Importaciones chinas de crudo saudí suben casi 30 pct interanual en noviembre
PEKÍN (Reuters) - Las importaciones de petróleo saudí que realizó China en noviembre subieron casi un 30 por ciento frente al mismo mes de 2015, según datos aduaneros publicados el jueves, con lo que el reino árabe superó a Rusia como el mayor proveedor de crudo del gigante asiático.
Las compras de petróleo desde Arabia Saudita sumaron 1,15 millones de barriles por día (bpd) el mes pasado, un alza interanual de 29,19 por ciento, y las importaciones desde Rusia aumentaron un 17,92 por ciento a 1,12 millones de bpd, según las cifras.
Brasil y Venezuela aumentaron sus envíos en 79,16 y 39,17 por ciento respectivamente entre enero y noviembre, principalmente por la demanda de refinerías independientes.
En tanto, el suministro desde Irán en noviembre subió un 24,48 por ciento a 611.338 bpd, mientras que las compras a Irak aumentaron un 15,68 por ciento a 695.148 bpd.
China recibió 850.425 bpd de crudo de Angola en noviembre.
Las compras totales de crudo que hizo China en noviembre aumentaron un 18,3 por ciento en el año a 7,87 millones de bpd, repuntando con fuerza desde octubre.
Las importaciones para los 11 primeros meses del año subieron 14 por ciento a 7,53 millones de bpd, lo que representa un incremento en las compras de casi 925.000 bpd.
Los datos de China se conocen tras el acuerdo firmado entre los más importantes productores petroleros del mundo para bajar su producción. Ahora el mercado aguarda la implementación de los recortes.
Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
41 mensajes
• Página 2 de 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:26 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:33 am
Las órdenes de bienes duraderos bajaron 4,6%, se esperaba 4.7%
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:34 am
Michelle’s Trump Despair
Donald Trump out-hoped the liberals who thought they owned hope.
By Daniel Henninger Dec. 21, 2016 6:34 p.m. ET
Amid all the sentiments, ideas and stress that enwrap the Christmas season, one idea abides: hope. On Christmas Day, in every church the world over, whether a cathedral or the shell of an ancient chapel in Iraq, congregants will sit down to hear a homily on hope.
This being post-election America in 2016, it is fitting that a dispute should break out the past week between Donald Trump and Michelle Obama over hope.
In an interview on CBS,Oprah Winfrey asked the First Lady if she thought her husband had achieved the “hope” that his presidency was “all about.”
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images
Mrs. Obama replied, “Yes, I do. Because we feel the difference now.” She went on: “See, now we are feeling what not having hope feels like, you know. Hope is necessary. It is a necessary concept . . . What do you give your kids if you can’t give them hope?”
Donald Trump seemed taken aback by Mrs. Obama’s comment. At his thank-you rally in Alabama, Mr. Trump replied, “Michelle Obama said yesterday that there’s no hope.” The crowd booed. But Mr. Trump didn’t saddle up to ride the crowd’s emotions.
He insisted that “we have tremendous hope, and we have tremendous promise and tremendous potential.” Then he came back to Mrs. Obama: “I actually think she made that statement not meaning it the way it came out. I really do.”
In the spirit of the season, let us set aside whether Mrs. Obama believes the country is in despair over the Trump presidency. Still, a serious issue sits inside these comments, which is the role and reality of hope in politics.
Every politician since ancient Athens has run on hope to win office and power.
In 2008, Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” was a brilliant slogan for his historic campaign and an apt summary of why most people cast votes in any democracy.
No one will better Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign commercial, which opens with the image of a train station called Hope: “I was born in a little town called Hope, Arkansas.”
Given hope’s roots in Bethlehem, it’s no coincidence that so many sky’s-the-limit politicians turn messianic.
Hillary Clinton, who considers herself the spiritual heir of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt’s politics, is no doubt shattered that those once-potent ideas, which are also Mr. Obama’s ideas, failed her this year.
Michelle Obama and other Democrats disconsolate since the election about the loss of hope in American politics leave the impression they believe that giving people the rhetoric of hope, lifting them with words, is more important than delivering results, which some might call change.
For example, when Mrs. Clinton promised free public-college tuition, Democrats seemed to think this sort of inchoate, grandiose promise would somehow strike voters as “offering hope,” and that this impassioned commitment alone—to hope—should be enough to validate their politics. But it doesn’t, not anymore.
Once past the voting, politics is about public policies, whose real-world effects either sustain or diminish hope. Hope is the helium-filled balloon of politics. Governing in office is the gravity that pulls it back to earth.
Post-Trump, Democrats are engaged in a pedestrian fight over who gets control of their party. More interesting is the evident political challenge to liberalism’s belief in large public bureaucracies as dispensers of hope.
Is the current welfare system still about hope? ObamaCare, as symbol and actuality, may be the apogee of modern liberalism’s politics of hope as mostly messaging.
Donald Trump, promiser of “a beautiful wall,” out-hoped the progressives who thought they owned it. Voters concluded that an ideology-free businessman would turn hope into change better than yet another bearer of liberal orthodoxy.
Among the reasons for Mr. Trump’s win is the corrosive state of the nation’s culture, from the opioid crisis to political correctness. The notion that Donald Trump might help rehabilitate the culture would strike many as laughable.
Maybe so. But Donald Trump seems to have been genuinely moved by the opioid crisis he discovered in New Hampshire and elsewhere. That kind of exposure is another argument for the 50-state Electoral College.
Our electoral system, up and running since 1789, forces candidates to meet people living in a large, regionally complex country. Running for president may attract self-inflated personalities, but there is only one person looking into the faces of and listening to uncounted pleas on the campaign trail—from Iowans, Floridians, Ohioans, Mainers—and that is the candidate.
That system made Donald Trump spend more time than most of us will in some of the most dispirited places in white, black and brown America. I won’t go so far as to say Donald Trump will become Saul on the road to Damascus. But those in despair or grim doubt over the 45th president should not underestimate the effects an American presidential campaign had on his understanding of what hope means now in the United States.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
Donald Trump out-hoped the liberals who thought they owned hope.
By Daniel Henninger Dec. 21, 2016 6:34 p.m. ET
Amid all the sentiments, ideas and stress that enwrap the Christmas season, one idea abides: hope. On Christmas Day, in every church the world over, whether a cathedral or the shell of an ancient chapel in Iraq, congregants will sit down to hear a homily on hope.
This being post-election America in 2016, it is fitting that a dispute should break out the past week between Donald Trump and Michelle Obama over hope.
In an interview on CBS,Oprah Winfrey asked the First Lady if she thought her husband had achieved the “hope” that his presidency was “all about.”
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images
Mrs. Obama replied, “Yes, I do. Because we feel the difference now.” She went on: “See, now we are feeling what not having hope feels like, you know. Hope is necessary. It is a necessary concept . . . What do you give your kids if you can’t give them hope?”
Donald Trump seemed taken aback by Mrs. Obama’s comment. At his thank-you rally in Alabama, Mr. Trump replied, “Michelle Obama said yesterday that there’s no hope.” The crowd booed. But Mr. Trump didn’t saddle up to ride the crowd’s emotions.
He insisted that “we have tremendous hope, and we have tremendous promise and tremendous potential.” Then he came back to Mrs. Obama: “I actually think she made that statement not meaning it the way it came out. I really do.”
In the spirit of the season, let us set aside whether Mrs. Obama believes the country is in despair over the Trump presidency. Still, a serious issue sits inside these comments, which is the role and reality of hope in politics.
Every politician since ancient Athens has run on hope to win office and power.
In 2008, Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” was a brilliant slogan for his historic campaign and an apt summary of why most people cast votes in any democracy.
No one will better Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign commercial, which opens with the image of a train station called Hope: “I was born in a little town called Hope, Arkansas.”
Given hope’s roots in Bethlehem, it’s no coincidence that so many sky’s-the-limit politicians turn messianic.
Hillary Clinton, who considers herself the spiritual heir of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt’s politics, is no doubt shattered that those once-potent ideas, which are also Mr. Obama’s ideas, failed her this year.
Michelle Obama and other Democrats disconsolate since the election about the loss of hope in American politics leave the impression they believe that giving people the rhetoric of hope, lifting them with words, is more important than delivering results, which some might call change.
For example, when Mrs. Clinton promised free public-college tuition, Democrats seemed to think this sort of inchoate, grandiose promise would somehow strike voters as “offering hope,” and that this impassioned commitment alone—to hope—should be enough to validate their politics. But it doesn’t, not anymore.
Once past the voting, politics is about public policies, whose real-world effects either sustain or diminish hope. Hope is the helium-filled balloon of politics. Governing in office is the gravity that pulls it back to earth.
Post-Trump, Democrats are engaged in a pedestrian fight over who gets control of their party. More interesting is the evident political challenge to liberalism’s belief in large public bureaucracies as dispensers of hope.
Is the current welfare system still about hope? ObamaCare, as symbol and actuality, may be the apogee of modern liberalism’s politics of hope as mostly messaging.
Donald Trump, promiser of “a beautiful wall,” out-hoped the progressives who thought they owned it. Voters concluded that an ideology-free businessman would turn hope into change better than yet another bearer of liberal orthodoxy.
Among the reasons for Mr. Trump’s win is the corrosive state of the nation’s culture, from the opioid crisis to political correctness. The notion that Donald Trump might help rehabilitate the culture would strike many as laughable.
Maybe so. But Donald Trump seems to have been genuinely moved by the opioid crisis he discovered in New Hampshire and elsewhere. That kind of exposure is another argument for the 50-state Electoral College.
Our electoral system, up and running since 1789, forces candidates to meet people living in a large, regionally complex country. Running for president may attract self-inflated personalities, but there is only one person looking into the faces of and listening to uncounted pleas on the campaign trail—from Iowans, Floridians, Ohioans, Mainers—and that is the candidate.
That system made Donald Trump spend more time than most of us will in some of the most dispirited places in white, black and brown America. I won’t go so far as to say Donald Trump will become Saul on the road to Damascus. But those in despair or grim doubt over the 45th president should not underestimate the effects an American presidential campaign had on his understanding of what hope means now in the United States.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:37 am
WSJ
Obama’s ‘Permanent’ Drilling Freeze
He claims his latest executive order can’t be repealed—ever.
Dec. 21, 2016 6:53 p.m. ET
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The White House is attempting to overload the bandwidth of its successor with a surge of new regulation, and the latest is a ban on oil drilling in much of the Arctic and Atlantic. This rule even purports to be “permanent,” unchangeable by any future President for all time. We’ll see about that, but in the meantime spare us the liberal panic about Donald Trump’s supposed authoritarianism.
The last-gasp executive action prohibits federal offshore drilling and mineral leases on some 3.8 million acres from Virginia to Maine and 115 million acres off the coast of Alaska, including some of the world’s great untapped repositories of hydrocarbons. President Obama rolled out the rule in concert with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and the greens are cheering that still more fossil-fuel regions will be walled off from exploration.
For years federal regulators have obstructed oil production on already leased lands. Royal Dutch Shell holds the sole drilling permit in Alaska and in 2015 suspended operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas despite $7 billion of sunk investment. So in a sense the new rule is merely truth in advertising.
But the press corps is rushing to euphemize Mr. Obama’s “creative” interpretation of a “rarely used” provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Ocsla allows that the President “may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.” Because the law does not explicitly give the President the power to un-withdraw lands, the White House touts the rule as a forever condition. In other words, this is Mr. Obama’s typically illegal M.O.
Congress passed Ocsla, as the law’s preamble states, in order to make the “vital national resource reserve” that is the continental shelf “available for expeditious and orderly development.” The power to lock is also the power to unlock. Bill Clinton used Ocsla to withdraw 300 million offshore acres from an area that was already a designated marine sanctuary, but George W. Bush reinstated about 50 million.
So ponder the spectacle of a President claiming his writ will last “indefinitely,” as Mr. Obama’s executive order puts it. No policy decisions are engraved in stone as if through holy stenography, and they’re definitely not beyond democratic consent on the basis of a 63-year-old law. In a statement, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley applauded Mr. Obama for “implementing” sections of the Democrat’s “Keep It In the Ground Act.” Why even have a Congress?
The environmental lobby has moved on from reducing carbon demand—via subsidies for electric cars and solar panels—to opposing any carbon energy, and this is the opposition Mr. Trump will confront. Restarting drilling would be a productive start for U.S. energy security and competitiveness.
In the Arctic in particular, oil-and-gas reserves are beneath relatively shallow waters and obtainable with technology proven safe in the field. Developing these resources could offset the expected long-term decline of energy production in the lower 48 in the 2030s and 2040s, and realistically the process needs to start now. Russia is also aggressively expanding exploration wells in the Arctic’s Kara and Pechora seas and adding to its polar navy.
Meantime, Mr. Obama told National Public Radio this week that “my suggestion to the President-elect is, you know, going through the legislative process is always better” than executive fiat, “in part because it’s harder to undo.” Perhaps he ought to take his own advice instead of issuing “permanent” commands.
Obama’s ‘Permanent’ Drilling Freeze
He claims his latest executive order can’t be repealed—ever.
Dec. 21, 2016 6:53 p.m. ET
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The White House is attempting to overload the bandwidth of its successor with a surge of new regulation, and the latest is a ban on oil drilling in much of the Arctic and Atlantic. This rule even purports to be “permanent,” unchangeable by any future President for all time. We’ll see about that, but in the meantime spare us the liberal panic about Donald Trump’s supposed authoritarianism.
The last-gasp executive action prohibits federal offshore drilling and mineral leases on some 3.8 million acres from Virginia to Maine and 115 million acres off the coast of Alaska, including some of the world’s great untapped repositories of hydrocarbons. President Obama rolled out the rule in concert with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and the greens are cheering that still more fossil-fuel regions will be walled off from exploration.
For years federal regulators have obstructed oil production on already leased lands. Royal Dutch Shell holds the sole drilling permit in Alaska and in 2015 suspended operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas despite $7 billion of sunk investment. So in a sense the new rule is merely truth in advertising.
But the press corps is rushing to euphemize Mr. Obama’s “creative” interpretation of a “rarely used” provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Ocsla allows that the President “may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the Outer Continental Shelf.” Because the law does not explicitly give the President the power to un-withdraw lands, the White House touts the rule as a forever condition. In other words, this is Mr. Obama’s typically illegal M.O.
Congress passed Ocsla, as the law’s preamble states, in order to make the “vital national resource reserve” that is the continental shelf “available for expeditious and orderly development.” The power to lock is also the power to unlock. Bill Clinton used Ocsla to withdraw 300 million offshore acres from an area that was already a designated marine sanctuary, but George W. Bush reinstated about 50 million.
So ponder the spectacle of a President claiming his writ will last “indefinitely,” as Mr. Obama’s executive order puts it. No policy decisions are engraved in stone as if through holy stenography, and they’re definitely not beyond democratic consent on the basis of a 63-year-old law. In a statement, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley applauded Mr. Obama for “implementing” sections of the Democrat’s “Keep It In the Ground Act.” Why even have a Congress?
The environmental lobby has moved on from reducing carbon demand—via subsidies for electric cars and solar panels—to opposing any carbon energy, and this is the opposition Mr. Trump will confront. Restarting drilling would be a productive start for U.S. energy security and competitiveness.
In the Arctic in particular, oil-and-gas reserves are beneath relatively shallow waters and obtainable with technology proven safe in the field. Developing these resources could offset the expected long-term decline of energy production in the lower 48 in the 2030s and 2040s, and realistically the process needs to start now. Russia is also aggressively expanding exploration wells in the Arctic’s Kara and Pechora seas and adding to its polar navy.
Meantime, Mr. Obama told National Public Radio this week that “my suggestion to the President-elect is, you know, going through the legislative process is always better” than executive fiat, “in part because it’s harder to undo.” Perhaps he ought to take his own advice instead of issuing “permanent” commands.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:40 am
The Keynesians vs. Kudlow
Trump needs some pro-growth voices in the White House.
Updated Dec. 21, 2016 6:54 p.m. ET
Larry Kudlow, a CNBC commentator, speaks about the economy during a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation on December 18, 2014 in Washington, DC. ENLARGE
Larry Kudlow, a CNBC commentator, speaks about the economy during a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation on December 18, 2014 in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP/Getty Images
Fear and loathing are the media watchwords for most of Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments, but one of the more amusing campaigns is the progressive assault on the prospect that Larry Kudlow could lead the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Can there be a more compelling endorsement?
Start with the complaint that Mr. Kudlow lacks a doctorate in economics. This is true. After taking graduate courses at Princeton, he worked as an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Reagan budget office and various financial firms. He has since worked mainly as a TV commentator on economics.
This doesn’t pass muster with the economics guild, who have come to view the White House job as their own political preserve. But an academic degree is no guarantee of economic wisdom, as Administrations from Nixon’s to President Obama’s have shown. Mr. Kudlow is conversant enough with economic literature to do the job.
Another rap is that Mr. Kudlow failed to predict the 2008 financial panic. Well, so did most people, including Timothy Geithner when he was president of the New York Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke while he was Fed chairman. Despite his Ph.D. from MIT, Mr. Bernanke now stars in one of YouTube’s finest collections of clueless commentary from the pre-crisis era. At a March 2008 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, Mr. Geithner strenuously objected when a colleague said financial institutions were undercapitalized. Like all market panics, the 2008 crisis was so severe in part because the financial and political establishments didn’t expect it.
The real reason the Keynesian tong dislikes Mr. Kudlow is that he disagrees with their assumptions. He thinks tax cuts that change incentives produce more growth than do government transfer payments. He thinks the Keynesian “multiplier” model that $1 in spending produces $1.70 in growth is nonsense, as do most people who didn’t get a Ph.D. at MIT or Princeton.
This is precisely why Mr. Trump could use Mr. Kudlow on his economic team. So far the President-elect has chosen economic and financial advisers who are blank policy slates or best known for their ardent anti-trade and immigration views. His selection Wednesday of economist Peter Navarro to run a new White House National Trade Council puts another protectionist in the senior ranks. Mr. Kudlow is a free trader, and it would be useful to have at least one inside the White House.
Mr. Trump’s liberal critics don’t mind appointees who agree with them on trade and spending. They dislike Mr. Kudlow because they fear his pro-growth policies, like Reagan’s, will succeed too well.
Trump needs some pro-growth voices in the White House.
Updated Dec. 21, 2016 6:54 p.m. ET
Larry Kudlow, a CNBC commentator, speaks about the economy during a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation on December 18, 2014 in Washington, DC. ENLARGE
Larry Kudlow, a CNBC commentator, speaks about the economy during a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation on December 18, 2014 in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP/Getty Images
Fear and loathing are the media watchwords for most of Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments, but one of the more amusing campaigns is the progressive assault on the prospect that Larry Kudlow could lead the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Can there be a more compelling endorsement?
Start with the complaint that Mr. Kudlow lacks a doctorate in economics. This is true. After taking graduate courses at Princeton, he worked as an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Reagan budget office and various financial firms. He has since worked mainly as a TV commentator on economics.
This doesn’t pass muster with the economics guild, who have come to view the White House job as their own political preserve. But an academic degree is no guarantee of economic wisdom, as Administrations from Nixon’s to President Obama’s have shown. Mr. Kudlow is conversant enough with economic literature to do the job.
Another rap is that Mr. Kudlow failed to predict the 2008 financial panic. Well, so did most people, including Timothy Geithner when he was president of the New York Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke while he was Fed chairman. Despite his Ph.D. from MIT, Mr. Bernanke now stars in one of YouTube’s finest collections of clueless commentary from the pre-crisis era. At a March 2008 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, Mr. Geithner strenuously objected when a colleague said financial institutions were undercapitalized. Like all market panics, the 2008 crisis was so severe in part because the financial and political establishments didn’t expect it.
The real reason the Keynesian tong dislikes Mr. Kudlow is that he disagrees with their assumptions. He thinks tax cuts that change incentives produce more growth than do government transfer payments. He thinks the Keynesian “multiplier” model that $1 in spending produces $1.70 in growth is nonsense, as do most people who didn’t get a Ph.D. at MIT or Princeton.
This is precisely why Mr. Trump could use Mr. Kudlow on his economic team. So far the President-elect has chosen economic and financial advisers who are blank policy slates or best known for their ardent anti-trade and immigration views. His selection Wednesday of economist Peter Navarro to run a new White House National Trade Council puts another protectionist in the senior ranks. Mr. Kudlow is a free trader, and it would be useful to have at least one inside the White House.
Mr. Trump’s liberal critics don’t mind appointees who agree with them on trade and spending. They dislike Mr. Kudlow because they fear his pro-growth policies, like Reagan’s, will succeed too well.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:44 am
Optimismo es hope Michelle Obama
---
Donald Trump’s Win Sends Economic Optimism to Highest Level Since 2012
Republicans views on the economy have grown far more optimistic, sending overall economic sentiment gauges higher
By Nick Timiraos Dec 21, 2016 5:02 pm ET
President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a rally Saturday in Mobile, Ala. ENLARGE
President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a rally Saturday in Mobile, Ala. Photo: Brynn Anderson/Associated Press
Donald Trump’s election pushed confidence in the economy’s direction to its most favorable level since 2012, according to the latest WSJ/NBC News poll.
Some 42% of respondents say they believe the economy will get better over the coming year, versus 19% who say it will get worse. The last time Americans were as optimistic about the economy came in October 2012, when 45% saw the economy getting better, compared with just 9% who saw it getting worse.
One year ago, some 24% of respondents believed the economy would improve over the following 12 months, equal to the share who believed it would worsen.
The upbeat mood is consistent with other gauges of confidence in the economy, which soared in November and December. A survey of CEOs recently said they were optimistic about Mr. Trump’s policies. Economists see somewhat less risk of recession.
In the WSJ/NBC News poll, the improving economic sentiment is driven largely by Republicans’ postelection enthusiasm. Some 68% of Republican voters see the economy improving over the next year, versus 6% who believe it will get worse. Last year, just 14% of Republicans saw the economy improving, compared with 34% who saw it getting worse.
Partisan Split
Attitudes over whether the U.S. economy willget better or worse over the next 12 months
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Source: WSJ/NBC News telephone poll of 1,000 adults conductedDec. 12-15; margin of error: +/-3.1 pct. pts.
%
Get better
Get worse
Republicans
Independents
Democrats
Total
0
25
50
75
Independent voters also believe the economy will improve by a 22-percentage-point margin, a reversal from last year, when independents saw the economy getting worse by a 15-percentage-point margin.
Respondents across a range of household-income levels see the economy improving next year, but voters who make more than $50,000 are more likely to have an optimistic outlook on the economy. Men were more likely than women to have an optimistic outlook on the economy.
Views on the economy also vary strongly by race. White respondents see the economy improving next year by a 34-point margin relative to those who see it getting worse, while black respondents see the economy getting worse by an eight-point margin compared with those who see it improving.
---
Donald Trump’s Win Sends Economic Optimism to Highest Level Since 2012
Republicans views on the economy have grown far more optimistic, sending overall economic sentiment gauges higher
By Nick Timiraos Dec 21, 2016 5:02 pm ET
President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a rally Saturday in Mobile, Ala. ENLARGE
President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a rally Saturday in Mobile, Ala. Photo: Brynn Anderson/Associated Press
Donald Trump’s election pushed confidence in the economy’s direction to its most favorable level since 2012, according to the latest WSJ/NBC News poll.
Some 42% of respondents say they believe the economy will get better over the coming year, versus 19% who say it will get worse. The last time Americans were as optimistic about the economy came in October 2012, when 45% saw the economy getting better, compared with just 9% who saw it getting worse.
One year ago, some 24% of respondents believed the economy would improve over the following 12 months, equal to the share who believed it would worsen.
The upbeat mood is consistent with other gauges of confidence in the economy, which soared in November and December. A survey of CEOs recently said they were optimistic about Mr. Trump’s policies. Economists see somewhat less risk of recession.
In the WSJ/NBC News poll, the improving economic sentiment is driven largely by Republicans’ postelection enthusiasm. Some 68% of Republican voters see the economy improving over the next year, versus 6% who believe it will get worse. Last year, just 14% of Republicans saw the economy improving, compared with 34% who saw it getting worse.
Partisan Split
Attitudes over whether the U.S. economy willget better or worse over the next 12 months
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Source: WSJ/NBC News telephone poll of 1,000 adults conductedDec. 12-15; margin of error: +/-3.1 pct. pts.
%
Get better
Get worse
Republicans
Independents
Democrats
Total
0
25
50
75
Independent voters also believe the economy will improve by a 22-percentage-point margin, a reversal from last year, when independents saw the economy getting worse by a 15-percentage-point margin.
Respondents across a range of household-income levels see the economy improving next year, but voters who make more than $50,000 are more likely to have an optimistic outlook on the economy. Men were more likely than women to have an optimistic outlook on the economy.
Views on the economy also vary strongly by race. White respondents see the economy improving next year by a 34-point margin relative to those who see it getting worse, while black respondents see the economy getting worse by an eight-point margin compared with those who see it improving.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:46 am
Ek GdP revisado al 3.5%
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:54 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 8:55 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 9:31 am
OIl up 52.75
Au down 1,130
Europa a la baja
Au down 1,130
Europa a la baja
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 9:32 am
LAST CHANGE % CHG
Get index data by Email
Japan: Nikkei 225 19427.67 -16.82 -0.09%
Hang Seng 21636.20 -173.60 -0.80%
Shanghai Composite 3139.56 2.13 0.07%
S&P BSE Sensex 25979.60 -262.78 -1.00%
Australia: S&P/ASX 5643.90 30.40 0.54%
UK: FTSE 100 7040.31 -1.11 -0.02%
DJIA 19926.46 -15.50 -0.08%
Asia Dow 2919.43 -19.30 -0.66%
Global Dow 2536.38 -5.85 -0.23%
Get index data by Email
Japan: Nikkei 225 19427.67 -16.82 -0.09%
Hang Seng 21636.20 -173.60 -0.80%
Shanghai Composite 3139.56 2.13 0.07%
S&P BSE Sensex 25979.60 -262.78 -1.00%
Australia: S&P/ASX 5643.90 30.40 0.54%
UK: FTSE 100 7040.31 -1.11 -0.02%
DJIA 19926.46 -15.50 -0.08%
Asia Dow 2919.43 -19.30 -0.66%
Global Dow 2536.38 -5.85 -0.23%
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 9:32 am
LAST CHANGE % CHG
Get index data by Email
UK: FTSE 100 7040.83 -0.59 -0.01%
Germany: DAX 11458.15 -10.49 -0.09%
France: CAC 40 4832.77 -1.05 -0.02%
Stoxx Europe 600 359.86 -0.70 -0.19%
Hang Seng 21636.20 -173.60 -0.80%
Japan: Nikkei 225 19427.67 -16.82 -0.09%
DJIA 19924.83 -17.13 -0.09%
Europe Dow 1557.53 -0.96 -0.06%
Global Dow 2536.24 -5.99 -0.24%
Get index data by Email
UK: FTSE 100 7040.83 -0.59 -0.01%
Germany: DAX 11458.15 -10.49 -0.09%
France: CAC 40 4832.77 -1.05 -0.02%
Stoxx Europe 600 359.86 -0.70 -0.19%
Hang Seng 21636.20 -173.60 -0.80%
Japan: Nikkei 225 19427.67 -16.82 -0.09%
DJIA 19924.83 -17.13 -0.09%
Europe Dow 1557.53 -0.96 -0.06%
Global Dow 2536.24 -5.99 -0.24%
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 9:32 am
LAST(MID) CHANGE
Euro (EUR/USD) 1.0458 0.0033
Yen (USD/JPY) 117.65 0.10
Pound (GBP/USD) 1.2333 -0.0019
Australia $ (AUD/USD) 0.7217 -0.0021
Swiss Franc (USD/CHF) 1.0247 -0.0022
WSJ Dollar Index 93.26 0.02
Futures9:22 AM EST 12/22/2016
LAST CHANGE % CHG
Crude Oil 52.75 0.26 0.50%
Brent Crude 54.76 0.30 0.55%
Gold 1131.3 -1.9 -0.17%
Silver 15.895 -0.084 -0.53%
E-mini DJIA 19882 -9 -0.05%
E-mini S&P 500 2258.75 -1.75 -0.08%
Government Bonds9:32 AM EST 12/22/2016
PRICE CHG YIELD
U.S. 10 Year -8/32 2.567
German 10 Year -7/32 0.269
Japan 10 Year 4/32 0.050
Euro (EUR/USD) 1.0458 0.0033
Yen (USD/JPY) 117.65 0.10
Pound (GBP/USD) 1.2333 -0.0019
Australia $ (AUD/USD) 0.7217 -0.0021
Swiss Franc (USD/CHF) 1.0247 -0.0022
WSJ Dollar Index 93.26 0.02
Futures9:22 AM EST 12/22/2016
LAST CHANGE % CHG
Crude Oil 52.75 0.26 0.50%
Brent Crude 54.76 0.30 0.55%
Gold 1131.3 -1.9 -0.17%
Silver 15.895 -0.084 -0.53%
E-mini DJIA 19882 -9 -0.05%
E-mini S&P 500 2258.75 -1.75 -0.08%
Government Bonds9:32 AM EST 12/22/2016
PRICE CHG YIELD
U.S. 10 Year -8/32 2.567
German 10 Year -7/32 0.269
Japan 10 Year 4/32 0.050
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
Re: Jueves 22/12/16 Indicadores lideres
por admin » Jue Dic 22, 2016 9:33 am
Bajo volument por la navidad.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Mensajes: 164292
- Registrado: Mié Abr 21, 2010 9:02 pm
41 mensajes
• Página 2 de 3 • 1, 2, 3
¿Quién está conectado?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 87 invitados