al informe (hasta feb-26) (XLSX) (2790 Kb)
Cita de: Saturio en Ayer a las 09:28:53Cita de: Derby en Mayo 04, 2026, 19:53:28 pmhttps://www.axios.com/2026/05/04/debt-to-gdp-ratio-100-percentCitarWhat is, and isn't, worrying about 100% debt to GDPThe United States has crossed a symbolic milestone: The national debt is now larger than its gross domestic product. But it's not the level of that ratio that is alarming — it's the trajectory.The big picture: There's nothing inherently unsustainable about a 100% debt-to-GDP level. What matters is why it got that high, the prospects for future borrowing, and the forecast for growth and borrowing costs.Across those dimensions, the U.S. fiscal outlook is exceptionally gloomy, in ways not reflected in much of the day-to-day political discourse.Catch up quick: The Commerce Department last week reported $31.9 trillion annualized GDP in Q1. That surpasses the $31.4 trillion in debt held by the public on the last day of the quarter.The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio briefly topped 100% during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when economic activity collapsed. But before that, it hadn't exceeded that ratio since the aftermath of World War II.The ratio is on track to continue rising, with the Congressional Budget Office projecting it will reach 120% in 2036.Zoom in: Consider a family with $100,000 in debt and an annual income of $100,000. Is their debt excessive? The answer, of course, is that it depends.If the family ran up that debt due to one-time expenses that won't recur and has a low interest rate, rising income and day-to-day spending in line with what they bring in, they're probably fine.If, on the other hand, they ran up that debt to support routine living expenses in excess of their earnings and have a high interest rate and stagnant income, it would raise serious alarm bells.Zoom out: The U.S. government is more like the latter family. The CBO projects federal revenue in the next few years will be 17% to 18% of GDP, while expenditures will be north of 23% of GDP.That gap, of around 6% of GDP, is higher than the CBO's GDP growth projection, which would imply an ever-rising debt-to-GDP ratio.In those projections, the federal government's interest expenses soar to new heights as a share of the economy — surpassing $1.5 trillion and 4% of GDP in 2031.That assumes interest rates remain broadly in their current zone, with a 10-year Treasury note yielding about 4.4% — and that bond investors prove willing to continue financing an ever-growing debt at those levels.Flashback: At the end of World War II, by contrast, the debt-to-GDP ratio was set to plunge as wartime spending wound down and the private-sector workforce exploded, thanks to returning soldiers and a population boom.Now, the share of Americans at retirement age is surging, labor force growth has slowed precipitously amid restrictive immigration policy, and the Trump administration seeks to increase military spending.Yes, but: One potential saving grace would be if artificial intelligence brings the kind of surge in productivity that its biggest enthusiasts predict.That would help the denominator of the debt-to-GDP equation by expanding economic activity.That said, it could create its own problems on the numerator, as federal government revenues are heavily dependent on taxing labor income.The bottom line: The national debt hitting 100% of GDP isn't a worry in and of itself, and it isn't some magical threshold. What is worrying are the details of how it got there, and what comes next.¿Alguno de vosotros visita regularmente Estados Unidos?.¿Teneís la sensación de que el país es un 30% más rico hoy que en 2020?.Infraestructuras, urbanismo, transporte, seguridad...Es que yo voy de visita a Bujaraloz y luego me paso por Elizondo y digo -Si, estos tíos son evidentemente más ricos que en los Monegros.Un 30% en seis años se tiene que notar que te cagas...Más vale que a los de Bujaraloz les vaya bien, que son mis clientes.
Cita de: Derby en Mayo 04, 2026, 19:53:28 pmhttps://www.axios.com/2026/05/04/debt-to-gdp-ratio-100-percentCitarWhat is, and isn't, worrying about 100% debt to GDPThe United States has crossed a symbolic milestone: The national debt is now larger than its gross domestic product. But it's not the level of that ratio that is alarming — it's the trajectory.The big picture: There's nothing inherently unsustainable about a 100% debt-to-GDP level. What matters is why it got that high, the prospects for future borrowing, and the forecast for growth and borrowing costs.Across those dimensions, the U.S. fiscal outlook is exceptionally gloomy, in ways not reflected in much of the day-to-day political discourse.Catch up quick: The Commerce Department last week reported $31.9 trillion annualized GDP in Q1. That surpasses the $31.4 trillion in debt held by the public on the last day of the quarter.The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio briefly topped 100% during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when economic activity collapsed. But before that, it hadn't exceeded that ratio since the aftermath of World War II.The ratio is on track to continue rising, with the Congressional Budget Office projecting it will reach 120% in 2036.Zoom in: Consider a family with $100,000 in debt and an annual income of $100,000. Is their debt excessive? The answer, of course, is that it depends.If the family ran up that debt due to one-time expenses that won't recur and has a low interest rate, rising income and day-to-day spending in line with what they bring in, they're probably fine.If, on the other hand, they ran up that debt to support routine living expenses in excess of their earnings and have a high interest rate and stagnant income, it would raise serious alarm bells.Zoom out: The U.S. government is more like the latter family. The CBO projects federal revenue in the next few years will be 17% to 18% of GDP, while expenditures will be north of 23% of GDP.That gap, of around 6% of GDP, is higher than the CBO's GDP growth projection, which would imply an ever-rising debt-to-GDP ratio.In those projections, the federal government's interest expenses soar to new heights as a share of the economy — surpassing $1.5 trillion and 4% of GDP in 2031.That assumes interest rates remain broadly in their current zone, with a 10-year Treasury note yielding about 4.4% — and that bond investors prove willing to continue financing an ever-growing debt at those levels.Flashback: At the end of World War II, by contrast, the debt-to-GDP ratio was set to plunge as wartime spending wound down and the private-sector workforce exploded, thanks to returning soldiers and a population boom.Now, the share of Americans at retirement age is surging, labor force growth has slowed precipitously amid restrictive immigration policy, and the Trump administration seeks to increase military spending.Yes, but: One potential saving grace would be if artificial intelligence brings the kind of surge in productivity that its biggest enthusiasts predict.That would help the denominator of the debt-to-GDP equation by expanding economic activity.That said, it could create its own problems on the numerator, as federal government revenues are heavily dependent on taxing labor income.The bottom line: The national debt hitting 100% of GDP isn't a worry in and of itself, and it isn't some magical threshold. What is worrying are the details of how it got there, and what comes next.¿Alguno de vosotros visita regularmente Estados Unidos?.¿Teneís la sensación de que el país es un 30% más rico hoy que en 2020?.Infraestructuras, urbanismo, transporte, seguridad...Es que yo voy de visita a Bujaraloz y luego me paso por Elizondo y digo -Si, estos tíos son evidentemente más ricos que en los Monegros.Un 30% en seis años se tiene que notar que te cagas...
https://www.axios.com/2026/05/04/debt-to-gdp-ratio-100-percentCitarWhat is, and isn't, worrying about 100% debt to GDPThe United States has crossed a symbolic milestone: The national debt is now larger than its gross domestic product. But it's not the level of that ratio that is alarming — it's the trajectory.The big picture: There's nothing inherently unsustainable about a 100% debt-to-GDP level. What matters is why it got that high, the prospects for future borrowing, and the forecast for growth and borrowing costs.Across those dimensions, the U.S. fiscal outlook is exceptionally gloomy, in ways not reflected in much of the day-to-day political discourse.Catch up quick: The Commerce Department last week reported $31.9 trillion annualized GDP in Q1. That surpasses the $31.4 trillion in debt held by the public on the last day of the quarter.The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio briefly topped 100% during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when economic activity collapsed. But before that, it hadn't exceeded that ratio since the aftermath of World War II.The ratio is on track to continue rising, with the Congressional Budget Office projecting it will reach 120% in 2036.Zoom in: Consider a family with $100,000 in debt and an annual income of $100,000. Is their debt excessive? The answer, of course, is that it depends.If the family ran up that debt due to one-time expenses that won't recur and has a low interest rate, rising income and day-to-day spending in line with what they bring in, they're probably fine.If, on the other hand, they ran up that debt to support routine living expenses in excess of their earnings and have a high interest rate and stagnant income, it would raise serious alarm bells.Zoom out: The U.S. government is more like the latter family. The CBO projects federal revenue in the next few years will be 17% to 18% of GDP, while expenditures will be north of 23% of GDP.That gap, of around 6% of GDP, is higher than the CBO's GDP growth projection, which would imply an ever-rising debt-to-GDP ratio.In those projections, the federal government's interest expenses soar to new heights as a share of the economy — surpassing $1.5 trillion and 4% of GDP in 2031.That assumes interest rates remain broadly in their current zone, with a 10-year Treasury note yielding about 4.4% — and that bond investors prove willing to continue financing an ever-growing debt at those levels.Flashback: At the end of World War II, by contrast, the debt-to-GDP ratio was set to plunge as wartime spending wound down and the private-sector workforce exploded, thanks to returning soldiers and a population boom.Now, the share of Americans at retirement age is surging, labor force growth has slowed precipitously amid restrictive immigration policy, and the Trump administration seeks to increase military spending.Yes, but: One potential saving grace would be if artificial intelligence brings the kind of surge in productivity that its biggest enthusiasts predict.That would help the denominator of the debt-to-GDP equation by expanding economic activity.That said, it could create its own problems on the numerator, as federal government revenues are heavily dependent on taxing labor income.The bottom line: The national debt hitting 100% of GDP isn't a worry in and of itself, and it isn't some magical threshold. What is worrying are the details of how it got there, and what comes next.
What is, and isn't, worrying about 100% debt to GDPThe United States has crossed a symbolic milestone: The national debt is now larger than its gross domestic product. But it's not the level of that ratio that is alarming — it's the trajectory.The big picture: There's nothing inherently unsustainable about a 100% debt-to-GDP level. What matters is why it got that high, the prospects for future borrowing, and the forecast for growth and borrowing costs.Across those dimensions, the U.S. fiscal outlook is exceptionally gloomy, in ways not reflected in much of the day-to-day political discourse.Catch up quick: The Commerce Department last week reported $31.9 trillion annualized GDP in Q1. That surpasses the $31.4 trillion in debt held by the public on the last day of the quarter.The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio briefly topped 100% during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic when economic activity collapsed. But before that, it hadn't exceeded that ratio since the aftermath of World War II.The ratio is on track to continue rising, with the Congressional Budget Office projecting it will reach 120% in 2036.Zoom in: Consider a family with $100,000 in debt and an annual income of $100,000. Is their debt excessive? The answer, of course, is that it depends.If the family ran up that debt due to one-time expenses that won't recur and has a low interest rate, rising income and day-to-day spending in line with what they bring in, they're probably fine.If, on the other hand, they ran up that debt to support routine living expenses in excess of their earnings and have a high interest rate and stagnant income, it would raise serious alarm bells.Zoom out: The U.S. government is more like the latter family. The CBO projects federal revenue in the next few years will be 17% to 18% of GDP, while expenditures will be north of 23% of GDP.That gap, of around 6% of GDP, is higher than the CBO's GDP growth projection, which would imply an ever-rising debt-to-GDP ratio.In those projections, the federal government's interest expenses soar to new heights as a share of the economy — surpassing $1.5 trillion and 4% of GDP in 2031.That assumes interest rates remain broadly in their current zone, with a 10-year Treasury note yielding about 4.4% — and that bond investors prove willing to continue financing an ever-growing debt at those levels.Flashback: At the end of World War II, by contrast, the debt-to-GDP ratio was set to plunge as wartime spending wound down and the private-sector workforce exploded, thanks to returning soldiers and a population boom.Now, the share of Americans at retirement age is surging, labor force growth has slowed precipitously amid restrictive immigration policy, and the Trump administration seeks to increase military spending.Yes, but: One potential saving grace would be if artificial intelligence brings the kind of surge in productivity that its biggest enthusiasts predict.That would help the denominator of the debt-to-GDP equation by expanding economic activity.That said, it could create its own problems on the numerator, as federal government revenues are heavily dependent on taxing labor income.The bottom line: The national debt hitting 100% of GDP isn't a worry in and of itself, and it isn't some magical threshold. What is worrying are the details of how it got there, and what comes next.
https://x.com/george__mack/status/2051334328303669498Sir Winston Churchill celebrates his 90th birthday-Monday 30th, November 1964. Photo shows Winston Churchill building a brick wall at his home in Westerham Kent.his favourite past time. (Credit Image: © Keystone Pictures USA/ZUMAPRESS.com)Saludos.
Cita de: Cadavre Exquis en Ayer a las 22:22:37https://x.com/george__mack/status/2051334328303669498Sir Winston Churchill celebrates his 90th birthday-Monday 30th, November 1964. Photo shows Winston Churchill building a brick wall at his home in Westerham Kent.his favourite past time. (Credit Image: © Keystone Pictures USA/ZUMAPRESS.com)Saludos.No sé de dónde sale ese pie de foto, pero es imposible que en esa foto tuviese 90 años. Se ve a simple vista. Además, Churchill murió justo con 90 y ya no se sostenía en pie por sí solo.