El costo de mantener a flote a los bancos americanos se monta en $4 trillones (lo que es equivalente a $4,000 billones, i.e. $4,000,000,000,000,000). Hay quienes ya comienzan a sugerir "etiquetas", un rating system: (banco bueno, banco malo, (( banco hijoeputa, etc)). ¿Tiene sentido estipular que un banco es malo? Puede que sí. Estos bancos podrían salirse de sus "inversiones tóxicas",* (especie de inodoro financiero). De paso, tu banco... ese donde tienes tus ahorros, ¿es bueno o malo? ¿Crees que hay escapatoria?**
__________
*Por tóxico se entienden activos que no pueden ser dilucidados dada su complejidad (imagina hipotecas semiderretidas, hedge funds pestilentes, deudas corporativas fétidas, que pudiesen, dada la presente recesión, multiplicarse en efecto clón). **Claro, siempre queda la solución sueca.
39 comentarios:
La unica escapatorie es meter el dinero dentro de un saco y enterrarlo en un potrero en Homested.
tu puedes hacer free trading y obviar el banco. jajajajaja. Lo que imaginate hay que estar arriba de eso. ademas de las formas tradicionales de inversion. A mi me guista mucho como lavaban el dinero en los dealer de miami a finales de los 80's con laundry mats. jajajajajaja que conceptualistas los muy cabrones. jajajajajaja.
Lo que siempre han demostrado los republicanos: la caradura y el descaro por estrategia política, pero que se habran creído estos cabrones!! Obama, como todo un caballero, va y los corteja y les regala hasta una recepción en la Casa Blanca y estos desgraciados, ni uno, ni uno, puede apartarse de la línea partidista y votar por un plan que promete y aunque no libre de defectos, es lo mejor que se puede ofrecer por ahora y se comportan como si ellos hubieran ganado las elecciones. Que no se les olvide!! OBAMA WON!!!!
Gracias tumiami. Muy buena guia para estos tiempos inciertos.
YES WE CAN! CHANGE!
Yep, you'll start with a dollar, and finish with a few cents worth of CHANGE?
I recall President Obama negating McCains statements during the election, in regards to Obama's underestimating the economic costs of his plan. I also remember Obama stating that it would not be near what it is now. Try maybe 3-5 Trillion Dollars. Which will devaluate the dollar globally and leave us with change. Note how platinum is going up, and the economy is still going down. Forget the mattress, in 6 months start buying dirt in Arizona.
Unaba, Los DEMOCRATAS TIENEN EL PODER AHORA EN TODO. ESTE PLAN ES OBAMISTA!
Who Are The 11 Democrats Who Voted Against Obama’s Economic Plan And Why Did They Do It?»
Yesterday, Republicans rebuffed President Obama’s efforts at bipartisanship by refusing to deliver a single vote in favor of his economic recovery bill. Many Republicans appear to be clinging to the strategy of Rush Limbaugh, who has openly declared his hope that Obama fails.
While Republicans stood united against Obama, 11 Democrats broke with the President. Although there were some concerns about the stimulus plan expressed by progressives — such as Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who felt like the spending provisions did not go far enough — they still voted for the bill because the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. The 11 Democrats who voted no were almost exclusively from conservative districts:
Allan Boyd (D-FL)
Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Parker Griffith (D-AL)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Six of 11 (the italicized names) are members of Blue Dogs Coalition, which expressed concerns about the fiscal impact of the bill. But the Blog Dogs had extracted a pledge from Obama to balance the government’s checkbook, enabling most of them to support the economic stimulus plan. As for the others, here were some of the motivating factors.
Reps. Bright and Griffith — both freshmen congressmen from Alabama — voted along with many of their home-state colleagues against the bill. Rep. Artur Davis was the only Alabamian to vote for it. Both congressmen had been targeted by the National Republican Congressional Committee before the vote.
Freshman Rep. Kanjorski had been a skeptic of the stimulus plan, claiming it was put together too quickly and wouldn’t help the economy in the short term.
Freshman Rep. Kratovil barely squeaked out a win in a conservative Maryland district. Just days before the stimulus vote, Kratovil’s opponent in the last election announced he was planning to run again.
And finally, freshman Rep. Minnick told the LA Times today that he comes from “a very conservative district” in Idaho and said many people in his district listened to talk radio. “They listen to everybody, of course, and I’m influenced by them,” Minnick said.
Vaya, les regalo un dicho Holandes;
"Als de hemel valt, krijgen we allemaal een blauwe pet".
in english- "If the sky comes down, we'll all be wearing a blue cap".
Ya que les regale el dicho, les puedo vender el sombrero azul.
Obama won by, among other things, promising a net decrease in federal spending. Here he is during the third debate: "what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.... What I want to emphasize ... is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."
unaba nero , lo grande de este pais es que unos podemos estar de acuerdo y otros no , tomalo con calma que asi es donde radica la efectividad de la mecanica, gracias a dios a los musulmanes y a los ateos
you guys are funny. So old. Gosh! You still down under.
El mio es sin duda el banco hijoeputa.
FOR SALE, SWAMP LAND IN ARIZONA!
DIRT CHEAP!
Blue Hat Reality Co.
Piet Hein - CEO
La noticia me da gracia por qe al fin y al cabo ya estamos mas que jodidos..senores disfruten los kilitos que les quedan y olvidense del tio sam.
Mano: Obama inherited the fucked up economy of Mr. Egghead's chaotic policies. The advice for the keynesian approach to economy comes from a pretty centrish approach to economics. There is little else the government can do (other than stimulate spending through -unfortunately- getting in more debt).
No hay mucho que hacer. Esperar a que las cosas mejoren. Pero ni tanto de soñar que tu dinero no puede desaparecer porque esté asegurado por el gobierno. Hoy escuché una entrevista con un viejo que relata la odisea de su padre en los años 30. El viejo sacó todo el dinero del banco y lo metió en una bolsa debajo de una tabla en el piso. Así estaban los bancos de la época.
http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/obamatheftact1he.html
Don't agree with you AT. C'mon AT...helloooooo... stop & think - solution oriented. Conservatively. Out of the negative.
Sorry don't know much about politiks.
"There is little else the government can do (other than stimulate spending through -unfortunately- getting in more debt)."
What is that about? Do you realize that is wrong right?
Willie: Todo plan necesita discutirse.
...SEGURO , OJALA SALGA ALGO BUENO...
disculpen que interrumpa, a mi me parece que ustedes debiesen por razon del analysis, separar los branches of government. Lo que noto es que estan mezclando, la rama legislativa, con la financiera. No se enrreden de antemano en la legislacion, sino que descubran realmente, numericamente, economicamente cual es la - actual encrucijada - despues que sepan los numeros adecuados. Hablen de politica. Porque asi no van a resolver ningun problema, digo yo... no se. Me parece.
What is that about? Do you realize that is wrong right?
Simple explanation. We're fucked up with a toxic banking system, a recession, decaying infrastructure, unemployment, a huge deficit and dwindling self-esteem. What can the government do? The only option is to borrow more to take care of the problem now, and onece the economy gets on its way, to take care of the deficit. How? Obama’s plan as I see it is a middle road between "trickle down" and "keynesian" economics. It's not very different from your mortgage. You live well and pay a house with a collateral, your land and capital. In this case, the collateral is the spirit and endless possibilities of the country.
Taxes is the end of the loop. Economic restrains needs to start off from the start. Lowering inflation, lowering cost, producir en casa. Gear towards control - conservative spending - over over-stocking & over-consumption. more more more..no? A more conservative approach at all levels.
NO TO THIS. "to borrow more to take care of the problem now," NO.
Yo lo que no me explico es que todavía existan aquellos que crean que supply-side economics, and trickle-down theories realmente funcionan.¿Pero Uds. donde estaban los últimos ocho meses? ¿Qué queda de la teoría detras de los recortes de impuestos del año pasado? ¿Recuerdan cómo la administración Bush aseguraba que este dinero sería usado por el consumidor en comprar más productos y qué pasó? Pues que la mayoría usó ese dinero para pagar deudas y ponerlo en el banco. Obama bastantes concesiones ha hecho que un tercio del stimulus package está dirigido a recortes en los impuestos y todavía los republicanos quiren más. A esto es lo que me refería ccuando les recordaba que Obama ganó.
Por otra parte, una buena dosis de austeridad no le vendría mal a este país, especialmente si tenemos en cuenta que la misma está siendo apuntalada por prestamos chinos y una deuda con china de 1.4 trillones.
kEYNESS. aLFRED, what oyu are proposing is contrary to Gandis' independisacion from lender. adjust the economy to actual means. in other words, if you can't afford it? Don't buy it...restrict yourself from attaining it. Sacrifice, pero no pidas prestado para vivir con lo que no es tuyo. Para pagar despues... no no no.
You know AT, what you are proposing is to cover up the BS, for future generations to take the hit. That is not fair!!! That must be stop now! It took it's tool, accept the loses, lower our heads and fix it up! The other solution, the borrowing money to cover up the crap, it's like covering up a wound without cleaning the infection. I vote humbly vote for: less risk and healing from the inside out. Conservatively living bellow our means and that means adjusting the economy like it should be done and leading by example to globalization.
Acabo de leer la última escleroflexión del susodicho en la cual arremete contra Obama. De la misma se pueden inferir dos conclusiones: o el actual presidente de USA es más reaccionario de lo que pensábamos, o el Multiculo en Jefe se pasó al bando de los republicanos. ¿Será que la Agencia de Langley y Villa Marista están concibiendo los proyectos en conjunto?
O el actual presidente de USA es más reaccionario de lo que pensábamos, o el Multiculo en Jefe se pasó al bando de los republicanos.
Exacto. Pero no importa que Chávez y el Sionista en Jefe disparen ahora contra Obama. No hay arreglo con los castristas batistianistas: Obama es demócrata y peor aún, negro.
Alfredo, this headline is from CNN.com earlier today:
Pay cap proposed for Wall Street 'idiots'
LOL
At: buena presentacion del inodoro financiero. Antes deciamos: a invertir. Pero que banquero tiene la cara ahora de decirle q nadie que hacer con su dinero? Partia de ladrones!
Go to this site, and then think about it.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
AT, Who will purchase all the bad debt created by multi-party greed, and outright crooks?
WE THE PEOPLE...
Google, The Mississippi Bubble for a good history lesson. This occurred much before the "30's"...
So AT, Now that I paid of my house, I have to pay someone elses mortgage, even though theirs is a bigger and more expensive house? Pa'l carajo!
Vaya, pa' que aprendan.
The Mississippi Bubble
In 1720, at the same time as England’s South Sea Bubble, France experienced its very own financial crisis. The Mississippi Bubble shares a striking similarity to the South Sea Bubble.
The crisis began in 1715, when France was bankrupt from war. It had defaulted on its debt as well as cut back on interest payments. High taxes quickly burdened the economy and the value of gold and silver currency fluctuated wildly. Eventually the youthful King Louis XV turned to his trusty advisor, the Duke of Orleans. In turn, the Duke of Orleans sought the help of his friend John Law, a Scottish financier.
John Law was born in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1671 to a goldsmith who lent money on the side. Law became his father’s apprentice and became well versed on the principles of banking. Tragically, Law became involved in a duel, killing his opponent and was convicted of murder. Law eventually managed to escape prison and quickly left England to travel Europe. Due to his keen mathematical abilities, Law earned much of his wages from gambling. John frequented destinations such as Amsterdam, Venice and Genoa. It was in these financial centers that John Law renewed his fascination for high finance. In 1705, Law published a monetary theory that argued against the use of metallic money and favored paper money, in true Keynesian style. Law favored paper money from his belief that its use would stimulate commerce (Smant).
With the desperate Duke of Orleans looking for John Law’s help, Law quickly devised a strategy to stabilize the French economy. In May 1716 Law established the Banque Generale, designed after the successful Wisselbank of Amsterdam (Smant). Banque General took deposits of gold and silver and issued paper money in return. These banknotes were payable in the value of the metallic currency at the time the banknotes were issued. Banque Generale gained equity through the conventional selling of shares as well as converting government debt. To John Law’s credit, the economy had begun to stabilize, helping to increase his rapport and influence within the French government.
History repeats itself!
From Wikipedia
In the history of French trade, the Mississippi Company was a chartered company first established in 1684.
It was founded at the request of René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, who having projected it in 1660, and being appointed Governor of Fort Frontenac, at the mouth of that river, travelled over the country in 1683, and returned to France to solicit its establishment.
This obtained, he set sail for his new colony, with four vessels loaded with inhabitants, etc; but upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, it seems he did not know the river that had cost him so much fatigue, for he settled on another, unknown river, where his colony perished by degrees. By 1685, there were fewer than 100 people left in the colony. Making several expeditions to find the Mississippi, he was killed in one of them by a party who mutinied against him, upon which the colony was dispersed and lost.
Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville afterwards succeeded better; he found the Mississippi River, built a fort, and settled a colony. In 1718, the company had founded the city of New Orleans in the territory of Louisiana.
In August 1717 Scottish businessman John Law acquired a controlling interest in the then derelict Mississippi Company and renamed it the Compagnie d'Occident (or Compagnie du Mississippi). Its initial goal was to trade and do business with the French colonies in North America, which included much of the Mississippi River drainage basin, and the French colony of Louisiana.
As he bought control of the company he was granted a 25-year monopoly by the French government on trade with the West Indies and North America. In 1719 the company acquired the Compagnie des Indes Orientales, the Compagnie de Chine, and other French trading companies and became the Compagnie des Indes (or Compagnie Perpétuelle des Indes). In 1720 it acquired the Banque Royale, which was founded by John Law as Banque Générale in 1716.
Law exaggerated the wealth of Louisiana with an effective marketing scheme, which led to wild speculation on the shares of the company in 1719. Shares rose from 500 to 15,000 livres, but by summer of 1720, there was a sudden decline in confidence, and the price was back to 500 livres in 1721. By the end of 1720 the Regent Philippe II of Orléans dismissed Law, who then fled from France.
THE BUBBLE BURSTS AGAIN! PYRAMID ECONOMICS.
"Seamos fiscalmente responsables" ....DESDE HOY SOLO VOY A COMPRAR UN PAR DE PASTELITOS DE GUAYABA.
Publicar un comentario