Jueves 16/09/10, Manufactura en Philadelphia, seguros desemp

[admin]

Es el gasto estupido!! Ese es el tema de la campania electoral el US

La historia se repite

Cuando Clinton gano la presidencia durante 17 meses trato de pasar el seguro de salud universal llamado HillaryCare (similar al que ha pasado Obama) el intento murio en Agosto de 1994. Ese Noviembre, los Americanos le dieron el control del Congreso a los Republicanos por primera vez en 40 anios.

Este anio los democratas han pasado el seguro de salud de Obama. Y este anio los americanos transferiran el poder a los republicanos.

El numero mas importante en la politica Americana es la aprobacion del Congreso de solo el 23%. Este es un voto de falta de confianza. Que mas puede ser? Es que el congreso no ha gastado suficiente?

Until Barack Obama, the only Democrats who had a chance of winning the presidency were Southern governors with a reputation for fiscal moderation. But after Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, he immediately tried to pass the mammoth health-care entitlement known as HillaryCare. After 17 acrimonious months, it died in August 1994. That November, voters gave control of the House to the GOP for the first time in 40 years. It was about more than Newt Gingrich's charm.

So this year the Democrats, who control Congress because of voter disgust with the Republicans in 2006, passed a health-care entitlement. And this year voters will transfer power back to the Republicans.

The most important and startling number in American politics today is Congress's approval rating: 23%. This is a no-confidence vote. The second branch of government is losing the country. Surely it's about the spending. What else? That Congress hasn't spent enough?

[admin]

El gasto del Gobierno Americano como porcentaje del PBI (GDP)

Este cuadro lo dice todo. Esto esta de cabeza. Por eso los Americanos estan furiosos y van a sacar a los democratas a la mayor brevedad posible del poder para que no sigan gastando de manera indiscriminada e irresponsable. Van a quebrar al pais.

[admin]

Oil debajo de 75 a 74.90

-39

[admin]

Oil down 75.10

[admin]

Yields up 2.72%

Yen subiendo 85.62

[admin]

Las ejecuciones de las casas (foreclosures) siguen subiendo (subieron 4% en Agosto) y se espera (segun algunos economistas) que los precios de las casas bajen un 20% mas.

El nivel mas alto de ejecuciones no se vera si no hasta el 2011.

Au up 1,274.30, oil down 75.15 y mejorando algo.

[Arnold]

El oro rompera otro record el dia de hoy
A Ford, Barclays le ha dado un price target de $ 16
F +2.02%

[admin]

Principios para una recuperacion economica

Nuestra prosperidad ha disminuido por las politicas que cada vez se alejan mas de las que realmente funcionan y han sido probadas con exito en el pasado. Aqui estan las prioridades que deberian guiar a los politicos para restaurar el crecimiento rapido.

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN, JOHN F. COGAN, ALLAN MELTZER AND JOHN B. TAYLOR

Lo primero a considerar es que la gente responde a los incentivos y a los no incentivos. Los impuestos son un gran ejemplo por que los resultados anteriores son claros y poderosos. Una gran riqueza de evidencia muestra que los impuestos altos reduce el esfuerzo para trabajar, retarda la inversion y baja el crecimiento de la productividad. Cuando se aumenta los impuestos el standard de vida se estanca.

El ganador de premio Nobel Edward Prescott examino el sector laboral internacional y mostro que los cambio en impuestos estaban asociados con el empleo y el numero de horas trabajadas. De 1970 a 1990, el efectivo rate de impuestos subio en un promedio de 28% en Alemania, Francia e Italia. En el mismo perioro de tiempo, las horas trabajadas cayeron en 22% en esos paises. Cuando se aumentan los impuestos se reduce el incentivo para trabajar y por lo tanto obtenemos menos de ello.

Las politicas economicas a largo plazo, estables, funcionan, las temporales no funcionan. La diferenica entre el efecto de recorte de impuesto permanente y uno temporal o de rebates esta muy bien documentado tambien. La diferencia entre ellas es que la permanente crea recuperacion sostenible de produccion, la temporal solo es por un corto periodo de tiempo. Las politicas temporales crean incertidumbre que afectan la produccion economica de los participantes en el mercado. Ante la inseguridad de las politicas y como funcionan, las decisiones se postponen.

Tener "skin in the game" (cuando alguien no solo habla si no es un participante real de lo que se propone) no es sorpresa que conlleva a resultados superiores. Como Milton Friedman famosamente observo: Nadie gasta el dinero de los demas con tanta prudencia como cuando es nuestro propio dinero" Cuando los legisladores ponen el dinero de los demas en riesgo en cuando Fannie y Freddie compro riesgosas hipotecas-crisis y desastre economico era el resultado inevitable. Cuando se pide una cuota inicial minima y se cobra un bajo deducible como en el mercado de seguros, se incurre en gasto imprudente e irresponsable como en el seguro de salud.

Politicas basadas en las leyes proveen de una base para un alto crecimiento economico en la economia. Obedecer esas leyes minimiza la necesidad de rescate. Entre los 80s y 90s la politica monetaria fue conducida de manera predicible, como resultado la economia fue mas estable.

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, MICHAEL J. BOSKIN, JOHN F. COGAN, ALLAN MELTZER AND JOHN B. TAYLOR
America's financial crisis, deep recession and anemic recovery have largely been driven by economic policies that have deviated from proven fact-based principles. To return to prosperity we must get back to these principles.

The most fundamental starting point is that people respond to incentives and disincentives. Tax rates are a great example because the data are so clear and the results so powerful. A wealth of evidence shows that high tax rates reduce work effort, retard investment and lower productivity growth. Raise taxes, and living standards stagnate.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Edward Prescott examined international labor market data and showed that changes in tax rates on labor are associated with changes in employment and hours worked. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the effective tax rate on work increased by an average of 28% in Germany, France and Italy. Over that same period, work hours fell by an average of 22% in those three countries. When higher taxes reduce the reward for work, you get less of it.

. ..Long-lasting economic policies based on a long-term strategy work; temporary policies don't. The difference between the effect of permanent tax rate cuts and one-time temporary tax rebates is also well-documented. The former creates a sustainable increase in economic output, the latter at best only a transitory blip. Temporary policies create uncertainty that dampen economic output as market participants, unsure about whether and how policies might change, delay their decisions.

Having "skin in the game," unsurprisingly, leads to superior outcomes. As Milton Friedman famously observed: "Nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as they spend their own." When legislators put other people's money at risk—as when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought risky mortgages—crisis and economic hardship inevitably result. When minimal co-payments and low deductibles are mandated in the insurance market, wasteful health-care spending balloons.

Rule-based policies provide the foundation of a high-growth market economy. Abiding by such policies minimizes capricious discretionary actions, such as the recent ad hoc bailouts, which too often had deleterious consequences. For most of the 1980s and '90s monetary policy was conducted in a predictable rule-like manner. As a result, the economy was far more stable. We avoided lengthy economic contractions like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the rapid inflation of the 1970s.

The history of recent economic policy is one of massive deviations from these basic tenets. The result has been a crippling recession and now a weak, nearly nonexistent recovery. The deviations began with policies—like the Federal Reserve holding interest rates too low for too long—that fueled the unsustainable housing boom. Federal housing policies allowed down payments on home loans as low as zero. Banks were encouraged to make risky loans, and securitization separated lenders from their loans. Neither borrower nor lender had sufficient skin in the game. Lax enforcement of existing regulations allowed both investment and commercial banks to circumvent long-established banking rules to take on far too much leverage. Regulators, not regulations, failed.

The departures from sound principles continued when the Fed and the Treasury responded with arbitrary and unpredictable bailouts of banks, auto companies and financial institutions. They financed their actions with unprecedented money creation and massive issuance of debt. These frantic moves spooked already turbulent markets and led to the financial panic.

More deviations occurred when the government responded with ineffective temporary stimulus packages. The 2008 tax rebate and the 2009 spending stimulus bills failed to improve the economy. Cash for clunkers and the first-time home buyers tax credit merely moved purchases forward by a few months.

Then there's the recent health-care legislation, which imposes taxes on savings and investment and gives the government control over health-care decisions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now sit with an estimated $400 billion cost to taxpayers and no path to resolution. Hundreds of new complex regulations lurk in the 2010 financial reform bill with most of the critical details left to regulators. So uncertainty reigns and nearly $2 trillion in cash sits in corporate coffers.

Since the onset of the financial crisis, annual federal spending has increased by an extraordinary $800 billion—more than $10,000 for every American family. This has driven the budget deficit to 10% of GDP, far above the previous peacetime record. The Obama administration has proposed to lock a sizable portion of that additional spending into government programs and to finance it with higher taxes and debt. The Fed recently announced it would continue buying long-term Treasury debt, adding to the risk of future inflation.

There is perhaps no better indicator of the destructive path that these policy deviations have put us on than the federal budget. The nearby chart puts the fiscal problem in perspective. It shows federal spending as a percent of GDP, which is now at 24%, up sharply from 18.2% in 2000.

Future federal spending, driven mainly by retirement and health-care promises, is likely to increase beyond 30% of GDP in 20 years and then keep rising, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The reckless expansions of both entitlements and discretionary programs in recent years have only added to our long-term fiscal problem.


As the chart shows, in all of U.S. history, there has been only one period of sustained decline in federal spending relative to GDP. From 1983 to 2001, federal spending relative to GDP declined by five percentage points. Two factors dominated this remarkable period. First was strong economic growth. Second was modest spending restraint—on domestic spending in the 1980s and on defense in the 1990s.

The good news is that we can change these destructive policies by adopting a strategy based on proven economic principles:

• First, take tax increases off the table. Higher tax rates are destructive to growth and would ratify the recent spending excesses. Our complex tax code is badly in need of overhaul to make America more competitive. For example, the U.S. corporate tax is one of the highest in the world. That's why many tax reform proposals integrate personal and corporate income taxes with fewer special tax breaks and lower tax rates.

But in the current climate, with the very credit-worthiness of the United States at stake, our program keeps the present tax regime in place while avoiding the severe economic drag of higher tax rates.

• Second, balance the federal budget by reducing spending. The publicly held debt must be brought down to the pre-crisis safety zone. To do this, the excessive spending of recent years must be removed before it becomes a permanent budget fixture. The government should begin by rescinding unspent "stimulus" and TARP funds, ratcheting down domestic appropriations to their pre-binge levels, and repealing entitlement expansions, most notably the subsidies in the health-care bill.

The next step is restructuring public activities between federal and state governments. The federal government has taken on more responsibilities than it can properly manage and efficiently finance. The 1996 welfare reform, which transferred authority and financing for welfare from the federal to the state level, should serve as the model. This reform reduced welfare dependency and lowered costs, benefiting taxpayers and welfare recipients.

• Third, modify Social Security and health-care entitlements to reduce their explosive future growth. Social Security now promises much higher benefits to future retirees than to today's retirees. The typical 30-year-old today is scheduled to get an inflation-adjusted retirement benefit that is 50% higher than the benefit for a typical current retiree.

Benefits paid to future retirees should remain at the same level, in terms of purchasing power, that today's retirees receive. A combination of indexing initial benefits to prices rather than to wages and increasing the program's retirement age would achieve this goal. They should be phased-in gradually so that current retirees and those nearing retirement are not affected.

Health care is far too important to the American economy to be left in its current state. In markets other than health care, the legendary American shopper, armed with money and information, has kept quality high and costs low. In health care, service providers, unaided by consumers with sufficient skin in the game, make the purchasing decisions. Third-party payers—employers, governments and insurance companies—have resorted to regulatory schemes and price controls to stem the resulting cost growth.

The key to making Medicare affordable while maintaining the quality of health care is more patient involvement, more choices among Medicare health plans, and more competition. Co-payments should be raised to make patients and their physicians more cost-conscious. Monthly premiums should be lowered to provide seniors with more disposable income to make these choices. A menu of additional Medicare plans, some with lower premiums, higher co-payments and improved catastrophic coverage, should be added to the current one-size-fits-all program to encourage competition.

Similarly for Medicaid, modest co-payments should be introduced except for preventive services. The program should be turned over entirely to the states with federal financing supplied by a "no strings attached" block grant. States should then allow Medicaid recipients to purchase a health plan of their choosing with a risk-adjusted Medicaid grant that phases out as income rises.


The 2010 health-care law undermined positive reforms underway since the late 1990s, including higher co-payments and health savings accounts. The law should be repealed before its regulations and price controls further damage availability and quality of care. It should be replaced with policies that target specific health market concerns: quality, affordability and access. Making out-of-pocket expenditures and individual purchases of health insurance tax deductible, enhancing health savings accounts, and improving access to medical information are keys to more consumer involvement. Allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines will lower the cost of insurance.

• Fourth, enact a moratorium on all new regulations for the next three years, with an exception for national security and public safety. Going forward, regulations should be transparent and simple, pass rigorous cost-benefit tests, and rely to a maximum extent on market-based incentives instead of command and control. Direct and indirect cost estimates of regulations and subsidies should be published before new regulations are put into law.

Off-budget financing should end by closing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Bureau of Consumer Finance Protection and all other government agencies should be on the budget that Congress annually approves. An enhanced bankruptcy process for failing financial firms should be enacted in order to end the need for bailouts. Higher bank capital requirements that rise with the size of the bank should be phased in.

• Fifth, monetary policy should be less discretionary and more rule-like. The Federal Reserve should announce and follow a monetary policy rule, such as the Taylor rule, in which the short-term interest rate is determined by the supply and demand for money and is adjusted through changes in the money supply when inflation rises above or falls below the target, or when the economy goes into a recession. When monetary policy decisions follow such a rule, economic stability and growth increase.

In order to reduce the size of the Fed's bloated balance sheet without causing more market disruption, the Fed should announce and follow a clear and predictable exit rule, which describes a contingency path for bringing bank reserves back to normal levels. It should also announce and follow a lender-of-last-resort rule designed to protect the payment system and the economy—not failing banks. Such a rule would end the erratic bailout policy that leads to crises.

The United States should, along with other countries, agree to a target for inflation in order to increase expected price stability and exchange rate stability. A new accord between the Federal Reserve and Treasury should re-establish the Fed's independence and accountability so that it is not called on to monetize the debt or engage in credit allocation. A monetary rule is a requisite for restoring the Fed's independence.

These pro-growth policies provide the surest path back to prosperity.

Mr. Shultz, a former secretary of labor, secretary of Treasury and secretary of state, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Mr. Boskin, a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Cogan, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Meltzer is professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University. Mr. Taylor, an economics professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was undersecretary of Treasury under President George W. Bush.

[admin]

-25.16

[admin]

-20.96

[Arnold]

NG +2.57%

[admin]

VIX 22.71

Oil down 75.14

Esperando los resultados de Philadelphia que no creo que sean muy buenos.

Yields up 2.74

-36.13

[Arnold]

RESUMEN ECONÓMICO

LA ECONOMÍA PERUANA CRECIÓ 9.05% EN JULIO, informó el INEI. De esta manera, el crecimiento del PBI fue de 8.17% entre enero y julio, y de 5.70% en los últimos 12 meses (agosto 2009 - julio 2010). La expansión económica fue impulsada por los sectores manufactura y construcción, detalló la entidad. El índice de crecimiento es menor al estimado por analistas, que –según una encuesta de Reuters– esperaban un avance de 10.2%. (Todos los diarios)

LA POBLACIÓN OCUPADA CRECIÓ 5.9% EN EL TRIMESTRE JUNIO-JULIO-AGOSTO EN LIMA, lo que significó la incorporación de 239,700 personas, informó el INEI. Los sectores que lideraron la demanda de trabajadores son construcción, que registró el mayor aumento (23.6%), seguido por manufactura (8.2%), comercio (6.9%) y servicios (2.9%). El INEI reportó también que la tasa de desempleo en Lima bajó de 8.3% a 7.4% en el trimestre analizado.

EL PERÚ SUPERARÁ EL 2010 A CHILE Y A COLOMBIA EN CRECIMIENTO ECONÓMICO EN LA REGIÓN, al alcanzar un 6% en su expansión del PBI, informó el Banco Mundial. En tanto Chile y Colombia tendrán un crecimiento del 5%, mientras que Brasil liderará la expansión económica de América Latina con 7%. Según la entidad, se mejoró las perspectivas de crecimiento para América Latina y pronosticó que el promedio de expansión de las economías de la región puede llegar hasta 6%, impulsado por la fuerte actividad en Brasil, Perú, Chile y Colombia.

LAS EXPORTACIONES DEL SECTOR TEXTIL Y CONFECCIONES REGISTRARÁN UNA CAÍDA DE 0.4% AL CIERRE DEL 2010, según APOYO Consultoría. Así, este sector, que representa el 12.1% del PBI manufacturero, no logrará revertir el descenso de 56% que registraron los envíos a Venezuela durante el primer semestre del año. El retroceso se dará a pesar de que las exportaciones a EEUU muestran señales de recuperación. Cabe indicar que estas proyecciones difieren de las proporcionadas por Adex, que para el cierre del año estima un crecimiento de 2%. (El Comercio)

SABMILLER PLANEA ELEVAR EN 72% LA CAPACIDAD DE SU PLANTA DE ATE, según un reporte de la consultora J.P.Morgan Cazenove. Esto debido al rápido crecimiento del mercado peruano -el que esperan incremente su consumo per cápita de 41 a 60 litros- y porque su planta ya alcanzó el 90% de su capacidad operativa. De acuerdo con el informe, se evalúa la incorporación de una tercera línea de producción, con lo cual la fábrica pasaría de producir 5.8 millones de hectolitros (su tope es 6.5 millones) a 10 millones al año. (Gestión)

LA BANCA TIENE UN "COLCHÓN" DE CASI S/.6,000 MILLONES ANTE NUEVAS CRISIS, informó la SBS. El fondo está compuesto de provisiones por S/.889 millones y capital adicional de S/.5,000 millones. Además, según el superintendente adjunto de Banca y Microfinanzas de la SBS, Diego Cisneros, el sistema financiero peruano cumple largamente con los requisitos del acuerdo de Basilea III, que establece que los bancos tienen plazo hasta el 2019 para elevar su capital. (El Comercio, Gestión)

EL PERÚ TIENE PROCESOS ARBITRALES DE INVERSIONES EXTRANJERAS POR MÁS DE US$900 MILLONES, informó el Estudio Paitán & Abogados, tal como adelantara Semana Económica (SE 1238). Los cuatro procesos pendientes están en el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (Ciadi). Las empresas demandantes son Duke Energy (unos US$18 millones), por violación de garantías al Convenio de Estabilidad Jurídica; Tza Yap Shum (US$25 millones), por el accionar de la Sunat en transgresión de estándares de protección a la inversión. Convial Callao (US$30 millones), por supuestas violaciones del Convenio Bilateral de Protección de Inversiones Perú - Argentina; y Renée Levy –hij a del principal accionista del holding que posee el 99% del Banco Nuevo Mundo– (US$840 millones). (Gestión)

LEHMAN BROTHERS DEMANDÓ A DECENAS DE ENTIDADES BANCARIAS PARA RECUPERAR MÁS DE US$3,000 MILLONES de los que dijo que fue privado como resultado de su quiebra hace dos años. Lehman aduce que a los demandados se les permitió injustamente que sus reclamos fueran atendidos antes que los del banco de inversión quebrado. Si tiene éxito, eso ayudaría a Lehman a devolverle a sus acreedores parte de los más de US$600,000 millones que les adeuda. (Leer más)

RESUMEN POLÍTICO

EL TRIBUNAL ANTICORRUPCIÓN, integrado por Inés Villa, Inés Tello e Hilda Piedra, DECLARÓ IMPROCEDENTES LOS PEDIDOS DE ALGUNOS INTEGRANTES DEL GRUPO COLINA, quienes, al amparo del derogado extinto D. L. 1097, solicitaron el archivo del juicio al que son sometidos por los casos Barrios Altos, Pedro Yauri y la desaparición de El Santa. La sala señaló que el dispositivo legal es discriminatorio al beneficiar sólo a militares, y que su aplicación va contra la obligación del Estado de investigar las violaciones de los derechos humanos, así como su deber de cumplir los tratados firmados. (Todos los diarios)

[admin]

Yields up 2.74%

-32.43

[admin]

-23.12