www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
0 Usuarios y 14 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Lo vengo diciendo desde hace tiempo. Una de estas en las Carrera de San Jerónimo apuntando hacia el Congreso:Sólo de adorno, como aviso a navegantes pero afilada y lubricada lista para usarse.Lo de Echegoyen es para tenerle delante y darle con la vara hasta 4.500 veces. Una por cada millón de nuestro dinero perdido.Estoy calentito hoy..
Los edificios se llevarán el 60% del fondo destinado a la rehabilitación energéticaLa renovación de inmuebles dispondrá de 1.994 millones de euros de los 3.420 millones que conforman el plan conjuntoLa renovación de los edificios de vivienda conforme a criterios que certifiquen su eficiencia energética se llevará la mayor parte de los 3.420 millones de euros que el Gobierno ha reservado al Programa de rehabilitación para la recuperación económica y social en entornos residenciales, la joya de la corona del Plan de rehabilitación y regeneración urbana detallado en el componente dos remitido a Bruselas este miércoles, con una financiación total de 6.820 millones.Estos 3.420 millones, más de la mitad del conjunto del plan, se distribuyen en tres líneas de actuación. La más importante es la que atañe a la rehabilitación a nivel de edificio, sustentada por 1.994 millones de euros (casi el 60% del montante). Esta línea, explica el Gobierno en el documento, incluye las “cuantías invertidas en rehabilitación integral y las líneas de subvención de la renovación de determinados elementos constructivos”, así como otros proyectos técnicos de rehabilitación. El 86% de esta partida (1.716,25 millones) irá a la “renovación de la eficiencia energética de los inmuebles existentes, proyectos de demostración y medidas de apoyo conformes con los criterios de eficiencia energética”. Los casi 278 millones restantes se destinarán, por su parte, a medidas de apoyo que acompañen esta renovación, siempre referida a inmuebles completos.(...)
PESE A AL 'ESCUDO SOCIAL'La renta disponible de los hogares españoles cayó un 3,3% en 2020, el peor dato de EuropaLas transferencias sociales del Estado a las familias crecieron un 14% y soportaron el 33% de la renta de estas, pero fue insuficiente para contrarrestar la magnitud de la crisis del mercado laboralEspaña es el país europeo en el que más duro ha golpeado la crisis económica del coronavirus. Hay dos causas que lo explican. La primera es la dependencia que tiene el país del turismo internacional: perdió nada menos que 72.000 millones de euros por el parón en la llegada de viajeros. La segunda es la mala calidad del empleo, con mucho trabajo temporal, que se destruye sin trabas legales y un porcentaje elevado de economía sumergida. El resultado fue una profunda recesión, la mayor registrada en tiempos de paz, con una intensa pérdida de empleo. Si bien los expedientes de regulación temporal de empleo (ERTE) consiguieron minimizar la destrucción de puestos de trabajo, no pudieron evitar que la renta disponible de los hogares españoles cayera un 3,3% a lo largo del año 2020. Se trata del peor dato de toda Europa para los que Eurostat ya ha publicado los datos.Al contrario de lo que ocurrió en España, la mayoría de los países europeos consiguieron compensar la caída de los ingresos salariales con las prestaciones públicas, de modo que al final del año la renta de los hogares en la eurozona no solo no cayó, sino que fue un 0,5% superior a la del año 2019. De esta forma, los Estados consiguieron evitar que las familias sintieran la crisis del coronavirus. Si bien el efecto no es homogéneo en (en todos los países hubo hogares ‘ganadores y perdedores’), la realidad es que en Europa la mayor parte de las familias fueron inmunes a la crisis.En España no se logró este objetivo y la renta de los hogares terminó cayendo un 3,3%. El único país que se aproxima a España es Italia, que registró un descenso de la renta disponible del 2,8%, y en Austria cayó un 1,6%. En el extremo opuesto destacan los Países Bajos, donde la renta de las familias creció un 3,8% a pesar de la crisis. Un dato que es consecuencia de la resistencia de la economía del país a las crisis así como los esfuerzos del Estado por compensar la caída de las rentas salariales con mayores prestaciones públicas. Sin embargo, en España el esfuerzo del sector público por proteger las rentas de las familias fue muy intenso, lo que explica el volumen del déficit público alcanzado en 2020, del 10,1% del PIB sin contabilizar las ayudas financieras. El gasto en transferencias sociales de España creció nada menos que un 13,9% a lo largo del año 2020, lo que supone el segundo mayor aumento de toda Europa solo por detrás de Irlanda, país en el que las macromagnitudes están alteradas como consecuencia de su competencia tributaria, que lo convierte casi en un paraíso fiscal.El crecimiento de la protección social en España es consecuencia de la magnitud de la crisis y de los esfuerzos realizados por mantener la economía de las familias inmune a la recesión. En total, las transferencias sociales a las familias (incluye las pensiones) crecieron en 30.000 millones de euros, un aumento nunca antes registrado. El resultado es que el Estado soportó el 33,2% de la renta de los hogares, esto es, uno de cada tres euros de la renta disponible de los hogares fue proporcionado por las transferencias de los diferentes mecanismos protección social (excluye las transferencias en especie). Se trata del dato más elevado nunca registrado y da buena imagen del esfuerzo presupuestario realizado por el Estado. Eso sí, este dinero no saldrá gratis, sino que se ha acumulado como deuda pública, que supera ya el 120% del PIB. El esfuerzo en la protección social realizado por el Estado contrasta con la caída de la renta disponible de los hogares, ya que el Estado fue incapaz de contrarrestar el fuerte descenso de las rentas del trabajo. La remuneración de asalariados cayó un 5,4%, lo que supone la pérdida de más de 31.000 millones de euros en salarios. Este descenso multiplica por 2,6 al registrado en el conjunto de la eurozona. Sirva como comparativa que en Alemania la masa salarial se redujo en menos de 5.000 millones de euros. Solo Italia registró un dato peor que el de España con un desplome salarial de casi el 7%.En España, el Estado no pudo cubrir toda esta caída de las retribuciones por dos motivos. El primero es que la protección social no mantuvo el 100% del salario perdido, sino un porcentaje menor y decreciente en función de la renta del trabajo de cada cotizante. Y el segundo motivo, más relevante que el primero, fue la destrucción de empleo de la economía sumergida, que en España es una de las más voluminosas de Europa. Estos trabajadores informales fueron despedidos sin derecho a una indemnización ni a una prestación pública, lo que provocó una caída del 100% de los ingresos en muchos casos. Esta situación se vio agravada por los graves problemas para implementar el ingreso mínimo vital (IMV), tanto por el retraso en su puesta en marcha (no entró en vigor hasta junio), como por las complicaciones burocráticas surgidas desde entonces. El resultado es que una buena parte de la población, en su gran mayoría clases bajas, perdieron todos sus ingresos y se quedaron sin protección social. Esto explica que las grietas del ‘escudo social’ hayan sido de tal magnitud en España.
La culpa no es de echegoyen, ni siquiera de los q le mandan. La culpa es de los españoles.Unos seres idiotas a los q 5 años son suficientes para q se olviden de cualquier cosa.Deja 5 años la cosa tranquila, y podrás hacer como que nada ha pasado.Somos idiotas y ya está, hace poco q lo tenia asumido , pero con la pandemia ya, pues hay q ser muy ciego para no verlo.Nos irrita Sánchez, iglesias, etc... porque son nuestra viva imagen.Zapatero es es el español medio, nuestro john doe, un idiota q el azar hace q se crea inteligente.
Nueve segundos. A eso ha quedado reducida nuestra capacidad de atención en el mundo contemporáneo: somos una sociedad incapaz de mantener la concentración más allá de la excitación inmediata del último tweet. Pero nuestra distracción endémica, auténtica plaga de la sociedad moderna, es resultado de la imposición dirigida de un modelo de negocio, un capitalismo digital que ha encontrado en la red la posibilidad de un mercado en perpetuo crecimiento, una economía de la atención cimentada sobre la destrucción de nuestra concentración, sobre el fomento de nuestra continua ansia de novedades, de imágenes, de estímulos, de 'likes'. La buena noticia es que esto quiere decir que no se trata de una nueva condición humana. No somos desatentos, nos han hecho así. Y por eso mismo podemos dejar de serlo.
Bendita mierda que es todo.https://forbes.es/empresas/96966/coliving-negocio-auge-europa-550000-millones/
Brexit: A grand illusion, Barnier spills the beansMichel Barnier has published a book, Brexit: La Grande Illusion detailing the three years of intense UK-EU divorce and trade negotiations in the form of a journal. Only the original French version is available until October, but already there are plenty of translated quotes being published in various British news outlets and on Twitter.(...) Barnier on Mrs MayBarnier offers some sympathy for Theresa May, “a courageous, tenacious woman surrounded by a lot of men busy putting their personal interests before those of their country”. He writes that the prime minister “exhausted herself, in a permanent battle with her own ministers and with her parliamentary majority”.On the UK negotiating strategyBarnier confesses to being “stupefied” by the Lancaster House speech in which Mrs May laid out the early UK’s red lines. “The number of doors she shut, one after the other”, he says in January 2017. “I am astonished at the way she has revealed her cards … before we have even started negotiating.”The doors included ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, halting free movement, leaving the single market and customs union and ending EU budget payments: “Have the consequences of these decisions been thought through, measured, discussed? Does she realise this rules out almost all forms of cooperation we have with our partners?”Even with Johnson in May 2020, Barnier writes of his surprise at the UK’s continued demands for “a simple Canada-type trade deal” while still retaining single market advantages “in innumerable sectors”. He commented that there remains “real incomprehension, in Britain, of the objective, sometimes mechanical consequences of its choices”.Then came the UK internal market bill (“a clear breach of international law”) and the various “theatrical”, “almost infantile”, “derisory” threats to walk away because of the EU’s level playing field demands, “a psychodrama we could have done without”.Despite all the provocations the EU remained firm, right up to the end, even as the UK was trying to gain last-minute advantages. The day before signing the trade deal on Christmas Eve 2020, the UK side presented the EU with a legal text which was “peppered with traps, false compromises and backwards steps”, Barnier claimed. It was rejected.The UK strategy of setting deadlines totally backfired as time ran out.On Dominic RaabBarnier says the talks nearly collapsed during a heated meeting with Dominic Raab, whom he described as having an almost “messianic glow”.In August 2018, Raab had taken over as Brexit secretary from David Davis, who resigned along with Johnson after the Chequers white paper proposed an EU-UK customs arrangement, to avoid a customs border on the Irish Sea and a common rule book. The EU side was not convinced about the plan and rejected it a few weeks later.Raab tried to threaten what sounds like an ultimatum. Barnier quotes him saying at a meeting around this time, “The question of Ireland must be settled in the context of a larger agreement” to be based on the Chequers plan.The new Brexit secretary told Barnier: “If you don’t accept these proposals, then it will be no deal and that will be your responsibility, which will bring up borders. Not our [responsibility].”Barnier replied with a warning of his own:Citar“Theresa May never dared to make this threat; never, because she knew her responsibility and that of the UK. She recognised: that it is Brexit which creates the problem in Ireland, nothing else.“We are searching for solutions together. And Dominic, if this threat is the new line of your government, then the negotiations can end immediately. And I will prepare myself in the coming days to inform the European Parliament and Member States. We will regard the failure as being the fault of the UK.”Michel Barnier speaking to Dominic Raab, August 2018Raab backed down.Barnier apparently finds space to mentions Raab’s much-derided remark that he was surprised to find the UK was “particularly dependent upon the Dover-Calais crossing”, writing: “I don’t even want to smile but there is definitely something that is deranged in the British system.”How true.On Boris JohnsonJohnson comes across in the quotes as lightweight, ill-informed and detached from reality.Barnier believed that Johnson had always “treated these negotiations strictly as a domestic matter, and according to the logic of his own Brexit battle”.He recalls a meeting in 2019 between Johnson and Jean-Claude Juncker in a Luxembourg restaurant. When one of the EU team explained to the new British PM the need for customs and other checks on the Irish border, Barnier writes, it was “my impression that he became aware, in that discussion, of a series of technical and legal issues that had not been so clearly explained to him by his own team”.They probably had been explained, but Johnson simply didn’t understand.Following the withdrawal agreement being settled, including the Northern Ireland protocol, Barnier was shocked to find Johnson fighting the 2019 election on the basis that there would be no controls on goods travelling between Northern Ireland and the British mainland, something which he said “does not correspond with the contents of the withdrawal agreement”.When Johnson threatened to tear up the painstakingly negotiated protocol, Barnier wrote that it appeared the UK was pursuing the “madman strategy”, pretending to be ready for a no-deal Brexit in order to force Brussels into concessions.“By acting in this way, the British government is engaging in no more or less than political piracy,” he wrote. “At that moment, I felt this threat like a betrayal of their word. Clearly, they are ready for anything.”Citar“I find that the current team in 10 Downing St is not up to the challenges of Brexit nor to the responsibility that is theirs for having wanted Brexit. I simply no longer trust them.”When the PM decided to suspend talks in mid-October 2020, after taking offence at a statement agreed by EU leaders, Barnier describes it as a “psychodrama orchestrated by London”.A few months later, at a dinner in December 2020, just days before the trade deal was clinched, Johnson is said to have been inadequately prepared compared with the EU side, and Barnier got the impression the British prime minister, “had not taken the time to go into the detail himself, with his teams” before the meetings.Well, that cannot have come as a surprise to his own side.Demonstrating his shaky grasp of the whole negotiation, Johnson at one point in the meeting floated the idea of striking a defence and foreign policy co-operation pact with the EU if a broader future-relationship agreement could not be found.Barnier had to point out to Johnson that this directly contradicted his own government’s stated position against having these two areas included in the future-relationship talks. Johnson responded by asking his own team: “Who gave that order?” Could it have been the man he had sacked the month before, Dominic Cummings, who was in the habit of keeping the PM in the dark?The Frenchman went on to note: “The theatrics continue.”On Lord FrostIt’s clear Mr Barnier didn’t quite hit it off with Lord Frost, who was the third of his British counterparts in the long negotiations.When Frost took over, Barnier said it came as “a thunderbolt” to hear the UK chief negotiator say that the UK “did not feel bound by the political declaration it had just signed four months ago”. Apparently, “that rather set the scene”.Neither was he impressed when Frost turned up 45 minutes late for a lunch, apparently without explanation and informed him in a “somewhat arrogant tone” that all the important stuff in their negotiations will be dealt with by the prime minister and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.Frost seemed unable to grasp that the EU27 had agreed a mandate and appointed Barnier as chief negotiator. The UK government was continually trying to circumvent the Frenchman by trying to negotiate with EU leaders and, when that failed, with von der Leyen herself.Barnier says Lord Frost advised Prime Minister Johnson badly on the dynamic of the European Council and “to save face, he therefore creates drama” by temporarily walking away from the negotiation table.Accused by Frost in a video call of failing to meet the UK’s efforts to reach a deal, Barnier noted that he and his team “looked at one another with incredulity. It was almost childish”.He added:Citar“This episode seemed to me to be quite pathetic. We have had many reasons over the course of the past weeks and months, in reaction to one British declaration or posture or the other, to lose our patience and dramatise the talks. But once again we mastered our nerves.”At another point, he told Lord Frost: “Your negotiating tactics are a masquerade. You are trying to play with us. I won’t put up with it for long. If you want a deal, you will have to move.”Even on the day the post-Brexit trade deal was signed, their final exchange is said to be “professional and cold”.However, Barnier thinks he had the final word: “He knows that I know that until the last moment he wanted to bypass me by seeking to open a parallel negotiating line with the cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen. And he knows it hasn’t been successful.”On UK civil servantsBarnier is admiring of Britain’s civil servants, Olly Robbins in particular, praising them as “dignified, competent and lucid”. But as talks finally get underway in mid-2017 after May’s disastrous early election gamble, he writes that he does not envy them.On Brexit supporters in the cabinetSenior British civil servants, according to Barnier, “have above them a political class who, in part, simply refuse to acknowledge today the direct upshot of the positions they adopted a year ago”. Britain’s strategy, it seemed to him, amounted to “offering little and taking a lot”, plus procrastinating, and cherry picking.Brexiters Barnier writes, had simply behaved “irresponsibly, with regard to the national interests of their own country. How else could they call on people to make such a serious choice without explaining or detailing to them its consequences?”The EU’s chief negotiator accuses Mr Johnson and his inner circle of “political piracy” and states that as negotiations were reaching the endgame: “I simply no longer trust them.”On the futureBritish “provocations” over the Northern Ireland protocol will continue, he warns, while the UK government, “in an attempt to erase the consequences of the Brexit it provoked, will try to re-enter through the windows the single market whose door it slammed shut. We must be alert to new forms of cherry picking”.He expects London to soon begin “trying to use its new legislative and regulatory autonomy to give itself, sector by sector, a competitive advantage. Will that competition be free and fair? Will regulatory competition … lead to social, economic, fiscal dumping against Europe? We have tools to respond”.Barnier’s final warning, however, is to the EU itself. “There are lessons to be drawn from Brexit”, he writes. “There are reasons to listen to the popular feeling that expressed itself then, and continues to express itself in many parts of Europe – and to respond to it. That is going to take time, respect and political courage.”
“Theresa May never dared to make this threat; never, because she knew her responsibility and that of the UK. She recognised: that it is Brexit which creates the problem in Ireland, nothing else.“We are searching for solutions together. And Dominic, if this threat is the new line of your government, then the negotiations can end immediately. And I will prepare myself in the coming days to inform the European Parliament and Member States. We will regard the failure as being the fault of the UK.”
“I find that the current team in 10 Downing St is not up to the challenges of Brexit nor to the responsibility that is theirs for having wanted Brexit. I simply no longer trust them.”
“This episode seemed to me to be quite pathetic. We have had many reasons over the course of the past weeks and months, in reaction to one British declaration or posture or the other, to lose our patience and dramatise the talks. But once again we mastered our nerves.”
EU and India agree to resume trade talks at virtual summitThe European Union and India agreed to resume stalled free-trade negotiations and seek closer cooperation to combat climate change at a virtual summit on Saturday, as concerns about China bring Brussels and New Delhi closer.
The Dollar and the Fed(...)The point, again, is that the threat of deflation has been exorcised. The first debate is not about removing monetary stimulus. It is about slowing the amount of new accommodation by reducing the bond purchases. In Japan, quantitative easing via Rinban operations before the Great Financial Crisis was the norm, but in the US, the purchase of long-term assets is about triage, but now the patient has had a large fiscal and medical vaccine, and some extra monetary vitamins, and is beginning to run. Therapy is still needed, but triage, less so. While the Fed's leadership is reluctant to signal that it may begin considering reducing the pace of its bond purchases, the Treasury will auction $126 bln of coupons in next week's quarterly refunding. The primary dealer system obligates the necessary buying. However, the auctions can be sloppy--low bid cover, a large tail, an immediate post-auction decline in yield, as we have experienced with the sale of the seven-year note earlier this year. Given the size of the budget and current account deficits, the US has to offer a combination of higher interest rates or a weaker dollar. The Federal Reserve is blocking the former and is willing to accept the latter. Among the high-income countries, the US 10-year note has performed best over the past month. The yield has fallen by almost 10 bp, while European yields have risen 10-27 bp. In addition to the signals from the 10-year, look at what has happened to the December 2022 Eurodollar futures contract. The implied yield trended higher in Q1 and peaked in early April around 53 bp (cash is around 16 bp), almost 35 bp higher than it had begun the year. The dollar generally trended higher in Q1. Since early April, the yield has trended lower and took another big step down after the employment disappointment. The implied yield traded near 37 bp before the weekend, essentially unwinding this year's increase. The dollar has been tracking the yield lower. Tapering is not tightening, but the market knows, and the Fed knows that the market knows that tapering is the first step toward tightening. The Fed may not want to signal tapering because it does not want markets to run with it and tighten financial conditions prematurely. Fed officials appreciate arguably, if not better than Wall Street, that there is no free lunch; there are trade-offs. The disequilibrium will be addressed by either higher interest rates or a lower dollar, or a combination.
Steve Keen: Reducing Debt via a Modern Debt Jubilee