Macroeconomia Crisi finanziaria e sviluppi

[stockuccio]

la banalità del male .... 'When a system becomes dependent on fraud and misrepresentation of risk for "business as usual," then all that is required of the complicit is to "dot the i's" and fill out the report, court order, balance sheet, act of Congress, etc., just like everyone else does.

Thus does the banality of (financial) evil come to full flower.'

bellissimo ... il male è banale ... grande


charles hugh smith-The Banality of (Financial) Evil
charles hugh smith-Fraud and Complicity Are Now the Lifeblood of the Status Quo (Banality of Financial Evil, Part 2)

 

[ilfolignate]

G-20, i risultati (evanescenti) del vertice

(14/11/2010) Il G-20 che si e’ tenuto a Seul e che ha visto il confronto dei capi di Stato e di Governo delle 20 maggiori economie mondiali,
avrebbe dovuto essere risolutivo per dirimere la questione della guerra valutaria tra le monete, principalmente tra Cina e Usa, tra dollaro e yuan,
con l’euro solo ai margini. Alla fine l’esito della due giorni si e’ limitato a prendere atto di cose ovvie e a scrivere un documento che si
guardasse bene dal prendere posizione a favore dell’una o dell’altra parte.
Le parti in campo erano chiare. Da una parte gli Stati Uniti, sotto accusa per l’iniezione di 600 miliardi di liquidita’ sui mercati (la fase 2 del quantitative easing)
annunciata dalla Fed, e gia’ iniziata, che spingerebbe il dollaro alla sottovalutazione contro le principali monete; dall’altra la Cina,
che terrebbe artficialmente basso lo yuan non lasciandolo rivalutare nonostante un forte attivo della bilancia commerciale, con una inedita alleata,
la Germania, anch’essa con un forte attivo commerciale e che vede negativamente la svalutazione del biglietto verde contro l’euro perche’ danneggerebbe le esportazioni tedesche.
Alla fine di guerra valutaria e di sbilanci commerciali si e’ parlato poco nel vertice, anche se e’ stato l’argomento principale dietro le quinte.
Di fatto la Fed e’ autonoma e quindi sarebbe stato difficile e probabilmente inutile attaccare frontalmente il segretario al Tesoro Usa
Tim Geithner per una decisione presa dalla Banca Centrale Usa, anche se fortemente sollecitata dalla Casa Bianca.
Il comunicato finale si e’ limitato a ribadire l’importanza di portare avanti delle politiche che favoriscano la crescita e
l’unico accenno ai tassi di cambio riguarda la dichiarazione che il rapporto tra le monete debba riflettere i fondamentali
dell’economia e che i tassi di cambio debbano essere determinati dal mercato (l’allusione e’ agli squilibri della bilancia
commerciale e alla politica di controllo delle Banca Centrale cinese sullo yuan).
Era il massimo risultato a cui un incontro tra 20 paesi potesse aspirare in questo momento.
Gia’ e’ difficile, come si e’ visto, mettere d’accordo Usa, Cina e Germania,
ancora piu’ complicato e’ prendere delle decisioni vincolanti a cui si adeguino 20 paesi con interessi troppo diversi.
Tutto rimandato al prossimo incontro, nel primo semestre del prossimo anno,
dove di tentera’ di trovare una soluzione agli squilibri globali, monetari e commerciali.
Nel frattempo ognuno seguira’ la strada intrapresa.

*************************
In poche parole: UN FALLIMENTO!

 

[lorixnt2]

la banalità del male .... 'When a system becomes dependent on fraud and misrepresentation of risk for "business as usual," then all that is required of the complicit is to "dot the i's" and fill out the report, court order, balance sheet, act of Congress, etc., just like everyone else does.

Thus does the banality of (financial) evil come to full flower.'

bellissimo ... il male è banale ... grande


charles hugh smith-The Banality of (Financial) Evil
charles hugh smith-Fraud and Complicity Are Now the Lifeblood of the Status Quo (Banality of Financial Evil, Part 2)

Ho capito Sk ma che differenza c'è tra Hannah Arendt ed un sacerdote di qualsivoglia religione?

 

[stockuccio]

l'accoglienza meneghina di ieri alla nipote di Mubarak mi fa ben sperare

mi piacciono gli articoli di Smith

charles hugh smith-The Status Quo's Fundamental Paradigms Are Broken

The Status Quo's Fundamental Paradigms Are Broken
(November 15, 2010) ​

The paradigms which undergird the global status quo are broken; doing more of the same (the current strategy) will not fix them.
Reading the Mainstream Media, you almost forget that the Status Quo's fundamental paradigms are completely broken. The Status Quo's essential paradigms are as follows:
1. "Growth" is the essential lifeblood of the global economy.
2. "Growth" means higher GDP and economic activity. Thus new luxury condos and Starbucks cafes on the coast of Peru boost Peru's GDP, and thus Peru is experiencing "growth" which is not just intrinsically "good" but essential.
3. "Growth" requires consuming more resources.
4. There will always be more resources into the foreseeable future. For instance, here is the Status Quo's depiction of fossil fuels supplies:

5. The transition from fossil fuels to alternatives will be slow and seamless because there is still plenty of cheap oil and gas.
6. The dominant paradigms of the global economy are the State Corporation (China) and the Corporate State (U.S.A.). Both are permanent because they are highly efficient.
7. Restrictions on trade and capital flows are "bad." They cause depressions.
8. The nation-state is a durable social structure which will never be seriously threatened with dissolution.
9. As long as the global "pie" of wealth keeps expanding, everyone can grow wealthier together.
10. Low interest rates and expansion of money supply and credit are the three essential financial fuels for "growth."
I think a strong case can be made that each of these paradigms is either already broken or in danger of breaking. Studies have shown that when presented with factual evidence that their core beliefs are wrong, humans respond by clinging even more tightly to their fallacious beliefs.
I think that is precisely the reaction of the global Status Quo.
Here is a typical presentation of the Status Quo's faith in the "China Story" that China's growth can and will continue unimpeded for decades to come:
The Game Changer (China).
Elizabeth C. Economy is a well-informed, insightful analyst. Yet she presumes that China can grow like a tree to the sky and that its consumption of oil and other resources can likewise double every few years forever.
There is not one word in this long essay which even hints at the possibility that constraints in the real world might hinder China's vast ambitions and appetites for "the good life" of middle-class consumption for its 1.2 billion citizens.
Though China runs a good PR game about building a "green economy," we should note that its energy consumption equaled the U.S. this year and its production of vehicles far surpassed the U.S. this year.
Like every other industrialized nation, China's alternative energy sector supplies at best a sliver of the nation's energy. This is a global chart from the IEA which includes nations like Brazil which have vast biofuel industries using sugar cane.

While subsidizing state-owned plants to manufacture solar panels is certainly a forward-thinking strategy, in the meantime building tens of millions of vehicles every year which require gasoline is pursuing an entirely different set of "growth" and dependency priorities.
Even in the U.S., electricity consumption has risen 25% since 1990, outstripping population growth.
Let's look at some facts before we buy into the paradigm that China (or any other nation) can grow to the sky.
I was accused of saber-rattling after I pointed out in The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil (October 19, 2010) that the U.S. has a "hard power" presence in the heart of the Mideast while China has a presence in Sudan and other African nations. Let's look at which presence controls more oil:

Now let's look at the reality rather than the fantasy of future oil production:

That sets up an inevitable grab for the resources needed for "growth." The timeframes on this chart are of course approximations; no one knows exactly when oil demand will rise above maximum oil production, but the status quo paradigm that China can double its consumption of oil every few years is clearly wrong.
China is culturally predisposed to feeling that the last few hundred years of weakness was an anomaly and that China is once again the center of the world. (The Chinese character for "center" has been read as "middle," i.e. the Middle Kingdom, but this misses the crucial self-awareness of China as the center of the world).
The future course of China's rising confidence in its heft can be seen everywhere: in its hardening claims for islands in the South China Sea, in its plans to divert rivers originating on the Tibetan plain away from other nations to benefit its own consumption, and in its recent export restrictions of rare industrial metals.
Anyone believing China will remain content with making solar panels while its supplies of essential resources dwindle is misreading China's larger plans.

Another paradigm which is already broken is the trade-capital flow fantasy of mercantilist nations funding consumer nation's consumption. China's dissatisfaction with the end-game of this dynamic is already apparent, and a similar breakdown is occurring in Europe as the mercantilist machine that is Germany must bail out one consumer nation after another.

That dynamic is already doomed, and incantations to the contrary are simply beliefs which are unsupported by fact.
The other core paradigm of the Status Quo is a massive Central State--what I call The Savior State in the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1449563449?ie=UTF8&tag=charleshughsm-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1449563449"]Survival+[/ame] critique.
In the U.S., personal income is around $9 trillion, and the Federal budget is around $3.6 trillion and state/local governments and agencies consume about $1.5 trillion. So government is about 36% of the nation's GDP.
Recently, the Federal government has been borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to maintain the status quo (representing about 11% of GDP). While the Status Quo presents a happy PR picture of an economy rebuilding its decaying infrastructure, the reality is the Federal borrowing is merely propping up personal income. "Transfers" are funds delivered by the government to individuals:

Lastly, the entire fantasy that exponentially rising debt/credit can fuel an asset bubble that then fuels a "virtuous cycle" of rising net worth and more borrowing and spending is also irrevocably broken. Let's start with the trajectory of mortgage delinquencies:

Any questions about the trend here?

As asset bubbles pop, the "wealth effect" reverses:

No matter how much uncollectible debt is written down, assets are falling faster: the debtor, the bank and the debtor nation all lose "The Red Queen's Race":

Ultimately, the implosion of the Savior State's finances mean the paradigm of a vast Central State is also threatened. We can understand this another way by considering the Central State as an energy consumer. As long as the Central State provides more benefits that it consumes, then the organism it lives off of (the economy) will support it.
But when the benefits dwindle and the carrying costs of the Central State continue rising, than at some point the economy can long longer support the consumption costs of the Central State.
At that point the Central State collapses or shrinks down to a sustainable size.

Anyone who believes the Savior State will endure without any adjustment in the coming decade is simply ignoring the facts and hardening their faulty beliefs. That refusal to learn from facts is not a successful survival strategy.
I don't have "all the answers" or a crystal ball, but it seems clear that "more of the same" is not a sustainable option. New applications of technology and new social/economic models (both localized and international) will have to be developed, tested and adapted which require less energy and resources. ​

 

[mostromarino]

l'accoglienza meneghina di ieri alla nipote di Mubarak mi fa ben sperare

é la prima frase positiva in due anni

 

[stockuccio]

mi vedi sempre come 'tristezza' (come non pensare al grande Walter Matthau in 'e io mi gioco la bambina') mentre in genere sono un ottimista ... al punto tale che vedo un trionfo del movimento 5 stelle alle prossime elezioni nonostante l'informazione asservita .... ma questo mi pare te lo avevo già detto

 

[lorixnt2]

oh caspita quasi mi dimenticavo!
Nessuna differenza. Credono entrambi infatti ad un bene e ad un male in sé.
Come anche alcuni economisti mi par di capire.

 

[mostromarino]

mi vedi sempre come 'tristezza' (come non pensare al grande Walter Matthau in 'e io mi gioco la bambina') mentre in genere sono un ottimista ... al punto tale che vedo un trionfo del movimento 5 stelle alle prossime elezioni nonostante l'informazione asservita .... ma questo mi pare te lo avevo già detto

non perdi botta

per far propaganda

asservito? si mi pare lo avessi già detto

se non ricordo male
anche obnubilato da emilio fede

fine ot
mi scuso col mod

 

[stockuccio]

oh caspita quasi mi dimenticavo!
Nessuna differenza. Credono entrambi infatti ad un bene e ad un male in sé.
Come anche alcuni economisti mi par di capire.

non sapevo Matthau fosse un economista di grido
gli economisti in genere cercano sviluppo sostenibile, il sistema attuale non lo consente ... quindi è indubitabilmente assolutissimamente MALE
bene male ... le religioni si fondano su quello ... una volta c'era un tal Gesù ... non mi pare i cristiani del mondo considerino le sue indicazioni su bene e male solo opinioni personali
Cameron cerca suggerimenti ... fatti pure avanti http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/noti...ole-inglese-misuri-165213.shtml?uuid=AY6QgxjC

 

[lorixnt2]

non sapevo Matthau fosse un economista di grido

ahem a dire il vero neanch'io
E' stata probabilmente una conclusione frettolosa.
A ben vedere, in effetti, quel che dice assomiglia un po' a quel che dicono qui in Italia i ragazzi dell'ASPO. Tu connais Sk?