Anomalie e segreti della disoccupazione USA

Tasso disoccupazione USA in miglioramento? Si, vero. Peccato che i dati vengono manomessi. E poi le ore lavorate sono in chiaro calo.

19 marzo 2010, ore 14:30

9 Commenti »

Ormai il mercato del lavoro è diventato non solo per l’amico Mattacchiuz un piccolo incubo, un grande enigma e un palese modo di manomettere la realtà dei fatti. Tutte le settimane escono dati sul tasso disoccupazione e sui vari sussidi. E non possiamo negare che, apparentemente, nelle ultime settimane le cose siano marginalmente migliorate. Marginalmente, perché un tasso disoccupazione al 9.70% resta assurdamente alto. Comunque sia, la FED ci dice che le cose vanno meglio e che la disoccupazione si è stabilizzata (ma che successone!) e quindi non dovrebbe più salire. Quindi mercato del lavoro in miglioramento. Ma sarà verò?

Ore lavorate…scendono!

Ho provato a fare una cosina. Ho sovrapposto il dato sul tasso disoccupazione con il totale delle ore medie lavorate. Il risultato ottenuto è molto interessante. Come potete vedere nel periodo 2008-2010 abbiamo assistito ad un aumento progressivo della disoccupazione ed un contemporaneo calo delle ore lavorate (il che quindi va ad enfatizzare la disoccupazione, non vi pare?). Poco prima di raggiungere il picco del 10%, abbiamo avuto una stabilizzazione delle ore lavorate e poi un’impennata. Motivo? Semplice: gli stimoli economici hanno fatto si che aumentasse un po’ il lavoro. E questo aumento del lavoro non si è tradotto con un aumento dell’occupazione, ma con un aumento delle ore lavorate. Ma poi cosa è successo? Scende il tasso di disoccupazione dal 10 al 9.7% e contemporaneamente… diminuiscono nuovamente le ore lavorate. E quindi se facciamo la somma delle parti…si può dire che la situazione sia migliorata?

STAY TUNED!

http://intermarketandmore.investireoggi.it/anomalie-e-segreti-della-disoccupazione-usa-10601.html

Recreating Shareholder Capitalism

Martin Hutchinson

Over the past 50 years, the United States and most other wealthy economies have moved to a system of managerial capitalism, in which resources are controlled, not by the owners of those resources but by a cadre of professional management that leeches more and more returns out of the system. No viable economic theory suggests that a system of capitalism in which capital's owners do not control its use is likely to prove effective in creating or allocating resources. We had thus better start thinking about ways in which this trend could be reversed, and the control of capital tied more securely to its ownership.

I have discussed in a previous column the reasons for the development of managerial capitalism, how shareholdings migrated over the quarter-century after 1950 from primarily individual, often related to the original corporate founders, to primarily institutional, in pension funds, endowments and insurance companies. I have also discussed how tax changes, in particular the huge increases in estate tax after 1932, over time abetted this process, and how their reversal might to some extent reverse it. In this column I would like to consider whether, rather than attempting to reverse engineer the social changes of the postwar period, we might through adept securities design achieve much of the same effect, even while shareholdings remained primarily institutional.

Currently, the great majority of companies' equity capital comes in the form of common stock, the holders of which collectively control the company. Fifty years ago, there was a significant volume of preferred stock issued, which generally had votes in certain circumstances, but common stockholders have more recently been in full control of the vast majority of non-bankrupt companies.

Since common stock is also the most widely traded security in most companies, its holders, if dissatisfied with management, have always had the option of selling their stock and investing elsewhere. With institutional shareholders predominating, this has led to a concentration of voting power in favor of company management, since it is cheaper and much less dangerous to a fund manager's career to sell the fund's shares than to start a shareholders' revolt. With the major institutional shareholders favoring management, the chances of a shareholder revolt are slim and management becomes correspondingly entrenched, using consultants to increase its annual take, gambling in the derivatives market, fiddling the accounts and empire-building at will.

If we were still in 1970, we would have little chance of solving this problem, but then in 1970, we didn't have the problem to anything near the same extent. Fortunately, Modern Finance has given us new techniques as well as new problems, in particular the ability to design securities for any bizarre cash flow pattern and governance outcome we want. This ability can be used for good as well as evil, to design a new type of security that removes the misaligned incentives of managerial capitalism.

The problem is the institutional investor's ability to sell the shares. If the institution was stuck with the investment, it would be forced to participate actively in corporate governance, ensuring that management stayed under control and didn't overpay itself. For most private investors and for some institutions such as banks and mutual funds, the ability to sell the shares is crucial, because those institutions need liquidity to meet redemptions of deposits or fund shares. However, for other institutions, in particular for the large college endowments, life insurance companies and pension funds, superior long-term investment performance is far more important than liquidity. That's why many college endowments now follow the "Yale Model" of investment, in which they buy timberland, private equity and hedge funds in order to diversify from the stock market and (they hope) achieve superior returns. The result of this diversification is mostly the payment of huge management fees to shysters, but the principle of sacrificing liquidity to long-term return is surely correct.

Any security that is designed to improve corporate governance must thus be non-transferable. In that way, the institution holding it will not have the possibility of selling the shares if it doesn't like management's policies, but will be forced to vote in a way that maximizes the return on its investment. I propose that companies wishing to improve their governance issue Founders' Shares, with the following characteristics:

• They are completely non-transferable (this must be locked up tight legally so some fast-buck takeover artist can't find a way to unlock it).
• They convert to common stock after 50 years.
• For the first 45 years of their life, they get an additional 1% per annum dividend above whatever is paid on the common, payable in common at the average price of the year/quarter.
• They have all other rights of the common, as to voting etc.

Founders' shares should probably be issued for around 20% to 40% of the company's capitalization, in order to give their holders a substantial and in most circumstances controlling influence on the company's direction, while preserving a sufficient volume of ordinary shares to maintain their liquidity and the company's ability to raise equity capital. Their buyers should primarily be pension funds and endowments, although in some circumstances they might be offered to individual buyers, with a strict provision as to transfer on death but not otherwise.

Holders of Founders' shares would receive an additional annual return, to compensate them for the lack of liquidity. For institutions with long enough time horizons, that compensation should be sufficient incentive to purchase them. Such holders would be motivated solely to maximize the long-term value of the company, and would oppose all strategies that increased the share price short-term while depressing the ultimate value. They would approve acquisitions only if they were clearly in the long-term strategic interest of the company, rejecting such deals as Prudential/AIA or Kraft/Cadbury that muddied the company's strategic focus, increased its risk and diluted shareholders. They would object to management's self-enrichment schemes and excessive stock option grants, and would be forced to oppose them through their votes, since they would not have the option of selling their shares. They would reject excessive leverage, since that would increase the chance of the company going bankrupt before their long-term value was unlocked.

In other words, Founders' shares holders would behave in the same way as an economically rational strategic shareholder in the company. By doing so, they would restore rationality to the company's operations, and reduce bloated costs in its management. That in turn would make the company more competitive against its domestic and international rivals. Research and development would be adequately funded, regardless of the short-term hit to earnings, because they would offer the best avenue to increase the company's long-term value. Thus you would once again see the equivalents of Bell Labs in the 1940s and Xerox PARC in the 1970s (although one hopes without the latter institution's total disregard of commercial realities). Acquisitions would only be undertaken if they offered long-term strategic benefits. Product quality would not be sacrificed, because its sacrifice would provide only short-term benefits at the expense of long-term value.

With institutional shareholders taking control of the companies in which they invest, and forcing them to act in those companies' long-term interests, the incentives in capitalism would be realigned along lines that actually made the system work to create wealth for all. Without such a realignment, large corporations will remain primarily wealth-destroying entities, providing rents for their top management but reducing the welfare of society as a whole, as they pursue short-term strategies that destroy long-term value.

The Kraft takeover of Cadbury has destroyed an iconic British company that had existed for over 200 years and was family-run until 2000. Tempting though it was to urge the British government to intervene and stop the takeover, that would not have been the appropriate response. Such an action would merely have handed control over to government, a proven destroyer of value. Instead, the takeover should have been stopped at the Kraft end, by shareholders' resolving to oust the Kraft management that was engaging in such value-destroying empire building (and if the corporate statutes allowed management to proceed without shareholder approval, then management should have been removed at the first opportunity and the statutes changed). Warren Buffett, holding 9% of Kraft shares, attempted to stop the Cadbury takeover; by issuing Founders' Shares we will lead their holders to vote like Buffett and put a stop to such transactions.

Other reforms will be needed to transform capitalism back into a system that creates value. In particular, 15 years of sloppily over-expansionary monetary policy need to be reversed, and the inevitable economic costs in terms of bankruptcies borne that will come with that reversal. However, only when Founders' shares or some equivalent instrument are introduced into the financiers' arsenal will incentives be properly realigned so that managers are forced to manage in the long-term interests of shareholders, thus ensuring that research is adequately funded, takeovers do not threaten the existence of value producing operations and product quality is not compromised.

The final question to be answered is whether existing market participants have enough incentive to organize Founders' shares issues. For existing shareholders, the dilution of value through Founders shares' additional dividends is significant, but should be more than counteracted over even the medium term by better and cheaper management. For management, the chance of huge wealth through empire building and stock options is lost, but so also, almost completely, is the chance of job loss through takeover (because Founders' shares holders will almost always vote against such a takeover), while the chance of corporate bankruptcy is greatly reduced. For employees, the quality of existence is enormously improved, as the company's activities are refocused on its core operations and innovation in its products is increased, while management's distractions are removed. Needless to say, each company that stops producing bonanzas for management and job losses or bankruptcy for everybody else will greatly improve the long-term wealth of the population as a whole.

The incentives thus exist. All that is needed is a pioneer of the new shareholding structure.

The Bears Lair is a weekly column that is intended to appear each Monday, an appropriately gloomy day of the week. Its rationale is that, in the long '90s boom, the proportion of "sell" recommendations put out by Wall Street houses declined from 9 percent of all research reports to 1 percent and has only modestly rebounded since. Accordingly, investors have an excess of positive information and very little negative information. The column thus takes the ursine view of life and the market, in the hope that it may be usefully different from what investors see elsewhere.

Martin Hutchinson is the author of "Great Conservatives" (Academica Press, 2005). Details can be found on the Web site www.greatconservatives.com

The age of clever

posted by Terenzio Longobardi

A furia di sentirne parlare in Aspo e dintorni non ho resistito alla tentazione di andare a vedere il film “The age of stupid”, offerto da Legambiente in un piccolo cinema della Toscana. Sono arrivato tardi e la sala era stracolma sicchè, non trovando posto a sedere, mi sono sorbito la proiezione in piedi fin quasi alla fine, quando uno spettatore visibilmente contrariato ha lasciato prematuramente la comoda poltrona, su cui mi sono immediatamente lanciato come un naufrago sulla ciambella di salvataggio. Era dai tempi di “Via col vento” che non assistevo in piedi a uno spettacolo, ma erano passati quasi quarant’anni e li sentivo tutti. Alla fine della proiezione mi sono guardato intorno ad osservare gli spettatori. Avevano quasi tutti quell’aria di incredulo stupore che spunta immancabilmente sul volto dei miei interlocutori quando parlo loro di picco del petrolio e limiti dello sviluppo. Mi aspettavo che da un momento all’altro si alzasse il Fantozzi di turno esclamando nel delirio generale: “Per me, the age of stupid è una cagata pazzesca”, quando è cominciato il dibattito con gli esperti chiamati da Legambiente, tra cui il buon Meneguzzo di Aspoitalia. Beh, confesso che dopo un po’ sono andato via anch’io. Per carità, non per la qualità degli interventi, apprezzabili e condivisibili, semplicemente perché non sentivo bisogno di una ripassata di concetti già noti. Repetita iuvant, ma fino a un certo punto. Così, pian pianino, mi sono incamminato verso casa, rimuginando lentamente sugli aspetti contenutistici e formali del film (scusate quest’espressione da cinefilo incallito) che più mi avevano colpito. Non so se capita anche a voi, ma quando esco dal cinema mi rimane ancora addosso per qualche minuto la sensazione strana di far parte del film, come se fossi uscito direttamente dallo schermo. Comunque, provo qui a sintetizzare il frutto delle mie elucubrazioni vaganti: 1) Il film è di buona fattura. Il ritmo è incalzante e il montaggio della storia tiene viva l’attenzione. La scelta di alternare scene reali con cartoni animati per illustrare la storia energetica dell’umanità è originale e indovinata, come pure la figura del narratore nella torre-biblioteca che compulsivamente richiama spezzoni dei filmati di quando e quanto eravamo stupidi. La fotografia è ottima. 2) La storia mostra un pianeta stravolto dalle conseguenze planetarie dei cambiamenti climatici indotte dall’uso dei combustibili fossili e, forse per questo, sottovaluta e approfondisce poco la questione cruciale del limite delle risorse. All’inizio del film la voce narrante ci annuncia che il petrolio finirà tra quarant’anni, senza spiegare che oggi la produzione ha iniziato a declinare, inducendo anche nello spettatore l’effetto di sottovalutazione del problema. 3) Il titolo del film non mi convince, io l’avrei chiamato “The age of clever”, l’era dell’intelligente, e spiego perché. L’enorme potenza distruttrice dell’ecosistema che l’umanità ha prodotto negli ultimi centocinquant’anni, è stata possibile solo grazie alle innumerevoli scoperte scientifiche e tecnologiche necessarie per sfruttare le risorse naturali disponibili sulla Terra, che non erano accessibili alle generazioni precedenti. Tali scoperte sono state partorite da poche menti con intelligenza superiore alla media e hanno consentito alla maggioranza della popolazione umana il comportamento consumistico che sta portando la specie all’autodistruzione. L’intelligenza è una delle caratteristiche della nostra specie che presenta una distribuzione statistica nella popolazione rappresentata, guarda un po’, proprio da una gaussiana. Circa il 16% della popolazione è caratterizzata da un’intelligenza superiore alla media (con un 2% di geni), un altro 16% ha un’intelligenza inferiore alla media (con un 2% di minorati mentali). Il resto è il famigerato uomo medio delle ricerche di mercato contemporanee. In genere nelle popolazioni animali avviene che meccanismi genetici (e culturali nell’uomo) emarginano i devianti dalla norma (cioè dalla media) impedendone una diffusione nella popolazione con potenziali effetti distruttivi. Nel caso dell’intelligente invece, la società umana (tranne che in qualche raro caso come l’Italia) ha trasformato questo meccanismo escludente in un meccanismo di valorizzazione che tende a premiare questa qualità intellettiva. Il motivo è comprensibile: lo sfruttamento della risorsa costituita dagli intelligenti consente di migliorare le condizioni di vita dell’intera società. Lo so, qualcuno ora osserverà che la colpa non è degli intelligenti, ma degli stupidi che applicano male le loro intuizioni e invenzioni. Ma è un dettaglio secondario, la causa prima rimangono sempre le brillanti menti che hanno progettato il progresso umano e hanno aperto la strada ai comportamenti umani consumistici e dissipativi. Ho aperto la porta di casa e sono andato a letto. Prima di addormentarmi ho pensato che non sarà l’intelligenza a salvare l’uomo, ma la temperanza.

# posted by Terenzio Longobardi : 11:10 AM 0 comments links to this post

Party Time for Anglo-American Elites?

Friday, March 19, 2010 - by Staff Report

Robert Reich

Reich: Economic Recovery Is a Government 'Sham' ... Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (left) says the "recovery" is a sham. "Part of the perceived growth in GDP is due to rising government expenditures," he says. "But this is smoke and mirrors ... The stimulus is reaching its peak and will be smaller in months to come," Reich recently wrote in The Huffington Post. "And a bigger federal debt eventually has to be repaid." And even though the U.S. economy grew at a 5.9 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2009, those GDP figures are badly distorted by structural changes in the economy. For example, part of the increase is due to rising healthcare costs. When WellPoint ratchets up premiums that enlarges the GDP. But you can't consider this evidence of a recovery. Big global companies, Wall Street, and high-income Americans who hold their savings in financial instruments are clearly doing better, Reich notes. As to the rest of us – small businesses along Main Streets, and middle and lower-income Americans – "forget it," he says. – MoneyNews

Dominant Social Theme: Problems abound, and we are misled?

Free-Market Analysis: The Huffington Post is not exactly mainstream media, but it's getting there – and this article (as summarized by MoneyNews, above) is a succinct description of what may actually be happening in America today. We like it, also, because it says just what we here at the Bell have been trying to explain almost since the financial crisis began – that sometimes you can't recharge a dying economy by printing money – not when there's been a really severe blow-off.

Thus, we wanted to comment on Reich's economic explanations, but also to use them as a springboard to make a larger point about what the elite is really trying to accomplish and why, in our opinion, it may not work, not entirely anyway. Let's set the stage, first of all, by elaborating a little on what Reich wrote.

Reich points out, quite rightly, that while America seems to be rising out of a deep but manageable recession, the reality may be otherwise. He believes what the American government and Federal Reserve have done is to print money and use that money to create public industrial make-work programs that give the perception the economy is growing when it is not. If people are put to work building a bridge to nowhere, the revenue shows up in the gross national product, perhaps, but the net result is useless and unsustainable.

Reich also notes that Wall Street is doing better, and, as we have pointed out before, this too is comprehensible based on the amount of money that the US government has given or loaned to banks and other large corporate entities. This money, some of it, has found its way into the stock market. The theory is that once the stock market goes, people will feel richer and the economy will be kick started. But in practice, this time round, it's not working.

This is no mere recession but a Great Unraveling. The economy in America (and, really, in the West) cannot grow until distortions are fully unwound and the market itself can perceive what is apt to survive and thrive and what is withering and slowly dying. This time, such perceptions may take years to realize, especially since America and the West generally continues to retard the inevitable culling.

Now because the Bell covers dominant social themes from a free-market thinking perspective, we want to point out that there is more to all this than a failed Keynesian approach to economics. Fiat-money central banking is a centralizing force that is set up to fail in our opinion. That is, mercantilist, private-public central banking as it is practiced today is a centralizing procedure whereby a power elite reaps the benefit of money production while most people suffer loss of income, jobs and the middle class is gradually squeezed into poverty by endless waves of recessions. We could go on about the distortive effect of this kind of central banking – and we have in the past. The point is that those who put the system in place are not stupid. It is likely supposed to behave this way - and it has for at least a century.

If the power elite does indeed want to bankrupt nation states, we have to ask ourselves ... why? The answer (from our point of view) is that the power elite is an inter-generational force of select families, individuals and interest groups (private and corporate) that have as their goal a more globalized industrial and regulatory environment with ever more centralized governance and financial systems. This explains why Western economies are such a mess and why President Barack Obama in America, for instance, continues to press for nationalized health care even though the evidence is overwhelming that such a system would only, eventually, exacerbate America's health care dilemma.

Not only is the Obama administration gearing up to nationalize health care, it may also have in mind, via legislation, to open up America's borders in the south and attempt to give illegal immigrants various benefits that have hitherto been restricted to US citizens. Health care, no doubt, will be an attractive lure to millions of Mexicans, and thus will exacerbate the situation if passed. The stakes are so high that the Democrats in Washington are literally willing to blow up their own party to pass a nationalized health care bill and - next up, reportedly - to create an open-borders situation.

It can be argued (and the Bell does) that there is an Anglo-American elite standing behind both the Democratic and Republican parties that is orchestrating all this. It seems, in fact, to be a carefully crafted plan to merge America with Mexico and Canada - just the way Europe has been merged into a single (struggling) enterprise. The Bush administration laid the groundwork for some of this (though extant plans go back to Reagan) and indeed attempted to make additional Mexican-American industrial intercourse a functional reality before the effort was turned back by outraged Americans. (You can read more about such things in a free book available on this site, High Alert.)

Now, using various parliamentary maneuvers - some of which are already on display as regards health care - the Obama administration will doubtless try to accomplish what the previous administration could not. It will continue socializing American society with the brute force of the federal government and it will do its best to tear down the border between America and Mexico. The war on drugs – which basically boosts the price of drugs and creates criminal classes out of whole cloth – has so destabilized Mexican society that many Mexicans may welcome a de facto merger with the US. The Canadians, thus far, would not, but that may change in the future. And that's why the Anglo-American elite might be said to be partying in Washington DC! Plans proceed toward regional centralization of the Americas.

In fact, while the various bailouts and other actions taken by Washington may seem to be aimed at "rescuing" Americans from an unfortunate financial crisis, they are actually doing exactly the opposite. We note, recently, that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke suggested that major banks operate without any financial reserve at all so as to more efficiently inject money into the long-suffering American economy. This is just another destabilizing financial measure so far as we are concerned. The elite acts to "alleviate" the problems faced by the average American, but in reality the actions taken are destabilizing and end up making things worse. Here's a report on what Bernanke has suggested:

Now Bernanke Wants To Eliminate Reserve Requirements Completely ... Up until now, the United States has operated under a "fractional reserve" banking system. Banks have always been required to keep a small fraction of the money deposited with them for a reserve, but were allowed to loan out the rest. But now it turns out that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke wants to completely eliminate minimum reserve requirements, which he says "impose costs and distortions on the banking system".

At least that is what a footnote to his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services on February 10th says. So is Bernanke actually proposing that banks should be allowed to have no reserves at all? That simply does not make any sense. But it is right there in black and white on the Federal Reserve's own website....

The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system. If there were no minimum reserve requirements, what kind of chaos would that lead to in our financial system? Not that we are operating with sound money now, but is the solution to have no restrictions at all? ... What in the world is Bernanke thinking? But of course he is Time Magazine's "Person Of The Year", so shouldn't we all just shut up and trust his expertise? Hardly. The truth is that Bernanke is making a mess of the U.S. financial system. ( - The Economic Collapse.)

Here's the actual Fed language on its website:

... Given the very high level of reserve balances currently in the banking system, the Federal Reserve has ample time to consider the best long-run framework for policy implementation. The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system.

The American system of republican governance has been relentlessly dismantled since the Civil War. But now the attacks have grown in power and scope and it would seem the actual integrity of the nation itself might be in question. As we recall, The Fabian Society (in a quote we can no longer find on the Internet) suggested in the early 2000s that the 21st century would be one of extreme "change" that people might find uncomfortable. In such an environment, the Fabian Society suggested that those who would adapt most effectively were those who would accept the changes quickly and without fuss.

We are not sure that many will enjoy changes that include the partial dismantling of the United States. However, surprisingly (given what we have just written above) the Bell is optimistic about where the world is headed. The power elite behind the relentless global consolidations did very well in the 20th century. But the 21st century has proven more difficult. The plans and strategies that proved fairly easy to implement in the 20th century began to melt down in the 21st century as the broad beam of the Internet has shown hotly upon them.

One can only come to two conclusions about what is going on (assuming one accepts the presence of a power elite that wishes to continue a trend of global consolidation). Either the Anglo-American power elite doesn't care about whether millions and even billions of people understand what it has on its collective mind. Or it DOES care but cannot do anything about it.

The Bell believes the latter. Again, (for those apt to tolerate such suggestions), it is fairly clear the power elite operated in the 20th century under a determined veil of secrecy. (We would operate under such a veil as well if we were the power elite and had in mind to do what it is doing.) But that veil of secrecy exists no more. Did the power elite plan to rip this veil away? No, no, no!

The power elite must be seen as a troubled entity these days. The power elite, events seem to show us, has had no more idea of how to handle the expansive communication explosion called the Internet than Bill Gates did in the 1990s. The power elite has moved ahead with its "creative destruction" but unlike as was the case in the 20th century, people can actually see the process in action - and in real time. (And they may not wish to be destroyed and recreated, which is bound to be uncomfortable, not to say inconvenient.) As a result, we seen a trend for various governments to try to regulate and censor the Internet. Yet it is late in the game, and we predict these efforts will be hard to implement and even harder to sustain.

In fact, the power elite's planned consolidations are under attack around the world. Europe is beginning to simmer, and even boil in such places as Greece. In America, the Tea Party movement is growing in size and scope and will not ultimately be contained by the Republican party. In South America a series of leftist oriented governments are far less apt to do the West's bidding than such governments once were. Japan and especially China are still perhaps in the West's orbits but are apt to go their own way not because of the political class but because the citizens may eventually demand it. The Internet, a modern-day Gutenberg press, has penetrated these countries as well, and the literacy rate is high.

This article has been entitled "Party Time for Anglo-American Elites?" But we put the question mark at the end of the title for a reason. We think in both America and Britain, the elite celebration is bittersweet. Yes, there are plenty of actions underway to consolidate Western governance and to continually remove barriers between nation states. But the plans of the elite have been illuminated by the internet (for anyone who chooses to look, in our opinion) and for a group that relies on secrecy and purported global coincidences such exposure cannot be considered good news.

Conclusion: We don't know exactly what the power elite has in mind to do next (in detail, anyway), but whatever it is, the Internet's alternative press will predict it and cover it – up to and including wars of control and diversion. And increasingly people, in the 21st century, likely will make up their own minds as to how to respond. That is an opportunity that was lacking in the 20th century and it may eventually make a significant difference. We would argue it is doing so.

In the Shadow of the Castle

David Galland

These days it takes very little to set me off on yet another rant against the American political class - a proxy for governments the world over.

On occasion, I'm tempted to apologize for these rants. Not so much for the message, but for the frequency.

Unfortunately, when surveying the landscape on which our hovels rest, the king's castle looms large in the foreground.

I am not an envious person by nature and so wouldn't begrudge the king his fine trappings, provided they were honestly earned.

But therein lies Ye Olde Rub.

Ever more frequently these days, the drawbridge comes down and a troop of the king's finest sallies forth to extort from me more than half of my crops, and to read new royal proclamations whose net result is to add to the daily burden of trying to provide sustenance for family and jobs for workers.

Should I protest, say, by grabbing a pitchfork and telling the soldiers to clear off my land, or refuse to fill their wagons with the best of my crops - each leaf of which represents time and investment on my part - they would grab me by the shoulders, drag me to the king's dungeon, and confiscate my property.

In fact, all that has changed since the days of yore is that the king's knights tend to no longer rape, as well as pillage.

To be fair, the annals of history contain rare instances of kind and intelligent monarchs, the sort who understand that overburdening the peasants ultimately reduces crop production, leading to unnecessary and unproductive hardship and, in time, even revolt. Though, by temperament, I resist authority of any description, I suppose I could live comfortably under the rule of a fair and benign monarch.

The problem with that notion, of course, is that the corruptive nature of power leads to the near certainty that Baldash the Not So Bad will be followed by Norbit the Nasty.

And all of a sudden, instead of politely requesting I kick in some reasonable percentage of my crops to help maintain a constabulary, courts, and maybe the highways, Norbit's men are kicking in my doors and we're back to ox carts full of my produce being confiscated to provide a new set of gold plates and to pay the cost of invading neighboring lands.

While some among you will protest, there is, I would contend, little difference between a degraded monarch and a degraded democracy. In the monarchy, a single leader directs his minions in their ruinous acts; in a democracy, the directions come from professional politicians, as well versed in gaining and keeping power as any royalty of a bygone era. (Sir Robert Byrd held high office in this nation for 57 years.)

Far from being benign, the nation's leadership, masters at appealing to the self-interest of an unprincipled voter class, have led us to a perilous situation where the fields are being left unplanted.

And an increasing percentage of the citizenry is now muttering angry curses as the king's men ride by in their shiny black limo-horses.

For a clear understanding of just how poorly ruled this country has been, look no further than the latest budget projections. In his January article, "America's Impending Master Class Dictatorship," Stewart Dougherty does just that, analyzing the government's wanton spending and penning some notable, and quotable, words on the topic.

One stark and sobering way to frame the crisis is this: if the United States government were to nationalize (in other words, steal) every penny of private wealth accumulated by America's citizens since the nation's founding 235 years ago, the government would remain totally bankrupt.

Recently our stalwart CEO Olivier Garret sent over an insider doc from the Republicans' Study Committee that provides talking points for candidates to use in the unending struggle for control of the castle. While I think the color of flag flapping over the battlements is at this point almost irrelevant, the document contains some interesting data points.

For instance:

• $13.5 Trillion of New Debt: The president's budget proposes to increase the national debt from today's level of $12.3 trillion to $25.8 trillion in FY 2020 - an increase of $13.5 trillion or 109.8%. The amount of new debt proposed by this budget is larger than the total amount of debt accumulated by the federal government from 1789 to today (even including the $3.6 trillion of new debt over the last three years) .
• $2.8 Trillion Tax Increase: The president's budget submission increases taxes by $2.8 trillion over ten years. This includes allowing many of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, such as allowing the top rate (which is often paid by small businesses) to increase from 35% to 39.6%, and allowing the top capital gains tax rate to return to 20%. These tax increases would take effect in an economy that, according to many economists, will still have an unemployment rate around 10% .
• Mandatory Spending: Increases from last year's level of $2.1 trillion to $3.4 trillion in 2020, an increase of $1.3 trillion or 59.4%. Within that amount: Medicare spending increases from $425 billion in 2009 to $953 billion in 2020 - an increase of $528 billion or 124.2%; Social Security spending increases from $678 billion in 2009 to $1.20 trillion in 2020 - an increase of $523 billion or 77.1%; and Medicaid spending increases from $251 billion in 2009 to $487 billion in 2020 - an increase of $236 billion or 94.0% .
• Interest Payments on the Debt: Increases from $187 billion in FY 2009 to $840 billion in FY 2020 - an increase of $653 billion or 349.2%

As mentioned yesterday, the projection on interest costs is far too conservative. While the government's always flawed projections don't anticipate it, both Bud Conrad and Doug Casey see strongly rising interest rates as a certainty in the foreseeable future. At that point, the debt death spiral begins in earnest, and the whole charade begins to come apart.

But it won't take soaring interest rates to bring the economy down. That's just going to accelerate things. And, of course, the worse things get, the worse the monarchy will act - demanding ever higher taxes and further debasing the currency, as they now certainly must.

How can you protect yourself? It really depends on where you are from.

One obvious solution would be to move to a different kingdom, one that treats you and your money better. Or that pretty much ignores you altogether. If you are from the U.S., the king's tax collectors will follow you wherever you go - but even so, there are modest tax advantages you can gain by expatriation. Ask your tax counsel for details.

If, on the other hand, you live in a kingdom that doesn't tax foreign-derived income (yet), becoming a citizen of the world can offer serious advantages and is well worth considering. The situation in most of the developed kingdoms, where easy money and quick mortgages greatly exacerbated the levels of debt, is only going to get more dire as the rulers cast a wider and stronger net in the quest for more revenue.

Even if you aren't in a position to move, however, you'll benefit from clearly understanding one key point about the king. While he may dress well and speak in dulcet and pleasing tones, he doesn't actually produce anything. What money he has to spend must first be taken off the productive elements of the peasantry.

But there are limits to how much he and his men can squeeze out of the citizenry. We are nearing those limits.

That means that all that is left to the monarchy is for it to issue IOUs. And given the levels of their debts and ongoing spending, lots and lots of IOUs. Those IOUs are called dollars, or pounds, or pesos, or yen, or...

While there will be no straight line up or down for any asset class in the unsettled times we will live through, using periods of weakness to build your exposure to tangible assets - most notably gold, whose primary and best use is as sound money - is the only way to protect yourself from the Great Debasement that's coming.

If you are still in the learning stage when it comes to precious metals, seriously consider a subscription to our Casey's Gold & Resource Report - at just $39 a year, and with our three-month risk-free trial, it's your single best way to get up to speed on what's going on with this important asset class. More info here.

www.caseyresearch.com

Are We Still on the Road to $5,000 Gold?

Peter Cooper

Is a decade of rising gold prices already over? Or are we on ‘The Road to $5,000 Gold’ as my new book published on Amazon.com this week maintains.

Last month George Soros was revealed as the latest convert to the gold camp with a substantial hoard of gold related assets. The news followed his remarks about gold being the ‘ultimate bubble’ at the World Economic Forum in Davos that were widely misunderstood as making him a seller.

Far from it, the wily old hedge fund manager who broke the Bank of England in the 1992 sterling crisis was apparently buying gold while others thought he was selling. For it is important to understand what he meant by gold being the ‘ultimate bubble’.

What Soros was saying is that gold will be the last in a series of investment bubbles. We have had US equity and housing bubbles, and must be close to a market top in US bonds. If past financial crises are any guide then the final stage is a shift into precious metals from a collapsing bond market.

Soros is not alone. John Paulson, the man who made $3 billion betting against subprime loans is also with him and has that much invested in gold now. These guys are not always right but betting against them is not often wise.

The important point about precious metals is that their supply is both relatively fixed and absolutely small. So if a great amount of money is suddenly funneled into this very tight asset class then the impact on the price is going to be phenomenal.

In the 1970s a series of financial crises – smaller but not dissimilar to recent events – ultimately ended in gold surging eight fold in price within a few years to $850 an ounce, and 25-fold within the space of a decade.

Note that 30 years later the gold price is not very much higher than it was then, and that silver is still way below its all-time high. Adjust for 30 years of inflation and you easily have gold at $5,000. That tends to suggest that a bout of serious global financial instability will actually send the price much higher.

For gold is not a metal but the most basic of currencies as far as investment is concerned. It has a fixed supply. You can print US dollars as the Federal Reserve is doing until you inflate your debts into oblivion. But alchemists have always failed to manufacture gold.

Moreover, as the 1970s experience suggests it does not necessarily need hyperinflation to send gold prices through the roof, just a bout of double-digit stagflation will do. Inflation comes from too much money pursuing too few goods. China has just caught it and knows how to export.

Gold as we know pays no dividends but rising gold prices are the perfect substitute. Gold is money you can trust in a climate of inflation or devaluation that amount to the same thing for investors in a currency.

Dr. Marc Faber recently suggested that $1,000 gold might be seen as similar for investors to the Dow crossing 1,000 in 1982. Bring on the 1.3 billion potential Chinese gold bugs.

China’s gold reserves amount to 1,054 tons, ranking fifth in the world. China is the largest gold producer in the world, with more than 300 tons of gold produced annually, all of it consumed locally. China consumes over 400 tons of gold a year, second only to India. And there are more than 3,000 tons of gold in private hands in China.

Indeed, it was only at the start of last year that China suddenly announced to the IMF that it had doubled its official gold reserves to 1,054 tons from 2003. Nobody knew anything about it before then.

China has clearly been increasing its official gold reserves steadily for a decade and has benefited from the quadrupling of gold prices over that period. But never mind the central bank, surely the surging private gold and silver holdings are the thing to watch.

When 1.3 billion Chinese become gold bugs then $5,000 an ounce gold will be seen as far too conservative and $200 silver will also be history. In the meantime, how will you be saving to beat inflation and low interest rates?

Disclosure: Long gold and silver

Peter Cooper is editor and publisher of the financial comment website arabianmoney.net based in Dubai. He boasts a long career in financial journalism in both London and the Middle East and this gives him an unusual perspective. He was formerly a partner in AMEInfo.com.

arabianmoney.net

Money Out Of Thin Air: Now Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Wants To Eliminate Reserve Requirements Completely?

The Economic Collapse

Up until now, the United States has operated under a "fractional reserve" banking system. Banks have always been required to keep a small fraction of the money deposited with them for a reserve, but were allowed to loan out the rest. But now it turns out that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke wants to completely eliminate minimum reserve requirements, which he says "impose costs and distortions on the banking system". At least that is what a footnote to his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services on February 10th says. So is Bernanke actually proposing that banks should be allowed to have no reserves at all?

That simply does not make any sense. But it is right there in black and white on the Federal Reserve's own website....

The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system.

If there were no minimum reserve requirements, what kind of chaos would that lead to in our financial system? Not that we are operating with sound money now, but is the solution to have no restrictions at all? Of course not.

What in the world is Bernanke thinking?

But of course he is Time Magazine's "Person Of The Year", so shouldn't we all just shut up and trust his expertise?

Hardly.

The truth is that Bernanke is making a mess of the U.S. financial system.

Fortunately there are a few members of Congress that realize this. One of them is Republican Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. He has created a firestorm by introducing legislation that would subject the Federal Reserve to a comprehensive audit for the first time since it was created. Ron Paul understands that creating money out of thin air is only going to create massive problems. The following is an excerpt from Ron Paul's remarks to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at a recent Congressional hearing....

"The Federal Reserve in collaboration with the giant banks has created the greatest financial crisis the world has ever seen. The foolish notion that unlimited amounts of money and credit created out of thin air can provide sustainable economic growth has delivered this crisis to us. Instead of economic growth and stable prices, (The Fed) has given us a system of government and finance that now threatens the world financial and political institutions. Pursuing the same policy of excessive spending, debt expansion and monetary inflation can only compound the problems that prevent the required corrections. Doubling the money supply didn’t work, quadrupling it won’t work either. Buying up the bad debt of privileged institutions and dumping worthless assets on the American people is morally wrong and economically futile."

The truth is that the financial system that we have created makes inflation inevitable. The U.S. dollar has lost more than 95 percent of the value that it had when the Federal Reserve was created. During this decade the value of the dollar will decline a whole lot more.

That doesn't sound like a very good investment.

But that is what happens when you give bankers power to make money up out of thin air.

And things are only going to get worse.

Especially if Bernanke gets his way and reserve requirements are eliminated entirely.

The U.S. economy is a giant mess already, and we have got a guy at the controls who simply does not have a clue.

It's going to be a rough ride.

theeconomiccollapseblog.com

Free house for any deliquent CA mortgage owner

Larry Patrick Maloney

Pay VERY close attention to this post. If you are a bank property manager, you better learn what I'm about to teach you.

If you are home owner, you better try to hang on to your house and live in it for free.

In the state of California, a person can take an abandoned home, move in and live in it. Provided, nobody is going to contest it.

I'm not going to give you all the gory details, but it's called "adverse possession".

Essentially, if you live in the house for five years, pay the bills, including the property taxes, the house is yours. You can get a new title on it.

Even if there is an outstanding mortgage. All lien holders are wiped out.

So, for all your "squatters" out there, if your bank keeps dragging out your foreclosure, if you can hold out for a total of five years (for those of you who are two years in, you just have three years to go.) you will be able to 100% get out of your mortgage, and own your home scott free.

I'm sure you doubt me, but it's true. You would go to a judge, and demonstrate your case of adverse possession, and the banks existing lien, that you OWE on will be wiped out. The house becomes yours, with no mortgage payments. Zero, nada, nothing.

Now, I debated about writing this publicly, because I want to jealously guard this "open secret" to my advantage. However, it's more to my advantage if the banks are schooled in the law, and get motivated to start dumping their holdings. I'm sure the attorneys on staff at banks know about this law, but I'm willing to bet, most of them don't really understand it, because they haven't read it in detail, nor do they have any experience with it.

So, you bankers out there, that eventually read this post, you better get schooled real fast. If you wait over five years to foreclose, you are going to lose any claim you have on a property. That means all your backed up properties are going to be lost. You banks have corrupted the regulators who are over seeing you, and you aren't motivated to clean your books by those regulators anymore. However, you damn well will be motivated when thousands of homeowners start taking their houses back, and wiping their mortgage obligations to you.

Homeowners, you need to scheme and plan on how to PHYSICALLY stay in your house for five years, PAY your property taxes (don't let the bank do it) If you send in your mortgage payment, the bank will pay your property taxes. You need to pay your property taxes directly to the county, AND not let the bank do it. You need to keep all your payment records of your utilities, insurance, etc to prove you have lived there for five years.

After five years, of living there as a defaulted home owner, go to court, and get those liens wiped out.

Maybe I should write a book on how to do this.....

patrick.net

Cina, capro espiatorio della crisi Usa

di Enrico Piovesana - 19/03/2010 Fonte: Peace Reporter [scheda fonte]

L'amministrazione Obama si prepara a denunciare Pechino per “manipolazione valutaria” a causa della sottovalutazione dello yuan, indicato come l'ostacolo alla ripresa economica Usa

Il presidente americano Barack Obama e il suo ministro finanziario, Timothy Geithner, sembrano ormai decisi a denunciare la Cina per "manipolazione valutaria" nel prossimo rapporto semestrale del dipartimento del Tesoro, che verrà pubblicato il 15 aprile. Una denuncia che, secondo le leggi degli Stati Uniti, comporterebbe l'automatica imposizione di sanzioni economiche nei confronti di Pechino, e che comunque farebbe peggiorare ulteriormente le già tese relazioni sino-americane.

L'accusa contro Pechino. Washington accusa la Cina di mantenere artificialmente sottovalutata rispetto al dollaro la sua valuta, lo yuan (o renminbi), attuando di fatto una concorrenza commerciale sleale nei confronti degli Stati Uniti. Secondo i più influenti economisti americani, l'attuale cambio yuan/dollaro fissato da Pechino rende infatti troppo concorrenziali le merci cinese esportate negli Stati Uniti, penalizzando invece gravemente la competitività del 'made in Usa' sul mercato cinese e quindi la ripresa dell'economia e dell'occupazione negli Stati Uniti. "La politica mercantile della Cina è diventata ormai un ostacolo non indifferente per la ripresa economica: occorre fare qualcosa in proposito", ammoniva domenica scorsa il premio Nobel per l'economia Paul Krugman dalle colonne del New York Times, commentando le dichiarazioni di Obama sulla necessità che la Cina "passi a tassi di cambio più in sintonia con il mercato".

Le reazioni cinesi. In risposta alle crescenti critiche provenienti da oltreoceano, i governanti cinesi reagiscono con crescente irritazione. "Non penso che lo yuan sia sottovalutato - ha dichiarato a nelle stesse ore il premier cinese Wen Jibao - e ci opponiamo a questa pratica di puntare il dito contro altri paesi, forzandoli a rivalutare la propria valuta". "Il nostro governo ritiene che il valore dello yuan sia materia di sovranità nazionale, che va decisa dalla Cina, e dalla Cina soltanto, senza pressioni e ricatti", si legge in un editoriale del China Daily, organo del Partito comunista cinese. "Il nostro paese non ha intenzione di subire ulteriori atti di prepotenza proprio dalla nazione che ha portato il mondo sull'orlo del disastro economico. Noi cinesi ci ricordiamo bene degli abusi e delle prepotenze subite in passato, volte a svuotare i forzieri imperiali: le Guerre dell'Oppio, il saccheggio del Palazzo d'Estate, i Trattati Ineguali". Tra l'intellighenzia cinese è sempre più diffusa la convinzione che l'amministrazione Obama, a scopo di consenso interno, stia cercando di fare della Cina il capro espiatorio per la mancata ripresa economica. "In questo momento la popolarità di Obama è in calo - afferma l'ex ambasciatore cinese a Washington, Zhou Wenzhong - e portare l'attenzione sui problemi del deficit commerciale è una mossa politicamente molto utile per lui". "Gli Stati Uniti non dovrebbero accusare altri paesi per i loro problemi", ha detto il vicegovernatore della banca centrale cinese, Su Ning.

Superbia cinese? Per contro, negli Stati Uniti e in Europa sta prendendo piede un atteggiamento sempre più sprezzante e ostile nei confronti della Cina. Le legittime obiezioni di Pechino ai diktat occidentali e il comprensibile irrigidimento della Cina di fronte alle continue provocazioni di Washington (i satelliti spia per monitorare le emissioni, il caso Google-Nsa, le armi a Tawian, l'incontro con il Dalai Lama) vengono letti come una dimostrazione di arroganza e sfrontatezza. "La Cina sta soccombendo alla superbia", scriveva ieri sul Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, noto giornalista economico britannico. "Ha scambiato la diplomazia 'soft' di Obama per debolezza, la crisi del credito Usa per il declino dell'economia americana, la propria bolla mercantilistica per una crescita economica reale. Si comporta con gli Stati Uniti come la Germania guglielmina si comportava con la Gran Bretagna alla vigilia della Prima guerra mondiale, giudicando in maniera del tutto errata il bilanciamento strategico dei rispettivi poteri e forzando la mano". Per fortuna nessuno prevede una guerra mondiale tra Usa e Cina: ma una guerra commerciale non è da escludere.

Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it

Il debito pubblico: solo un problema da PORCI? Le nuove Termopili della Grecia

Mar 1019

Pubblicato da Pietro Cambi alle 00:01 in Apocalypse now, Bugie, Finanza, Ordine Pubblico, Vita quotidiana, politica

Debora ed il sottoscritto hanno più volte parlato di quel che succede in Grecia, nel sostanziale silenzio dei media.

Questa volta voglio sottoporvi un curioso parallelo.

In Grecia, dopo 2500 anni quasi esatti (la ricorrenza cadrà nel 2020) dalla battaglia delle Termopili, si scontrano di nuovo due concezioni della Società, dell'economia e, direi quasi, della realtà. Due filosofie. Una localistica l'altra globale.

Probabilmente non la vedranno cosi neanche i greci stessi ma questo non vuol dire che non si possa pensarlo.

Riguardo al precedente storico non voglio dilungarmi: da una parte un impero cosmopolita e sostanzialmente liberale ( nel senso economico del termine). Dall'altro le micro enclaves greche avanzatissime, talvolta, dal punto di vista sociale e culturale ( oltre che militare, grazie alle continue scaramucce) ma arretrate dal punto di vista economico.

Come andò a finire lo sapete. A parte i numerosi errori tattici commessi dagli strateghi persiani e l'indubbio eroismo e la superiorità tecnologica dei Greci, quel che alla fine sconfisse i Persiani furono altre due cose ( a mio modesto giudizio).

Il rapporto costi benefici tropo modesto di tutta l'operazione ed i raggiunti limiti dimensionali dell'impero, (e della sua multiforme armata, con ben 29 nazionalità rappresentate) con le conseguenti difficoltà logistiche e di coordinamento.

I Greci, infine, combattevano (o credevano di combattere) per le proprie case, a pochi giorni di marcia dal campo di battaglia, in un territorio che conoscevano bene ed amico, mentre i "persiani" si trovavano in un territorio ostile, a mesi di marica dalle loro terre, per la maggior gloria di un sovrano distante ed arcano.

Ok.

Ma questo cosa c'entra con i guai oderni della Grecia?

Qualcosina c'entra, portate pazienza.

Intanto perchè anche qui, lo vedrete bene anche voi, si scontrano localismo e globalismo.

Per dire: Il maggior creditore della Grecia è un privato, La Goldman&Sachs e questo tra parentesi spiega più di tante cose perchè all'improvviso si spinga in modo tanto terrorizzante sul rischio di un allargamento agli altri "stati maiali".

Pura paura di perderci il business e smodata speranza di aumentarlo, il business.

Come?

Ovvio. Soffiando sul fuoco, grazie ai Media "amici" e screditando a più non posso, ad esempio abbattendo i ratings ( che, dopo quel che si è visto solo un anno fa, dovrebbero essere utilizzati solo nelle favolette per gli studenti del primo anno di economia di qualche Università sommamente secondaria del Minnesota).

La Grecia, che ha parametri brutti ma in linea con quelli , tanto per dire, americani (migliori, molto migliori, in realtà, per l'anno in corso, a causa delle draconiane misure per ora implementate) a forza di parlare di potenziali defaults, non riesce a piazzare più il suo debito pubblico.Si è trovata, nell'ultima asta, a dover promettere oltre il 6% di interesse sui propri titoli, con una seria prospettiva di dover fare di peggio nei prossimi mesi.

Sappiamo ormai da tempo che il mercato muove capitali ( sia pur virtuali) enormemente superiori a quelli che possono raccogliere gli Istitui centrali, fossero pure quelli più grandil, la BCE o la Fed.

Sappiamo anche che in questo mercato si può speculare al ribasso, tramite, ad esempio, i famigerati Credi Default Swaps.

Di fatto, potendo legalmente farlo ed essendo conveniente farlo è quasi OBBLIGATORIO farlo, anche se, in caso di collasso greco il possibile allargarsi dell'instabilità al resto dell'area euro potrebbe alla fine fare MOLTI più danni al sistema finanziario.

L'attacco alla Grecia, che secondo me POTREBBE essere coronato da successo, portando ad un pelosissimo "salvataggio" da parte della BCE o del FMI, sarà in realtà il canto del cigno dei grandi speculatori.

Intanto proprio perchè, come 2500 anni fa, i greci non stanno cedendo alla pura forza bruta. A dispetto di ogni evidenza NON vogliono farsi salvare dal sistema bancario internazionale, se questo significa dover cedere un rene, in termini di sovranità economica, sociale e nazionale. Secondo un semplice calcolo di opportunità, invece, la loro REALE intenzione è quella di salvarsi DA SOLI, uscendo dall'euro, non diventando vassalli dell' FMI e semplicemente mandando in default il debito in mano straniere, con un sistema già ampiamente collaudato, ad esempio dall'Argentina.

Il motivo?

Ma è semplice: perchè i greci dovrebbero rinunciare ai servizi pubblici, alle pensioni, agli ammortizzatori sociali, per garantire elevatissimi interessi agli speculatori internazionali? Perchè dovrebbero cercare di rientrare dal loro pesante deficit quando questo deficit, sicuramente generato per la sconsiderata politica di espansione economica (...) dei decenni passati, è principalmente dovuto al pagamento di interessi a creditori che stanno, in buona parte fuori dalla loro nazione e in buona misura dall'altra parte dell'Atlantico?

Questo essendo ormai di palmare evidenza per l'uomo della strada, è alla base delle rivolte di questi giorni. Nel momento in cui le persone comuni si rendono davvero conto di quel che gli si chiede, al di la delle fumisterie in economico politichese, la risposta non è ( non dovrebbe essere) differente da quella che vediamo in Grecia.

Gli speculatori giocano con il fuoco, perchè non è solo una questione di sostenibilità economica di un dato deficit/debito.

E' sopratutto questione di sostenibilità sociale, politica e morale.

In Italia, ad esempio, come credo saprete, il bilancio dello Stato sarebbe, in condizioni normali, di pre/post-crisi, in attivo.

Ampiamente, qualche anno fa, di poco negli ultimi tempi.

Fatti salvi, ovviamente, i pagamenti degli interessi su debito, che ci portano inesorabilmente sott'acqua.

Tradizionalmente il debito pubblico italiano era in mano ad investitori nazionali, privati e non. Benche' il ricorso sistematico al deficit di bilancio fosse, in primo luogo, una inversione dei principi di equità fiscale, finendo per drenare risorse dalla parte maggioritaria della popolazione, quella che paga tasse ed imposte, ridistribuendole a coloro che avevano capacita' di risparmio, ovviamente sensibilmente minore, il reddito cosi generato rimaneva, di primo acchito, in Italia, senza quindi indebolire gravemente il sistema paese nel suo complesso. Questo però è sempre meno vero ed anche il debito italiano è sempre piu' in mano ad investitori stranieri. Il pagamento degli interessi pesa attualmente da noi per qualcosa di più del 4% del nostro PIL. Il nostro disavanzo per il 2010 è previsto intorno al 5%.

Come vedete, semplicemente sospendendo il pagamento degli interessi, limitandoci a restituire a scadenza il capitale, ci troveremo già in un sostanziale pareggio di bilancio, senza alcun bisogno di misure draconiane particolari.

La stessa cosa, su scala percentualmente maggiore, è vera per la Grecia.

Si danneggiano, è chiaro, gli investitori stranieri e i "rentier" nazionali ma in compenso si potrebbero continuare a garantire servizi ed ammortizzatori sociali essenziali.

Essendo questa una realtà intuitiva, è facile capire lo scenario che si potrebbe prospettare al momento che questa semplice realtà arrivi nitidamente nella testa dell'uomo della strada. Non solo in Grecia ma nel resto del mondo.

Ecco che i giganti dell'economia si sgretolerebbero di fronte ad un piccolo paese deciso a non farsi comprare. L'economia non è tutto, checche' ne dicano gli economisti ed i Greci sono schierati, ormai è chiaro, a difesa delle loro Termopili.

Comunque vada questa vicenda, la Storia cambierà.

Se vinceranno loro, porteranno i grandi della Terra davanti ad un tavolo per riscrivere le regole ed impedire ai Soros di turno di affossare a comando questo o quel paese. Si dovrà assolutamente fare per evitare una rapida propagazione ai paesi vicini e lontani del loro esempio. Si farà per salvare il salvabile. Gia la Goldman & Sachs è stata messa sotto osservazione da parte della Fed, ad esempio.

Se perderanno, invece, accettando pesantissime misure che li porteranno, in pratica, a lavorare per garantire il mantenimento dei bonus ai dirigenti Goldman&Sachs, si replicherà rapidamente con un altro paese e poi un altro ed un altro...fino a che ci sarà spazio per speculare.

Fino a che l'ultima carta tolta farà crollare tutto il castello.

Un castello dove le carte più deboli sono quelle meno sospettabili, si veda ad esempio questo vecchio grafico del 2006 per capire chi è, storicamente, inguaiato da più tempo:

In orizzontale avete l'avanzo primario ovvero il bilancio dello stato al netto del pagamento del debito&interessi, in verticale gli interessi sul debito, in % del PIL.

La linea tratteggiata in diagonale segna il confine tra sostenibilità e insostenibilità del debito.

Se gli interessi superano l'avanzo primario la situazione è insostenibile perchè il debito aumenta in termini di PIL, determinando una situazione insostenibile, prima o poi. Come vedete, oltre a noi ed al Portogallo, tra coloro che avevano una situazione insostenibile a lungo termine già nel 2006 c'erano già Francia, Olanda e Germania.NON c'erano la Grecia, la Spagna l'Irlanda.

Lo stesso grafico rifatto oggi vedrebbe praticamente TUTTI i paesi occidentali al di sopra della linea a 45 gradi, addirittura al di fuori del grafico, in una situazione insostenibile.

Il Debito pubblico non è quindi solo un problema da PORCI, da P.I.I.G.S .

Conclusione: contrariamente a quel che si legge in giro, la dichiarazione di un default, piu' o meno velato, della Grecia, la decisione di diluire i pagamenti del debito, di non ottemperare ai diktat della BCE o del WSJ o del FMI, di mantenere un minimo presidio sociale, oppure, se volete, di cedere alla piazza, NON sarà un cattiva notizia. Sarà anzi il segnale della fine dei giochi.

Sarà l'ultima vittoria prima di una precipitosa sconfitta degli speculatori e della condanna a morte dei loro oscuri strumenti finanziari.

Sarà l'inizio della fine del paradigma della crescita, la necessità di consolidare i debiti, rallentare la loro crescita per pagamento prebende et lauti dividendi ai rentier e cosi facendo fermare la scala mobile economica.

Non sarà un processo indolore, come quasi mai nella Storia di fronte a salti di paradigma.

Un sacco di economia di carta deve ancora evaporare. I "capitali" scompariranno, in buona parte essendo solo scommesse sempre piu' improbabili su un futuro di crescita infinita. Ci sarà recessione, deflazione, oppure inflazione "Argentina" (a seconda del paese) disoccupazione per tutti. Alla fine si dovrà arrivare ad un nuovo patto sociale, nuovi equilibri, nuovi valori sia societari che sociali.

Nel frattempo, nelle prossime settimane, mesi?

Ancora è tutto possibile, anche se si da per scontato che alla fine il governo greco piegherà la testa e la piazza si quieterà.

Anche nell'Agosto del 480 A. C. tuttavia, 300 spartani (oltre a qualche migliaio di alleati) inchiodarono un esercito circa 50 volte piu' grande del loro.

"Μολὼν λαβέ"

(Molòn labè)

"venitele a prendere" L'epica risposta di Leonida all'emissario persiano che chiedeva ai greci di deporre le armi, alle Termopili.

La difficoltà con cui alla fine furono piegati segnalò a tutti la debolezza del gigantesco esercito persiano ed alla fine fu il segnale dell'inizio della fine per quell'esperimento egemonico.

Potevano vincere i persiani?

Certo.

Nel qual caso di Leoninda e dei suoi 300 non avremmo saputo nulla.

Ma il loro impero non sarebbe in ogni caso durato molto più a lungo ne sarebbe stato molto più prospero. Aveva sostanzialmente fatto il suo tempo e i Greci si incaricarono solamente di dimostrarlo.

http://crisis.blogosfere.it/2010/03/il-debito-pubblico-solo-un-problema-da-porci-le-nuove-termopili-della-grecia-1.html

L’euro-dracma continua, Germania batte Italia

Oscar Giannino

Vai ai commenti Lascia un commento

L’eurodramma, anzi l’euro-dracma continua, con stile da iniziati appassionati di testi sanscriti. Tramontata la finta apertura tedesca a un Fondo Monetario Europeo da far finanziare ai soli Paesi a rischio, stamane Papandreu è tornato da Bruxelles a far appello al Consiglio europeo della prossima settimana, perché i capi di governo varino misure comuni per aiutare i Paesi a rischio. Altrimenti, bisogna accettare che si rivolgano al FMI, ma in quel caso la questione si riporoporrebbe, perché i maggiori Paesi europei a cominciare dalla Germania sarebbero loro a Washington a doversene ripartire i costi. Berlino è contraria anche a quello, naturalmente. L’Italia ha -saggiamente ma molto molto sommessamente – fatto presente con Tremonti all’Eurogruppo che occorrerebbe insieme accettare la via FMI ma unirvi una proposta europea di ribilanciamento dei pesi nazionali al suo interno, unendo le rappresentenze europee. Germania e Francia sono contrarie, naturalmente, pur essendo la Francia più vicina alla posizione italiana che a quella del niet tedesco a ogni proposta. Così oggi Berlino finge di riconsiderare l’idea di aiuti diretti ai greci. Mentre allo stesso modo finge di accelerare, sul fronte interno avvicinandosi il voto nella Nord Renania Westfalia, sulla via del taglio alle tasse che al rigorista-sociale Schauble piace per nulla. Si capisce, messa così, che la partita interessi solo gli specialisti. Diverso è se consideriamo la partita vera, quella di cui i giornali nostrani parlano poco o nulla. In quella gara, la Germania sta facendo male innanzitutto a noi italiani, prima che ai “poveri” greci e spagnoli. Ma Roma non se la sente, di sfidare Berlino.

La vera partita è tra grandi Paesi che sono in surplus su bilancia pagamenti, impegnati nella gara mercantuilista mondiale a esportare di più e dunque crescere di più nella ripresa del commercio mondiale. La Germania corre per un surplus di 190-200 miliardi di dollari quest’anno, a fronte dei 285 della Cina e dei 290 della somma delle tigri asiatiche Taiwan-Corea del Sud-Giappone-Singapore-Hong Kong. Con l’euro la Germania ha guadagnato in un decennio circa il 35% di competitività sulle imprese italiane costrette a deflazionare i costi degli input reali senza più svalutazioni competitive, e crca il 20% sulla Francia. Con il no a ogni politica europea volta a riequilibrare surplus degli uni contro domanda interna a debito degli altri, la germania spinge tutti a dover ulteriormente deflazionare, doimi nuendo salari reali orari e domanda pubblica per evitare deficit e debito. I più colpiti, in quanto secondo Paese manifatturiero ed esportatore d’Europa, su specialità produttive analoghe a quelel tedesche anche se spesso a monir valore aggiunto, siamo proprio noi italiani. E’ questa la partita vera: quella che ci spinge a esportare meno. certo, per colpe del passato sul debito pubblico. Ma intanto significa minor crescita, per un Paese, il nostro, che già da dieci anni cresceva molto meno dei concorrenti.

Un governo italiano serio direbbe: bene, non protestiamo per il deficit pubblico che non possiamo fare, in quanto non lo faremmo comunque, e vista la posizione tedesca siamo ancor più costretti a riforme strutturali che abbassino i costi e migliorino la produttività. Riforme degli ammortizzatori sociali, del mercato del lavoro, delle pensioni, delle tasse e della spesa pubblica. Ma è esattamente quanto l’attuale governo non fa, e non promette nemmeno l’attuale opposizione (anzi, l’opposizione dice cose demagogico-popolari da accapponar la pelle, su tasse e spesa pubblica). Nella stasi governativa che vanta come successo semplicemente il giusto rigore pubblico ma senza riforme, l’Italia è la vera vittima dei tedeschi. Non mi stupisco, che la stampa non lo scriva. Bisogna leggerle sul Telegraph, le cose che ci toccano così da vicino.

http://www.chicago-blog.it/2010/03/18/leuro-dracma-continua-germania-batte-italia/