La caída del dólar

[muyuu]

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/06/28/actualidad/1340892200_268626.html

Día histórico: EEUU tendrá sanidad pública (casi) universal.

A menos que reelijan a otro, claro.

Un auténtico desastre por la forma en que se ha hecho. Obama básicamente ha vendido EEUU a dos farmacéuticas. Y lo que es peor, terminará por afectarnos.

[Currobena]

Consecuencias inflacionarias de la caída del dólar:

Think we’re in a deflationary spiral? We may be, but Buttonwood shows we’ve had inflation over decades.  Posted on July 15, 2012 by jcoumarianos                Here are the prices of homes, milk, and gas in 1978 and 2012, complied by The Economist’s Buttonwood. The charts show creeping inflation.



We’ve added a chart on income growth. It shows that the top 5% and the top fifth of earners have growth their incomes by 10x from 1967 through 2010. The third or middle fifth and the bottom fifth have growth theirs by 7x. We used data from The Census Bureau.

http://www.institutionalimperative.com/2012/07/15/think-were-in-a-deflationary-spiral-buttonwood-shows-otherwise/

[bruto]

Torres más grandes caerán.


http://www.elconfidencial.com/sociedad/2012/07/18/stockton-del-boom-del-ladrillo-a-ser-la-ciudad-mas-grande-de-eeuu-en-quiebra-102156/

Stockton, del 'boom del ladrillo' a ser la ciudad más grande de EEUU en quiebra


En 2008, Stockton era una ciudad idílica, todo el mundo quería vivir allí. Se construyó un paseo marítimo precioso, un gran hotel, un puerto deportivo en la ribera del río San Joaquín y un complejo de instalaciones recreativas que pretendían cambiar el futuro económico de la ciudad. Era una urbe inundada de dinero que, además, aprovechó para ‘regalar’ sin motivo alguno a sus funcionaros públicos enormes beneficios salariales y una buena cobertura médica.

La apuesta le salió del revés. El boom inmobiliario saltó y la ciudad hizo ‘crack’. El estruendo fue casi ensordecedor. Los caprichos del pasado le jugaron una mala pasada a la ciudad más grande de Estados Unidos en crisis y el precio medio de la vivienda se triplicó entre 1998 y 2005. Con  la crisis hipotecaria el índice de embargos alcanzó un 6,9% en 2011, es decir, una de cada 30 viviendas tiene que hacer frente a una ejecución hipotecaria, la séptima tasa más alta de todo EEUU.

Stockton, una ciudad portuaria situada a 144 kilómetros de San Francisco, tuvo que tomar medidas austeras. Así, su alcaldesa, la demócrata Ann Johnson comenzó a apretarse el cinturón y recortó, en un 25% el cuerpo de policía, en un 30% el de bomberos, y un 40% el resto de departamentos públicos.

Estos recortes no tuvieron el efecto esperado ya que, en vez de ahorrar dinero, la disminución de la seguridad agravó de manera considerable la delincuencia en la ciudad agraria. Es más, Forbes la calificó a finales de 2011 como la ciudad con peor calidad de vida de EEUU.

A día de hoy, además de violencia por las calles y un escaso nivel de vida, de los más de 290.000 habitantes que tiene Stockton, cerca del 15% de la población está en paro. Una tasa que si se mira de cerca también es desalentadora: es la más alta desde 1984. Y, por si fuera poco, un quinto de sus habitantes viven por debajo del umbral de pobreza.

Cabe resaltar que en los últimos tres años, las autoridades han tenido que hacer frente a un agujero fiscal de 90 millones de dólares (equivalente a 70 millones de euros). Y, al igual que en España, han sido los bancos quienes se han hecho cargo de afrontar las hipotecas que los ciudadanos de Stockton no pueden pagar.

Stockton, la ciudad portuaria situada en el corazón de una de las regiones agrícolas más productivas de todo EEUU, presentó el pasado día 28 de junio un presupuesto a través del cual se declaró en bancarrota. Johnston, afectada y triste, no pudo hacer otra cosa. Agachó la cabeza y declaró: "Estamos muy decepcionados por no haber sido capaces de evitar la quiebra".

Enlace patro

[pringaete]

Del foro shurmano, sección metaleros
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=37433

How many of you will shed a tear when the super wealthy lose 50% of their wealth? I’d be rooting for the collapse if I didn’t know that the non-super wealthy will lose 80% of their wealth. Bernanke will cause the next collapse. He is not a smart man, despite his academic credentials. He is a puppet of the banker class. He was wrong about housing. He was wrong about the finanacial crisis. His solutions have been a complete and utter failure. He is becoming desperate. Desperate people do stupid things. Marc Faber will be proven right.

How Bernanke will cause the next crash before 2014
Commentary: Rich will lose 50% in massive wealth destruction
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — “Massive wealth destruction coming,” warns Hong Kong economist Marc Faber, one of many “Dr. Dooms” we’ve featured over the years.
(...)
How? “Somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction. That usually happens either through very high inflation or through social unrest or through war or credit-market collapse.”
(...)

Answer: “Yes, possibly much worse,” adding “most markets peaked in May 2011.” He expects “further weakness in the second half of the year. Corporate profits will disappoint … stock markets are oversold. The U.S. government-bond market is overbought. The U.S. dollar is overbought, and gold is oversold near term.”
(...)

In spite of his doom and gloom about America and the world economy, when pressed Faber did recommend some China REITs. And waffled a bit on America: “It is safest to buy U.S. Treasurys because the U.S. can print money” and “pay the interest. But you are earning only 1.6%, and the cost of living is increasing by about 5% a year around the world. You are getting a negative real return.”

Not very promising in today’s uncertain world, where the American elections are unlikely to solve the economy’s core jobs problem, no matter who wins in November.

So when comes the change? “Down the line.” “The breaking point could be three, four, five years away. The world is heading toward a major crisis.”

OK, he hedges his bet on timing. But he’s very clear on how and why: The collapse will be “caused by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve’s continuous printing of new money.” The “bailout and money printing” since the 2008 Wall Street Crash did not “create any long-lasting wealth or create healthy growth.” Nor will the next president. So investors must hedge longer-term bets.

New crash coming before Bernanke leaves Fed by early 2014
The next “collapse will come on Bernanke’s watch.” Warning to investors: Bernanke’s second four-year term as chairman of the Fed ends Jan. 31, 2014. (He will remain a board member until 2020.)

Get it? There will be another crash. The crash will ignite before 2014 when Bernanke’s term ends. The crash will be worse than 2008. Bernanke will be the cause. He will be clueless about the unintended consequences of his policies (like his predecessor Alan Greenspan, who ultimately had to admit to Congress “I really didn’t get it until very late.”)

(...)

Unfortunately, since Wall Street simply went back to business as usual after the 2008 Crash, fighting all reforms, a new crash is not only easy to predict in the 2013-2014 period, we can also predict that it will be far more deadly for Wall Street banks, the American economy, taxpayers, investors, consumers and retirees.

Guess what? Many ‘Dr. Dooms’ predicted 2008 crash
Why so easy to predict? Because we’re repeating all the same dumb and dumber mistakes we did in the year leading up to the 2008 crash. The Fed’s cheap money policies have favored banks, devaluing the dollar, destroying the value of stocks, fueling inflation, triggering job losses and social unrest. In short, the happy conspiracy between the Fed and Wall Street is suicidal and will take down the rest of America with it.

(...)

Imagine Wall Street banks in virtual bankruptcy, again, like 2008, begging Congress for yet another bailout, as America sinks into a longer double-dip recession.

Warning, next time there will be no trillion-dollar giveaways, like Paulson and Geithner did with our too-big-to-fail banks during the 2008 meltdown. We’re already hearing grumblings about the J.P. Morgan Whale and the Libor scandals. More is ahead. Banks are too-big-to-manage, will fail. Expect government to extract a heavy price in the next bailout. Assuming politicians and the public are willing to add another $29.7 trillion debt.
(...)

[pringaete]

Más, un vídeo del Kaisser Report (pongo enlace al minuto concreto que habla del dólar y la libra, el resto ya se les va la pinza metalera)
[Edito, no salta al metraje señalado, pinchar a partir del minuto 13 y medio o así]

�y��	Small | Large

[Xoshe]

Más, un vídeo del Kaisser Report (pongo enlace al minuto concreto que habla del dólar y la libra, el resto ya se les va la pinza metalera)
[Edito, no salta al metraje señalado, pinchar a partir del minuto 13 y medio o así]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9aEVZEzK_g#t=13m25s

Creo que este ilustrado foro debería de considerar dudosa la fuente de RT. Las hay mejores.

[pringaete]

Más, un vídeo del Kaisser Report (pongo enlace al minuto concreto que habla del dólar y la libra, el resto ya se les va la pinza metalera)
[Edito, no salta al metraje señalado, pinchar a partir del minuto 13 y medio o así]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9aEVZEzK_g#t=13m25s

Creo que este ilustrado foro debería de considerar dudosa la fuente de RT. Las hay mejores.

El invitado, Jim Rickards (que es lo que traigo al ilustrado foro, su intervención a partir de un momento concreto), explica de forma bastante clara una serie de hechos y aporta una serie de explicaciones a lo que está pasando. Quédese con lo que quiera, el formato sensacionalista RT y las camisas y corbatas chillonas de Kaisser o quédese con lo que cuenta el invitado que defiende el modo de proceder del euro frente a otras formas de actuar de EEUU (a partir de 2014 [EEUU] va directamente al precipicio, sic) o China con una serie de argumentos. Depende de ud.

[pollo]

Más, un vídeo del Kaisser Report (pongo enlace al minuto concreto que habla del dólar y la libra, el resto ya se les va la pinza metalera)
[Edito, no salta al metraje señalado, pinchar a partir del minuto 13 y medio o así]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9aEVZEzK_g#t=13m25s

Creo que este ilustrado foro debería de considerar dudosa la fuente de RT. Las hay mejores.

Lo mismo podría decirse de cualquier fuente, ¿no crees? En especial si el único argumento es "porque lo digo yo".

[Decreasing Management]

Mientras tanto, al otro lado del charco, el helicóptero Bernanke sobrevuela de nuevo.

Fed Leaning Closer to New Stimulus if No Growth Is Seen

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
Published: July 24, 2012

WASHINGTON — A growing number of Federal Reserve officials have concluded that the central bank needs to expand its stimulus campaign unless the nation’s economy soon shows signs of improvement, including job growth.

The question is expected to dominate the agenda when the Fed’s policy-making committee meets next week, with some members pushing for immediate action while others seek to delay a decision at least until the committee’s next meeting in September, so they can see a few more weeks’ worth of economic data.

The Fed’s chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, told Congress last week that the options under consideration included a new round of asset purchases, or “quantitative easing,” often described as QE3. As part of any such program, officials increasingly favor expanding the Fed’s holdings of mortgage-backed securities for the first time since 2010.

Mr. Bernanke and other Fed officials are convinced that such a step would further drive down long-term interest rates and improve the pace of economic growth, but they are concerned that the benefits would be modest and the costs uncertain.

The Fed also could take the smaller step of extending its forecast that short-term interest rates would remain near zero beyond late 2014, but many economists regard such a step as unlikely to provide a significant jolt to growth.

Any significant action by the Fed will reverberate in a presidential election that may be decided by the health of the economy. Republicans have urged Mr. Bernanke to refrain from taking additional steps, arguing that the costs were likely to exceed the benefits, while Democrats have pressed for a new round of stimulus.

Officials increasingly say that the economy has lost momentum after stronger growth earlier in the year. The unemployment rate fell by a full percentage point, to 8.1 percent, between September and April, but it has since made no further progress. Fed officials predicted in June that if they did not take further action, the rate would remain at or above 8 percent for the rest of the year. Fed officials are also concerned about the continuing crisis in Europe and the impact of substantial tax increases and spending cuts at the end of this year.

Mr. Bernanke has said repeatedly that the Fed would act if it concluded that the economy would not grow fast enough to reduce the rate of unemployment.

“We are very committed to ensuring, or at least doing all we can to ensure, that we continue to make progress on unemployment,” he told Congress last week.

For the Fed, there is a caveat that holds the key to understanding its pending decision. Current economic conditions would most likely warrant a cut in the Fed’s benchmark interest rate. But of course the Fed cannot cut that rate, which has hovered near zero since late 2008. Instead it must decide whether to try improving the economy by other means.

There is considerable evidence that the Fed’s purchases of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities have reduced interest rates and encouraged investors to buy riskier assets like equities. Stock markets rally whenever the central bank hints at another round of purchases. The Fed has made two large rounds of asset purchases, first in 2008 and again in 2010. But the broader benefits of lower rates have been tamped down because many consumers and businesses are unable to qualify for loans.

Several Fed officials have expressed public support for buying mortgage-backed securities because studies show that such purchases have a larger effect on mortgage rates, allowing the Fed to take aim at the troubled housing market.

“If further action is called for, the most effective tool would be additional purchases of longer-maturity securities, including agency mortgage-backed securities,” John C. Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said in a speech in mid-July.

The uncertain costs of such purchases have created a higher bar for action. Some officials worry that the Fed will disrupt financial markets by acquiring too much of the outstanding volume of Treasuries or mortgage-backed securities.

“It would be helpful to have a better understanding of how large the Federal Reserve’s participation would have to be to cause a meaningful deterioration in securities market functioning, and of the potential costs of such deterioration for the economy as a whole,” Sandra Pianalto, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, said in a recent speech.

Other officials, however, play down this concern. The point of the purchases, in part, is to push investors into riskier assets. Mr. Bernanke told Congress last week that he recognized a theoretical limit on the amount of Treasuries that the Fed could own, but that he did not see it as an immediate constraint.

Another concern raised by some officials, and minimized by Mr. Bernanke, is that a larger portfolio could impede the Fed’s ability to respond to rising inflation.

The Fed’s purchases also have squeezed the premiums, in the form of higher interest rates, that investors normally demand to hold longer-term debt. As the distortion increases, so does the potential for disruption if premiums snap back toward historical norms.

And central bankers, cautious by nature and profession, also harbor wariness for the unforeseen risks of unprecedented actions.

Nonetheless, internal discussions have swung in the direction of additional action.

As recently as April, a majority of the officials on the Fed’s policy-making committee — there were then 17 members; there are now 19 — indicated that they no longer expected to hold interest rates near zero through 2014, as they had stated.

But the outlook deteriorated so quickly that at its next meeting in June, the Fed announced a holding action, extending to the end of this year an effort to modestly reduce borrowing costs by adjusting but not expanding its investment portfolio.

Fed officials have now made clear that they may make a move before that program ends in December. But they may wait past the meeting scheduled for next Tuesday and Wednesday. While the government will release its estimate of second-quarter growth on Friday, postponing a decision until the Fed next meets in September would allow officials to consider two more months’ worth of employment data.

[visillófilas pepitófagas]

En Zero Hedge comentaban ayer que quizá Bernanke esté esperando a septiembre, esperando a ver cómo transcurre el verano en la UE y anticipando que el QE3 tendrá un efecto más efímero que los anteriores (lanzándolo en septiembre lograría una subida de la bolsa entre septiembre y fin de año, que podría amortiguar un octubre caliente y dar oxígeno a Obama de cara a las elecciones de noviembre).

[Overlord]

Riamonos del Apocalipsis 

DEBT BOMB - The Global Financial Crisis Stripped Bare

DEBT BOMB
(Lyrics by Dominic Frisby)

Aw, aw baby, yeah, ooh yeah, huh, listen to this

Mortages, cars, consumer shite
Government spending all through the night
Pensions and healthcare and welfare rights
Education , wars to fight

Run up a deficit, ignore the facts
Blame someone else, put up tax
I can’t deny we had a crack
But now we gotta pay it back

Debt bomb, debt bomb, you’re a debt bomb uh hu
The addiction to credit just goes on and on and on – give it to me
Debt bomb, debt bomb, you’re a debt bomb
A bail-out ooh you’re turn me on

You know what you’re doing to me don’t you. ha ha,
I know you do

If you can’t afford it don’t be ill at ease – no
Spend it anyway, you’ve got voters to appease
Take the prudent savers and just give them a squeeze
That’s the economics of Keynes

Quantitative easing, zero interest rates
Steal from the future, hide the bad mistakes
We gotta keep those asset prices high
Don’t matter if the credit’s dry

Debt bomb, debt bomb, you’re a debt bomb uh hu
Try to pay the debt off with inflation
Debt bomb, debt bomb, you’re a debt bomb
Malinvestment ooh you’re turn me on

A boom brought about by credit will always bust
You’ve then got two choices, decide you must
Abandon the addiction, the credit lust
Or the currency collapses , it just turns to worthless dust

Debt bomb, debt bomb, you’re a debt bomb uh hu
Destroy the country’s money, anything to carry on
Debt bomb, debt bomb, you’re a debt bomb
Bubbles ooh you’re turn me on
__________________

[Currobena]

En Zero Hedge comentaban ayer que quizá Bernanke esté esperando a septiembre, esperando a ver cómo transcurre el verano en la UE y anticipando que el QE3 tendrá un efecto más efímero que los anteriores (lanzándolo en septiembre lograría una subida de la bolsa entre septiembre y fin de año, que podría amortiguar un octubre caliente y dar oxígeno a Obama de cara a las elecciones de noviembre).

¿Y los republicanos no dirían nada? ¿Un banquero nombrado por Bush ayudando a Obama a ganar las elecciones contra un candidato republicano?

[Starkiller]

En Zero Hedge comentaban ayer que quizá Bernanke esté esperando a septiembre, esperando a ver cómo transcurre el verano en la UE y anticipando que el QE3 tendrá un efecto más efímero que los anteriores (lanzándolo en septiembre lograría una subida de la bolsa entre septiembre y fin de año, que podría amortiguar un octubre caliente y dar oxígeno a Obama de cara a las elecciones de noviembre).

¿Y los republicanos no dirían nada? ¿Un banquero nombrado por Bush ayudando a Obama a ganar las elecciones contra un candidato republicano?

Hombre, Obama era el candidato de los bancos, en oposición a McCain que era el de las grandes fortunas...

[Currobena]

En Zero Hedge comentaban ayer que quizá Bernanke esté esperando a septiembre, esperando a ver cómo transcurre el verano en la UE y anticipando que el QE3 tendrá un efecto más efímero que los anteriores (lanzándolo en septiembre lograría una subida de la bolsa entre septiembre y fin de año, que podría amortiguar un octubre caliente y dar oxígeno a Obama de cara a las elecciones de noviembre).

¿Y los republicanos no dirían nada? ¿Un banquero nombrado por Bush ayudando a Obama a ganar las elecciones contra un candidato republicano?

Hombre, Obama era el candidato de los bancos, en oposición a McCain que era el de las grandes fortunas...

Los gestores de los bancos son grandes fortunas. ¿Cuál sería la diferencia entonces?

[Starkiller]

Eso puede ser cierto en EU, pero no necesariamente en el mundo anglo.

Las grandes fortunas son propietarias de las tierras, de cierto poder político (Local, caciquismo, sindicatos, mafias, etc...) y de compañías.

Los bancos son otro grupo muy diferente, con una gran influencia por parte de La City, y que en última instancia, tiene objetivos diferentes a los primeros.

Todo esto, creo yo, es mucho más borroso que esta forma de exponerlo, pero en términos generales, creo que sirve para hacerse una idea.

A fin de cuentas es una diferencia: entre quien posee activos financieros, y quien posee activos tangibles.