Viernes 10/09/10 Comercio de Mayoristas

[admin]

Eventos economicos

Viernes

Comercio de mayoristas

[admin]

Clase a las 9 p.m. hora de Lima.

[admin]

Caricatura en Cleveland

No puedes devolver la confianza a los negociantes insultandolos

Adicionalmente a las contradicciones de su politica, Obama esta teniendo muchos problemas para contar su historia economica. El dice ahora que cree en los duenios de negocios y la economia privada, pero mientras dice eso sigue insultando a los negocios por ambiciosos y egoistas, esto suena como la parodia de Walter Reuther en The Onion.

Consideren la descripcion dada ayer en Cleveland de lo que el llama "la filosofia especifica del gobierno" que ha gobernado el pais desde que Obama llego a la Casa Blanca:

"Recorte de impuestos especialmente para los millonarios y billonarios. Recorta la regulacion de los intereses especiales. Recorte de los acuerdos del libre comercio asi eso no beneficie a nuestro trabajadores. Recorte de inversion en nuestra gente y nuestro futuro - en educacion y energia limpia, en investigacion y tecnologia. La idea fue que si nosotrs tenemos fe ciega en el mercado, si dejamos que las corporaciones pongan sus reglas ellos mismos; si dejamos que todos hagan lo que mas les conviene, America crecera y properara."

Es que Bob Shrum, el asesor politico del candidato John Kerry esta trabajando ahora para la Casa Blanca como escritor? La caricatura es tan exagerada que nos imaginamos que todos deben estar riendose. Para empezar, Bush puso ms regulaciones y gasto enorme cantidad de dinero en educacion, ethanol y otras energias de moda. Y, ademas, Obama recientemente dijo que quiere pasar mas o menos los mismos tratados de libre comercio que impulso Bush.

Obama quiere que la economia crezca, como cree que los empresarios y CEOs van a reaccionar a este tipo de lenguaje. Es que el cree que van a inveritr, van a tomar mas riesgo y van a contratar mas personal? Asumiran ellos que Washington es ahora menos destructiva?

Talvez los asesores de Obama le estan diciendo que necesita reforzar su retorica para animar a su base democratica. Pero tambien alguien tiene que estarle diciendo de que no le va a devolver la confianza a los empresarios insultandolos y hablando mal de ellos y no se puede revivir la inversion de capital asaltando a los capitalistas.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16

Caricature in Cleveland
You can't restore business confidence by bashing business

In addition to his policy contradictions, President Obama is having a hard time keeping his economic story straight. He claims to believe in entrepreneurs and the private economy, but he keeps muddying that message with riffs about greedy business that sound like a parody of Walter Reuther in The Onion.

Consider his description yesterday in Cleveland of what he called the "very specific governing philosophy" that ruled America until he arrived in the White House:

"Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires. Cut regulations for special interests. Cut trade deals even if they didn't benefit our workers. Cut back on investments in our people and our future—in education and clean energy; in research and technology. The idea was that if we had blind faith in the market; if we let corporations play by their own rules; if we left everyone else to fend for themselves, America would grow and prosper."

Has Bob Shrum, John Kerry's political wizard, joined the White House speech-writing shop? The caricature is so over-the-top that it's hard to imagine anyone writing it without laughing. For starters, President Bush added new regulations like Topsy and spent huge new sums on education, ethanol and other energy fashions. And, by the way, Mr. Obama recently said he wants to pass more or less the same trade deals that Mr. Bush negotiated.

More important for Mr. Obama's own hopes for the economy, how does he think entrepreneurs and CEOs react to this sort of broadside? Does he believe it makes them more likely to invest, take more risks or hire new workers? Will they assume Washington will now be less destructive?

Perhaps the President's political advisers are telling him he needs to indulge in this low-rent rhetoric to mobilize a dispirited Democratic base. But someone should also tell him that you can't restore business confidence by bashing business, and you can't revive capital investment by assaulting capitalists.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16

[admin]

Que debe hacer el Fed ahora?
Intereses cerca a cero y la compra de valores sin precedentes por parte del Fed han fracasado en su intento de retornar la economia Americana al crecimiento robusto o reducir el desempleo. Ahora el Fed se quedo sin armas. Nosotros le preguntamos a seis autoridades en politica monetaria acerca de lo que el Fed deberia hacer ahora.



What Should the Federal Reserve Do Next?
Near-zero interest rates and unprecedented asset purchases by the Fed have failed to return the U.S. economy to robust growth

Editor's note: A prolonged period of near-zero interest rates and unprecedented asset purchases by the Federal Reserve has failed to return the U.S. economy to robust growth or make an appreciable dent in unemployment. It is now commonly asserted that the Fed is "out of ammunition." Is it? We asked six authorities on monetary policy what the Fed should do next.

• John B. Taylor: Return to Rule-Based Policy

• Richard W. Fisher: Uncertainty Causes 'Liquidity Hoarding'

• Frederic S. Mishkin: Don't Monetize the Debt

• Ronald McKinnon: Avoid the Zero Interest Rate Trap

• Vincent Reinhart: Treasury Purchase Shock and Awe

• Allan H. Meltzer: Focus on the Long Term



Return to Rule-Based Policy

By John B. Taylor

To establish Fed policy going forward, the best place to start is to consider what has worked in the past. During the two decades before the recent financial crisis, the Fed employed a reasonably rule-based strategy for adjusting the money supply and the interest rate. The interest rate rose by predictable amounts when inflation increased, and it fell by predictable amounts during recessions.

Economists cite the Taylor rule—which says that the Fed's target interest rate should be one-and-a-half times the inflation rate, plus one-half times the shortfall of GDP from potential plus one—as evidence that this approach worked. Performance was good during the 1980s and 1990s when policy was close to the rule. And it was poor when policy was far away from the rule, as it was during the 1970s and the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, leading up to and during the recent crisis, the Fed deviated from this framework. It held interest rates too low for too long from 2002 to 2005, and after the crisis began to flare up in 2007 it engaged in massive discretionary credit operations. While some actions helped halt the panic in the fall of 2008, others, like the unpredictable on-again off-again bailouts, brought it on and left a legacy of uncertainty that's holding back recovery now.

So the answer to the question is simple: Get back to the rule-based policy that was working before the crisis. To get there without causing more market disruption, announce and follow a clear exit rule, in which the Fed's bloated balance sheet is gradually pared back by predictable amounts as the economic recovery picks up.

Such a policy would be a much better stimulus than another large dose of quantitative easing in which the Fed's balance sheet explodes even further, raising more uncertainty about how it will ever be unwound. A rules-based monetary policy could also serve as a model for fiscal policy—an area where increased predictability and certainty are sorely needed.

Mr. Taylor, a professor of economics at Stanford and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of "Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged and Worsened the Financial Crisis" (Hoover Press, 2009).


Uncertainty Causes 'Liquidity Hoarding'
By Richard W. Fisher


The Fed plays a crucial role in conditioning the economy. But it does not play the only role. Fiscal and regulatory authorities share significant responsibility for incentivizing economic behavior through taxes, spending and rule making.

The minutes of the last Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting noted that "a number of participants reported that business contacts again indicated that uncertainty about future taxes, regulations, and health-care costs made them reluctant to expand their workforces." This uncertainty about fiscal and regulatory matters makes it difficult to create the jobs Americans need. Yet without robust job growth, consumption will be weak and economic recovery meek.

One might assume that with more than $1 trillion in excess bank reserves and significant amounts of cash held by businesses, the gas tank of those who have the capacity to hire is reasonably full. One might also conclude that the Fed, having cut the cost of interbank overnight lending to near zero and used quantitative easing to coax the entire yield curve downward, has driven the cost of gas to virtually nil for businesses that are creditworthy. And yet businesses still aren't hiring.

Can the Fed do more to propel job creation?

Barring an unforeseen shock, I would be reluctant to expand the Fed's balance sheet unless fiscal and regulatory initiatives are aligned with the needs of job creators. Otherwise, further accommodation might be pushing on a string. In the worst case, it could flood the engine of the economy with gas that might later ignite inflation.

Of course, if the fiscal and regulatory authorities are able to dispel the angst that FOMC participants are reporting, further accommodation may not be needed. If businesses are more certain about future policy, they'll release the liquidity they're now hoarding.

Mr. Fisher is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.


Don't Monetize the Debt
By Frederic S. Mishkin


The Federal Reserve is facing a very difficult situation. Right now, it is not achieving either of its objectives: Inflation has been running well below the generally accepted target level of 2%, while unemployment is stuck above 9%.

This combination would normally call for additional monetary policy easing, but the conventional tool of lowering the fed funds rate is no longer an option. Instead, the Fed's recent announcement that it will reinvest payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities into long-term Treasurys has opened the door to large-scale asset purchases. Should the Fed pull the trigger?

Purchasing long-term Treasurys might suggest that the Fed is accommodating the fiscal authorities by monetizing the debt—thereby weakening the government's incentives to come to grips with our long-term fiscal problems. In addition, major holdings of long-term securities expose the Fed's balance sheet to potentially large losses if interest rates rise.

Such losses would result in severe criticism of the Fed and a weakening of its independence. Both the weakening of its independence and the perception that the Fed is willing to monetize the debt could lead to increased expectations for inflation sometime in the future. That would make it much harder for the Fed to contain inflation and promote a healthy economy.

Expanding the Fed's balance sheet through large-scale asset purchases can be necessary in extraordinary circumstances, such as during the depths of the recent financial crisis. But in relatively normal times, the costs of using this tool are sufficiently high that it should not be used lightly.

Mr. Mishkin is a professor of finance and economics at the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University, a former governor of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, and the author of "Macroeconomics: Policy and Practice," forthcoming from Addison-Wesley.


Avoid the Zero Interest Rate Trap
By Ronald McKinnon


With fears of a double-dip recession mounting, the Fed is considering buying additional U.S. Treasury bonds to further drive down longer-term interest rates. But ultra-low interest rates will fail to stimulate the economy in the near term and the long term.

In the near term, any increase in aggregate demand for investment or consumption from lower rates may well be offset by a supply-side constraint on bank credit expansion. In the longer term, near-zero interest rates will seriously impair important financial institutions such as defined-benefit pension plans.

What's more, America's low interest policies create outflows of "hot" money that force down interest rates elsewhere, most notably in China. This helps inflate asset bubbles that could come back to haunt the world economy.

So how should the Fed spring today's low-interest trap while stimulating the economy? Any plans to directly drive down longer-term interest rates on Treasurys should be abandoned. Bank intermediation is already curtailed because interest rates are too low to compensate the risk of taking on new liabilities.

But something more positive is necessary to promote the recovery of interbank, and then retail bank, lending. The Fed has the legal authority to be an active but "neutral" financial intermediary to replicate a properly functioning interbank market.

By accepting deposits and making loans at all terms to maturity, the Fed could nudge rates up to, say, 2% on short-term deposits with a modest upslope in the yield curve to approximately 4% at long term. Because the Fed can suppress counterparty risk by acting as broker-dealer in the interbank markets, it could behave as a neutral auctioneer by setting interest rates to balance the flow of bank funds.

This would eliminate the fear banks have of dealing with each other and get money moving again, but it would also pose technical problems—not the least of which are the huge overhangs of excess reserves in large commercial banks and toxic mortgage-backed securities on the Fed's own balance sheet.

But how to deal with these issues is a story for another time. Right now the crying need is to spring the near zero interest rate liquidity trap.

Mr. McKinnon is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institution for Economic Policy Research.


Treasury Purchase Shock and Awe
By Vincent Reinhart


Readings on the economy have been sluggish and inflation has been slower than the Fed expected earlier in the summer. The situation warrants a response.

With the fed funds rate pinned at zero, the requisite easing action must take an unconventional form. For the reasons Chairman Ben Bernanke spelled out in his Jackson Hole speech in August, large-scale asset purchases seem to be the most promising.

Spending depends on the confidence of households and investors, and right now they seem legitimately worried both about near-term slack in the economy and longer-term overcommitment by the government. Moreover, as Carmen Reinhart and I documented at the Jackson Hole Symposium on Aug. 27, the performance of the economy may be impaired because of the financial crisis for a long time to come.

As a consequence, the Fed has to be both aggressive and nimble. The Fed should promise to purchase government and mortgage-related securities between its regularly scheduled meetings as long as activity is forecast to be subpar and inflation is low or headed down. Purchases of, say, $100 billion every six-to-eight weeks would add up to a number worthy of shock and awe for those with a somber economic outlook.

But those foreseeing a quick return to above-trend growth or expecting a slower trend would similarly be reassured that the Fed would not keep its foot on the accelerator for too long. Most importantly, by linking to economic conditions, the Fed would not be providing an open-ended promise to monetize the federal debt.

Mr. Reinhart, a former director of the Federal Reserve Board's Division of Monetary Affairs, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


Focus on the Long Term
By Allan H. Meltzer


When Congress established the Fed in 1913, it gave it a dual mandate: high employment and price stability. In its nearly 100-year history, the Fed has achieved both objectives only rarely: 1923-1928, a few years in the mid-1950s and early 1960s, and from 1985 to 2004, when the Fed followed the Taylor rule that incorporates Congress's mandate. Those 20 years when the Fed followed the rule were the longest sustained period of stable growth and low inflation in Federal Reserve history.

In "A History of the Federal Reserve," I concluded that the principal mistakes the Fed has made have resulted from giving excessive attention to current events and forecasts of highly uncertain near-term developments. By focusing on the short-term, the Fed neglects the longer-term consequences of its actions. The transcripts of FOMC show that the members are paying little attention to medium- and longer-term consequences. A rule would change that.

A rule prevents the Fed from responding to the cries of the day traders in the market—the ones now screaming about an unlikely deflation to improve their portfolio—and the pressures from politicians anxious to increase their votes. At times like the present, a rule helps the Fed to recognize that current problems are mainly the result of mistaken government policies that create massive uncertainty.

The Fed added more than a trillion dollars of excess reserves to respond to the financial crisis. Most are still available for bank loans. Adding a few hundred billion to the trillion dollars already available would help the bond speculators, but would do little for the economy that banks could not do now.

There is very little that the Fed can do to change the near-term, but it can have important influence on the future. The Fed has sacrificed much of its independence during this crisis by helping the Treasury carry out fiscal policy. Adopting and following a rule, like the Taylor rule, is an effective way to regain independence.

Mr. Meltzer is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "A History of the Federal Reserve" (University of Chicago Press, 2003 and 2010).

[admin]

Las contradicciones de Obama: la economica necesita un recorte de impuestos - y un aumento de impuestos.

Despues de 20 meses y mas de $1 trillon tirado al desague de Keynes, Obama esta decubriendo la virtud de los recortes de impuestos. Pasenme las sales olorosas, que nos estamos desmayando.

Ayer el Presidente propuso un plan de $180 billones que incluye un credito de impuestos permanente la innvestigacion y desarrollo para las compras de capital en el 2011. Estas son ideas sensibles que podrian compensar por lo menos en algo el danio que Obama esta haciendo al subir los impuestos. John McCain podria ver como lo copian ya que ambas ideas fueron parte de su campania electoral contra Obama.

La Casa Blanca lo niega, pero es importante entender que todas las politicas de Obama estan basada en la creencia de que el gobierno puede generar crecimiento en la economia dandole dinero a los consumidores para que aumenten la demanda y crear lo que los economistas llaman la demanda agregada. Lo que no se ve por ningun lado es el intento de dar incentivos a los negocios o individuos para que inviertan y tomen mas riesgo. Asi las nuevas politicas esten motivadas por la desesperacion de las elecciones, esta es una tacita admision de que su modelo de crecimiento basado en el gobierno no funciona.

El incentivo mas grande podria venir de dejar que los negocios puedan descontar sus compras de capita, inversiones en plantas neuvas, computadoras, teconologia, etc en un solo anio. Este gasto es actualmente deducido en 20 anios dependiendo de la industria y del numero de anios en que el activo se deprecia. Pero en esta era de informacion con mayro enfasis en el capital humano, realmente tiene sentido depreciar un tipo de inversion de manera mas acelerada que otra.

Permitir la depreciacion inmediata daria un incentivo poderoso a las corporaciones a gastar algo de los $2 trillones que tienen en ganancias retenidas que ahora estan detenidas debido al miedo y la incertidumbre. La fuerza laboral tambien se beneficiaria porque los harian mas productivos en sus trabajos, lo cual es catalista para los aumentos de sueldos.

Cuando Bush permitio a los pequenios y grandes negocios write-off 50% de sus gastos de capital como parte de sus recortes de impuestos en el 2003, la inversion de los negocios en equipo y software aumento a $1.06 trillones para fines del 2004 de $821 billones a mediados del 2002, casi un 30% de aumento. La creacion de empleo crecio por 46 meses consecutivos con casi 8 millones de empleos creados.

El gran problema con esta proposicion es que es temporal. Si los recortes de impuestos ses hacen solo por un anio, los negocios adelantarian la inversion que de todas maneras van a hacer, prestandoselas del futuro. La economia crecera mas rapido en el 2011, si lo demas no cambia, pero algo de ese crecimiento sera prestado del 2012 y del 2013. Ya hemos visto los efectos de los incentivos temporales en los creditos de impuestos para la compra de casas, el cash for clunkers y las devoluciones de impuestos.

En el mundo de los Keynesian, este no es problema por que en un anio la economia comienza a caminar y el estimulo se puede retirar de manera segura por que la economica se podra sostener sola. Pero en el mundo real, la inversion sera mas grande y el crecimento mas rapido si la reduccion es permanente en los penalidades de los impuestos al capital lo cual aumentaria el varlo de capital de manera permanente. La Casa Blanca aun tiene mucho que aprender.

Y acerca del credito en investigacion y desarrollo, nos tenemos que remontar al enorme exito de los recortes de impuestos de Bush. Anio tras anio, el Congreso extendio el credito, pero solo despues de extraer las contribuciones a sus campanias electorales por parte de las corporaciones.

Hacer este credito permanente es una buena politica y nosotros no dudamos en decir que fue Bush quien endorso esta modalidad de anio a anio. Un estudio en el 2010 encontro que US ocupa el 17th lugar entre las mayores economias en generosidad en sus politicas de R&D (investigacion y desarrollo)

Lo que nos lleva a la contradiccion en el corazon de la politica de Obama, el quiere recortar los impuestos al capital por que dice que la economia necesita un estimulo, pero a la vez quiere aumentar los impuestos al capital por que eso no afectara el crecimiento. Huh?

Ayer en Cleveland, Obama dijo que quiere que los impuestos suban sustancialmente para las ganancias de los pequenios negocios, dividendos, ganancias de capital y los impuestos a los que mas ganan. Estos son impuestos marginales que seran aumentados en el mismo capital de Investigacion y desarrollo que el quiere impulsar. Y mientras los creditos de impuestos seran temporales los aumentos de impuestos seran permanente.

Otro problema para Obama es que el quiere pagar los recortes de impuestos de las corporaciones con una lista especifica de otros impuestos a otras industrias como al petroleo y al gas. Esta es una razon por que la reaccion en la comunidad empresaria es menos que entusiasta.

Sin embargo las propuestas de Obama son un progreso intelectual. Sus propuestas para las corporaciones son un reconocimiento de que el 35% de impuestos es muy alto. El reciente reporte de Paul Volkers dice claramente que el altisimo impuesto a las corporaciones es un impedimento al crecimiento de la economia.

Basicamente lo que Obama esta proponiendo es reducir los impuestos a las corporaciones por un anio en lo que se refiere a inversiones nuevas. Pero una idea mejor sera reducir el impuesto a las corporaciones al 20% o menos. Menor el impuesto, menor sera la necesidad de creditos de impuestos y otras estrategias.

El momento en que se hace estas propuestas solo refuerzan la idea de que los democratas estan desesperados por la estampida que van a ver en Noviembre para extender los impuestos de Bush. No hay duda de que es parte del calculo de Obama, pero tambien es una concesion a una mejor politica economica.

Ahora que Obama ha aceptado que los recortes de impuestos son una buena politca, los republicanos deberian verlo - y pararse.



Tax Contradictions
Obama says the economy needs a tax cut—and a tax increase.

After 20 months and more than $1 trillion down the Keynesian drain, President Obama is discovering the virtue of tax cuts. Pass the smelling salts, we just fainted.

Yesterday the President proposed a $180 billion plan that includes a permanent research and development tax credit and a tax write-off for all business capital purchases in 2011. These are both sensible ideas that would counteract at least some of the damage from Mr. Obama's looming tax increase. John McCain could sue for plagiarism because versions of both ideas were part of his 2008 campaign platform.

***
The White House will deny it, but it's important to understand what a conceptual switcheroo this is. Mr. Obama's economic policies to date have been based on the belief that government can drive growth by handing out checks to consumers, who will then spend the money and increase what economists call aggregate demand. Missing was any attempt to spur incentives for business or individuals to invest and take more risks. Even if this policy reversal is motivated by election desperation, it is still a tacit admission of the failure of its growth model.

The biggest short-term boost would come from allowing business expensing of capital purchases—investment in new plant, equipment, computers, technology and so on—in a single year. Such spending is currently written off over three to 20 years depending on the industry and an estimate of how long that the asset's value depreciates. But especially in our information age with its premium on human capital, it makes less sense to depreciate one type of investment at a faster rate than another.

Columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady critiques the President's plan.
.Immediate expensing would provide a powerful incentive for businesses to spend some of that $2 trillion or so in retained earnings that they are now hoarding out of fear and uncertainty. Labor will also benefit because encouraging capital investment makes American workers more productive on the job, which is the catalyst for higher wages.

When President Bush allowed large and small businesses to write-off 50% of their capital expenditures as part of his 2003 tax cut, business spending on equipment and software rose to $1.06 trillion by the end of 2004 from $821 billion in mid-2002, a near 30% rise, according to tax economist Steve Entin. U.S. employment grew for 46 straight months, with almost eight million net new jobs created.

The big flaw in this proposal is that it's temporary. If the tax cut is for only one year, businesses will move spending forward that would have happened in future years. The economy will grow faster in 2011, other things being equal, but some of that growth will be stolen from 2012 and 2013. We've seen this temporary effect before with the home-buying tax credit, cash for clunkers and tax rebates.

In the Keynesian world-view, this is no problem because the one-year policy is supposed to kick-start the recovery and the stimulus can be safely withdrawn because the economy will become self-sustaining. But in the real world, investment will be greater and growth will be faster with a permanent reduction in the tax penalty on capital that will permanently increase the value of that capital. The White House still has some tax learning to do.

As for the research and development tax credit, it dates to the hugely successful 1981 Reagan tax cut. Year after year Congress has extended this tax credit, but only after the annual ritual of extracting campaign contributions from corporate America in return.

Making this tax credit permanent is good policy, and we almost hesitate to point out that George W. Bush endorsed this every year, lest Democrats in Congress recoil in horror. A 2010 study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, found that the U.S. ranks 17th among major economies in the generosity of its tax policy toward R&D.

***
Which takes us to the contradiction at the heart of Mr. Obama's partial tax epiphany: He wants to cut taxes on capital because he says the economy needs the stimulus, even as he wants to raise other taxes on capital that he says won't hurt growth. Huh?

Yesterday in Cleveland, Mr. Obama said he still wants tax rates to rise sharply in January on small business profits, dividends, capital gains and high-income earners. These are marginal rate tax increases on the very capital and R&D that his new tax cuts are supposed to nurture. And while the expensing tax breaks would be temporary, the tax increases would be permanent.

Another problem is that Mr. Obama says he wants to "pay for" the corporate tax cuts with a so far unspecified list of corporate tax "loophole closings," such as hammering the oil and gas industry. This is one reason the reaction in the business community has been so lukewarm to the new incentives.

We'll nonetheless give the President and his economic team points for intellectual progress. Their proposals for corporate tax cuts are a de facto recognition that the 35% U.S. corporate tax rate is too high. The recent report by Paul Volcker's White House economic advisory group also does a first-rate job of dissecting the high U.S. corporate tax as a barrier to growth. Mr. Obama is essentially proposing to eliminate the corporate tax for one year on new investment. But a better idea would be to slash the U.S. rate to the developed world norm in the mid-20% range, or lower. The lower the rate, the less need for tax credits and other loopholes.

The timing of these proposals will lead some to dismiss them as an election year conversion designed to stop a Democratic stampede to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts. No doubt that's part of Mr. Obama's calculation, but they are also a concession to better economic policy.

Now that Mr. Obama has conceded that tax cuts are good policy, Republicans should see him—and raise.

[admin]

Siempre se ha reconocido que el partido republicano es el partido de las ideas. Una vez mas se demuestra que los democratas son unos ineptos, no hay cerebros en ese partido. Solo hay ideologia de izquierda.

Que ironia, hasta Fidel Castro reconoce que su politica no funciona ni para ellos.

[admin]

September 09,21:15
Bid/Ask 3.4033 - 3.4078
Change -0.0159 -0.46%
Low/High 3.4010 - 3.4237
Charts

Nickel September 09,15:17
Bid/Ask 10.2111 - 10.2565
Change +0.0000 +0.00%
Low/High 10.2111 - 10.2565
Charts

Aluminum September 09,15:17
Bid/Ask 0.9295 - 0.9340
Change +0.0000 +0.00%
Low/High 0.9295 - 0.9340
Charts

Zinc September 09,15:17
Bid/Ask 0.9577 - 0.9622
Change +0.0000 +0.00%
Low/High 0.9577 - 0.9622

[admin]

El Nikkei +1.82%, Korea +1.18%, el Shanghai C.+0.24%, Australia +0.15%

Los futures del Dow Jones 3 puntos a la baja.

Yields up 2.75%

Euro down 1.2676, yen down 84.16

Oil down up 74.85, Au down 1,246.40, futures cu down 3.42

[admin]

Se esperaba que la economia de Japon creciera 0.4%, en su lugar crecio 1.5% (anualizado) en el segundo trimestre. Muy buenas noticias. La deflation persiste.

[admin]

El ID para la clase es 524-459-985

[El_Diez]

El índice general de la BVL esta en zona de sobre compra, creo yo que tiene que corregir.

[admin]

Los futures del Dow Jones 24 puntos al alza.

Yields up 2.74%

Oil up 75.59

Au down 1,249.60, futures cu down 3.43, silver up 19.92

Euro up 1.2726, yen down 83.90

Libor igual 0.29%

Europa down, Asia mixta.

[admin]

Copper September 10,07:36
Bid/Ask 3.4056 - 3.4101
Change -0.0136 -0.40%
Low/High 3.3829 - 3.4237
Charts

Nickel September 10,06:52
Bid/Ask 10.2247 - 10.3154
Change +0.0136 +0.13%
Low/High 10.1227 - 10.3268
Charts

Aluminum September 10,07:06
Bid/Ask 0.9349 - 0.9395
Change +0.0054 +0.59%
Low/High 0.9295 - 0.9467
Charts

Zinc September 10,07:46
Bid/Ask 0.9577 - 0.9600
Change +0.0000 +0.00%
Low/High 0.9563 - 0.9672
Charts

Lead September 10,07:40
Bid/Ask 0.9773 - 0.9796
Change +0.0005 +0.05%
Low/High 0.9674 - 0.9864
Charts

[admin]

SPANISHSEPTEMBER 9, 2010, 8:36 P.M. ET
El BCE apuesta por la austeridad

El banco Central Europeo cree que se acerca la hora de apretarse el cinturón fiscal, a pesar de las dudas en torno a la recuperación de la economía mundial. La entidad resalta que los beneficios provenientes de una mayor confianza del sector privado serán más importantes que la debilidad de la demanda. "Una consolidación viable y ambiciosa eleva las expectativas de crecimiento económico e induce reacciones económicas", afirmó el organismo en su boletín mensual. Se trata de la tercera vez en cuatro meses en que el BCE se muestra partidario de un

[admin]

SPANISHSEPTEMBER 9, 2010, 5:36 P.M. ET
Los trabajadores metalúrgicos de EE.UU. piden investigación comercial contra China

Por Tom Barkley
The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON— El sindicato de trabajadores metalúrgicos de EE.UU., United Steelworkers, solicitó formalmente el jueves una investigación comercial sobre las políticas de China para apoyar su sector floreciente de tecnología verde, en un caso que podría terminar ante la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

La petición, presentada ante la oficina del Representante Comercial de EE.UU. (USTR, por sus siglas en inglés), acusa al gobierno de China de proveer cientos de miles de millones de dólares en subsidios y otros medios de apoyo para proveer una ventaja injusta a las firmas locales.

"Creemos que estas prácticas han permitido a China emerger como un proveedor dominante de tecnologías verdes", dijo a periodistas Leo Gerard, presidente del sindicato.


Kay Chernush/Getty images
Gerard añadió que las medidas de largo alcance adoptadas por el gobierno chino violan las leyes comerciales globales y representan una amenaza directa a la estrategia de la administración Obama de crear trabajos verdes y duplicar las exportaciones en los próximos cinco años.

El sindicato, que ha sido uno de los principales detractores de las políticas comerciales chinas, espera que el gobierno de Obama tome el caso y acabe presentando una queja contra China ante la OMC. Sin embargo, hace diez años que la USTR no acepta abrir una investigación relacionada con una petición sobre la llamada sección 301.

El gobierno estadounidense tiene 45 días para decidir si investiga las acusaciones de prácticas comerciales injustas, y un año para completar la investigación y determinar el curso de acción.

Una vocera de la USTR indicó el miércoles que la oficina revisaría la petición.

"La USTR ha estado tratando temas relacionados a China y tecnología verde con los trabajadores del acero y con actores involucrados, y seguirá haciéndolo", sostuvo.

La petición de 5.800 páginas cubre cinco grandes áreas que según el sindicato violan reglas de la OMC: restricciones sobre el acceso a materiales básicos, requisitos de desempeño de inversionistas, discriminación contra firmas y mercancías extranjeras, así como exportaciones y subsidios internos.

Los trabajadores del acero se cuentan entre los críticos más activos de la política comercial china, y han tenido cierto éxito. El presidente Barack Obama decidió a favor del sindicato en septiembre último en un histórico caso que incluía una provisión de salvaguarda especial para imponer tarifas sobre importaciones chinas de neumáticos. El grupo también presentó con éxito otros casos contra productos chinos.

En medio de llamadas en aumento en el Congreso para tomar cartas contra la política monetaria china, controlada de cerca, el gobierno de Obama envió una delegación de alto nivel a Beijing durante el fin de semana para calmar tensiones sobre el comercio y otros asuntos.