<$BlogRSDUrl$>

quinta-feira, abril 28, 2011

Eu não compraria acções da loja onde Fernando Ulrich compra as gravatas

Estou absolutamente chocado com este nível de risco e de exposição. Comprar dinheiro ao BCE a 1% e depois emprestá-lo a Portugal e à Grécia a 7, 8, 12 ou até 20% aparentemente não só é um negócio da China (e de Portugal), como é também uma boa forma de experimentar as últimas sensações de Maria Antonieta. Vejam este texto no The Portuguese Economy:


Wow!

If I read these news correctly, the head of Portuguese bank BPI (one of the four largest) has admitted that his bank holds: 2.7bn of Portuguese bonds and 0.5bn of Greek bonds.

Wow!

This in total financial assets of about 10bn, and in total assets of 44bn. (According tohere). And, most important of all, with shareholder equity of 1.9bn and own funds of 2.8bn.

Double wow!

Now you know why BPI's chairman, Fernando Ulrich, shows up with a new statement in the press about public finances, macropolicy, and the government almost daily for the past few months. His fate is on the line...
POSTED BY RICARDO REIS AT 17:03 

// posted by Vladimiro Jorge Silva @ 6:36 da tarde (0) comments
follow me on Twitter

segunda-feira, abril 25, 2011

2010 ficará injustamente na história como o ano em que se iniciou o processo de queda do Euro (primeiro) e da União Europeia (depois). No entanto, tudo começou infelizmente há bastante mais tempo (mais concretamente, a 26 de Fevereiro de 2001), quando de uma forma absolutamente discreta, depois de uma noitada de trabalho e numa claríssima falha de lucidez, os líderes europeus de então assinaram o tratado de Nice.
E foi a partir de Nice que se introduziu a votação por maioria qualificada, ou seja, foi a partir daqui que na Europa os países grandes deixaram de precisar dos pequenos, cujos votos deixaram de ser indispensáveis ao funcionamento da UE. O lado irónico da questão é que a legitimação de Nice viria supostamente sob a forma da Constituição Europeia, mas como esta foi felizmente chumbada, acabou por ganhar forma apenas no tratado... de Lisboa, em vigor desde 1 de Dezembro de 2009 - o tal do "Porreiro, pá!".
E de facto o conceito de UE centralista, germano-francófila, moralista e ditatorial demorou menos de 6 meses a produzir efeitos: um país (a Grécia) com com uma economia frágil e com gravíssimos problemas estruturais foi atacado por especuladores - e em vez do BCE, a CE e outras instituições tentarem resolver o problema de forma a preservar a integridade económica da zona Euro (a solução era fácil - comprar dívida grega em grandes quantidades, o que mesmo assim ficaria mais barato do que as soluções hoje existentes para Portugal, Grécia e Irlanda), a opção foi deixar a Grécia cair, servindo de exemplo para outros países de vida fácil (os "PIGS"). 
Infelizmente as coisas correram mal e, perante o sucesso do primeiro ataque especulativo, seguiram-se naturalmente outros, com o último episódio a ser absolutamente decisivo: dos restantes 25 países da UE (ou dos outros 15 da zona Euro), Portugal não é nem a economia mais frágil, nem a que tem mais problemas estruturais (embora os tenha e estes sejam graves e consequência de irresponsabilidades acumuladas de vários governos). No entanto, estava a servir de tampão para o ataque a Espanha (o cliente que se segue) - e agora o caminho ficou livre.
Quando Espanha chamar o FMI as coisas vão ser verdadeiramente graves - este é um país com mais de 20% de desempregados, com nacionalismos e egoísmos difíceis de controlar e uma rede de autonomias governativas e legislativas que torna quase impossível a aplicação de medidas de contenção económica eficazes ou sequer qualquer negociação com uma eventual "troika". Pior ainda, é em Espanha que estão vários bancos de enormíssima dimensão, com ligações a todo o sistema financeiro mundial, não só na Europa mas também noutros continentes, em especial na América do Sul.
A queda de Portugal foi merecida (à luz do desempenho económico e governativo do país), mas era desnecessária e evitável (a UE e o BCE tinham força para a evitar). E abriu caminho a um problema muitíssimo mais sério.
As pulsões neofascistas (e em alguns casos até neonazis) que alguns países demonstram (particularmente visíveis em países como a Finlândia, França e Holanda, por exemplo) em questões sociais (veja-se a atitude cruel e absolutamente inacreditável de França perante os pedidos de ajuda de Itália na questão dos refugiados) são os primeiros sintomas da desintegração da Europa. 
A crise económica de 1929 criou as condições políticas e sociais para a segunda guerra mundial, 10 anos mais tarde. Agora as coisas são mais rápidas e o risco de guerra no mundo civilizado e democrático é menor - mas é inevitável que existam consequências políticas do que se passou em 2008. A queda da UE será inevitável e acontece devido à fragilidade auto-infligida (a partir de 2001) das suas bases.

Etiquetas:


// posted by Vladimiro Jorge Silva @ 3:51 da tarde (0) comments
follow me on Twitter

quinta-feira, abril 14, 2011

Não sei se este texto ainda vai a tempo de parar algumas das balas auto-disparadas que neste momento se encontrem entre a saída do revólver e a pele que reveste a têmpora de alguns concidadãos, mas cá fica (o original pode ser consultado em http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms:


National debt by U.S. presidential terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economic commentators have noted a pattern between changes in US national debt and US presidential terms over the last few decades. These commentators observe that changes in US national debt have been correlated with the political ideology of the ruling administration.
Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt).[1] Similarly, Republican David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s.[2]

Contents

 [hide]

[edit]Gross federal debt

This table lists the gross U.S. federal debt[3] as a percentage of GDP by Presidential term since World War II.[4] The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s. The debt briefly reached over 100% of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.
The President proposes the budget for the government to the congress, which can amend it before passing. The U. S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 7 grants exclusive right to originate revenue related bills to the House of Representatives; the President's proposals are an indication of spending desired, but it is the House which defines the spending through the final wording of the bills. Since the budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, it does not go to the President for his signature or veto.[5] While this leaves substantial room for the legislature to change the deficit, congressional historian Louis Fisher observes that, "Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests." In the case of Nixon, who fought fiercely with Congress over the budget, he writes, "Congress was able to adhere to the President's totals while significantly altering his priorities." [6]
U.S. president↓Party↓Term years↓Start debt/GDP↓End debt/GDP↓Increase debt ($T)↓Increase debt/GDP
(in percentage points)↓		House Control
(with # if
split during term)↓		Senate Control
(with # if
split during term)↓
Roosevelt/TrumanD1945–1949117.5%93.1%0.05-24.4%79th D, 80th R79th D, 80th R
Harry TrumanD1949–195393.1%71.4%0.01-21.7%DD
Dwight EisenhowerR1953–195771.4%60.4%0.01-11.0%83rd R, 84th D83rd R, 84th D
Dwight EisenhowerR1957–196160.4%55.2%0.02-5.2%DD
Kennedy/JohnsonD1961–196555.2%46.9%0.03-8.3%DD
Lyndon JohnsonD1965–196946.9%38.6%0.05-8.3%DD
Richard NixonR1969–197338.6%35.6%0.07-3.0%DD
Nixon/FordR1973–197735.6%35.8%0.19+0.2%DD
Jimmy CarterD1977–198135.8%32.5%0.28-3.3%DD
Ronald ReaganR1981–198532.5%43.8%0.66+11.3%DR
Ronald ReaganR1985–198943.8%53.1%1.04+9.3%D99th R, 100th D
George H. W. BushR1989–199353.1%66.1%1.40+15.0%DD
Bill ClintonD1993–199766.1%65.4%1.18-0.7%103rd D, 104th R103rd D, 104th R
Bill ClintonD1997–200165.4%56.4%0.45-9.0%RR
George W. BushR2001–200556.4%63.5%1.73+7.1%R107th Split, 108 R
George W. BushR2005–200963.4%83.4%2.63+20.0%109th R, 110th D109th R, 110th D
Barack ObamaD2009–83.4%111th D, 112th RD
(Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2011 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)
Notes:

[edit]Public debt

Gross debt and public debt are different. Public debt is the gross debt minus intra-governmental obligations (such as the money that the government owes to the two Social Security Trust Funds, the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, and the Social Security Disability Insurance program).[7]
The figure below shows the trend in public debt with the background colored by the party controlling the executive. The color of the trend line does not represent party affiliation; only the background does.
Time series of U.S. public debt overlaid with partisan affiliation of the White House. The upper graph shows the U.S. public debt in trillions of USD while the lower graph shows the U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Data are from the 2009 U.S. Budget.)

[edit]Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP

The table below shows the annual federal spending, gross federal debt, and gross domestic product for average presidential parties, specific presidential terms, and specific fiscal years.[8]
Fiscal YearPresidentParty of PresidentFederal SpendingFederal DebtGross Domestic ProductInflation Adjustor[9]
Billions[10]Adjusted[11]IncreaseBillions[12]Adjusted[13]IncreaseBillions[14]Adjusted[15]Increase
1978-2005Democratic9.9%4.2%12.6%
1978-2005Republican12.1%36.4%10.7%
1978–1981CarterDemocratic$678$1,21917.2%$994$1,787-0.4%$3,055$5,4929.4%
1982–1985ReaganRepublican$946$1,39614.5%$1,817$2,68049.0%$4,142$6,10811.2%
1986–1989ReaganRepublican$1,144$1,4997.4%$2,867$3,75740.2%$5,401$7,07715.9%
1990–1993BushRepublican$1,410$1,6157.8%$4,351$4,98732.7%$6,576$7,5366.5%
1994–1997ClintonDemocratic$1,601$1,6844.3%$5,369$5,64713.2%$8,182$8,60614.2%
1998–2001ClintonDemocratic$1,863$1,8218.1%$5,769$5,638-0.2%$10,058$9,82914.2%
2002–2005BushRepublican$2,472$2,16518.9%$7,905$6,92322.8%$12,238$10,7179.0%
2006-2009*BushRepublican$3,107$2,45213.3%$10,413$8,21818.7%$15,027$11,85910.7%
1977FordRepublican$409$1,040$706$1,795$1,974$5,0190.39
1978CarterDemocratic$459$1,0935.1%$776$1,8503.1%$2,217$5,2855.3%0.42
1979CarterDemocratic$504$1,1071.3%$829$1,821-1.5%$2,501$5,4944.0%0.46
1980CarterDemocratic$591$1,1756.1%$909$1,808-0.8%$2,727$5,422-1.3%0.50
1981CarterDemocratic$678$1,2193.8%$994$1,787-1.1%$3,055$5,4921.3%0.56
1982ReaganRepublican$746$1,2522.6%$1,137$1,9086.8%$3,228$5,417-1.4%0.60
1983ReaganRepublican$808$1,2943.4%$1,371$2,19515.0%$3,441$5,5101.7%0.62
1984ReaganRepublican$852$1,3000.4%$1,564$2,3868.7%$3,840$5,8586.3%0.66
1985ReaganRepublican$946$1,3967.4%$1,817$2,68012.3%$4,142$6,1084.3%0.68
1986ReaganRepublican$990$1,4262.1%$2,120$3,05213.9%$4,412$6,3524.0%0.69
1987ReaganRepublican$1,004$1,406-1.4%$2,345$3,2837.6%$4,647$6,5062.4%0.71
1988ReaganRepublican$1,065$1,4472.9%$2,601$3,5347.7%$5,009$6,8064.6%0.74
1989ReaganRepublican$1,144$1,4993.6%$2,867$3,7576.3%$5,401$7,0774.0%0.76
1990BushRepublican$1,253$1,5906.1%$3,206$4,0678.3%$5,735$7,2772.8%0.79
1991BushRepublican$1,324$1,6101.3%$3,598$4,3747.5%$5,935$7,215-0.8%0.82
1992BushRepublican$1,382$1,6240.9%$4,001$4,7037.5%$6,240$7,3341.7%0.85
1993BushRepublican$1,410$1,615-0.5%$4,351$4,9876.0%$6,576$7,5362.8%0.87
1994ClintonDemocratic$1,462$1,6421.7%$4,643$5,2164.6%$6,961$7,8203.8%0.89
1995ClintonDemocratic$1,516$1,6621.2%$4,920$5,3953.4%$7,326$8,0332.7%0.91
1996ClintonDemocratic$1,561$1,6730.7%$5,181$5,5543.0%$7,694$8,2482.7%0.93
1997ClintonDemocratic$1,601$1,6840.7%$5,369$5,6471.7%$8,182$8,6064.3%0.95
1998ClintonDemocratic$1,653$1,7212.2%$5,478$5,7041.0%$8,628$8,9854.4%0.96
1999ClintonDemocratic$1,702$1,7461.5%$5,605$5,7500.8%$9,125$9,3614.2%0.97
2000ClintonDemocratic$1,789$1,7892.5%$5,628$5,628-2.1%$9,710$9,7103.7%1.00
2001ClintonDemocratic$1,863$1,8211.8%$5,769$5,6380.2%$10,058$9,8291.2%1.02
2002BushRepublican$2,011$1,9296.0%$6,198$5,9455.5%$10,377$9,9541.3%1.04
2003BushRepublican$2,160$2,0184.6%$6,760$6,3166.2%$10,809$10,0991.4%1.07
2004BushRepublican$2,293$2,0823.2%$7,354$6,6775.7%$11,500$10,4413.4%1.10
2005BushRepublican$2,472$2,1654.0%$7,905$6,9233.7%$12,238$10,7172.6%1.14
2006BushRepublican$2,655$2,2493.9%$8,451$7,1583.4%$13,016$11,0242.9%1.18
2007BushRepublican$2,730$2,2630.6%$8,951$7,4193.6%$13,668$11,3292.8%1.21
2008*BushRepublican$2,931$2,3664.6%$9,654$7,7935.0%$14,312$11,5532.0%1.24
2009*BushRepublican$3,107$2,4523.6%$10,413$8,2185.5%$15,027$11,8592.6%1.27
2010*ObamaDemocratic$3,991$2,3921.4%$13,954$8,4776.2%$15,792$12,2213.0%1.29
Formula notes
  • The dollar amounts for each presidential term are taken from the last fiscal year in that term.
  • The increase in each presidential term is the increase in the adjusted amount from the last fiscal year of the previous term to the last fiscal year of the current term.
  • The value for each presidential party is the average of the values for all the presidents in that party.
  • The values for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 represent estimates from the source material.

[edit]See also

[edit]Notes

  1. ^ "contrast between the Democrats and the old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon) on the one hand and the new-style Republicans on the other is quite striking." Brad DeLong (2009-11-20)."Comparing Debt-to-GDP Ratios with Presidential Terms". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved 2010-08-09.
  2. ^ Stockman, David (2010-07-31). "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse". New York Times (nytimes.com). Retrieved 2010-08-09.
  3. ^ The gross federal debt includes intra-government debt, i.e. money owed by one branch of the federal government to another. When this amount is subtracted the remaining quantity is known as the public debt.
  4. ^ Budget FY2007
  5. ^ http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155
  6. ^ Fisher, Louis (Nov. - Dec. 1990). "Federal Budget Doldrums: The Vacuum in Presidential Leadership". Public Administration Review 50 (6): 693–700. doi:10.2307/976984. JSTOR 976984.
  7. ^ Frontline - Ten Trillion and Counting: Defining the Debt
  8. ^ Budget FY 2009
  9. ^ Budget FY2009. Addendum: Composite Deflator, page 26. Divide current dollars by this number to produce value in (constant) FY2000 dollars.
  10. ^ Budget FY2009. Outlays in current dollars, page 26.
  11. ^ Budget FY2009. Outlays in current dollars, page 26, divided by Inflation Adjustor.
  12. ^ Budget FY 2009. Gross Federal Debt in current dollars, page 127.
  13. ^ Budget FY 2009. Gross Federal Debt in current dollars, page 127, divided by Inflation Adjustor.
  14. ^ Budget FY2009. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in current dollars, page 194.
  15. ^ Budget FY2009. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in current dollars, page 194, divided by Inflation Adjustor.

[edit]References

[edit]External links



// posted by Vladimiro Jorge Silva @ 5:33 da tarde (0) comments
follow me on Twitter

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?