Martes 31/08/10 Las minutas del Fed, Chicago PMI

[admin]

Eventos economicos

Martes

Ventas retail
Redbook
S&P Indice de los precios de casas
Chicago PMI
Confianza del consumidor
Confianza del inversionista
Minutas del Fed

2-Yr Note Settlement

5-Yr Note Settlement

7-Yr Note Settlement


ICSC-Goldman Store Sales
7:45 AM ET


Redbook
8:55 AM ET


S&P Case-Shiller HPI
9:00 AM ET


Chicago PMI
9:45 AM ET


Consumer Confidence
10:00 AM ET


State Street Investor Confidence Index
10:00 AM ET


4-Week Bill Auction
11:30 AM ET


FOMC Minutes
2:00 PM ET

[admin]

Los futures del Dow Jones 21 puntos al alza. A ver si eso significa algo.

Yen up 84.57

Korea -0.62%

[admin]

A menos que el presidente entienda las razones de la victoria en Irak, el no podra liderar una estrategia a la victoria en Afghanistan contra el Taliban.

By McCain, candidato republicano a la presidencia, Senador de Arizona.
Nuestras tropas regresan con honor y hay que reflexionar sobre la causa de su victoria y que lecciones nos ha dejado Irak que nos pueda ayudar a triunfar en Afghanistan.

Los democratas tienen problemas para admitirlo pero la guerra de Irak ha sido una victoria para US porque la estrategia de Bush de reforzar las operaciones y aumentar el numero de soldados en Irak. La victoria era la unica estrategia de salida en Irak. Las tropas americanas han cumplido su cometido y ahora estan de regreso.

Esta estrategia fue atacada por los democratas en el congreso incluido el entonces Senador Obama, Joe Biden y Hillary Clinton, todos ellos llamaron a una retirada de las tropas americanas sin importar las consecuencias, seria bueno ver al Presidente Obama finalmente felicitar al presidente Bush por la victoria alcanzada en Irak.

Aunque lo admitan o no, lo que Obama esta haciendo en Afghanistan muestra que algo ha aprendido de las lecciones de la guerra de Irak, pero no todas. Finalmente tenemos una estrategia de contra insurgencia en Afghanistan que ha incrementado el nivel de recursos y de tropas. El arquitecto de la guerra de Irak, General David Petraus esta ahora liderando la guerra en Afghanistan.

Esta estrategia es positiva y puede darnos la victoria, pero esta perjudicada por la politica del presidente de retirar las tropas en Julio del 2011 - sin importar las condiciones en que se encuentre la geurra. Ninguno de nuestros militares aprueba esta medida.

El efecto va a ser una auto-derrota. Los principales actores van a tomar sus medidas y esperar hasta que las tropas se retiren el proximo anio cuando menos tropas Americanas estaran en el frente.

La ambiguedad del plan americano le da la ventaja al enemigo, nosotros tenemos los relojes pero ellos tienen el tiempo, dice el dicho.

La guerra en Afghanistan nos esta probando como nos probo Irak en el 2007. Y en este momento critico no han un substituto para el liderazgo del presidente.

Mr. McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona.


The Surge and Afghanistan
Unless he understands the reason for success in Iraq, the president is unlikely to lead a successful strategy against the Taliban.

By JOHN MCCAIN
Today President Obama will deliver a major speech to mark the draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq to 50,000 troops.

He will likely point out, as his administration has rightly argued, that Iraq still faces major challenges—foremost its inability to form a government—and that neither American sacrifice nor our commitment to Iraq's success is ending today. Yet our troops are returning with honor, which makes this a fitting time to reflect on the causes of their victory and on what lessons from Iraq can help us win the war in Afghanistan.

President Bush, right, in 2007 with Iraq's President Jalal Talabani.
.Though most Democrats still cannot bear to admit it, the war in Iraq is ending successfully because the surge worked. In 2007, President George W. Bush finally adopted a strategy and a team in Iraq that could win. He worked constantly to build public support for the policy. Just as important, the surge worked because it was clear that success was the only exit strategy: U.S. troops would meet their objectives, and then they would withdraw.

This policy was savaged by Democrats in Congress—including then-Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton—all of whom called for withdrawing U.S. forces regardless of the conditions or consequences. It would be nice if President Obama could finally find it in himself to give his predecessor the credit he deserves.

Whether they admit it or not, the administration's Afghanistan policy suggests they have learned some lessons from Iraq—some, but not all. We finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan with increased levels of troops and resources. The architect of the surge in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is now leading the war in Afghanistan.

This strategy is good and can succeed, but it is undercut by the president's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011—no matter what conditions are on the ground. None of our military leaders recommended this approach.

The effect of this is self-defeating. The key actors are hedging their bets, making it less likely that regional powers will stop supporting the insurgency or that our Afghan partners will fully embrace the fight against corruption. Meanwhile, our enemies take comfort in knowing that fewer U.S. troops will be fighting them next year than this year.

According to Gen. James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, the July 2011 deadline is "probably giving our enemy sustenance." Or, as the famous Taliban saying goes: "You've got the watches, we've got the time." The ambiguity of our policy is only playing into the hands of our enemies.

Our Afghanistan strategy is now being tested, just as the surge in Iraq was tested during 2007. Slow progress, rising casualties, and concerns about the weakness and reliability of our local partners are all decreasing public support for the war. A mood of defeatism is growing about Afghanistan, just as it once did with Iraq. Indeed, many of the same critics that would have delivered failure in Iraq are back again with calls for unconditional troop withdrawal, partitioning the country, a retreat to large bases and so on.

At this critical stage in Afghanistan—as was the case at a similar point in Iraq—there is no substitute for presidential leadership. President Obama was right to call success in Afghanistan a "vital national security interest" in his West Point speech last December. But that interest does not become any less vital in July 2011.

The president needs to state unequivocally that the conduct of the war, including decisions about troop strength, will be based on conditions on the ground. Furthermore, U.S. withdrawals should follow from a definition of success in Afghanistan that is broadly analogous to the success now emerging in Iraq—a country that is increasingly able to defend and govern itself.

We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we need to give this policy the necessary time to work. That's the best and fastest way for our troops to come home, as they are now from Iraq.

Mr. McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona.

[admin]

Lo que me resulta nauseabundo (no solo a mi) hay gente que dice que les hierve la sangre cuando escuchan a los democratas hablar de la victoria en Irak como si fuera una victoria de ellos y de Obama. No tienen verguenza, Obama y todos los democratas sin excepcion pedian a gritos en el 2007 que devolvieran a todas las tropas al pais, que lo de Irak era una causa perdida, y que jamaz se ganaria esa guerra. A el General Petraus al que ahora Obama ha enviado a Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton y los demas democratas lo hicieron testificar en el congreso donde lo llamaron traidor y mentiroso. Ese hombre debe querer mucho a su pais para haber aceptado trabajar con Obama aunque ya dijo que se retira el proximo anio.

Obama prefiere morir antes de reconocer que Irak es una victoria de Bush y de los republicanos.

McCain apoyo y sugirio el envio de mas tropas a Irak precisamente cuando los democratas pedian la retirada y decian que Irak era una guerra civil.

[Victor VE]

Victoria en Irak?? de EEUU? alguien en EEUU piensa que "eso" fue una victoria? alucinante. Cómo seria entonces una derrota? quién va a cargar con todos los traumados y los futuros suicidios y masacres que sucedan en EEUU por motivo del shock post-guerra realizados por estos soldados que fueron engañados para defender "ideales" (petroleo y demas).

Terrible si alguien piensa que "eso" es una victoria.

[admin]

Por que peleamos y que es lo que logramos

Saddam lanzo multiple guerras, uso armas de destruccion masiva y ayudo al terrorismo global. Ahora Iraq es un gobierno aliado de US y representa a toda la poblacion Iraki.

El esfuerzo de US no ha terminado. Cerca de 50,000 tropas junto con una robusta presencia diplomatica, continua entrenando y asesorando a las fuerzas de seguridad de Irak. Los americanos, las fuerzas aliadas y especialmente los Irakies han pagado un enorme precio. Es importante recordarlo.

Por dos decadas, el regimen de Saddam Hussein amenazo la seguridad nacional de US, sus aliados y la estabilidad del Medio Oriente. Invadio a sus vecinos (Iran y Kuwait) y amenazo a otros (incluyendo Saudi Arabia e Israel). Produjo armas de destruccion masiva, las uso contra su propia gente y contra la gente de Iran, y amenazo con utilizarlos contra otros.

Ayudo activamente a grupos terroristas de varios tipos. Brutalizo y aterrorizo a su propia gente. Invadio Kuwait sin provocacion alguna, causando la guerra del Golf en 1991. Violo los terminos del cese al fuego que termino la guerra. Y desafio la voluntad de la comunidad internaciona violando no menos de 16 resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas, resoluciones que condenaban sus actividades.

Desde el punto de vista de seguridad nacional, el objetivo de US despues de Sadam era conseguir un gobierno Iraki que no buscara armas de destruccion amsiva, que no invada a sus vecinos, que no apoyara al terrorismo o causara opresion sobre su propia gente. el objetivo ha sido logrado. El gobierno que ha seguido a Saddam y los que seguiran cumplen con ese criterio y la gente de Irak ha concluido que eso es lo que mas les conviene.

El objetivo de US fue tambien dejar atras a un Irak que se pueda gobernar solo, que se defienda solo, que se sostenga solo y que sea un aliado en la guerra contra el terrorismo. Ese objetivo tambien se ha logrado.

Una tarca al Qaeda es todavia capaz de especular ataques terroristas, pero esos ataque no seran ni una estrategia amenazadora ni una violencia sectorial renovada.

Irak ha demostrado que estan dispuestos y listos a tener un gobierno que dramaticamente provea de servicios a su gente u desarrolle sus extensas reservas de petroleo para que pueda prosperar economicamente. Ellos estan listos para gobernarse.

US y la coalicion de 30 paises y mas importante - la gente de Irak no se contento con solamente reemplazar a Saddam con un gobierno autoritario mas benigno que simplemente evitara comprometer la seguridad nacional de otros. Pero ninguno ha buscado establecer una democracia al estilo americano.

Tambien se ha conseguido el objetivo de incluir a los Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds y Cristianos. Todos ellos pueden trabajar juntos en un marco democratico. Este es un ejemplo poderoso en la region donde los Sunnis oprimen a los Shiites, los Shiites oprimen a los Sunnis o los dos oprimen a los Kurdos.

La gente de Irak es la que ha alcanzado esta victoria. Ellos soportaron la brutalidad de Saddam, sufrieron enormente con la invasion, juntaron sus fuerzas con nosotros (US) para liberarse de al Qaeda y el terrorismo, fueron a las elecciones a pesar de la violencia. Pero los mismos Irakies admiten que no hubieran podido tener exito si no hubiera sido por la ayuda de US.

Talvez el momento mas critico fue cuando Bush tomo la decision en Enero del 2007 de aumentar las tropas en 20,000 y cambiar la estrategia militar. Bush tuvo que superar la oposicion de la mayoria del congreso democrata que pedia el regreso de las tropas de manera inmediata sin importar las condiciones en que Irak quedaba.

Siguiendo la decision de Bush, las fuerzas militares americanas y diplomaticas en una sociedad sin precedente implemento una estrategia para combatir al enemigo. Su exito permitio que US pudiera comenzar a regresar a sus soldados en Diciembre del 2007. En Diciembre del 2008 Bush y el presidente al Maliki firmaron acuerdos para proveer una relacion a largo plazo entre los dos paises y la retirada de las tropas en el 2011.

Aunque la mayoria de Americanos estaban contra la guerra en el 2007, ellos entendian que no era muy importante como se dejaba a Irak. Nosotros quienes vivimos la guerra de Vietnan - un regreso en medio del combate, unas fuerzas militares quebradas, una crisis nacional de confianza - situacion que no debia repetirse. Con resistencia, pero los Americanos aceptaron la nueva estrategia y le dieron a nuestros hombres y mujeres en uniforme el tiempo necesario para conseguir la victoria.


Mr. Hadley was national security adviser to President Bush from 2005-2009.



Why We Fought and What We Achieved
Saddam had launched multiple wars, used weapons of mass destruction and aided global terrorism. Now Iraq's government is an ally and represents all the Iraqi people

By STEPHEN HADLEY
The U.S. effort in Iraq is not over. Some 50,000 U.S. troops, together with a robust diplomatic presence, continue to train and assist Iraq's security forces and support its democratic progress. The American people, our coalition allies and especially the Iraqi people have paid an enormous price. It is important to remember why.

.For over two decades, the regime of Saddam Hussein had threatened the national security of the United States, its key allies and the stability of the Middle East. It had invaded some of its neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened others (including Saudi Arabia and Israel). It had produced weapons of mass destruction, used them on its own people and the people of Iran, and threatened to use them against others.

It had actively supported terrorist groups of various stripes. It had brutalized and suppressed its own people. It had invaded Kuwait without provocation, leading to the 1991 Gulf War. It had violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement that ended that war. And it had defied the will of the international community by violating no fewer than 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning its activities and calling on it to stop them.

From a national security perspective, the U.S. objective for a post-Saddam Iraq was an Iraqi government that would not pursue weapons of mass destruction, invade its neighbors, support terror, or oppress its people. That objective has been achieved. The governments that have followed Saddam—and those that are likely to govern going forward—have and will continue to meet these criteria because the Iraqi people have concluded that doing so is in their interest.

The U.S. objective was also to leave behind an Iraq that would be able to govern itself, defend itself, sustain itself and be an ally in the war on terror. That objective has also been achieved.

A stubborn al Qaeda presence is still capable of spectacular terrorist attacks, but those attacks are neither a strategic threat nor a harbinger of renewed sectarian violence. The six-month stalemate in forming a new government is worrying, but virtually all Iraqi leaders accept the need for a broadly inclusive government. Once formed, that government must dramatically improve the delivery of services to its people and develop the extensive oil reserves that can fuel future economic growth and domestic prosperity. But the Iraqis have shown that they are ready, willing and able to run their own country.

The U.S., its more than 30 coalition partners and—most importantly—the Iraqi people did not settle for merely replacing Saddam with a more benign authoritarian regime that would simply avoid threatening the national security of others. But neither did they seek to establish an American-style democracy.

What was agreed was to help the Iraqi people make a reasonable start on building the institutions of an Iraqi-style democracy embracing all groups—Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmens, Christians and others. That objective has also been achieved. Iraq's multiconfessional government, a work in progress, has the potential to prove that Shiites, Sunni, Kurds and others can work together in a democratic framework—a powerful example in a region where all too often Sunnis oppress Shiites, Shiites oppress Sunnis, and both oppress the Kurds.

The Iraqi people are the main authors of this success. They endured great brutality under Saddam, suffered enormous hardship after the invasion, joined forces with us to liberate themselves from al Qaeda terrorism, and turned out to vote despite rampant violence. But even Iraqis admit that they could not have succeeded without the United States.

Perhaps the most critical moment was President Bush's decision in January 2007 to add over 20,000 American combat troops and change the military strategy. He was actively opposed by a majority of the Congress and a commentariat that argued for everything from withdrawing immediately to partitioning the country.

Following Mr. Bush's decision, U.S. military forces and diplomats forged an unprecedented partnership to implement the new strategy and break the back of an insurgency that threatened to tear the country apart. Their success permitted the United States to begin withdrawing its troops in December 2007. By December 2008, Mr. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki could sign agreements providing both a long-term U.S.-Iraqi partnership and the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.

Although a majority of Americans had long since turned against the war by 2007, they understood that how we left Iraq, and the Iraq we left behind, mattered greatly. Those of us who had lived through Vietnam—a withdrawal under fire, a broken military, a national crisis of confidence—did not want to go there again. Albeit reluctantly, the American people gave the new strategy, and our men and women in uniform, the time they needed to succeed.

To his credit, President Obama has built on this success. As promised, he is continuing to bring our troops home but without jeopardizing what has been achieved. His next task is to realize a long-term diplomatic, economic and security partnership between Iraq and the United States. As he does so, it will help Iraqis achieve a brighter future and make the U.S. effort in Iraq a hard-won success for all Americans.

Mr. Hadley was national security adviser to President Bush from 2005-2009.

[admin]

Shanghai C. -0.67%, Hang Seng -0.85%, Korea -1.13%, el Nikkei -2.59%, Australia -0.55%

Los futures del Dow Jones sin cambio a esta hora.

Euro down 1.2647

[admin]

El yen up 84.31

[admin]

Glen Beck personalidad conservadora de radio y television organizo una manifestacion masiva a la que llamo el dia del honor y lo convoco nada menos que el Lincoln Memorial (lugar sagrado para los americanos)

Esta manifestacion ha resultado ser la mas grande de la historia del pais (lo debaten) pero sin duda ha sido la mas impresionante.

No hubo un solo cartel, no fue politica, no se alento a ningun candidato o partido por motivo de las elecciones.

Los asistentes fueron los que demostraron mejor conducta que en cualquier otro evento con tantos participantes.

Los de la izquierda dicen que los que participaron son racistas, gente intolerante, llena de odio, la verdad es que los que asistieron fueron americanos preocupados por el rumbo que lleva el pais, por la deuda masiva, el deficit mas alla de donde los ojos pueden ver. Americanos que quieren devolverle a su pais el respeto por su constitucion y los principios sobre los que fue fundado.


Glenn Beck's Happy Warriors
You probably couldn't have found a more polite crowd at the opera.

By JAMES FREEMAN
Washington, D.C.

Pundits will debate whether the crowd at Glenn Beck's Saturday rally in Washington was the largest in recent political history, but it was certainly among the most impressive.

Mr. Beck is a television host and radio broadcaster with a checkered past and a penchant for incendiary remarks. But if he's judged by the quality of people of all colors that he attracted to the Lincoln Memorial, his stock can't help but rise.

Jason Riley discusses Glenn Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial.
.One would not be able to find a more polite crowd at a political convention, certainly not at a professional sporting event, probably not even at an opera. In fact, judging by the behavior of the attendees following the event, you'd have a tough time finding churches in which people display more patience as others make their way to the exits.

This army of well-mannered folks that marched into Washington seemed comprised mainly of people who had once marched in the U.S. Army or other military branch, or at least had a family member who had. Perhaps that's not surprising, given that the event was a fund-raiser for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which provides scholarships to the children of elite troops killed in the performance of their duty. The day was largely devoted to expressions of gratitude for the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers, for great men of American history like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and for God.

But it didn't end there. Dave Roever, a Vietnam veteran, offered a closing prayer in which he thanked the Lord for the president and for the Congress. Despite the unpopularity of the latter two, no booing or catcalls could be heard.

Perhaps feeling defensive about how they would be portrayed in media reports, various attendees wore t-shirts noting that they were "Not violent" or "Non-violent." For other participants, there was no need for an explicit message. Relaxed young parents felt comfortable enough to push toddlers in strollers through the crowded areas along the memorial's reflecting pool.

Not only was the rally akin to a "huge church picnic" (in one Journal reporter's description), but one had to wonder if the over-achievers in this crowd actually left the area in better shape than they found it.

After the event, walking from the Lincoln Memorial's reflecting pool through Constitution Gardens, this reporter scanned 360 degrees and could not see a scrap of trash anywhere. Participants and volunteers had collected all their refuse and left it piled neatly in bags around the public garbage cans. Near Constitution Avenue, I did encounter one stray piece of paper—but too old and faded to have been left that day.

Given the huge representation of military families at the event, maybe it's not surprising the grounds were left ship-shape. A principal theme of the day was that attendees should restore the country by making improvements in their own lives—be the change you wish to see in the world, as Gandhi once put it.

Most of the participants were strictly amateurs in the business of activism. For many, it was their first appearance at a public demonstration. Their strikingly mild-mannered nature might inspire even Mr. Beck to acknowledge that in a crowd estimated at 300,000, the craziest person at the event might have been the one with the microphone. While he admits that he's part entertainer and prone to over-the-top comments, his followers appear to be sincerely responding to his message that Americans need to cling to their best traditions. (Mr. Beck's program appears on the Fox News Channel, which is owned by News Corp., which also owns this newspaper.)

The conservative Mr. Beck's ability to draw this many people to Washington may suggest enormous gains for Republicans come the fall. But the GOP shouldn't expect voters to simply hand them a congressional majority without making them earn it. If pregame chatter and off-season optimism translated into victory, the New York Jets and the Washington Redskins would meet in the Super Bowl every year.

Between Saturday's crowd in Washington and the tea partiers agitating for limited government, we may be witnessing the rebuilding of the Reagan coalition, the "fusion" of religious and economic conservatives that political theorist Frank Meyer once endorsed. Reagan always believed that the Republican Party was the natural home for this movement, but GOP leaders in Washington need to prove they are worthy of it.

Mr. Freeman is assistant editor of the Journal's editorial page.

[admin]

El directorio de Genzyme rechazo la oferta de compra de Sanofi.

El alza del yen haciendole mucho danio a las exportadoras Japonesas.

[admin]

Copper August 30,22:34
Bid/Ask 3.3242 - 3.3288
Change -0.0227 -0.68%
Low/High 3.3242 - 3.3605
Charts

Nickel August 30,22:34
Bid/Ask 9.2941 - 9.3395
Change -0.1262 -1.34%
Low/High 9.2760 - 9.5050
Charts

Aluminum August 30,21:11
Bid/Ask 0.9045 - 0.9091
Change -0.0045 -0.50%
Low/High 0.9045 - 0.9136
Charts

Zinc August 30,22:28
Bid/Ask 0.9178 - 0.9223
Change -0.0045 -0.49%
Low/High 0.9155 - 0.9336
Charts

Lead August 30,22:02
Bid/Ask 0.9166 - 0.9212
Change -0.0076 -0.82%
Low/High 0.9166

[admin]

El-Erian de PIMCO ve la decada perdida de US.

[admin]

Euro up 1.2689

Los futures del Dow Jones 26 puntos a la baja

Oil down. au down, cu down.

Libor igual 0.30%

Europa a la baja y el Asia cerro a la baja.

Oil down 73.85

-28

Dell parece que no comprara 3Par.

Yields 2.50%

-25

Google lanzara priority inbos for Gmail.

Yen up 84.43

[admin]

Copper August 31,06:13
Bid/Ask 3.3179 - 3.3224
Change -0.0290 -0.87%
Low/High 3.3074 - 3.3605
Charts

Nickel August 31,06:13
Bid/Ask 9.2261 - 9.3168
Change -0.1943 -2.06%
Low/High 9.1920 - 9.5050
Charts

Aluminum August 31,06:13
Bid/Ask 0.9091 - 0.9136
Change +0.0000 +0.00%
Low/High 0.8977 - 0.9181
Charts

Zinc August 31,06:13
Bid/Ask 0.9141 - 0.9187
Change -0.0082 -0.89%
Low/High 0.9101 - 0.9336
Charts

Lead August 31,06:13
Bid/Ask 0.9107 - 0.9153
Change -0.0135 -1.46%
Low/High 0.9053 - 0.9348
Charts

Uranium

[admin]

Au down 1,237.60