*Tema mítico* : Last Call: El timing de la debacle del pueblo español y opciones a tomar

Hannibal

Madmaxista
Desde
1 Ago 2012
Mensajes
13.473
Reputación
44.493
. Es un paso más en la "estatalización" de las deudas de las CC.AA., de momento sin aparentes consecuencias en la prima de riesgo exigida a las emisiones del Tesoro Público
Sargento, no sabía que eras un marvadoh centralista:pienso:

El monstruo de las AAPP nos llevara por delante a toda la sociedad,eso si, después de habernos expoliado a base de impuestos no para pagar esta deuda sino para seguir dando subvenciones y mamandurrias varias.
 

bubbler

Madmaxista
Desde
13 Sep 2006
Mensajes
2.842
Reputación
2.276
Claro que llegarán, más pronto que tarde.

Bastardos me gusta la fruta al calor del poder empresarial, de los particdos corruptos o de los 20 cts de rigor :tragatochos::tragatochos::tragatochos:

El objetivo del hilo era y es dar información, seguramente sin ninguna utilidad para muchos.

No pocas veces he recomendado almacenar la información del 2º post, mucha de ella en forma de videos de youtube o artículos de sitios internet.

Quién ha querido y realmente se ha sentido sensibilizado como para guardar la información, ya lo habrá hecho.

Llegado este momento, tanto para unos como para otros, cada cual es adulto y será el resultado de sus decisiones.

Después desapareceremos como lágrimas en la lluvia torrencial de guano que va a arrasar la sociedad.
más pronto que tarde ¿Alguna previsión temporal?

El objetivo del hilo era y es dar información, seguramente sin ninguna utilidad para muchos Los que se puedan salvar, eso que se gana.

Después desapareceremos como lágrimas en la lluvia torrencial de guano que va a arrasar la sociedad En tal caso los que estamos conscientes de esto y hayamos tomado medidas (de este foro y otros) podremos aprovechar más y mejor las futuras oportunidades que inevitablemente se generarán, sobre todo en la capa social que transicione a ser una oportunidad para que otros lo aprovechen.

En la película "Good bye, Lenin!", el protagonista comentaba que la gente seguía con sus vidas hasta el último suspiro antes del colapso de la R.D.A. Aquí pasará algo similar, "hasta el último suspiro" el pueblo llano español tirará del carro, y lo peor de todo es que estamos atados a ese carro, pero no hay que agobiarse, estamos atados con un cordel, nada que no se pueda romper...

En el 2º post, es todo visceralmente pragmático... No he visto nada a nivel psicológico, en el sentido no de la turba que venga, sino para nosotros... No sé un refranero popular o algo así para que no nos coman la cabeza o unas buenas prácticas de actuación social. Aunque está claro que cuando la turba inicie la movida, habrá un cambio, muchos de los que están arriba caerán y las laderas de la pirámide social se derrumbarán... Y sobre ese barrizal, algunos de nosotros iremos hacia arriba, aunque no queramos (ética aparte). Esto está sentenciado y finiquitado, es como ver un accidente de tren a cámara lenta.
 

Implacable

Baneado
Desde
15 Abr 2014
Mensajes
45
Reputación
67
Este hilo con todos mis respetos debería de estar en temas de baja calidad o en guardería, ya que en mi opinión su objetivo no es otro que desinformar e infundir miedo y temor en la sociedad. Dicho lo cual me parece el guión perfecto para una película de Spielberg.
 

El Promotor

Será en Octubre
Desde
17 Ene 2011
Mensajes
47.517
Reputación
123.005
Vaya día, mi querido bertok. Vaya día.

La economía de EEUU creció un 4% en el segundo trimestre


Este hilo con todos mis respetos debería de estar en temas de baja calidad o en guardería, ya que en mi opinión su objetivo no es otro que desinformar e infundir miedo y temor en la sociedad. Dicho lo cual me parece el guión perfecto para una película de Spielberg.
Opino que es un hilo del principal.

Pero como recordatorio para las presentes y futuras generaciones de burbujistas de que el camino de las tinieblas y el apocalipsis sólo conduce a la autodestrucción personal. :D
 

bertok

Será en Octubre
Desde
23 Jul 2009
Mensajes
42.337
Reputación
72.933
Lugar
Rocky Mountains
The Fed's Failure Complicates Its Endgame

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-30/feds-failure-complicates-its-endgame

To demonstrate it hasn't failed, the Fed must taper/withdraw its monetary heroin.

That the Federal Reserve's policies have failed is now so painfully evident that even the political class is awakening to this truth. Rather than re-ignite broad-based, self-sustaining economic growth, the Fed's loose-money policies (zero-interest rate policy a.k.a. ZIRP, and quantitative easing a.k.a. QE or free money for financiers), have perversely distorted the economy and widened wealth and income inequality.

After six long years of unprecedented monetary expansion and intervention--more than enough time to have succeeded in its stated purpose of restarting the real economy-- political and financial blowback is forcing the Fed to withdraw its monetary heroin.

Unfortunately for the nation, the Fed's monetary heroin has addicted the economy to ZIRP, loose credit and free money for financiers. As a result, withdrawal will be painful, financially and politically.

The abject failure of these policies to aid Main Street while heaping wealth on Wall Street greatly complicates the Fed's endgame. Given the economy's dependence on the Fed's monetary heroin, declaring victory and beating a hasty retreat is not really an option: once the Fed stops delivery of monetary heroin, the economy will go into withdrawal, and the Fed's failure will be too obvious for even its most ardent backers to deny.

But if the Fed continues pushing its monetary heroin after six long years, its failure to energize the real economy will be equally obvious--as will the unintended consequences (blowback) of monetary heroin: malinvestment, systemic risk and a pernicious faith that the Fed will do whatever is necessary to keep the stock market lofting ever higher.

There are two basic schools of thought on the Fed's real agenda.

The mainstream view is the Fed is pursuing its stated goals of stabilizing inflation and employment. The other view is the Fed's real agenda is enriching its homies, the banking cartel, at the expense of the nation.

Since Wall Street has thrived while households and Main Street have seen earned income decline, the mainstream view is left with the unenviable task of explaining exactly how free money for financiers has helped J.Q. Citizen.

Household income has declined significantly in real terms: Five Decades of Middle Class Wages (Doug Short).

The first line of defense is the wealth effect, the notion that a rising stock market will make people feel wealthier and therefore more likely to borrow and spend money on stuff they don't need. This is of course the foundation of the U.S. economy: debt-based consumption, and it just so happens to generate gargantuan profits for lenders such as banks.

Unfortunately for the Fed apologists, only the top slice of wealthy households own enough equities to feel wealthier as stocks rise. Wealth in the U.S. is an inverted pyramid: the so-called "middle class" owns a small slice near the apex while the super-rich own the entire base:



The reality is the majority of households own a trivial amount of financial assets; the number of households with debt in collection far exceeds the number benefiting from the Fed's wealth effect, which not coincidentally has greatly enlarged the wealth of financiers and the few who own most of the financial assets.



This glaring disconnect between the Fed's publicly stated agenda and the results of its policies has created a political problem for the Fed. In the mainstream media's gauzy perception, the Fed is a god-like assembly that is above the grime of politics.

In truth, the Fed is as intrinsically political as any other branch of the Central State. The thundering gap between the Fed's stated goals and the results of its policies have, after six long years, reached the toadies and lackeys of the political class, who are now reluctantly stirring to the public demand to examine the Fed's closely played cards.

In other words, the failure of the Fed's policies has generated unwelcome political blowback. A few brave politicos have interrupted their campaign fund-raising long enough to grasp that the Fed has not just failed in some random fashion: the Fed is the problem, not the solution.

As a refresher, here is the Fed's Balance Sheet, bloated with over $3 trillion of freshly created money that was mainlined into the financial system:



Debt has skyrocketed under the guiding hand of the Fed's policies; GDP, not so much:



There is no mystery why the Fed's policies have failed. Fed policies have diverted interest income that once flowed to households to the banks, they've enabled the Federal government to borrow and squander trillions of dollars in deficit spending with no political trade-offs or consequences, and they've greatly incentivized malinvestments and risky bets.

Federal debt is borrowed from future generations. If it is squandered on consumption, it is effectively stealing from future generations, as their income will be devoted to paying interest on the trillions of dollars we have borrowed and blown propping up a bloated and ineffective Status Quo.



Perhaps most perniciously, the Fed has nurtured a belief that has now taken on a quasi-religious certainty that the Fed will never let the stock market go down. The Fed has bolstered this faith by launching a new free money for financiers program every time the stock market faltered.

As a direct result, nobody believes the Fed will actually reduce its monetary heroin or allow interest rates to normalize, i.e. rise: traders, money managers and the financial punditry are convinced that the Fed will soothe any tantrum thrown by Wall Street with another dose of monetary heroin.

This greatly complicates the Fed's endgame, because nobody will believe the Fed is serious about ending its monetary heroin until it allows the stock market to plummet off a cliff without rushing to save it with more free money for financiers.

The Fed is hoping to manage expectations and perceptions with such perfection that nobody notices the monetary heroin is no longer flowing. But this is an absurd fantasy: having addicted the stock market and the economy to monetary heroin over the past six years, how can the addict go through cold turkey withdrawal without being completely disrupted?

And in a delicious irony, should the Fed come to the rescue with another round of monetary heroin (free money for financiers), that will only demonstrate the complete and utter failure of the Fed's policies to generate sustainable growth in the real economy.

If the Fed has to rescue Wall Street yet again after six years and trillions of dollars of free money for financiers, that will prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Fed has failed.

To demonstrate it hasn't failed, the Fed must taper/withdraw its monetary heroin.If the stock market tanks as a result, and the Fed rushes to the rescue with more free money for financiers, that will also prove the Fed has failed: if the economy and financial system is as robust as the Fed claims, why does it need to be rescued yet again after six long years of unprecedented injections of monetary heroin?

It's a double-bind with no escape. No matter what the Fed chooses to do, the failure of its policies to help households and Main Street while enriching wall Street and the banks will be revealed to all
 

timi

Madmaxista
Desde
25 Ene 2009
Mensajes
2.249
Reputación
9.712
“On the first Christmas Day the population of our planet was about two hundred and fifty millions — less than half the population of modern China. Sixteen cen*turies later, when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plym*outh Rock, human numbers had climbed to a little more than five hundred millions. By the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, world pop*ulation had passed the seven hundred million mark. In 1931, when I was writing Brave New World, it stood at just under two billions. Today, only twenty-seven years later, there are two billion eight hundred million of us. And tomorrow — what?” – Aldous Huxley – Brave New World Revisited – 1958



As the world explodes in violence, war, riots, and uprisings, it is challenging to step back and examine the bigger picture. With airliners being shot down over the Ukraine, missiles flying between Israel and Gaza, ongoing civil war in Syria, Iraq falling apart as ISIS gains ground, dictatorship crackdown in Egypt, Turkey on the verge of revolution, Iran gaining control of Iraq, Saudi Arabia fomenting violence, Africa dissolving into chaos, South America imploding and sending their children across our purposely porous southern border, Mexico under the control of drug lords, China experiencing a slow motion real estate collapse, Japan experiencing their third decade of Keynesian failure, facing a demographic nightmare scenario while being slowly poisoned by radiation, and Chinese-Japanese relations moving towards World War II levels, it is easy to get lost in the day to day minutia of history in the making.

Why is this happening at this point in history? Why is the average American economically worse off today than they were at the height of the economic crisis in 2009? Why is the Cold War returning with a vengeance? Why is the Federal Reserve still employing emergency monetary policies when we are supposedly five years into a recovery and the stock market has attained record highs? Why do the ECB and European politicians continue to paper over the insolvency of their banks and governments? Why did the U.S. support the ouster of a dictator we supported for decades in Egypt and then support the elevation of a new dictator after we didn’t like the policies of the democratically elected president? Why did the U.S. eliminate the leader of Libya and allow the country to descend into anarchy and civil war? Why did the U.S. fund and provoke a revolutionary overthrow of a democratically elected leader in the Ukraine? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Al Qaeda associated rebels in Syria who are now fighting our supposed allies in Iraq? Why has the U.S. been occupying Afghanistan for the last thirteen years with the result being a Taliban that is stronger than ever? Why are the BRIC countries forming a monetary union to challenge USD domination? Why is the U.S. attempting to provoke Russia into a conflict with NATO?

Why is the U.S. government collecting every electronic communication made by every American? Why is the U.S. government spying on world leader allies? Why is the U.S. government providing military equipment to local police forces? Why is the U.S. military conducting training exercises within U.S. cities? Why is the U.S. government attempting to restrict Second Amendment rights? Why is the U.S. government attempting to control and lockdown the internet? Why has the U.S. government chosen to treat the Fourth Amendment as if it is obsolete? Why is the national debt still rising by $750 billion per year ($2 billion per day) if the economy is back to normal? Why have 12 million working age Americans left the workforce since the economic recovery began? How could the unemployment rate be back at 2008 levels when there are 14 million more working age Americans and the same number employed as in 2008? Why are there 13 million more people on food stamps today than there were at the start of the economic recovery in 2009? Why have home prices risen by 25% since 2012 when mortgage applications have been at fourteen year lows? Why are Wall Street profits and bonuses at record highs while the real median household income stagnates at 1998 levels?

Why do 98% of incumbent politicians get re-elected when congressional approval levels are lower than whale shit? Why are oil prices four times higher than they were in 2003 if the U.S. is supposedly on the verge of energy independence? Why do the corporate controlled mainstream media choose to entertain and regurgitate government propaganda rather than inform, investigate and seek the truth? Why do corporations and shadowy billionaires control the politicians, media, judges, and financial system in their ravenous quest for more riches? Why has the public allowed a privately owned bank to control our currency and inflate away 96% of its value in 100 years? Why have American parents allowed their children to be programmed and dumbed down by government run public schools? Why have Americans allowed themselves to be lured into debt in an effort to appear wealthy and successful? Why have Americans permitted their brains to atrophy through massive doses of social media, reality TV, iGadget addiction, and a cultural environment of techno-narcissism? Why have Americans lost their desire to read, think critically, question authority, act responsibly, defer gratification, and care about future generations? Why have Americans sacrificed their freedoms, liberties and rights for the false expectation of safety and security? Why will we pay dearly for our delusional, materialistic, debt financed idiocy? – Because we never learn the lessons of history.

There are so many questions and no truthful answers forthcoming from those who pass for leaders in this increasingly totalitarian world. Our willful ignorance, apathy, hubris and arrogance will have consequences. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t miccionan it’s not going to happen. The cyclicality of history guarantees a further deepening of this Crisis. The world has evolved from totalitarian hegemony to republican liberty and regressed back to totalitarianism throughout the centuries. Anyone honestly assessing the current state of the world and our country would unequivocally conclude we have regressed back towards a totalitarian regime where a small cabal of powerful oligarchs believes they can control and manipulate the masses in their gluttonous desire for treasure. Aldous Huxley foretold all the indicators of a world descending into totalitarianism due to overpopulation, propaganda, brainwashing, consumerism, and dumbing down of a distracted populace in his 1958 reassessment of his 1931 novel Brave New World.

Is There a Limit?
“At the rate of increase prevailing between the birth of Christ and the death of Queen Elizabeth I, it took sixteen centuries for the population of the earth to double. At the present rate it will double in less than half a century. And this fantastically rapid doubling of our numbers will be taking place on a planet whose most desirable and pro*ductive areas are already densely populated, whose soils are being eroded by the frantic efforts of bad farmers to raise more food, and whose easily available mineral capital is being squandered with the reckless extravagance of a drunken sailor getting rid of his accumulated pay.” – Aldous Huxley – Brave New World Revisited – 1958



Demographics are easy to extrapolate and arrive at an accurate prediction, as long as the existing conditions and trends remain relatively constant. Huxley was accurate in his doubling prediction. The world population was 2.9 billion in 1958. It only took 39 years to double again to 5.8 billion in 1997. It has grown by 24% in the last 17 years to the current level of 7.2 billion. According to United Nations projections, world population is projected to reach 9.6 billion in 2050. The fact that it would take approximately 70 years for the world’s population to double from the 1997 level reveals a slowing growth rate, as the death rate in many developed countries surpasses their birth rate. The population of the U.S. grew from 175 million in 1958 to 320 million today, an 83% increase in 56 years.

The rapid population growth over the last century from approximately 1.8 billion in 1914, despite two horrific world wars, is attributable to cheap, easy to access oil and advances in medical technology made possible by access to cheap oil. The projection of 9.6 billion in 2050 is based upon an assumption the world’s energy, food and water resources can sustain that many people, no world wars kill a few hundred million people, no incurable diseases spread across the globe and there is no catastrophic geologic, climate, or planetary events. I’ll take the under on the 9.6 billion.

Anyone viewing the increasingly violent world situation without bias can already see the strain that overpopulation has created. Today, six countries contain half the world’s population.



A cursory examination of population trends around the world provides a frightening glimpse into a totalitarian future marked by vicious resource wars, violent upheaval and starvation for millions. India, a country one third the size of the United States, has four times the population of the United States. A vast swath of the population lives in poverty and squalor. India contains the largest concentration (25%) of people living below the World Bank’s international poverty line of $1.25 per day. According to the U.N. India is expected to add 400 million people to its cities by 2050. Its capital city Delhi already ranks as the second largest in the world, with 25 million inhabitants. The city has more than doubled in size since 1990. The assumptions in these U.N. projections are flawed. Without rapidly expanding economic growth, capital formation and energy resources, the ability to employ, house, feed, clothe, transport, and sustain 400 million more people will be impossible. Disease, starvation, civil unrest, war and a totalitarian government would be the result. With its mortal enemy Pakistan, already the sixth most populated country in the world, jamming 182 million people into an area one quarter the size of India and one twelfth the size of the U.S. and growing faster than India, war over resources and space will be inevitable. And both countries have nuclear arms.

More than half the globe’s inhabitants now live in urban areas, with China, India and Nigeria forecast to see the most urban growth over the next 30 years. Twenty-four years ago, there were 10 megacities with populations pushing above the 10 million mark. Today, there are 28 megacities with areas of developing nations seeing faster growth: 16 in Asia, 4 in Latin America, 3 in Africa, 3 in Europe and 2 in North America. The world is expected to have 41 sprawling megacities over the next few decades with developing nations representing the majority of that growth. Today, Tokyo, with 38 million people, is the largest in the world, amowed by New Delhi, Jakarta, Seoul, Shanghai, Beijing, Manila, and Karachi – all exceeding 20 million people.

To highlight the rapid population growth of the developing world, the New York metropolitan area containing 18 million people was ranked as the third largest urban area in the world in 1990. Today it is ranked ninth and is expected to be ranked fourteenth by 2030. The U.S. had the fewest births since 1998 last year at 3.95 million. We also had the highest recorded deaths in history at 2.54 million. The fertility rate for 20- to 24-year-olds is now 83.1 births per 1,000 women, a record low. That combination created a gap in births over deaths that is the lowest it has been in 35 years.

This is the plight of the developed world (U.S., Europe, Japan) and even China (due to one child policy). According to the U.N. report, the population of developed regions will remain largely unchanged at around 1.3 billion from now until 2050. In contrast, the 49 least developed countries are projected to double in size from around 900 million people in 2013 to 1.8 billion in 2050. The rapid growth of desperately poor third world countries like Nigeria, Afghanistan, Niger, Congo, Ethiopia, and Uganda will create tremendous strain on their economic, political, social, and infrastructural systems. Nigeria’s population is projected to surpass the U.S. by 2050. Japan, Europe and Russia are in demographic death spirals. China is neutral, and the U.S. is expected to grow by another 89 million people. I wonder how many of them the BLS will classify as not in the labor force.



What are the implications to mankind of the world adding another billion people in the next twelve years, primarily in the poorest countries of Asia, Africa and South America? What does the world think of the U.S., which constitutes 4.4% of the world’s population, but consumes 20% of the world’s oil production and 24% of the world’s food? Will there be consequences to having the 85 richest people on earth accumulating as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion, with 1.2 billion surviving on less than $1.25 per day? Can a planet with finite amount of easily accessible financially viable extractable resources support an ever increasing number of people? Is there a limit to growth? I believe these questions will be answered in the next fifteen years as the dire consequences play out in civil strife, resource wars, totalitarian regimes, and societal collapse. Fourth Turning Crisis cycles always sweep away the existing social order and replace it with something new. It could be better or far worse.

Impact of Over-Population
“The problem of rapidly increasing numbers in relation to natural resources, to social stability and to the well-being of individuals — this is now the central problem of mankind; and it will remain the central problem certainly for another century, and perhaps for several centuries thereafter. Unsolved, that problem will render insoluble all our other problems. Worse still, it will create conditions in which individual free*dom and the social decencies of the democratic way of life will become impossible, almost unthinkable. Not all dictatorships arise in the same way. There are many roads to Brave New World; but perhaps the straightest and the broadest of them is the road we are travel*ing today, the road that leads through gigantic num*bers and accelerating increases.” – Aldous Huxley – Brave New World Revisited – 1958



The turmoil roiling the world today is a function of Huxley’s supposition that over-population pushes societies towards centralization and ultimately totalitarianism. The relentless growth in the world’s population, not matched by growth in energy resources, water, food, and living space, results in increasing tension, anger, economic decline, government dependency, war and ultimately totalitarianism. Huxley believed politicians and governments would increasingly resort to propaganda and misinformation to mislead citizens as the problems worsened and freedoms were revoked. Could this recent statement by our commander and chief of propaganda have made Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebbels any prouder?

“The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been.”

I’m sure the people living in Gaza, the Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Turkey, Africa and American urban ghettos would concur with Obama’s less violent than ever mantra. Disease (Cholera, Malaria, Hepatitis, Aids, Tuberculosis, Ebola, Plague, SARS) and malnutrition beset third world countries, while the U.S. obesity epidemic caused by consumption of corporate processed food peddled to the masses through diabolical marketing methods enriches the mega-corporate food companies, as well as the corporate sick care complex. Religious wars and culture wars rage across the world as intolerance for others beliefs reaches all-time highs. After three decades of government controlled public education they have succeeded in dumbing down the masses through social engineering, propaganda, and promoting equality over excellence. Obama should stop trying to think and stick to what he does best – golf and fundraising. After reading his drivel, I’m reminded of a far more pertinent quote from Huxley:

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

The chart below details the fact that 12% of the world’s population in countries producing 9% of the world’s oil are currently in a state of war. The violence, war, and civil unrest roiling the Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan are a direct result of U.S. meddling, instigation, and provocation. The U.S. government funds dictators (Hussein, Mubarak, Assad, Gaddafi) until they no longer serve their interests, engineer the overthrow of democratically elected leaders in countries (Iran, Egypt, Ukraine) that don’t toe the line, and dole out billions in military aid and arms to countries around the world in an effort to make them do our dirty work and enrich the military industrial complex. The true motivation behind most of the violence, intrigue and war is the U.S. need to maintain the U.S. petro-dollar hegemony and to control the flow of oil and natural gas throughout the world. The ruling oligarchy’s power, influence, and wealth are dependent upon dictating currency valuations and flow of oil and gas from foreign fiefdoms.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/07/20140725_war2.png

In Huxley’s 1931 Brave New World fable the world’s population is maintained at an optimum level (just under 2 billion) calculated by those in control. This is done through technology and biological manipulation. Procreation through sensual intercourse is prohibited. Creation of the desired number of people in each class is scientifically determined and the classes are conditioned from birth to fulfill their roles in society. When Huxley reassessed his novel in 1958’s Brave New World Revisited he didn’t argue for an optimum level of population. He simply hypothesized a close correlation between too many people, multiplying too rapidly, and the formulation of authoritarian philosophies and rise of totalitarian sys*tems of government.

The introduction of penicillin, DDT, and clean water into even the poorest countries on the planet had the effect of rapidly decreasing death rates around the globe. Meanwhile, birth rates continued to increase due to religious, social and cultural taboos surrounding birth control and the illiteracy and ignorance of those in the poorest regions of the world. The ultimate result has been an explosion in population growth in the developing world, least able to sustain that growth. Huxley just uses common sense in concluding that as an ever growing population presses more heavily upon accessible resources, the economic position of the society undergoing this ordeal becomes ever more precarious.

It essentially comes down to the laws of economics. Most of the developing world is economic basket cases. They cannot produce food, consumer goods, housing, schools, infrastructure, teachers, managers, scientists or educated workers at the same rate as their population growth. Therefore, it is impossible to improve the wretched conditions of the vast majority, as they wallow in squalor. Unless a country can produce more than it consumes, it cannot generate the surplus capital needed to invest in machinery, agricultural production, manufacturing facilities, and education. The rapidly growing population sinks further into poverty and despair. Huxley grasps the nefarious implications for freedom and liberty as over-population wreaks havoc around the globe:

“Whenever the economic life of a nation becomes pre*carious, the central government is forced to assume additional responsibilities for the general welfare. It must work out elaborate plans for dealing with a criti*cal situation; it must impose ever greater restrictions upon the activities of its subjects; and if, as is very likely, worsening economic conditions result in polit*ical unrest, or open rebellion, the central government must intervene to preserve public order and its own authority. More and more power is thus concentrated in the hands of the executives and their bureaucratic managers.”– Aldous Huxley – Brave New World Revisited – 1958

Despots, dictators, and power hungry presidents arise in an atmosphere of antiestéticar, scarce resources, hopelessness, and misery. As the power of the central government grows the freedoms, liberties and rights of the people are diminished and ultimately relinquished.

In Part Two, I will examine our relentless path towards totalitarianism and war.
 

bertok

Será en Octubre
Desde
23 Jul 2009
Mensajes
42.337
Reputación
72.933
Lugar
Rocky Mountains
La clase media americana expoliada tras décadas de imposición del capital

Median Household Income Growth: Deflating the American Dream

Median Household Income Growth: Deflating the American Dream

What is the single best indicator of the American Dream? Many would point to household income growth. My study of the Census Bureau's data shows a 600.7% growth in median household incomes from 1967 through 2012. The ride has been bumpy, but it equates to a 4.5% annualized growth rate. Sounds impressive, but if you adjust for inflation using the Census Bureau's method, that nominal 614.2% total growth shrinks to 18.8%, a "real" annualized growth rate of 0.39%.

But if we dig a bit deeper into the method of inflation adjustment, the American Dream looks more like an illusion, as in "money illusion".



My recent study of 21st Century monthly median household income was based on the excellent monthly data available from Sentier Research. See Median Household Incomes: Monthly Update. The Sentier Research findings are based on Census Bureau (CB) data and adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U), which most people, including the BLS, commonly abbreviate as "CPI". However, the CB's own annual data series for household income, which reaches back to 1967, uses a different index to "deflate" the nominal income data. The CB researchers adjust using the little-known CPI-U-RS (RS stands for "research series") as the deflator for their annual data.

The BLS website has relatively little information about this index. The main page that pops up on a Google search is CPI Research Series Using Current Methods (CPI-U-RS). The page contains a link to a PDF file that documents the monthly CPI-U-RS from December 1977 through December 2010 with annual averages for 1977-2010. Curiously enough, after a bit of digging on the BLS website, I found a more recent PDF file that extends the series through 2012.

However, the CB has a version of the annual CPI-U-RS back to 1967, the starting year for their household income. I have not found the pre-1978 annual CPI-U-RS data at either the CB or BLS website. However, a couple of minutes work with Excel enabled me to construct the index for those earlier years from the CB's annual data. I've posted the complete series here in an Excel file.

The Deflator Difference

A price index, such as the CPI or the BEA's PCE price index, provides the data we need to "deflate" nominal dollar values to their real purchasing power over time. And even in stable economies, over long periods of time, the "money illusion" of nominal values can be substantial, as the chart above painfully illustrates.

As I mentioned earlier, Sentier Research uses the more familiar CPI as the deflator for computing their real household income data series. Does the deflator choice make a significant difference?

The answer is: It depends on your timeframe. If we look at a comparison of nominal and real household income growth since 1967, the difference between the two deflators is stunning.



But, as the next chart shows, the gap between the two lines in the chart above is actually the result of differences between the two deflators in the earlier years of the 45-year period. Since the late 1990s, the two have been nearly identical. The reason is that the CPI-U-RS was developed with the goal of revising the earlier years of the CPI-U to incorporate most of the improvements made to the index to increase its accuracy. For a better understanding of revisions, see the BLS article Addressing misconceptions about the Consumer Price Index (PFD format).



Here is a chart that shows the annual differences between the two, which are predominantly before 2000.



What About Other Deflators?

Another important price index for economic analysis is the BEA's PCE price index. It is the preferred measure of inflation for the Federal Reserve, and I analyze every month shortly after the BEA's Personal Income and Outlays report is released:

The next chart shows three versions of real household income growth. I've added version deflated with PCE price index alongside the other two real series we've been studying. I've also included markers to facilitate our understanding of the annual changes through time. The PCE-deflated version is the most optimistic of the three. The CPI-adjusted version is by far the most pessimistic.




Real Household Income as a Leading Recession Indicator

An interesting antiestéticature of the chart above, regardless of which deflator you prefer, is that median incomes began contracting before every recession. On an annual basis, incomes typically bottomed at some point after the recession ended and moved higher. The one conspicuous exception was the second half of the early 1980s double-dip.

Flash forward to the near present (2012 in our annual data): The median household income appears to be bottoming, although if you look at the Sentier Research monthly data for 2013 (see the adjacent snapshot since 2008), the prospect that the 2013 median will be higher than it was in 2012 is dicey at this point. With the CPI deflator, the Sentier Research approach, Real median income appeared to have troughed in August 2011 and then risen to an interim high in December of that year, a level that has essentially been the ceiling of a narrow range. The months ahead will be critical in confirming that household incomes are on the mend.



Anyone who finds this analysis of interest should download the Sentier Research Household Income Trends report (PDF format). The underlying data is available from Sentier Research for a small fee here
 

bertok

Será en Octubre
Desde
23 Jul 2009
Mensajes
42.337
Reputación
72.933
Lugar
Rocky Mountains
“Si las élites no reaccionan, las cosas se pondrán muy antiestéticas†| Actualidad | EL PAÍS

“Si las élites no reaccionan, las cosas se pondrán muy antiestéticas”


Nancy Fraser en una foto cedida por el Centro de Cultura Contemporánea de Barcelona (CCCB).

Nancy Fraser es ese tipo de mujer que parece avanzar en la edad sin inmutarse, acumulando sabiduría. A caballo entre la serenidad reflexiva y la pasión intelectual, analiza las crisis del presente, su complejidad, con un foco de largo alcance. Sus trabajos en el campo de la filosofía política se han centrado en los problemas de la justicia social. En su libro Escalas de justicia (Herder, 2008) aborda las tres dimensiones que considera esenciales, todas ellas definidas por palabras que empiezan por r: los problemas de redistribución de la riqueza en el plano económico; los de reconocimiento en el ámbito de los derechos individuales y colectivos, y los problemas de representación, en el ámbito político. Fraser, estadounidense de 67 años, ha vivido y analizado el paso del capitalismo de Estado organizado, del que surgió el modelo social europeo que ha propiciado las mayores cotas de justicia social, al capitalismo neoliberal, que ha minado el Estado de bienestar y nos ha llevado a la grave crisis de 2008. Ahora está convencida de vivir a las puertas de otra transición. ¿Hacia dónde? En cualquier caso, los problemas que hay que afrontar, los procesos que condicionan la vida de la gente, desbordan por completo el marco westfaliano. Son transfronterizos, globales.

Cuatro ideas

¿Un libro? Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, de Wolfgang Streeck. El autor combina un análisis brillante con la llama de la justa indignación.

¿Una cita? “Si la oposición constructiva es imposible, quienes no se conformen con dedicar su vida a pagar las deudas contraídas por otros no tienen otra salida que la opción destructiva” (Buying Time).

¿Una voz que debería ser escuchada? Todas las que componen el 99% de la humanidad. Y amortiguar una: la de los mercados financieros.

¿Una idea o medida concreta para un mundo mejor? Una tasa global sobre las emisiones de CO2; la Tobin, sobre las transacciones financieras; y más reformas que subordinen el poder privado a los poderes públicos.
Nancy Frasser alerta sobre las consecuencias del aumento de las desigualdades y sobre la obsolescencia de las formas actuales de participación política. Considera urgente encontrar nuevos mecanismos para la toma democrática de decisiones. También a escala trasnacional. De ello hablamos, aprovechando una visita a Barcelona, invitada por el Centro de Cultura Contemporánea.

Pregunta. La crisis que se inició en 2008 ha trastocado muchas cosas y aún no parece que quiera irse. ¿Cómo cree que influirá a largo plazo?

Respuesta. Esta crisis tiene muchas dimensiones. Estalló en 2008 como una crisis financiera y rápidamente derivó en una crisis económica general, pero no quedó ahí. Al tener que endeudarse los Gobiernos para hacer frente a sus consecuencias, pronto se convirtió en una crisis de la deuda soberana, y como la respuesta a esta situación fue la política de austeridad, ha terminado provocando una grave crisis social. Y todo ello sobre otra crisis de fondo, de la que se habla poco pero que continúa agravándose, que es la ecológica. El resultado ha sido un gran sufrimiento para la población. La precariedad se ha instalado como horizonte de futuro y, claro, eso está derivando en una crisis política de imprevisibles consecuencias.

P. ¿Qué tipo de crisis política?

R. La severidad del sufrimiento social y la falta de respuesta han llevado a los ciudadanos a pensar que sus Gobiernos trabajan para los bancos y los inversores, en lugar de trabajar para la gente. La legitimidad de los Gobiernos, de toda la estructura política, ha quedado muy dañada, tanto en el ámbito nacional como en el europeo, y también globalmente. Se ponen en cuestión aspectos fundamentales del sistema político, y también del económico. La ciudadanía percibe que no tiene instituciones o canales a los que puedan dirigir sus quejas, sus reclamaciones, sus propuestas. Es un momento muy difícil, muy parecido al que se vivió en los años treinta del siglo pasado.

P. Las desigualdades ya crecían antes, pero la crisis las ha exacerbado. Algunos se sorprenden de que, con el paro que hay y el rápido empobrecimiento de amplias capas de la población, no se haya producido un estallido social. ¿Cómo cree que evolucionará el sistema a partir de ahora?

“La falta de respuesta a la crisis ha llevado a pensar que los Gobiernos trabajan para los bancos en lugar de para la gente”

R. Hay diferentes posibilidades. Una es que las élites políticas, hasta ahora pasivas, tomen conciencia del problema, se pongan en marcha y acuerden introducir ciertas reformas en el control de las instituciones financieras para prevenir una situación como la que se produjo en 2008 por falta de regulación. En este caso, el sistema seguirá cojeando más o menos como está, la desigualdad seguirá aumentando y aspectos fundamentales, como la crisis ecológica, seguirán sin abordarse. El segundo escenario es que las élites políticas no reaccionen y la situación continúe deteriorándose. En ese caso las cosas pueden ponerse muy antiestéticas. Podemos ver un planeta gravemente dañado, desgarrado por guerras y conflictos por el agua, el petróleo o las tierras cultivables; escasearán recursos fundamentales y el deterioro social llevará a un deterioro ético; será un mundo lleno de tensiones en el que predominará la mentalidad del “sálvese quien pueda”.

P. Algo de eso ya se está empezando a ver. ¿Sería el triunfo del individualismo egoísta, de la sociedad de cazadores de la que habla Zygmunt Bauman?

R. Sí, algo así. Pero hay una tercera posibilidad, y es que los movimientos sociales, organizados en sociedad civil, fuercen a las élites políticas a cambiar, a revisar las estructuras, desde la forma de los partidos a los mecanismos de participación. Y que ello permita crear nuevas formas de participación que propicien cambios sociales profundos. Cambios a mejor, que hagan evolucionar el actual capitalismo financiero de corte neoliberal a una forma de capitalismo más igualitarista y, por tanto, más estable.

P. En su descripción, este último parece el menos costoso.

R. Sí, pero aún cabe un cuarto escenario, muy distinto: el de que se desencadenen grandes cambios revolucionarios que nos lleven más allá del capitalismo, aunque este es muy poco probable. En cualquier caso, la gran cuestión que subyace en el trasfondo de las crisis que vivimos es la forma que vaya a adoptar el capitalismo.

P. En las últimas décadas hemos asistido al afianzamiento del sector financiero como motor de todo el sistema. Esta forma de capitalismo, que crece con la globalización, tiene un componente especulativo estructural, intrínseco al modelo. ¿Cree que aceptará reglas y restricciones?

R. Es difícil, pero ha habido otros periodos en los que el propio sistema ha sabido encontrar formas de cambiar. Por ejemplo, en los años treinta del siglo pasado, tras la gran recesión de 1929, supo articular una nueva forma de capitalismo más regulado, que ha perdurado muchos años. Precisamente la ruptura de esas reglas por la hegemonía de las teorías neoliberales es lo que nos ha llevado a la actual situación.

P. Pero entonces las empresas tenían unos propietarios interesados en llegar a compromisos con las fuerzas sociales para asegurar la estabilidad del sistema. Querían legar las empresas a sus hijos. Ahora, las sociedades pertenecen a miles de propietarios dispersos y con escasa capacidad de decisión. La gestión está en manos de unos ejecutivos que ya no tienen ni los mismos vínculos ni las mismas motivaciones.

R. Todo eso hace que sea más difícil imaginar que pueda surgir un impulso reformador desde el interior del propio sistema. Pero también hemos escuchado algunas voces individuales muy influyentes, como las de Warren Buffett, George Soros o Bill Gates, gente con cierta visión que piensa diferente. Sin embargo, lo que puede forzar al mundo de los negocios a reaccionar y aceptar cambios es la militancia organizada desde la base de la sociedad. En los años treinta, el capital tenía mucho miedo de las revoluciones sociales. Había sindicatos poderosos…

“La idea de que los movimientos sociales puedan tener un pie en la política y otro en la sociedad civil es muy interesante”

P. Pero el miedo a la revolución también llevó a buena parte del poder económico a los brazos del fascismo.

R. Sí, esa posibilidad también está ahora sobre el escenario. Lo hemos visto en las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo: formas de fascismo o neofascismo.

P. En España, Grecia o Portugal, los países más castigados por la crisis, se han producido huelgas generales y amplias protestas contra la política de austeridad que han sido ignoradas. ¿No le parece peligroso que, en ciertos círculos radicales, pueda prosperar la idea de que a lo único a lo que el poder parece sensible sea la violencia?

R. Coincido en la crítica que se hace a la completa falta de responsabilidad de los poderes públicos, que solo parecen responder a las presiones de los mercados y los inversores. Pero la tentación de la violencia es muy preocupante y espero que los movimientos sociales no evolucionen en esa dirección, porque sería un desastre. La única vía para cambiar realmente las cosas es la organización pacífica de la gente. Si hay violencia, la gente les dará la espalda, no les seguirá por esa vía.

P. Las encuestas reflejan la crisis de los partidos tradicionales. ¿Qué tipo de organización permitiría superar el descrédito de su forma de intermediar?

R. En este periodo en el que la actividad política toma la forma de movimientos sociales, vemos una creciente distancia entre el cuerpo electoral y los representantes de los partidos políticos. Pero recientemente, a causa de la severidad de la crisis, hemos visto también la emergencia de fuerzas políticas como Syriza en Grecia, o el fenómeno Podemos en España, organizaciones de nuevo cuño que aspiran a llegar a las instituciones sin renunciar a sus formas de representación de base. La idea de que los movimientos sociales puedan tener un pie en el sistema político y otro en la sociedad civil me resulta muy interesante.

P. ¿Y es compatible?

R. Sí, creo que sí, que se puede intentar. Veremos cómo evoluciona
 

Grecox

Baneado
Desde
30 Jun 2013
Mensajes
568
Reputación
1.487
A esta pava habria que explicarla que son precisamente las elites las instigadoras de todo lo que esta pasando (y de lo que queda por pasar, que va a ser terrorifico)