elcapitalista007

Crisis amenaza proyectos en refinerías de Cuba

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Sun, 7 Jun 2009 23:10:00 -0400

Por WILFREDO CANCIO ISLA.- Cuba ha puesto en marcha una audaz política de desarrollo petrolero que la convertiría en un importante abastecedor de combustibles en el Caribe, pero la escalada de la crisis mundial podría dar al traste con el compromiso establecido por Venezuela para financiar millonarios proyectos en refinerías y puertos de la isla.

La estrategia petrolera cubana permitiría procesar diariamente unos 350,000 barriles de crudo y abastecer la alta demanda de productos refinados en los países vecinos a partir del 2013, según fuentes del Ministerio de la Industria Básica (MINBAS) y la firma estatal Cuba Petróleo (CUPET).

Pensando incluso en una era post embargo, uno de los principales beneficiados podría ser Estados Unidos, importador neto de petróleo crudo y derivados, con una capacidad de refino que sólo cubre el 81 por ciento de su demanda interna.

Sin embargo, los planes diseñados sobre la sólida plataforma económica y financiera de Venezuela, y con el respaldo de la alianza energética PetroCaribe en el 2005, atraviesan hoy por aguas turbulentas.

La drástica caída de los ingresos petroleros de Venezuela durante los primeros meses del año, las dificultades operacionales en la estatal Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), y los problemas de liquidez monetaria que enfrenta el gobierno del presidente Hugo Chávez no son buenas noticias para los proyectos cubanos, necesitados de una inversión de $10,800 millones hasta el 2015.

En pleno vendaval de adversidades, Chávez y su homólogo Raúl Castro viajarán la semana entrante a Basseterre, capital de San Cristóbal y Nevis, para participar en la VI Cumbre de PetroCaribe, según confirmaron fuentes del comité organizador.

La Cumbre sesionará los días 11 y 12 de junio con la presencia de 18 jefes de Estado e intentará dar una respuesta estratégica a la crisis que golpea a los países de la región, por lo cual la agenda incluirá un análisis sobre los proyectos en ejecución en Cuba, Jamaica, Nicaragua y Haití.

La apuesta de desarrollo petrolero cubano está pensada incluso para avanzar aunque se desvanezcan los pronósticos de valiosas reservas de crudo en la llamada Zona Económica Exclusiva (ZEE) del noroeste de Cuba, calculadas en 4,600 millones de barriles y 9.8 billones de pies cúbicos de gas natural por un estudio del Servicio Geológico de Estados Unidos del 2004.

La ZEE comprende un área de 112,000 kilómetros cuadrados, divididos en 59 bloques de exploración de aproximadamente 2,000 kilómetros cuadrados cada uno. A partir del 2001 el gobierno cubano comenzó la concesión de bloques a firmas extranjeras.

El pasado octubre, funcionarios de CUPET llegaron a situar las expectativas de reservas en los 20,000 millones de barriles, pero los analistas internacionales no acreditan ese estimado por no haberse revelado la metodología empleada.

De cualquier forma, la idea concebida por las autoridades cubanas es acondicionar técnicamente un grupo de refinerías y puertos del país para aprovechar el déficit de procesamiento de 4 millones de barriles diarios que encaran los países petroleros de la región.

"Nuestro proyecto está planeado no sólo para sobrevivir, sino para hacernos autosuficientes y desarrollarnos aún cuando los resultados de las perforaciones previstas no sean los más alentadores'', señaló a El Nuevo Herald un ingeniero de CUPET que dijo no tener autorización para hablar sobre el tema. "Es un proyecto de futuro''.

Las cuentas parecen claras: si en un plazo de cinco a 10 años Cuba consigue elevar su capacidad de refinamiento hasta los 350,000 barriles estaría en condiciones de echar a un lado su dependencia petrolera de Venezuela, así como de procesar crudos procedentes de Rusia, Angola, Brasil y de su eventual producción en aguas profundas.

"La estrategia está inteligentemente diseñada, porque el futuro del sector petrolero dependerá de la capacidad disponible para refinar crudos y transformarlos en combustibles'', opinó Jorge R. Piñón, ex presidente de Amoco Oil Latinoamérica e investigador del Centro de Política Hemisférica de la Universidad de Miami. "Es ahora cuando deben emprenderse los proyectos que le garanticen al país estar listo para entrar en el escenario de los cambios''.

Según Piñón, en vez de importar derivados de Europa y el Medio Oriente, Estados Unidos y otros países vecinos tendrían al alcance de la mano un centro logístico competitivo, con costos de flete absolutamente insuperables.

Otros analistas se muestran más escépticos sobre los planes cubanos.

"En un mercado libre, esta estrategia no es rentable'', comentó el ingeniero Eduardo del Valle, presidente de la firma consultora para proyectos de energía EGDV Consulting, de Miami. "El problema radica en que las decisiones han sido hasta ahora más políticas que económicas''.

Del Valle agregó que el cuadro cambiaría favorablemente si se produjeran grandes descubrimientos de petróleo en la ZEE, porque eso permitiría a Cuba compensar los altos costos en el refino de crudos pesados.

La iniciativa para consolidar un sistema eficiente de refinerías y puertos en la isla figura en un informe de la Cámara Petrolera de Venezuela, elaborado en ocasión de la visita de una delegación empresarial a La Habana en octubre del pasado año. Cuba deberá proporcionar el 50 por ciento del capital en las inversiones conjuntas con PDVSA.

De acuerdo con el documento, el plan conjunto para desarrollar en la isla comprende:

* Expansión de la refinería de Cienfuegos con una inyección de $3,662 millones para incrementar su capacidad de procesamiento de 69,000 a 150,000 barriles diarios. El proyecto debe concluir en el 2012 e incluye además la fabricación de cuatro tanques de almacenamiento tanto para crudos como para derivados y destilados, y de una planta de regasificación para suministrar gas a las refinerías y las plantas termoeléctricas.

* Ampliación y reparación de la refinería Hermanos Díaz (antigua Texaco), de Santiago de Cuba, a un costo de $850 millones. Se incrementará su capacidad de 22,000 a 50,000 barriles diarios para producir gasolina de alta calidad, y las obras estarán listas en el 2013.

* Construcción de una megarefinería en Matanzas con capacidad para procesar 150,000 barriles diarios con conversión profunda (procesamiento de crudos pesados). La inversión costará $4,329 millones y el proyecto arrancará en diciembre del 2015.

* Estudio prospectivo de las bahías de Cienfuegos y Matanzas por $1.6 millones.

* Adecuación del oleoducto Amistad entre Matanzas y Cienfuegos, en desuso desde 1989.

Aunque no está mencionado en el documento, la transformación logística de la industria petrolera cubana comprende, a largo plazo, el cierre de operaciones de la refinería Ñico López (antigua Shell/Esso) de Regla, en la bahía de La Habana, que actualmente procesa unos 25,000 barriles diarios.

Un ex empleado del MINBAS dijo que existen planes para el desmantelamiento de la Ñico López, con vistas a descontaminar la bahía de La Habana y potenciar el valor turístico del puerto capitalino.

"Se está pensando que la refinería de Regla opere solamente como una terminal para la distribución de combustibles, que llegarían mediante un poliducto [tubería para transportar productos refinados como gasolina y diésel] desde Matanzas y Cienfuegos'', indicó la fuente.

Para minimizar el flujo de carga marítima en la bahía capitalina, las autoridades cubanas planean el uso del puerto de Mariel, a 40 kilómetros al oeste de La Habana. La transformación del Mariel como una terminal de carga y descarga de contenedores está aún en negociaciones con firmas extranjeras, pero en un futuro podría ser el principal puerto de apoyo de la industria petrolera, según la fuente de CUPET que habló con El Nuevo Herald.

Paralelamente, la Autoridad Portuaria Nacional --entidad creada en el 2002 para organizar el sistema de puertos del país-- emprendió el pasado año el dragado de las bahías de La Habana, Cienfuegos y Santiago de Cuba, para aumentarles su disponibilidad de calado.

Según informes oficiales publicados en la prensa cubana, los tres puertos deben concluir su dragado integral para el año entrante, incluyendo las vías de acceso, la dársena de maniobra y los canales hacia las terminales. Las autoridades portuarias priorizaron la bahía de Jagua, en Cienfuegos, para dar respuesta a las operaciones de la terminal de la refinería local.

A mediados de mayo, el tanquero Sandino, propiedad de la empresa mixta TRANSALBA, se convirtió en el segundo de mayor eslora en atracar en la refinería de Cienfuegos, con una carga de 390,000 barriles de crudo procedentes de Puerto de la Cruz, Venezuela.

En términos estratégicos, los expertos consideran que el plan petrolero cubano resulta promisorio, pues desbroza un segundo carril de oportunidades comerciales al margen de la explotación en la ZEE, la cual pudiera retrasarse por problemas tecnológicos, dificultades financieras u obstáculos derivados del embargo estadounidense.

Desde el 2006, el Departamento del Tesoro ha investigado y multado a cuatro compañías estadounidenses --o subsidiarias en el extranjero-- por facilitar tecnología, servicios e información especializada al gobierno cubano en violación de las regulaciones del embargo.

Piñón calificó a Cuba como "el lugar ideal para un centro de refino en la región'', considerando que, a excepción de Venezuela, los principales países productores de crudo en el continente --Estados Unidos, México y Colombia-- no tienen suficiente capacidad para procesar hidrocarburos y cubrir la demanda de sus mercados domésticos con productos derivados.

A esto se añade que las estrictas políticas medioambientales, los largos procesos de autorización y licitación, y la falta de capital en el sector público, han conspirado para la construcción de nuevas refinerías en los países de la región, principalmente en los Estados Unidos y México.

Del Valle considera como "una idea descabellada'' la construcción de la refinería de Matanzas.

"Emprender la construcción de una refinería hoy es una gigantesca pérdida de tiempo y dinero en cualquier parte del mundo'', expresó. "Para Cuba resultaría mucho más eficaz emplear el dinero en aumentar la capacidad de conversión de las refinerías ya existentes para procesar crudos pesados y obtener productos livianos''.

Pero al final todo dependerá de los aires que soplen desde Caracas.

Los ingresos petroleros venezolanos disminuyeron a la mitad con relación al 2008 como consecuencia de la caída del precio del barril de crudo de $87 a $42, según datos del Ministerio del Poder Popular para Economía y Finanzas de Venezuela. El único aliciente en vísperas de la Cumbre de PetroCaribe es el alza en el precio del barril del crudo a $62 luego de un extendido período de pérdidas.

De enero a abril de este año PDVSA ingresó un promedio de $2,000 millones mensuales. En el mismo período del 2008 los ingresos totales ascendían a unos $15,000 millones, de acuerdo con estadísticas reconocidas por la Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP).

La deuda de PDVSA con contratistas y proveedores supera actualmente los $7,000 millones.

"Todo apunta a que el plan de construcción y ampliación de refinerías en Cuba ha entrado en crisis'', manifestó Juan Fernández, quien fungió como gerente de planificación del sector internacional en PDVSA hasta el 2003. "En estos momentos PDVSA no cuenta con el músculo financiero que necesita para echar adelante esos proyectos''.

Fernández estima que la falta de una gerencia eficiente es parte del ‘‘efecto dominó'' que ha desencadenado la crisis dentro de PDVSA.

Un reciente informe de Inspectorate --la principal firma mundial en estudios para calcular riesgos en inversiones y negocios-- indicó que el circuito refinador venezolano se ha visto obligado a incrementar las importaciones de componentes para completar la carga y procesar productos como gasolina y combustible industrial (fuel oil).

A mediados de abril, un incendio dejó fuera de servicio una unidad de la refinería de Cardón, del Centro de Refinación Paranaguá, en el estado de Falcón, lo que ha mermado la capacidad productiva de PDVSA.

Horacio Medina Herrera, ex gerente de convenios de PDVSA, coincide en que la petrolera venezolana es una empresa en quiebra, con un sistema de refinación severamente dañado por falta de mantenimiento y deudas imposibles de pagar en la situación actual.

"Venezuela no está en condiciones de costear las inversiones comprometidas en Cuba durante este año y el 2010'', afirmó Medina. "Veremos también reducciones en los envíos de petróleo, porque en estos momentos PDVSA ha llegado al punto de tener que comprar en mercado externo grandes cantidades de componentes semielaborados para producir gasolina y cubrir tanto las necesidades internas como los compromisos internacionales''.

Venezuela proporciona a Cuba 96,000 barriles diarios de petróleo, de los cuales unos 22,000 son combustible industrial, empleado para el funcionamiento de las plantas eléctricas. La producción cubana ronda actualmente el 47 por ciento de su consumo, estimado en los 150,000 barriles diarios.

El Banco Central de Venezuela reveló el pasado mes que PDVSA no había pagado los impuestos sobre la renta.

Mientras, Chávez ha pedido un crédito de $4,300 millones a Brasil para financiar proyectos que involucran a empresas brasileñas en territorio venezolano. Tal es el caso de Odebrecht S.A., el mayor grupo constructor brasileño, que está encargado de la expansión del metro de Caracas.

Las campanas de la crisis están repicando fuertemente en Cuba. Desde el 1ro. de junio las autoridades gubernamentales implementaron un programa especial de ahorro energético que contempla fuertes ajustes en el consumo y cortes de electricidad a las empresas estatales y la población en general.

El sobreconsumo de electricidad en el primer cuatrimestre del año obligó a emplear 40,000 toneladas de combustible que no se habían planificado, con un gasto aproximado de $150 millones.

Analistas cubanos citados en los medios oficiales pronosticaron que la isla podría perder este año más de $1,000 millones en ingresos a consecuencia de la estrepitosa caída de los precios del níquel y la disminución de las recaudaciones en el sector turístico, sus dos principales motores económicos.

De hecho, la alarma gubernamental se extiende al sector financiero, con graves problemas en sus reservas de efectivos. Desde hace seis meses se mantienen congeladas las cuentas bancarias de unas 300 empresas extranjeras por determinación del Banco Central de Cuba (BCC), una medida que no fue aplicada ni siquiera en los días críticos del Período Especial en Tiempos de Paz, iniciado en 1991 tras el colapso de los subsidios soviéticos a la isla.

Cuba confía en que las perforaciones previstas para este año en sus aguas territoriales inclinen la suerte a su favor y que los potenciales hallazgos en la ZEE logren estimular el apetito de las corporaciones petroleras estadounidenses.

En reiteradas ocasiones, dirigentes gubernamentales y funcionarios de CUPET, incluyendo al gobernante retirado Fidel Castro, han invitado a las empresas estadounidenses a participar en la exploración petrolera en el Golfo de México.

Por lo pronto, la firma española Repsol-YPF asegura que iniciará exploraciones en aguas profundas frente a las costas cubanas en una fecha próxima. Repsol encabeza un consorcio de petroleras que integran además la empresa noruega Norks-Hydro y la Corporación de Petróleo y Gas Natural (ONGC), de la India.

A comienzos de este año, Repsol anunció el descubrimiento de un importante yacimiento de petróleo en aguas estadounidenses, a 300 kilómetros de la costa de Houston, y varios hallazgos de gas y crudos en la Cuenca de Santos, en Brasil.

Un funcionario de Repsol --radicada en Madrid-- dijo esta semana a El Nuevo Herald que los recientes descubrimientos de hidrocaburos en la región no implican la modificación de los planes respecto a Cuba, porque "cada proyecto es independiente y tiene sus propios méritos''.

"En términos de calendario, Repsol tiene previsto comenzar en los próximos meses la actividad exploratoria en Cuba'', señaló Kristian Rix, gestor de medios internacionales y financieros de Repsol.

A comienzos de año, funcionarios de CUPET indicaron que los trabajos de Repsol comenzarían a más tardar en julio, pero Rix declinó precisar una fecha exacta.

En la actualidad Cuba mantiene negociaciones con empresas de Rusia, China y Angola para la firma de contratos de exploración en 23 bloques aún no asignados en la zona del Golfo de México. El grupo ruso comprende a las empresas OAO Gazprom y OAO Lukoil, que han manifestado interés en ocupar 15 bloques de la ZEE.

Todas las perforaciones en la ZEE se realizan a riesgo completo de la compañía contratada. El contrato legal establecido estipula que, de hallarse petróleo, la firma extranjera obtendrá los primeros dividendos hasta compensar la inversión previa y posteriormente la producción se dividirá en una proporción del 60 por ciento para el Estado cubano y el 40 por ciento para el asociado foráneo.

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:09:00 -0500

By RUSH LIMBAUGH
Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

How California Became France Unable to afford a welfare state and unable to reform it.

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:06:00 -0500

By MATTHEW KAMINSKI.-

As California goes, says an old cliché, so goes the nation. Oh my.

These days, the Golden State leads the nation on economic and fiscal dysfunction, from the empty homes spread across the Central Valley to the highest state budget shortfall in the nation's history. Meanwhile, its political class pioneers denial in the face of catastrophe.

The spark for the immediate political crisis was a familiar Californian discovery, a fiscal hole of $41 billion. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared an "emergency" in November and took legislative leaders behind closed doors to hammer out a compromise. The budget adopted in a marathon session this week splits the baby, closing the deficit with spending cuts (hated by the left) and tax hikes (ditto the right), all the while largely failing to tackle the state's built-in structural defects.

Some parts of the deal, such as borrowing from future lottery receipts, may yet collapse at the ballot in May, and California could soon be back in line to mark another first -- state bankruptcy. In anticipation, Standard & Poor's this month downgraded its bond rating a notch below Louisiana's.

Even discounting for the impact of global recession, the most populous state's ills are unique and self-inflicted -- and avoidable. In the last three decades, California expanded the public sector and regulation to Europe-like dimensions. Schools, state employees, health care, even dog kennels, benefited from largesse in flush times. Government workers got 16 official holidays, everyone else six. The state dabbled with universal health care and adopted strict environmental standards. In short, California went where our new president and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco want America to go.

Now there's much to recommend the Old World. California brings to mind my last home, France -- God's country blessed with fertile soil for wines, sun-blanched beaches, and a well-educated populace. Amusingly, both states are led by bling-bling immigrants married to glamorous women and elected to shake up the status quo. In both departments, the governator got a head start on Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris.

The parallels are also disquieting. The French have long experienced the unintended consequences of a large public sector. Ask them about it. As the number of people who get money from government grows, so does the power of constituencies dedicated to keep this honey dripping. Even when voters recognize the model carries drawbacks, such as subpar growth, high taxes, an uncompetitive business climate and above-average unemployment, their elected leaders find it near impossible to tweak the system. This has been the story of France for decades, and lately of California.

Six years ago, Mr. Schwarzenegger arrived in Sacramento to "cut up the credit card" and give the girlie men at the State Capitol a testosterone shot. California languished then in a fiscal crisis whose causes were pretty much the same as today. The hapless Gray Davis had been recalled, and the Austrian-born actor made a promising start to break the pattern.

In 2005, banking on his popularity, the governor pushed an ambitious ballot initiative to impose a hard state spending cap, limit the unions' political buying power, tighten requirements for teacher tenure, and overhaul a gerrymandered state political map. Arnold lost.

After that setback, Mr. Schwarzenegger shifted his attention to green jobs and energy, winning fans in Europe and among Democrats. "He's recognized that California's a pretty moderate place," says Darrell Steinberg, the Democratic president pro tem of the Senate. "You've got to govern from the middle."

People closer to the governor offer a different take. "Once he got beat, he reverted back to, 'I want to be liked,'" says a former Schwarzenegger aide. "It's classic narcissism." (The governor declined requests for an interview, but I did walk away with three custom-made Daniel Marshall cigars from his office.)

In the Arnold era, the overall cost base has stayed the same as in the Davis era. That isn't entirely his fault. California's constitution locks in higher spending in good years, paving the way for huge deficits in the down. A dependence on a highly progressive tax code leaves it particularly vulnerable to boom and bust cycles. Democrats run the legislature. Across the street from the Capitol, the offices of unions and lobbyists are arguably the real locus of power in Sacramento.

In this budget debacle, Mr. Schwarzenegger found himself back where his remarkable political journey began in 2003. Only now with him in the Davis role. The pill is bitterer still since the budget he signed yesterday will raise the vehicle tax -- the same Davis tax increase he campaigned against and terminated in his first act in office.

Neither side won with this deal, to which the one good alternative would be a time machine to take Sacramento's political class back five years and do it right then. In the event, Republicans split, and signed off on $14.5 billion in new taxes and a less than airtight spending cap. State personnel reductions are minimal, as well, further infuriating their base. The Democrats swallowed $15 billion in spending cuts, which unions vow to fight.

California is in a French-like bind: unable to afford a welfare-type state, and unable to overhaul it. "The people say they want all these programs, then there's nothing they want to pay for," says Hector De La Torre, a Democratic assemblyman. "The schizophrenia in the legislature reflects the peoples'."

This week's deal likely won't keep the state in balance beyond 18 months, perhaps even fewer. "This budget will take us through 2010," says Karen Bass, the Assembly speaker, a Democrat from Los Angeles. "I don't know if it will hold."

Some Democrats and Republicans privately say the best option may be failure. The rough scenario is fiscal insolvency, followed perhaps by federal receivership. No precedent or legal avenue exists for a state to reorganize its affairs under a form of Chapter 11 protection, but that striking suggestion sounds better by the day.

The expectations for Mr. Schwarzenegger's two remaining years in office are low, leaving many of his supporters to ponder the might-have-been. "No one has the political incentives to cut government," says a Republican strategist. "It takes tremendous political capital, which Arnold had. It's a tragedy to have this rare moment when you can try to change and waste it."

For the nation, California is the what-might-be.

la perspectiva de un norteamericano republicano.

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:19:00 -0500

unica forma de tener exito era creando un systema de poderes socio-politico-economico extremadamente fragmentado.

De ahi vinieron grandes eventos mundiales..

la Segunda Primera guerra mundial NO hizo a EEUU potencia, Antes de eso, EEUU era la economia mas poderosa del mundo, Lo que la WW1 logro, fue llevar a EEUU al escenario mundial.

Luego vino la WW2.. esa guerra acompanada de la gran depresion quebro definitivamente al imperio britanico y quebro a europa en general, dejando como unicas potencias a EEUU y Obviamente al naciente Imperio sovietico..

Luego vino la guerra fria, Y la depresion inflacionaria de los 1970's... una ves mas era el FIN de eeuu. Y una ves mas la fragmentacion socio-economico-politico permitio al pais ser tan flexible que pudo cambiar de rumbo.. una ves superada esa prueba EEUU surgio mas fuerte que nunca, creando sus mas poderosos 28 years de porsperidad probablemente en la historia de la humanidad y de pazo trayendo en ese mismo lapso el mayor periodo de democracia y paz en el mundo..

Sip, asi como lo leen,

Continuara..

Obama Has a Plan To Manage Our Oil Reserve

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:06:00 -0400

Energy is playing a pivotal role in this year's presidential election. And a crucial aspect of America's energy security not widely discussed is how to best use America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Sen. Barack Obama is proposing a simple maneuver -- called an exchange, or swap -- that will help lower the price of oil for consumers, increase the amount of oil in the SPR, increase energy security, and leave taxpayers better off by about $1 billion. His proposal deserves to be adopted.

In 1975, after the Arab oil embargo, the U.S. created the SPR to protect against oil supply disruptions. That reserve now consists of 706 million barrels of crude oil, the largest stockpile in the world.

As the steward of that stockpile, the Department of Energy plays an important role in oil markets. Merely announcing oil acquisitions or sales from the SPR moves oil prices. The SPR's drawdown capability of 4.4 million barrels of oil per day surpasses the daily production capacity of Iran, Iraq or Venezuela.

The authority to sell oil from the SPR is contingent on a presidential finding of a "severe energy supply interruption." In the past 33 years, there have only been two sales from the SPR: in 1991 to support Operation Desert Storm, criticized for being too late; and a widely applauded 2005 post-Katrina sale.

There is also another, little understood statutory authority that allows the Energy secretary to "exchange" oil from the SPR. This authority was created to allow the secretary to periodically change the SPR's composition to ensure that it remains useful to refiners and consumers.

The Clinton administration used this authority in 2000, exchanging crude for heating oil. Later that year, facing a possible heating-oil shortage, the administration loaned 30 million barrels of oil to the market, which was repaid with interest in the form of additional oil at a later date.

This met two objectives. The swap added oil to the SPR at no cost to taxpayers and it put downward pressure on prices.

The Bush administration has used the exchange option extensively. As a matter of policy, however, it has used this option only for minor supply disruptions, and not to intervene in markets due to high prices.

Today, with historically high oil prices, it is time to debate using the SPR. Some argue that the reserve should only be used in emergencies. Others say that we should use all the tools at our disposal to help consumers.

Fortunately, we do not have to resolve these philosophical differences. Instead, we can improve the management of the SPR and maximize its value to the taxpayer. The oil in the reserve now is all light crude, which is easier and cheaper to refine into gasoline, a reflection of refining capability at the time the SPR was created. Over the past three decades, however, U.S. refining capacity has become increasingly sophisticated and complex, because the world's oil is increasingly heavy and harder to refine. Today, about 40% of our refining capacity is configured to handle heavier crude oil.

We now confront a mismatch between U.S. refining capacity and the oil mix in the SPR. In a 2007 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that in an emergency this mismatch could reduce U.S. refinery capacity by 5% or over 735,000 barrels per day in total as some refineries scale back production to accommodate the SPR oil. The GAO recommended that the Energy Department change the reserve's oil mix to at least 10% heavy oil, roughly 70 million barrels.

This could be accomplished through a swap. From a policy perspective, this would enhance the utility of the reserve, aligning its oil with U.S. refining capacity, while also putting short-term downward pressure on oil prices. From a business perspective, the DOE could craft an exchange to either increase the oil in the reserve, yield a cash bonus, or both. Light crude is more valuable than heavy crude (by about $12 to $18 a barrel), so swapping one for the other could bring in about $1 billion at today's prices.

The House and Senate are considering legislation to mandate such a swap, and Mr. Obama has adopted the concept as part of his energy plan. The public benefits are compelling. Swaps that help energy security, refiners and consumers should be a routine part of managing the SPR.

Bush Has a Good Economic Record

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:44:00 -0400

By KEITH MARSDEN.- Successive speakers at the Democratic National Convention poured scorn on President Bush's economic record. The clear aim was to justify the party's call for "change," and to undermine support for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. His election would mean a "third Bush term," delegates groaned. Yet Democrats cited no good evidence for their claims that the administration has produced a stagnant economy, widening disparities of income and wealth, high unemployment, and a heavy burden of government debt (supposedly resulting from an unwise military intervention in Iraq).

How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other advanced economies over the eight years of George Bush's presidency? Data published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment. Here are some of the findings:

- Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.

- Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

- Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.

While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000.

- Income and wealth distribution. The latest World Bank estimates show that the richest 20% of U.S. households had a 45.8% share of total income in 2000, similar to the levels in the U.K. (44.0%) and Israel (44.9%). In 65 other countries the richest quintile had a larger share than in the U.S.

Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers.

When considering the distribution of income and wealth in the U.S., another factor that should be taken into account is the sharp rise in the number of immigrants. The stock of international migrants (those born in other countries) in the U.S. grew by nearly 10 million from 1995 to 2005, reaching a total of 38.5 million according to the World Bank.

The inflow of migrants may have restrained the growth of average income levels in the bottom quintiles. Nevertheless, their earnings still allowed immigrants to remit $42 billion to their families abroad in 2006, double the level in 1995. So the benefits are widely spread among the families of immigrants remaining abroad -- an important U.S. contribution to the reduction of poverty in these countries.

- Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area.

The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

- Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War.

The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark. True, the economic slowdown now affecting most advanced countries will likely result in rising unemployment over the coming months. But thanks to sensible policies pursued by the Bush administration (not always with adequate support from a Democratic-controlled Congress), the U.S. economy is sufficiently flexible to keep unemployment below the 7.7% peak reached in the last postrecession year of 1992.

The main risk is that, if elected, Barack Obama will pursue a "social justice" strategy. This would encompass higher taxes on entrepreneurs, savers and investors, more direct government intervention in the economy, and protectionist policies (including revoking existing trade agreements) aimed at safeguarding the jobs of his union backers in "old" industries and public services. If so, the pain is likely to be more widespread and prolonged.

Why Obama Can't Close the Sale

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:39:00 -0400

By AL HUBBARD.- Even before John McCain shook up the presidential race by tapping Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, polls weren't showing the late-August lead that Barack Obama (and many Republicans) expected. Why so?

It's not because of the brilliance of the McCain campaign. Rather we believe that -- despite the media's best efforts to exempt Mr. Obama's policies from critical examination -- American voters aren't sheep. They pay attention to the candidates and positions and make wise decisions about who should lead the country.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

Clearly, Mr. Obama's weakness on foreign policy is a factor. He has a knee-jerk preference for diplomacy with China, Europe and Russia over the security of the American people and our closest allies. He hasn't explained his shifting positions on Iraq and Iran, among other hot spots. And he felt compelled to make up for his experience gap with Mr. McCain by picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate.

But here's the thing: It's not that Mr. Obama hasn't been specific enough in his governing plans. To the contrary, he has been very specific about his tax policy, health-care and energy proposals. It's that voters are paying attention and appear not to like what Candidate Obama is saying.

Mr. Obama has proposed a massive tax increase on investors, business owners, and the "wealthy." At a time when the American people rate the economy as the central issue of the campaign, a tax hike doesn't make a lot of political sense. Voters know that a tax hike won't help the economy.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's tax plans would directly or indirectly harm U.S. investors by raising the capital gains and dividend taxes. More than half of U.S. households are equity owners, so Mr. Obama's proposal risks alienating half the population.

Mr. Obama claims to offer a tax cut to moderate-income families, but a significant portion of Mr. Obama's tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

How so? He would authorize a hodgepodge of refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.

About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.

We have been repeatedly told that everyone should pay their fair share. So this sounds grossly unfair and like a return of tax-and-spend liberal economics. No wonder there is a lot of doubt about the wisdom of the junior senator from Illinois.

Mr. Obama's health-care proposal is not quite HillaryCare, but it comes close. A national health insurance, heavily subsidized by taxpayers, would be offered to the currently uninsured. Mr. Obama's instincts on health care are always to move more people onto rolls of government-paid and government-mandated insurance, while depriving the marketplace the oxygen it needs for greater innovation, life-saving cures, and efficiency.

Americans have heard the refrain for government-provided health care before and know an expensive government giveaway when they see it.

Mr. Obama's energy policy is to drill less, consume less, tax more, and spend more. With barely a nod to nuclear energy -- the only meaningfully large, carbon-free source of domestic energy -- he is promising a massive increase in domestic, noncarbon-based energy from sources that produce only a fraction of our energy now.

He has also proposed massive tax increases on U.S. oil and gas companies while continuing to cut off vast swaths of U.S. territory to drilling.

Again, Americans are wiser than they are given credit. They know that if you restrict supply and tax production, prices go up.

The economic wisdom of Americans should not be doubted. They can see through Mr. Obama's proposals. They know that they will have to pick up the bill if Mr. Obama sends checks to people who already don't pay taxes; they know a centralized government-controlled health-care system will be more expensive, less efficient, and less friendly to patients and doctors. They know that the most effective way to bring down energy prices is by keeping all our energy options open, including more drilling in the U.S.

And they know that if a candidate has spent his entire career taxing more and spending more, that's what you'll get -- and more of it.

Mr. Obama is wondering why he can't shake Mr. McCain. His problem isn't his plans for the campaign. It's his plans for governing the country. Americans just aren't buying into them.

FDC atribuye alzas precios a carteles de comercios.-

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Thu, 4 Sep 2008 01:49:00 -0400

La Federación Dominicana de Comerciantes (FDC) atribuye el que los precios de los productos que componen la canasta básica en el país se mantengan elevados a la existencia de "carteles agropecuarios" que manejan desde sus "alas de poder" las asignaciones de importaciones de mercancías. Iván de Jesús García, dijo en compañía del economista Miguel Sang Ben, que los actuales secretarios de Agricutura, Salvador-chío-Jiménez; y el Administrativo de la Presidencia, Luis Manuel Bonetti, asignan importaciones de productos básicos.

"Aquí prácticamente se ha entregado el control de los precios de los productos que más se consumen a cuatro compañías dominicanas y nosotros entendemos que eso no puede ser", afirmó García.

Dijo que productos como el ajo, cebolla, azúcar, y habichuelas pudieran estar llegando a más bajos precios a la población, pero que por un manejo de entrega de cuota a unos pocos, esos grupos se han puesto de acuerdo en la oferta de precios y se han ganado una millonada.

Puso de ejemplo que esas compañías compraron unos 30,000 quintales de ajo que se cosecharon en Constanza el pasado año y este año están haciendo lo mismo. Explicó que una libra de ajo importado desde China sale a RD$8.75 puesto en puerto valor FOB ($0,25 centavos USD), y si se suman los impuestos que envuelven RD$1.85, la libra sale a RD$10.60 (0,30 centavos de Dollar).

Sin embargo, el precio del ajo oscila entre RD$65.00 ($1,87 USD) y RD$89.85 ($2,54 USD) en los supermercados, dijo al explicar que eso se debe a que los supermercados compraron ese bulbo alos importadores a RD$38 libra ($1.08 USD)

Al explicar la "madeja" de esa comercialización, García indicó que el negocio está en que cuatro empresas importan más de 100,000 quintales al año y compran 30,000 quintales de ajo criollo, y que como el ajo importado desde China cuesta US$600 por tonelada, el valor por libra es de RD$8.75 (0,25 centavos de dollar) puesto en el país. Señaló que deja RD$500 millones (15 millones de dolares) "en beneficio de cuatro compañías".

Asimismo, indicó que también ocurre una sobreprotección de productos como el azúcar, la cebolla, y las habichuelas pintas.

Señaló que la cuota de importación de habichuelas desde Nicaragua la entregan a la FDC, pero la del mismo producto proveniente de EEUU "la otorgan ellos" directamente y ahí es que el negocio es grande". Aclaró que en el caso de los Contingentes agropecuarios (volúmenes de importación en un período determinado) se entregan por comisión y se publica todo por la Internet, por lo que no está hablando de esos permisos. A la FDC, dijo, le otorgaron 500 TM, de los Contingentes.

Según el presidente de la FDC con el caso de las habichuelas pintas el aspecto es más dramático todavía, porque compran las habichuelas de San Juan de la Maguana, y les autorizan importar las de EEUU, que les sale a US$30 el quintal (0,85 USD) , pagan RD$120 de impuestos ($3,20 USD) , es decir que el quintal les sale a RD$1,200 ($34 USD) , y sin embargo, la venden a RD$2,400 ($68 USD) "con una ganancia de RD$1,300 ($37 USD) se ganan RD$750 millones solamente en habichuelas (21 Millones de USD)

"Son carteles que hay, pues lo mismo pasa con la cebolla", recalcó García al explicar que la venden a RD$18 la libra al por mayor, la compraron a RD$8.00 (0,25 USD) y llega a RD$30 (0,85 USD) al consumidor.

Indicó que el precio de la cebolla es de RD$25 y 34.95 libra, en lo que esos intermediarios se ganan RD$225 millones. ($6,4 millones dolares)

Precisó que el escándalo más grande se da con el precio del azúcar, producto que no entra en los contingentes agropecuarios y donde se ganan más de RD$1,250 millones al año (36 Millones de dolares) , porque aquí todo el mundo sabe que hay un monopolio en el azúcar refino y quien lo tiene vende el producto a quien quiere y por eso hay una intermediación que se está ganando RD$300 por quintal ($8,75 USD) .

CEMENTO

El presidente de la Federación Dominicana de Comerciantes (FDC) informó que el sector comercial comenzó a reunirse para iniciar la importación de cementos, porque no ve razón para que el producto se esté comercializando entre RD$200 ($5,71 USD) y RD$210 ($6 USD) la funda.

Iván García considera que la funda de cemento gris debe costar RD$140 ($4 USD)

Afirma que también este producto, al igual en el de las varillas, hay un oligopolio, ya que hay cuatro cementeras que tras la "guerra de precios" se han puesto de acuerdo.

Mientras que en el caso de las varillas hay dos grandes productores que también controlan el precio y se ponen de acuerdo para bajarlo cuando saben que hay una importación grande para "explotar" a quien la hace, y luego que logran su objetivo fijan otro precio mas bajo.

Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:51:00 -0400

By PETER FERRARA.- Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities. Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000. Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare.

In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.

On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%

The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere.

Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Then there is the spending side of the ledger. Mr. Obama proposes a fully refundable Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which would have the government pay out $500 to each worker and $1,000 to couples -- reminiscent of George McGovern's 1972 election proposal for the government to send a $1,000 check to everyone.

His American Opportunity Tax Credit would provide a $4,000, fully refundable tax credit for college tuition expenses. His Mortgage Interest Tax Credit would provide a 10% credit -- refundable -- to offset mortgage interest payments for lower- and middle-income families. His Health Care Tax Credits, which the campaign says "will ensure that health insurance is available and affordable for all families," include "a new refundable 50 percent health tax credit on employee premiums paid by employers."

Currently existing tax credits would also become spending programs in the Obama tax program. The Savers Credit would be made fully refundable, and would be expanded, according to the campaign, "to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000." The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be made refundable and expanded to allow "low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit on the first $6,000 of child care expenses."

The Earned Income Tax Credit is already refundable. Mr. Obama would expand it to "increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefits available to noncustodial parents who fulfill their child support obligations, increase benefits for families with three or more children, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty, which hurts low-income families." In short, welfare spending is to be increased by paying more money out to low-income income tax filers.

The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law. The middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal income taxes.

Overall, the bottom 60% of income earners pay less than 1% of federal income taxes on net. When "tax credits" primarily go to this group in the form of checks from the government (rather than a reduction in their tax burden) it is simply an abuse of the language to call the spending a tax cut.

Consequently, to say, as the campaign does say, that the candidate's tax plan is a tax cut on net -- and that it would limit taxes to 18.2% of GDP -- is grossly misleading. The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits.

Is John McCain Stupid?

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:49:00 -0400

By DANIEL HENNINGER.- Is John McCain losing it? On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't." This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.

He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.

Yesterday he was in Aurora, Colo., to wit: "On Social Security, he [Sen. Obama] wants to raise Social Security taxes. I am opposed to raising taxes on Social Security. I want to fix the system without raising taxes."

What I'm asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn't abandoned by his own voters?

It's not just taxes. Recently the subject came up of Al Gore's assertion that the U.S. could get its energy solely from renewables in 10 years. Sen. McCain said: "If the vice president says it's doable, I believe it's doable." What!!?? In a later interview, Mr. McCain said he hadn't read "all the specifics" of the Gore plan and now, "I don't think it's doable without nuclear power." It just sounds loopy.

Then this week in San Francisco, in an interview with the Chronicle, Sen. McCain called Nancy Pelosi an "inspiration to millions of Americans." Notwithstanding his promises to "work with the other side," this is a politically obtuse thing to say in the middle of a campaign. Would Bill Clinton, running for president in 1996 after losing control of the House, have called Newt Gingrich an "inspiration"? House Minority Leader John Boehner, facing a 10-to-20 seat loss in November, must be gagging.

The one thing -- arguably the only thing -- the McCain candidacy has going for it is a sense among voters that they don't know what Barack Obama stands for or believes. Why then would Mr. McCain give voters reason to wonder the same thing about himself? You're supposed to sow doubt about the other guy, not do it to yourself.

Yes, Sen. McCain must somehow appeal to independents and blue-collar Hillary Democrats. A degree of pandering to the center is inevitable. But this stuff isn't pandering; it's simply stupid. Al Gore's own climate allies separated themselves from his preposterous free-of-oil-in-10-years whopper. Sen. McCain saying off-handedly that it's "doable" is, in a word, thoughtless.

Speaker Pelosi heads a House with a 9% approval. To let her off the hook before the election reflects similar loss of thought.

The forces arrayed against Sen. McCain's candidacy are formidable: an unpopular president, the near impossibility of extending Republican White House rule for three terms, the GOP trailing in races at every level, a listless fundraising base, doubtful sentiments about the war, a flailing economy.

The generic Democratic presidential candidate should win handily. Barack Obama, though vulnerable at the margin, is a very strong candidate. This will be a turnout election. To win, Mr. McCain needs every Republican vote he can hold.

Why make it harder than it has to be? Given such statements on Social Security taxes, Al Gore and the "inspirational" Speaker Pelosi, is there a reason why Rush Limbaugh should not spend August teeing off on Mr. McCain?

Why as well shouldn't the Obama camp exploit all of this? If Sen. Obama's "inexperience" is Mr. McCain's ace in the hole, why not trump that by asking, "Does Sen. McCain know his own mind?"

* * *
In this sports-crazed country, everyone has learned a lot about what it takes to win. They've heard and seen it proven repeatedly that to achieve greatness, to win the big one, an athlete has to be ready to "put in the work."

John McCain isn't doing that, yet. He's competing as if he expects the other side to lose it for him. Sen. McCain is a famously undisciplined politician. Someone in the McCain circle had better do some straight talking to the candidate. He's not some 19-year-old tennis player who's going to win the U.S. presidential Open on raw talent and the other guy's errors. He's not that good.

There is a reason the American people the past 100 years elevated only two sitting senators into the White House -- JFK and Warren Harding. It's because they believe most senators, adept at compulsive compromise, have no political compass and will sell them out. Now voters have to do what they prefer not to. Yes, Sen. McCain has honor and country. Another month of illogical, impolitic remarks and Sen. McCain will erase even that. Absent a coherent message for voters, he will be one-on-one with Barack Obama in the fall. He will lose.

Gallup Daily: McCain, Obama Remain Tied

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:21:00 -0400

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking for Aug. 14-16 finds John McCain and Barack Obama tied at 45% in the latest presidential election trial heat. The race has tightened over the past several days with Obama's modest advantage over McCaindisappearing. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.) Registered voters' preferences appear quite stable at the moment -- in the last five individual days of Gallup tracking polling, the candidates have been closely matched with neither candidate holding more than a two percentage point advantage on any day.
Obama has returned from his Hawaiian vacation and will have one more week of campaigning before the Democratic national convention takes place in Denver starting Aug. 25. The Republican convention will take place the following week. -- Jeff Jones

Re-Assessing Obama’s “Under-Performance” in the Polls

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:20:00 -0400

One of the more puzzling questions in election polling this year is why isn't Barack Obama doing better in the polls? In a year when outgoing president George W. Bush has an approval rating around 30%, when less than 20% of Americans are satisfied with conditions in the United States, when Democrats have had the largest advantages in party ID they have enjoyed in recent memory, and when Americans have a much more positive view of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party, Democrat Obama has held only a modest lead over Republican John McCain, averaging just 3 points among registered voters since early June.

It's possible that it's not Obama's performance in the polls that is lacking, but that the expectations for how he should be doing are too high. The high expectations for Obama are based largely on an assessment that the political environment is very favorable for the Democrats, but maybe that will not be as big a factor in this election as in other elections.

I'm certainly a believer in the power of the political environment to explain why elections turn out the way they do. A president's party usually loses seats in Congress in midterm elections, but these losses tend to be greater when the president is unpopular, the economy is bad, and Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the country. We have only to go back to 2006 for a terrific example of this. And elections in which an incumbent president is running have proven to be quite predictable based on the president's approval rating -- not just in terms of who will win but also how close the election might be.

My expectation going into the year was that Democrats seemed like a safe bet to win the election, and probably by a comfortable margin in the popular vote given the political environment. While I still believe the Democrats are the favorites, I'm not convinced that Obama will win by a very big popular vote margin if he does in fact prevail. I began to have some doubts about that after seeing a presentation by a former professor of mine, Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University. He presented his simple election forecasting model at the American Association for Public Opinion Research meetings this spring, and predicted a close-as-can-be election between Obama and McCain, based in part on the New Hampshire primary results and in part on the party holding the White House going into the election.

Part of the explanation he gave is that non-incumbent elections tend to be very close. That made me question whether the political environment applies to non-incumbent election years, and if it does, does it apply as strongly? What do the data suggest?

The historical evidence is thin. There have been only five non-incumbent presidential elections in the modern polling era. I'm largely evaluating the political environment for each using the outgoing president's approval rating, since Gallup has data for that going all the way back to the 1940s, and we know approval is correlated with other political environment ratings such as satisfaction and ratings of the economy.

In 1952, Democratic incumbent Harry Truman had historically low approval ratings and Republican Dwight Eisenhower easily defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson for president. The political environment explanation would predict a solid Republican win, and that is what happened.
In 1960, Eisenhower was very popular when he left office after eight years (58% approval in the last measurement before the election), but John F. Kennedy and the Democrats won a closely contested election (winning the popular vote by less than a percentage point) to replace Eisenhower instead of choosing his vice president, Richard Nixon. The political climate model does not seem to apply to this election.
In 1968, the Democrats were trying to win an election with an unpopular president (Lyndon Johnson) waging an unpopular war (in addition to other problems going on in the country), but Republicans only narrowly won. A political conditions interpretation would suggest a big Republican win in 1968, not a 1-point win. It's possible that George Wallace's strong third-party showing made things closer than they otherwise would have been.
In 1988, Ronald Reagan was a popular incumbent (51% approval), though he was not as popular as Eisenhower in 1960 or Bill Clinton in 2000. The elder George Bush won what many perceived as a third Reagan term, and by a healthy margin.
In 2000, Clinton had high approval ratings (57% at the time of the election) and national satisfaction was near record levels, yet Al Gore won the popular vote by only the narrowest of margins.
Whereas a political climate explanation seems to work so well in incumbent presidential elections and midterm elections, on the surface it doesn't seem to explain the outcomes of non-incumbent elections that well, in terms of either the margin or the winner.

So what matters? One thing that definitely comes into play is voters' reluctance to keep a party in power for more than two consecutive terms. Since 1952, this has occurred just once (in 1988). So this can clearly be a countervailing and perhaps more powerful force in non-incumbent elections than the political climate.

Of course, idiosyncratic candidate factors can also influence the outcome and the margin, and seem to provide at least some guidance. While 1952 seems to fit the political explanation model well, perhaps the big Republican margin had as much to do with Eisenhower's popularity as the climate. And maybe Kennedy won an election Democrats might otherwise have lost because voters saw him as a much more attractive candidate than Nixon. Perhaps the elder George Bush's election had more to do with the weakness of Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis than the political climate. It would seem to, given the closeness of the 1960 and 2000 elections, in which the outgoing presidents were more popular than Reagan in 1988.

One other possibility is that voters approach each election differently. When deciding to re-elect a president to four more years in office, it makes sense for a voter to evaluate his performance to date, so the choice is largely backward-looking and, thus, the state of the country should be a major influence on that choice.

However, when an incumbent is not running, the election is arguably more forward-looking, and how the country is doing matters less than voters' projections as to how the two major candidates would do as president if elected. If so, then candidate-specific factors such as experience and policy positions (where candidates want the country to go) should matter more than voters' perceptions of how the country is doing or how the incumbent president or his party has performed (where the country has been).

So in past elections in which no incumbent was running (as is the case this year), the political environment hasn't seemed as important to how the election eventually played out in an obvious way. Thus, maybe it's not that Obama is underperforming what he "should" be doing. Rather, pundits' expectations about how he should be doing may just be too high because they are relying on patterns that -- though well-established -- may not apply to all election years equally.

For Obama, Taxes Are About Fairness

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:15:00 -0400

By WILLIAM MCGURN.- On Saturday night at the Saddleback Church in Southern California, Rick Warren showed Jim, Gwen, Tom, Bob and Co. what a presidential moderator can accomplish when he makes the debate about the candidates and not himself. Over the course of a two-hour, televised forum, the best-selling evangelical author and pastor took a novel approach to our presidential debates. He asked Barack Obama and John McCain the same simple questions -- and then gave them time to answer.

For example, here is how Mr. Warren asked the candidates to talk about their flip-flops: "Give me a good example of something, 10 years ago, you said that's the way I feel about [it] and now, 10 years later, I changed my position."

Likewise on abortion: "I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" And again on the Supreme Court: "Which existing Supreme Court Justice would you not have nominated?"

These are not your standard-issue Beltway questions, and their directness made them hard to evade. Nowhere was this more evident than in Mr. Warren's attempt to get the candidates -- both of whom are trying to persuade the American people they are tax cutters -- to draw some fundamental distinctions between their approaches. In simple but arresting language, he cut to the chase.

Here's how he put it: "OK. Taxes. Define rich. I mean give me a number. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"

Plainly this is a man who understands that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than to get a direct answer from a politician running for election. And indeed, while Mr. McCain was at first shy about giving a specific number, in the end he did allow that someone who had an income of, say, $5 million could pretty definitely be said to be rich.

Yesterday's Politico hooted that with this response Mr. McCain handed his opponent the perfect fodder for a TV commercial. That, of course, overlooks those who might actually find attractive Mr. McCain's fuller explanation. "I don't want to take any money from the rich," he said, "I want everybody to get rich."

Mr. Obama, by contrast, started out much more directly, suggesting that if you make $150,000 or less you may be poor or middle class. A family with an income above $250,000, he went on to say, is "doing well." And if you find yourself in that category, he's going to target you for a tax hike -- all in the name of creating "a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code."

In fact, the idea of fairness is at the heart of his whole economic argument. And he goes back to it in almost every public appearance.

He talks about it as a general theme: "It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share."

He invokes it as a solution for Social Security: "[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share."

He points to how it guides his energy policy: "The first part of my plan is to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and use some of that money to help you pay the rising price of gas."

And he stuck to it on capital gains, even after ABC's Charlie Gibson noted that the record shows increased taxes on capital gains -- which would affect 100 million Americans -- would likely lead to a decrease in government revenues: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."

Translated into ordinary English, what that means is that it doesn't really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It's not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it's done in the name of fairness.

Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama's advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes -- the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.

Mr. Warren, a man of the cloth, has done us a great service by asking the candidates to answer a pretty secular question: What kind of income makes an American "rich"? Maybe in the more secular setting of an upcoming debate, one of our nonpastor moderators could ask the candidates the moral question: What specific rate of individual taxation would it take for the rich to be paying their fair share?

Becoming a Billionaire: T. Boone Pickens

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:50:00 -0400

The Oklahoma oilman, who's penned the upcoming book "The First Billion is the Hardest," talks about lessons from his grandmother and how he plans to change the energy industry, By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG.-

In his upcoming book, "The First Billion is the Hardest," oilman T. Boone Pickens provides a series of chatty vignettes that he believes reflects key turning points in his business career -- defeats as well as triumphs.

Mr. Pickens, who today is the chief executive of BP Capital, a Dallas-based hedge fund, also has a serious message about energy and the U.S.'s increasing reliance on foreign oil. He wants the U.S. to cut back on imports and to aggressively invest in renewable energy resources, particularly wind power. In May, his Mesa Power LLP placed a $2 billion order for wind turbines.

But Mr. Pickens also likes a good story. While explaining to an audience why he once made a bid for a much larger company, Mr. Pickens told the following joke to illustrate his point that money changes everything: A man walks into a bar with a talking dog. The barman is amazed, and eventually gives the pooch a dollar to buy him a newspaper down the block. When he doesn't return, the owner finds his dog canoodling with a poodle. After the owner expresses dismay, the dog replies: "This is the first time I've had money."

It's easy to forget that Mr. Pickens started out as a geologist at Phillips Petroleum. Before he quit in 1954, he was supporting his wife and two kids on $500 a month, which he describes "as a pretty good salary" at the time. At the age of 26, he bought a station wagon and went into business as a consultant. Two years later, he and several investors formed an oil company that evolved into Mesa Petroleum, which eventually became one of the largest independent oil companies in the U.S. Mr. Pickens, 80 years old, was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg.

The Wall Street Journal: What prompted this book?

T. Boone Pickens: I felt like a lot had happened to me. I left Mesa [Petroleum] in 1996 and the 12 years that followed were the most productive years of my life. Also, I came from a small town in eastern Oklahoma, and I think that I can still reach a young audience who want to know that average intelligence and a good work ethic is all you need.

WSJ: You were in effect fired as CEO of Mesa Petroleum by Richard Rainwater and his wife Darla Moore in 1996. In this book, you settle scores with them, adding the occasional shot to the ribs. What about forgetting and forgiving?

Mr. Pickens: If somebody I don't like gets in the crosshairs, I pull the trigger. But I don't hunt for them. The reason for paying them back is that they couldn't make a professional transition. You want your departure after 40 years to be pleasant, not unpleasant. They did things that were totally unnecessary, so that's why I said what I said.

WSJ: BP Capital has done well in the commodity markets. Do speculators play a constructive role?

Mr. Pickens: When you look at a commodities market you need hedgers and speculators. If you don't have one, you don't have a market. That's how it works. I don't think speculators are destructive. They are an infinitesimal part of the market. Fundamentals make the market. I'm amused when Congress tries to place the blame on somebody but never themselves. I've never heard any of them ever say, "I've made a mistake." I do. I say I called it wrong. But they just try to find somebody to blame. Now they are blaming speculators. Surely they have more to do than that. We don't focus on the problem in Washington.

WSJ: You often stop in your book to remind readers that you came from a modest background, with a grandmother who cut a smart deal with you to mow lawns for only a dime. Was she really that tough?

Mr. Pickens: Oh yes. She said at one point, "I'm going to help you out on a bad deal," and I thought she was going to raise the price. Instead she offered to have the mower sharpened. She taught me lessons I've never forgotten. She said that the next time I made a contract, I would spend more time figuring out the costs. And it was absolutely true.

WSJ: You've become a representative for renewable energy, which seems odd for an oilman. Did you have a conversion?

Mr. Pickens: It's not a conversion. It's a necessity to save the country. The hydrocarbon era is shutting down in the U.S. We peaked at 10 million barrels produced in 1970; today it's 5 million barrels. We are fading. If you are going out of business you don't go down with the ship, you get another ship. For us it's natural gas. We never felt our back was against the wall. We didn't know it because our leadership didn't tell us. And we didn't feel it because we had cheap oil. It was: Send it to us, never mind the price. Then one day it went vertical and people began screaming. Now we're placing blame. But what we should have done is closed the door and said, how do we get out of this trap? Oil is in decline, coal is dirty, and down the list you go. Circle the ones that will reduce what we're paying for foreign oil. Natural gas, do we have enough? Yes. Why not use it? No leadership.

WSJ: What are your views on lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and gas?

Mr. Pickens: I'm for drilling every place. And I'm for nuclear, and I'm for ethanol, because it means another one million barrels we don't have to import. I'm for anything American. I'm opposed to only one thing: foreign oil. Heck yes, drill. There is nothing wrong with drilling. We haven't had an oil spill in 20 years. If you don't like the appearance of rigs don't look.

WSJ: How can the U.S. lower the amount of gasoline, and therefore imported oil, it uses?

Mr. Pickens: Only one way quickly. You have to change the fuel. If you don't have the oil, what can you use to reduce imports? The answer is natural gas. We are so fortunate to have an abundance of natural gas. It's cleaner, cheaper, and it's ours. How could we ever have imported so much oil when we have so much natural gas? The answer is we didn't have leadership. We have 142,000 natural-gas-powered vehicles, mostly trucks. We sit here like dumb-dumbs. We have plenty of natural gas.

WSJ: You argue that coal is the immediate answer to our energy needs. Won't more coal-fired power mean more global-warming gases?

Mr. Pickens: No question about it. But you can clean it up. The coal is ours. That's a resource we have available. We can't keep importing oil. I'd rather use our finite resources than somebody else's. And natural gas will be a bridge to the next generation of transportation fuel. Right now we have nothing.

WSJ: You're promoting the Pickens Plan, a blueprint for a dramatic change in the U.S. energy landscape. Do you see any politicians or companies embracing new energy policies that make sense?

Mr. Pickens: There's no policy. We have 250 million vehicles in America. We have got to make some changes. The government must come out and say all government vehicles in the future will use natural gas. You can revitalize our economy, our transportation system, and create an energy system in 10 years that would be the best in the world. Instead, we're importing oil that will be $300 a barrel in 10 years.

Obama Y los Wahabbis

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:30:00 -0400

El candidato a la presidencia de Estados Unidos, Barack Hussein Obama, nació en Honolulu, Hawaii, de Barack Hussein Obama padre, un musulmán negro proveniente de Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya, y de Anne Dunham, atea y blanca, de Wichita Kansas. Los padres de Obama se conocieron en la universidad, en Hawaii. Cuando Obama tenía 2 años, se divorciaron. Su padre retornó a Kenya y su madre se casó nuevamente con Loro Soetoro, un musulmán radical de Indonesia, donde se reubicó la familia cuando Obama tenía 6 años.

Obama asistió a una escuela musulmana en Jakarta. También pasó dos años en una escuela católica. Obama oculta muy cuidadosamente el hecho de ser un musulmán. Rápidamente puntualiza que alguna vez fue musulmán, pero que también fue a una escuela católica.

Los asesores políticos de Obama tratan de hacer aparecer la introducción de Obama en el Islam como producto de su padre, y que como mucho, su influencia fue temporaria. En realidad, su padre retornó a Kenya tras el divorcio y nunca más tuvo directa influencia sobre la educación de su hijo.

Lolo Soetoro, el segundo marido de su madre, fue quien introdujo a su hijastro en el Islam. Obama fue matriculado en una escuela Wahabi en Jakarta. El movimiento Wahabi es la enseñanza radical seguida por los terroristas musulmanes que actualmente se encuentran librando su Jihad contra el mundo occidental. Dado que es políticamente más favorable ser cristiano cuando se está postulando para un cargo oficial mayor en los estados unidos, Barack Husein Obama se ha enrolado en la Iglesia Unida de Cristo en su intento de quitar relevancia a su pasado musulmán.

Puede tenerse también en cuenta que cuando realizó su juramento profesional, no lo realizó sobre la biblia sino con el Corán, (usado como equivalente pero con muy diferentes creencias).

Holy Cows: George W Bush - buffoon or great leader?

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:53:00 -0400

este post No es mio, es de un blogero europeo harto del mal agradecimiento de su continente hacia este pais.

By Sameh El-Shahat.- from the www.telegraph.co.uk

So, the hot news now is Barack Obama.

Obama this, Obama that... Naturally, it is very laudable that the United States may have chosen to look beyond the issue of race and opted for a person purely on the merit of his character. But what will they find?

The usual hot air that Washington politicians seem to have made their own. Mr Obama is no different. We’re just too politically correct to say that the only thing refreshing about him is his colour. So we say he’s “bipartisan”, or he’s a “uniter”.

Whatever happened to leadership and honesty as presidential traits? I happen to believe that the only leader in the West to have these two admirable qualities in droves is the leader of the free world: George W Bush.

Yes, we’ve all heard the Bushisms and laughed at them but do you really think somebody supposedly that thick can make it to the top of the most sophisticated political system the world has ever seen?

No, and that is because Mr Bush is far cleverer than most of his predecessors. He may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, but he has the ability to reach out to his people and read them.

Take the Iraq war for example. OK, so he got us into Iraq in the first place. But for Pete’s sake, he’s the leader of the world’s only superpower. He needs to take decisions, even if sometimes they have nasty consequences - which is far better than we do in Europe, where we enjoy dithering not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.

Something had to be done about Iraq and our government was all for attacking it too. So let’s not blame G.W. for the war.

And when things did go wrong in Iraq, and there were calls to pull out, Mr Bush just followed his own counsel and doubled his bet with the Surge.

And he was right because Iraq is in a relatively better shape today than it ever was and Al Qa'eda is a shadow of its former self in that country.

This is a man who has the courage of his convictions.

Let’s not forget how Europe does wars.

Usually we wait and wait until the enemy starts attacking, then we let them win a bit, then we fight until we are tired, then we just call the US to come over to clean our mess.

That is what happened in WWI, WWII, and the Balkans.

Bush is just showing us what a bunch of dangerous ditherers we are and we hate him for it. Naturally.

And the Olympics. Bush said right from the beginning that he’s going to the opening ceremony because he saw the whole boycott thing as silly and counterproductive.

Compare that with Sarkozy who has changed his mind twice so far and to Gordon Brown who, well... err.

Not much leadership from Europe here, as usual, just doublespeak. Once again, it is to Bush that we look for leadership.

Bush may not have the slickness of his predecessor, but he is a man you can trust and who prefers to tell it like it is.

This is refreshing, and very scary for us who are used to our politicians always talking grandly about principles and hiding behind political mumbo-speak.

The fact is you guys hate Mr Bush because he is not a hypocrite and you are used to hypocrites as your leaders. We hate what we don’t understand.

Yes, yes, all you bleeding heart liberals are cringing out there. I can just hear you. But the fact is, Mr Bush has had to take some very tough decisions and the world needs people who can not only talk but also act tough and admit mistakes.

Of course you think Mr Obama is going to make a difference, but as I write this, he’s already giving all the signs of somebody who will say anything to get into power only to act in exactly the same way as the Washington clique he aims to replace!

Hating George W. Bush is not only dull and unoriginal, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the world in which we live in.

You want liberty but you don’t want to defend it... right.

And for those of you who still don’t buy into what I’m saying, look at the Middle East. Bush single-handedly managed to unite the Arabs in their hate for him.

Given how difficult uniting the Arabs is, it takes a special man with special skills to achieve this. He is just the kind of man to bring about peace in that region!

Russia Expands Fighting in Georgia,

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:40:00 -0400

Russia captured the central city of Gori and its armored vehicles rolled deep into western Georgia on Monday, seizing a military base and several towns and opening a second front of fighting. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said the Russian forces had effectively cut his country in half.

Fighting also raged Monday around Tskhinvali, the capital of the separatist province of South Ossetia. Swarms of Russian planes launched new raids across Georgia, sending screaming civilians running for cover.

The invasions of Gori and the towns of Senaki, Zugdidi and Kurga came despite a top Russian general's claim earlier Monday that Russia had no plans to enter Georgian territory. By taking Gori, which sits on Georgia's only east-west highway, Russia has the potential to effectively cut the country in half.

Security Council head Alexander Lomaia said Monday it was not immediately clear if Russian forces would advance on Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. The United Nations Security Council called an emergency session at Georgia's request -- the fifth meeting on the subject in as many days.

The two-front battlefield was a major escalation in the conflict that blew up late Thursday after a Georgian offensive to regain control of South Ossetia. Even as Mr. Saakashvili signed a cease-fire pledge with EU mediators on Monday, Russia appeared determined to subdue the small U.S. ally that has been pressing for NATO membership.

On Monday afternoon, Russian troops invaded Georgia from the western separatist province of Abkhazia while most Georgian forces were in the central region around South Ossetia.

The West has sharply criticized Russia's military response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia as disproportionate, and the world's seven largest economic powers urged Russia on Monday to accept an immediate cease-fire and agree to international mediation.

"We want to see the Russians stand down," deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington.

With Europe depending on Russia for a quarter of the oil it consumes -- and half of its gas needs -- the conflict serves as a vivid demonstration of Russian power in the Caspian region.

Russian armored personnel carriers rolled into the base in Senaki, a town in Western Georgia about 20 miles inland from the Black Sea port of Poti, Georgian Security Council secretary Alexander Lomaia said. In Moscow, a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to give his name, said the move into Senaki was intended to end Georgian resistance.

Russian forces also seized police stations in the town of Zugdidi and allied separatist forces took over a nearby village, Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign ministers of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan called on Russia to respect Georgia's borders and expressed deep concern for civilian casualties, Mr. Wood said, adding that the call was one of more than 50 Ms. Rice made over the weekend on the matter.

The State Department said it has evacuated more than 170 U.S. citizens from Georgia as the conflict over separatist areas intensifies.

Russia's move to open a second front came hours after a senior Russian general insisted that Russia has no plans to press into Georgian territory beyond the breakaway regions.

The U.S. is campaigning to get Russia to halt its retaliation and American officials have accused Russia of using the fighting to try to overthrow the Georgian government. President George W. Bush, who has encouraged Georgia's efforts to join NATO, said he spoke with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and the Russian president.

"I've expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and that we strongly condemn the bombing outside of South Ossetia," Mr. Bush said in an interview with NBC Sports.

In turn, Mr. Putin criticized the U.S. for airlifting Georgian troops back home from Iraq on Sunday at Georgia's request.

"It's a pity that some of our partners instead of helping are in fact trying to get in the way," Mr. Putin said at a cabinet meeting. "I mean among other things the United States airlifting Georgia's military contingent from Iraq effectively into the conflict zone."

Mr. Putin's comments reflected Russia's growing irritation with Western condemnation.

"The scale of their cynicism causes surprise," Mr. Putin said. "It's the ability to cast white as black and black as white which is surprising, the ability to cast the aggressor as the victim and blame the victims for the consequences."

Mr. Putin remarks also reflected deep anger at Georgia's president.

Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Mr. Putin said. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed 10 Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds -- these leaders must be taken under protection."

Mr. Putin and other Russian officials have accused Georgian forces of committing atrocities against civilians in South Ossetia -- claims that could not be independently verified.

Georgia began an offensive to regain control over South Ossetia overnight Friday with heavy rocket and artillery fire and air strikes that ravaged the provincial capital, Tskhinvali. The Russia response was swift and overpowering -- thousands of troops that shelled the Georgians until they fled Tskhinvali on Sunday, and air attacks across Georgia.

Hundreds of Georgian troops headed north along the road toward Tskhinvali, pocked with tank regiments creeping up the highway into South Ossetia. Hundreds of soldiers traveled in trucks in the opposite direction, towing light artillery weapons.

In the city of Gori, where artillery fire could be heard, Georgian soldiers warned local residents that Russian tanks were approaching and advised them to leave. Hundreds of terrified residents fled toward Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, using any means of transport they could find. Many stood along the roadside trying to flag down passing cars.

Russia, which has developed close ties with the region and granted passports to most of its residents, sent in thousands of troops who launched an overwhelming artillery barrage and air attacks against Georgian troops. Heavy Russian shelling drove the Georgian forces out of the South Ossetian provincial capital of Tskhinvali on Sunday.

Mr. Saakashvili, the Georgian president, voiced concern that Russia's true goal was to undermine his pro-Western government. "It's all about the independence and democracy of Georgia," he said during a conference call.

At a United Nations Security Council meeting on Sunday, Russia's ambassador to the U.N., Vitaly Churkin, acknowledged there were occasions when elected leaders "become an obstacle."

Mr. Saakashvili said Russia has sent 20,000 troops and 500 tanks into Georgia -- with some troops getting within three miles of Gori, located just outside South Ossetia, before being repulsed Sunday.

Georgia borders the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia and was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have run their own affairs without international recognition since fighting to split from Georgia in the early 1990s. Both separatist provinces have close ties with Moscow, while Georgia has deeply angered Russia by wanting to join NATO.

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said Sunday more than 2,000 people had been killed in South Ossetia since Friday, most of them Ossetians with Russian passports. The figures could not be independently confirmed, but refugees who fled the city said hundreds were killed.

Thousands of civilians have fled South Ossetia -- many seeking shelter in the neighboring Russian province of North Ossetia.

Top Obama Flip-Flops

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:26:00 -0400

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

McCain Steps Up Criticism of Russia

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:23:00 -0400

By Amy Chozick.- John McCain said Monday that Moscow appears determined to take down the Georgia government. “Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia. Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world. And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America,” he said in a statement while campaigning in Erie, Pa.

The Republican candidate who has largely staked his campaign against Barack Obama on national security called for an emergency meeting of G-7 nations to handle the escalating crisis. He also said NATO should convene an emergency meeting to demand a ceasefire. He said NATO should begin discussing deploying an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia, one of two separatists regions of Georgia that are pro-Russia.

“What the people of Georgia have accomplished – in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform – is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia’s recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia – and the survival of its democratically elected government – are at stake,” McCain said.

McCain, a former prisoner of war who has served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has hit his opponent on national security claiming Obama isn’t ready to be commander in chief. The Democrats meanwhile have focused on high gas prices and the faltering economy, issues that voters say top their list of concerns this election year.

Obama’s initial reaction to Russia’s attacks on Georgia was less severe. He did not blame either side, but called on both to stop the fighting. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war,” he said in a statement released on Friday.

Later that day, Obama toughened his position and called for restraint on both sides but blamed Russia for invading Georgia. On Saturday, he took that stance even further saying “Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

It is still unclear whether the fighting in Georgia will shift voters’ concerns to national security.

The War in Georgia Is a War for the West

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:18:00 -0400

By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI.- On Friday, hundreds of Russian tanks crossed into Georgian territory, and Russian air force jets bombed Georgian airports, bases, ports and public markets. Many are dead, many more wounded. This invasion, which echoes Afghanistan in 1979 and the Prague Spring of 1968, threatens to undermine the stability of the international security system. Why this war? This is the question my people are asking. This war is not of Georgia's making, nor is it Georgia's choice.

The Kremlin designed this war. Earlier this year, Russia tried to provoke Georgia by effectively annexing another of our separatist territories, Abkhazia. When we responded with restraint, Moscow brought the fight to South Ossetia.

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

When my government was swept into power by a peaceful revolution in 2004, we inherited a dysfunctional state plagued by two unresolved conflicts dating to the early 1990s. I pledged to reunify my country -- not by the force of arms, but by making Georgia a pole of attraction. I wanted the people living in the conflict zones to share in the prosperous, democratic country that Georgia could -- and has -- become.

In a similar spirit, we sought friendly relations with Russia, which is and always will be Georgia's neighbor. We sought deep ties built on mutual respect for each other's independence and interests. While we heeded Russia's interests, we also made it clear that our independence and sovereignty were not negotiable. As such, we felt we could freely pursue the sovereign choice of the Georgian nation -- to seek deeper integration into European economic and security institutions.

We have worked hard to peacefully bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold, on terms that would fully protect the rights and interests of the residents of these territories. For years, we have offered direct talks with the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, so that we could discuss our plan to grant them the broadest possible autonomy within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia.

But Russia, which effectively controls the separatists, responded to our efforts with a policy of outright annexation. While we appealed to residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with our vision of a common future, Moscow increasingly took control of the separatist regimes. The Kremlin even appointed Russian security officers to arm and administer the self-styled separatist governments.

Under any circumstances, Russia's meddling in our domestic affairs would have constituted a gross violation of international norms. But its actions were made more egregious by the fact that Russia, since the 1990s, has been entrusted with the responsibility of peacekeeping and mediating in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Rather than serve as honest broker, Russia became a direct party to the conflicts, and now an open aggressor.

As Europe expanded its security institutions to the Black Sea, my government appealed to the Western community of nations -- particularly European governments and institutions -- to play a leading role in resolving our separatist conflicts. The key to any resolution was to replace the outdated peacekeeping and negotiating structures created almost two decades ago, and dominated by Russia, with a genuine international effort.

But Europe kept its distance and, predictably, Russia escalated its provocations. Our friends in Europe counseled restraint, arguing that diplomacy would take its course. We followed their advice and took it one step further, by constantly proposing new ideas to resolve the conflicts. Just this past spring, we offered the separatist leaders sweeping autonomy, international guarantees and broad representation in our government.

Our offers of peace were rejected. Moscow sought war. In April, Russia began treating the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Russian provinces. Again, our friends in the West asked us to show restraint, and we did. But under the guise of peacekeeping, Russia sent paratroopers and heavy artillery into Abkhazia. Repeated provocations were designed to bring Georgia to the brink of war.

When this failed, the Kremlin turned its attention to South Ossetia, ordering its proxies there to escalate attacks on Georgian positions. My government answered with a unilateral cease-fire; the separatists began attacking civilians and Russian tanks pierced the Georgian border. We had no choice but to protect our civilians and restore our constitutional order. Moscow then used this as pretext for a full-scale military invasion of Georgia.

Over the past days, Russia has waged an all-out attack on Georgia. Its tanks have been pouring into South Ossetia. Its jets have bombed not only Georgian military bases, but also civilian and economic infrastructure, including demolishing the port of Poti on the Black Sea coast. Its Black Sea fleet is now massing on our shores and an attack is under way in Abkhazia.

What is at stake in this war?

Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.

Arrancan los OTC.. La nueva química de la especulación con materias primas

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:45:00 -0400

OTC significa Over The Counter, Y es el mercado no regulado de materias primas, Historicamente los OTC hacia referencia al mercado fisoco internacional de materias primas que van desde el petroleo, azucar, cacao, mazi, trigo, metales etc etc. Por ejemplo, Un exportador-importador es un Trader fisico que negocia OTC, ya que cuando compra una mercancia no lo hace en el mercado regulado, si no en el mercado CASH.. Pero eso esta cambiando rapidamente, ahora en los OTC se esta negociando contratos similares a los de la bolsa pero en forma de swaps.. Les pondre otro ejemplo, los mercados de materias primas (commodities) bursatiles tienen un valor nominal en conjunto de 5 Trillones de dolares anuales, El mercado OTC es de 517 Trillones anuales!!.. Hoy dia, ya no es necesario ser un expor-import trader para tener acceso a mercancias que no cotizan en bolsa.. Aqui les dejo un articulo de prensa de hoy.

Por Ianthe Jeanne Dugan.-

Wall Street está desarrollando nuevas maneras de conseguir dinero.

En mayo, Credit Suisse Group y Deutsche Bank AG empezaron a ofrecer inversiones en mineral de hierro, un componente del acero. La explotación del mineral de hierro es muy común —se extraen alrededor de un millón de toneladas al año—, pero no se negocia en una bolsa de futuros. Por ello ha sido casi imposible para los especuladores apostar respecto a la evolución de su precio.

Los bancos de inversión fueron inundados por operadores interesados en el negocio del mineral de hierro, que funciona como los contratos de futuro. En sólo dos meses, inversionistas y fondos de cobertura asumieron una exposición nocional (el valor total de los contratos) en mineral de hierro de US$500 millones —alrededor de 2,7 millones de toneladas—, convirtiendo al mineral en uno de los mayores mercados de materias primas en surgir de la noche a la mañana.

El nuevo mercado muestra lo difícil que será para los gobiernos controlar la especulación en los mercados de materias primas. Este tipo de operaciones se está extendiendo a una gran cantidad de otros productos —desde el pollo a la gasolina para aviones— que hasta ahora habían permanecido fuera del alcance de los inversionistas, porque no se negociaban en los mercados de futuros. También se ofrecen para commodities que ya se comercializan en bolsas globales, como el crudo, el maíz y el café.

A través de Goldman Sachs Group Inc., los clientes pueden invertir en aceite de palma y otros componentes de los biocombustibles. Deutsche Bank está negociando contratos de rutenio, un metal poco conocido usado en las plumas estilográficas. Deutsche Bank también es una de las firmas que está empezando a negociar contratos de rodio, usado en los adaptadores catalíticos.

Se están preparando también contratos en litio y metales "raros", incluyendo componentes de los vehículos eléctricos e híbridos. Una lista de Credit Suisse parece un libro de texto de química: alúmina, cobalto, molibdeno, ferrocromio y vanadio. "El modelo es prácticamente ilimitado", asegura Kamal Naqvi, un ejecutivo de Credit Suisse en Londres que ayudó a crear la nueva plataforma tras unirse al banco el año pasado. Sólo en julio, Credit Suisse recibió un pedido de productores de chapa de madera, pollo y fertilizante de potasa para crear contratos similares.

Muchos economistas e inversionistas están en desacuerdo con estas propuestas legislativas, y atribuyen los altos precios de las materias primas a la demanda de las economías emergentes y al estancamiento de la producción. Con frecuencia, señalan al hierro como prueba. A pesar de que no ha sido negociado en bolsas de futuro, su precio ha aumentado en el último año. El precio que los fabricantes de acero pagan a las minas australianas, por ejemplo, se ha casi duplicado. "No es que el flujo del dinero no tenga un impacto", sostiene Naqvi, el ejecutivo de Credit Suisse. "Pero el impacto de ese flujo es menor que el de las expectativas del mercado acerca de la realidad física de la oferta y la demanda". Las leyes previstas, dicen los inversionistas y los banqueros, están teniendo un efecto no deseado de ayudar a estos nuevos mercados, cosa que preocupa a algunos críticos.

En junio, Masters urgió al Congreso estadounidense a investigar los contratos de mineral de hierro y similares, argumentando que podrían ayudar a los inversionistas a comprar recursos naturales, retenerlos y luego venderlos cuando su precio suba.

"No entendió nuestro producto", dijo Naqvi. "No existe ningún requisito para recibir inventarios físicos en ningún momento, así que no existe incentivo para retener activos físicamente".

Estos instrumentos tienen implicaciones profundas sobre cómo fluye el dinero hacia los commodities. Antes, si alguien quería obtener ganancias del mineral de hierro, podía comprar acciones en una mina, pero no en los activos en sí mismos. Ahora eso ha cambiado.

Tutorial Interactivo I

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:02:00 -0400

Amigos, he dejado 4 tutoriales desde que habri este blog, pero aqui les dejo el primero 100% visual e interactivo, espero que en el futuro pueda traer varios tutoriales de esta naturaleza porque les sera de mucho mayor ultilidad, ya que podran hacerlo en forma de Demo. En este tutorial que nos ofrece el london metal exchange, podran participar de operaciones ficiticias donde entenderan como funciona los mercados y las bolsas.. es uno de los demo mas completo que he visto. Aqui veran como funcionan las bolsas y para que sirven y todo el proceso bursatil de pies a cabeza, Los Ingleses llaman a los Traders como "merchants".. Solo para que no se confundan en los terminos.

disfruten el tutorial.

http://www.lmesteel.com/learning/english/index.html

Espero que luego de ver el tutorial Y entiendan el proceso de comercializacion y la vital importancia de las bolsas, se den cuenta que cuando los politicos culpa a los Traders de la situacion inflacionaria mundial, ellos solo estan hablando Disparates!

LA FED

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:59:00 -0400

Hola amigos, Me gustaria exponer algo que adverti en su momento hace casi un year sobre la irresponsable actitud de la FED. En septiembre 18 del 2007 en un foro de Bolsa donde expuse que seria desastroso que la FED bajara las tasas de los FEDs FUNDs en un momento de inflacion mundial debido al crecimiento Chino Y demas paises emergentes.. Y en ese momento explique todo lo que sucederia y desafortundamente sucedio Y no hay que ser un genio para predecir este tipo de consecuencia, solo hay que tener experiencia y vivir profesionalmente del mercado. Pero explicare por parte que paso Y que sucedera si la FED sigue con esta actitud de socializar las perdidas y la corrupcion bancaria. Pero antes quiero explicar que son los FED FUNDS.

La FED no bajo ni subio las tasas de intereses hipotecarias ni del tesoro como erroneamente el publico cree, Lo que la FED movio fueron los FED FUNDs que son las tasas que usan los bancos para AUTOPRESTARSE ENTRE ELLOS MISMOS...

1-Los bancos hipotecarios funcionan de la siguiente manera (sere breve), Un banco presta 100 millones de dolares en hipotecas a diferentes familia a una tasa digamos del 6% a 30 years de cliente de credito BBB- (osea credito mas o menos).. Ellos agrupan varios prestamos con estas caracteristicas Y la venden inmediatamente a Fannie Mae O Freddie Mac, ganandose entre 1 y 4 puntos (osea entre 10 mil y 40 mil dolares por cada millon) que en 100 milliones de dolares en prestamos hipiotecarios seria un profit para el banco de entre 1 y 4 millones de dolares.. Nada mal para un par de dias de trabajo.

Cuando Alan Greespan (responsable de esta crisis) bajo las tasas FED FUNDS al 1% en el 2001, automaticamente creo un masiva liquidez intrabancaria que permitio a los bancos prestar dinero left and right sin el menor escrupulo, Prestar dinero entre el 2001 y 2004 era mas lucrativo que vender cocaina.. Y por ende dio paso a enormes corrupciones, Muchos bancos hacian prestamos de hasta 750 mil dolares a inmigrantes ilegales que ganaban 15 mil dolares anuales, porque lo que el banco le interesaba era vender esas hipotecas a Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac..

2-Fannie Mae Y Freddie Mac, cuando compran estos prestamos los convertian en forma de Bonos que luego eran vendido en wall street, Para un inversionista resultaba atractivo comprar un bono hipotecario que pagaba el 6% anual Y el papel en si costaba 60 centavo de dolar, Lo unico que tenia que preocuparse el inversionista era de que los duenos de casas no perdieran esas casas por falta de pago.

3-La FED empezo a subir las tasas en el 2004 y la subio 14 veces seguidas para pasar del 1% al 5,25% en el 2006.. Eso cerro el grifo de liquidez de muchos bancos Y ahi empezaron los problemas.

4-AL subir las tasas tan rapidamente, muchos bancos pequenos e hipotecarios empezaron a quedarse sin liquidez y sus negocios empezaron a irse por el aguadero.. la solucion que encontraron fue usar los LIBOR rate del londres, que tambien es aplicable en eeuu Y que en ese entonces estaban con unas tasas mas baratas en un 2% que los FEDs FUNDs de eeuu.

5-Muchas corporaciones empezaron tambien a usar los LIBORs para autofinanciarse y emitir bonos corporativos.. BIG Mistake.. para mediados del 2006, los LIBOR rate empezaron a dispararse indiscriminadamente llegando a tener unas tasas del 6%, superando por mucho los FEDs FUNDs Y su 5%. Eso hizo que los bancos de todo tipo empezaran a quedarse SECOS de liquidez. Y eso provoco que muchas hipotecas se dispararan en sus tasas de interesa variable porque los bancos tenian que compensar de alguna forma.

6-Muchos duenos de casas compraron casas usando las tasas usando los LIBORs como benchmark sin siquiera saberlo Y muchos otros (la gran mayoria) compro casas con intereses fijos por 3 years para luego pasar a los intereses variables.. Entre marzo del 2008 y Agosto del 2008, mas de 70 millones de Hogares en eeuu pasaran a tener hipotecas con tasas Variables!!.,.. OUTCHHH, esto dolera mucho!!

7-Los Bancos empezaron a quedarse sin liquidez y en su desesperacion empezaron a emitir los MUY peligrosos Credit Default Swaps o CDO. Que Son estos swaps?? simple, los bancos emitian unas especie de "opciones" en forma de swaps a los inversionistas por 250 mil dolares, esos swaps tenian una duracion de vida de 12 meses, si en 12 meses los bonos hipotecarios no se desplomaban, los Inversionistas perdian esos 250 mil dolares, PERO si el sector se desplomaba, entonces el inversionista ganaria 10 millones de dolares por cada Swaps en su poder.. Los bancos pensaron en encontrar una enorme fuentes de liquidez usando esta ruleta rusa.

BIG MISTAKE!.. Muchos Hedge Funds managers E inversionistas compraron masivamente estos Swaps, como Caxton Corp, que compro 900 millones de esos Swaps a Bearn Stearn entre el 2006 y 2007. O mejor aun, John Paulson Gano 4 Billones de dolares en el 2007 con estos CDO swaps.. Los Bancos quedaron con menos liquidez aun y ahi empezo la odisea.

Ben Bernanke, empezo a salvar y a intervenir bancos que ya estaban sin solvencia Y de paso empezo a rebajar los FED FUNDS hasta bajarlo al nivel actual del 2%... Eso ha creado una presion inflacionaria mayor de la que el mundo ya estaba al debilitar el USD.. Pero el problema es que hay cientos de Billones de prestamos usando el Benchmark LIBOR de londres, como es el caso de la venerable boutique de inversiones KKR...

Yo expuse el 18 de septiembre del 2007 esto Y explique que Lo correcto era dejar las tasas FED FUND como estaban Y que dejara que quebraran un par de bancos, Las recesiones No son malas, es un procesio natural que elimina los excesos del systema, Y mientras menos el gobierno intervengan mas rapido pasara el dolor.. Pero es un year electoral Y a los politicos lo que le importa es el Ahora y NO el manana.

Ben Bernanke, siguiendo la doctrinas Irresponsable de Alan Greenspan, adopto la teoria de que era mejor una recesion Inflacionaria que una recesion Deflacionaria, Y tiene razon hasta cierto punto, Pero donde no tiene razon es en socializar las perdidas del sector..

En Un hecho sin precedente en la historia de nuestro pais, la FED le presto dinero a JPMorganChase para que adquiriera los activos de Bearn Stearn por 200 millones de dolares cuando SOLO el edificio de Bearn Stearn vale 2 billones de dolesr!!!.. Eso es Corrupcion 101.

La FED en estos momentos No esta haciendo mas que esconder la "basura debajo de la cama" pretendiendo limpiarlo luego.. WRONG!.. Lo que la FED deberia hacer es dejar que esos bancos corruptos quebraran, Dejar que esos duenos de hipotecas SUBprime (personas malas pagas) perdieran sus casas Y que se llenara de inventario las propiedades para que los excesos se acaben de una buena ves, Y Claro que seria un proceso MUY doloroso, Pero es el mas eficaz Y mas si la FED deja de printiar ingorganicos como si fuera una mata de hacer dolares..

Lo peor No ha llegado aun, Agosto sera un Mes MUY importante Y el Mes que nos dira si el pais entrara en una severa recesion O si el pais entrara en un periodo de recuperacion lenta.. Hoy Dia Fannie Mae Y Freddie Mac estan insolventes Y ellos tiene Medio trillon de dolares en hipotecas subprimes, esto supone un problema enorme, ya que el gobierno federal es el 50% dueno de estas dos instituciones y Tanto Freddie Como Fannie tiene el 50% de las hipotecas del pais en su poder en forma de Bonos que Nadie quiere comprar.

En pocas palabras, el gobierno federal esta insolvente en estos momentos, Mientras que Unos cuantos feudalistas como Los Rockerfellers, Goldsmith, Kennedy & Co, se hacen mas rico aun ya que son algunos de los duenos de la FED.

LA FED es un banco central privado, controlado por 12 bancos centrales estatales, el banco de londres Y 12 familias... Y cuando washington quiere dinero, le pide prestado a la FED Y de nuestros TAXES es que washington paga el capital + intereses..

Los democratas crearon la FED a inicio de siglo, crearon el welfare state que nos estan dejando insolventes Y ahora quieren culpar a la Irak de nuestros problemas, Y encima hablan de expandir el Medicaid, el seguro social y demas instituciones producen mas perdidas que Irak en un ratio de 1 a 15.

Eso No es capitalismo 101, estos Feudalismo 101...

aqui para cerrar les dejo algunas palabras extra visionaria de nuestro padre fundador Thomas Jefferson.- (lideres asi jamas tendremo en nuestras vidas).

That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Salimankis, 1810. ME 12:379

"The system of banking [I] have... ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:18

"The banks... have the regulation of the safety-valves of our fortunes, and... condense and explode them at their will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:224

"The States should be urged to concede to the General Government, with a saving of chartered rights, the exclusive power of establishing banks of discount for paper." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:431

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437

Jefferson como los demas padres fundandores de este pais, eran visionarios, tenian una vision 500 years hacia adelante Y nos advirtieron de los errores que cometerian sus sucesores, es por eso que disenaron el pais de una forma tal y tan fragmentada que siempre habra conflictos de poderes entre si... Eso es lo que debemos cuidar Y la mejor manera de hacerlo es EVITANDO el gobierno Grande, el Gobierno del Bienestar.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1325.htm

Los precios del petroleo y las mentira de la OPEP

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:56:00 -0400

En reciente articulo que me paso un forista sobre una entrevista al secretario de la OPEO el Sr Abdalla Salem EL-Badri Culpa a los especuladores de los precios del petroleo.. Pero durante la entrevista el mismo se contradice en sus exposicion.. aqui la entrevista Y observen las negritas y observen como se contradice.

Pregunta. Se exige a la OPEP que ponga más petróleo en el mercado para atajar la escalada del precio.

Respuesta. Déjeme decir, lo primero, que no hay ningún problema de oferta. La subida se debe a la devaluación del dólar, las tensiones geopolíticas, la especulación... No hay escasez en el mercado. En realidad, todo esto es fácil de explicar: la crisis de las hipotecas basura el verano pasado en EE UU hizo mucho daño a los mercados bursátiles, y desde entonces la inversión financiera busca otros productos y las materias primas ahora son el principal atractivo para la especulación.

P. Las multinacionales han coincidido en lamentar que las restricciones de la OPEP dificultan el despegue de la inversión.

R. No es cierto que todos los países de la OPEP pongan restricciones. Hay muchos con las puertas abiertas a las compañías privadas. Y algunas de estas compañías privadas mantienen las puertas de sus países cerradas. En el 85% de las explotaciones marinas de EE UU no se puede entrar. Tampoco en el norte de Alaska. Hay que ser justo.

P. El consejero delegado de British Petroleum, Tony Hayward, dijo que el exceso de especulación es un "mito"

R. Puedo responder igual. La falta de oferta es un mito. La causa no está ahí. No es verdad.

P. ¿Qué puede hacer entonces la OPEP para enfriar el mercado?

R. Mantenemos el 40% de la producción mundial y estamos invirtiendo 160.000 millones de dólares en exploración y producción, tenemos 120 proyectos en marcha. BP, por ejemplo, podría invertir en intentar sacar más petróleo del Mar del Norte. Y tenemos capacidad de aumentar la oferta si es necesario. Pero déjeme poner esto claro. No hay nadie haciendo cola por petróleo, toda la demanda está satisfecha.

P. Arabia Saudí ha anunciado un aumento de su oferta en medio millón de barriles diarios ¿La OPEP podría tomar una decisión conjunta similar?

R. No creemos que haya escasez. Y Arabia Saudí lo que dijo es que aumentará su producción, si hay más demanda, pero no vamos a producir si no hay clientes.

P. Si todo se debe a la especulación, llegará un momento en que la burbuja estalle, ¿bajará entonces el barril de los cien dólares?

R. Si el mercado vuelve a comportase según la relación entre oferta y demanda, los precios bajarán. Si dejamos el mercado a los especuladores, un día se dice que el precio llega a 140 dólares, otro que subirá hasta los 200, y el mercado entra en pánico. Hay muchos que se están haciendo ricos con el mito de que falta petróleo.

P. ¿Es necesaria entonces una reforma de los mercados de contratos de futuros?

R. Lo que creo es que hay algo en el mercado que ha ido demasiado lejos. Hay que decir, paremos un momento, algo está mal, hay que volver a la normalidad. No estoy diciendo que se elimine a los especuladores del mercado. Lo que digo es, calma, no hay escasez, dejemos a la oferta y la demanda jugar, ése debe ser el juego del mercado.

P. En muchos países, como España, un aumento así del precio tiene efectos muy graves ¿No hay nada más que se pueda hacer?

R. Ustedes también son víctimas de esta situación. Les afecta la especulación, la devaluación del dólar... Para mí, la cuestión está en poner barreras a la especulación. La Agencia Internacional de la Energía dice que no hay ningún problema de oferta en el corto plazo, pero que habrá problemas a partir de 2012. Con este alto nivel de precios, no se puede decir que habrá tensión en el mercado después de 2012 porque no es verdad. Con este nivel de precio, si hay demanda, todo el mundo invertirá y habrá más oferta.

P. Las multinacionales oponen que el aumento de impuestos al petróleo en algunos países desincentiva esa inversión...

R. Las empresas tienen que olvidarse de que la idea de las siete hermanas [siete multinacionales con gran influencia en el precio internacional hasta los años setenta] vaya a resucitar. Las compañías estatales y las multinacionales privadas tienen que convivir. Ya no pueden ir a un país e imponer el precio que quieran y no pagar impuestos.

P. Es difícil pensar que la OPEP tenga interés en acabar con la subida de precios, a precios más altos, mayores ingresos...

R. Le tengo que corregir. Altos precios significan más ingresos para los Gobiernos de los países consumidores porque aumenta la parte que se va en impuestos. Y déjeme recordar que más del 85% de los ingresos que tenemos vuelve a los países consumidores, con ese dinero compramos productos textiles, alimentos, materias primas o productos industriales a Estados Unidos y Europa. No acumulamos más riqueza con esta situación, no es verdad.

P. El Congreso de EE UU quiere que se lleve a los tribunales a los países de la OPEP que no ajusten su producción a las necesidades del mercado ¿Qué le parece?

R. Quiero que, como primera potencia mundial, deje de hostigar a los países de la OPEP. Con el boicot a Libia, el boicot a Irán, el problema creado en Irak, hay cinco o seis millones de barriles diarios menos en el mercado. Debería intentar ayudar, no echar más gasolina al fuego.

............................................................................................................

Como pueden observar al inicio dice que NO hay problemas de Oferta Y luego de culpar a los especuladores dice que No no se debe eliminar, Para luego terminar diciendo que hay un deficit de 6 millones de barriles al dia menos en el mercado!!!..

Ustedes estan viendo que falacia ha dicho este senor???...

Si bien es cierto que el USD debil es un factor importante en los precios del petroleo actual, La realidad es que la demanda mundial es de 92 millon de barriles al dia vs los 88,6 millones que se producen actualmente.. Tambien es importante notar que el aumento en la produccion de parte de arabia sauita que fue de unos miserables 300 mil barriles al dia, fue comprado por China e India al dia siguiente!.. Eso de por si solo muestra que hay un imbalance global de la demanda del crudo ante la oferta..

Por otro lado quiero volver a explicar porque los especuladores NO somos los que manipulamos los precios del petroleo como tampoco la OPEP.

la Realidad es que los especuladores NO son responsables del precio del petroleo, porque por cada ves que alguien compra un contrato de petroleo en el NYMEX o en el ICE de londres Alguien por inercia tiene que tener la posicion contraria!!! Perriod!!!.. Es un zero sum game, donde por cada ganador hay un perdedor.

Para aclarar como funciona el delivery en la bolsa .. Si tu comprar petroleo en el NYMEX para entrega en agosto, los contratos se vencen los dias 20 de cada mes.. Si tu mantienes esa posicion abierta hasta el 20 de agosto, te llegara un certificado de donde esta almacenado ese petroleo y exigiendo que pagues el resto de la mercancia completa (en bolsa cuando compras un contrato solo pones el 5% del valor total) Y ademas debes cubrir el costo de almacenaje y mantenimiento, Por lo que nadie quiere tener petroleo Almacenado...

POR otro lado en la Bolsa del ICE en londres, los contratos son CASH SETTLE, osea los dias 20 de cada mes, en ves de recibir un certificado con la mercancia fisica, lo que recibes es una nota donde debes pagar el valor de tu papel en CASH!.. Por lo que la bolsa son realmente un instrumento de HEDGING, osea.. Si tu compras 500 mil barriles de petroleo a Nigeria tipo Brent a 137 dolares el barril, Tu inmediatamente haces 'short" (vende) 500 contratos de petroleo tipo Brent en el ICE a $140 el barril, ganandote $3 dolares por barril No importa como fluyan los precios hasta que tu vendas el petroleo de nigeria a X refineria...

EL MISMO warrent Buffet lo ha reconocido.. LOS especuladores NO inflan precios, Ellos eliminan el riesgo de los productores y exportadores/importadores..

Porque sera que en los 1980's y 1990's cuando el barril de petroleo estaba en 15 dolares nadie culpaba a los especuladores bursatiles???.... Haa, pero si la OPEP esta ganando una fortuna con estos precios, es normal que lo justifiquen hablando sandeces.

Por ultimo, la OPEP solo produce el 40% del petroleo del mundo, asi que el resto del mundo produce el 60% restante de la produccion mundial, por lo que la OPEP no es una fuerza real en el mercado del petroleo, todo lo contrario, el 80% de sus miembros producen el petroleo CRUDO AMARGO que es extremadamente dificil de refinar, Es por eso que IRAN que produce 4 millones de barriles al dia (el doble menos que lo que produce estados unidos) Tenga que Importar gasolina, ya que ellos mismos NO son capaces de refinar su propio petroleo amargo de tan malo que es.

Quienes tienen el petroleo como esta?

1-Un mundo de paises emergente que estan haciendose ricos y creciendo violentamente.

2-la debilidad del dollar que es de por si inflacionario.

3-los conflictos geopoliticos

4- Y los fondos soberanos de especulacion de la China, India, Dubai, Russia Y Brazil.. que son fondos de especulacion controlada por el estado, solo Russia tiene un fondo con mas de 300 Billones de dolares dedicado a la compra en el mercado CASH (NO BOLSA) de petroleo... ellos pueden darse el lujo de crear artificialmente la demanda al almacenar el petroleo en X almance bajo la modalidad OFF-WRITTE, Osea que no aparece en los libros de los almacenes Y como son fondos estatales, pues el carry cost de los almacenes no les afecta porque saben que van a vender mas caro en el futuro ese producto escondido.

Es el dollar debil malo?.. depende a quien le preguntes

noreply@blogger.com (Gekko) — Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:55:00 -0400

Muchos norteamericanos tienen la idea de que el Dollar debil es una senal mala de la economia Y NO hay nada mas lejos de la realidad.. El dollar debil tiene sus pros y sus contras, pero tiene mas Pros.Primero, el dollar debil es lo que permite a estados unidos competir vs los paises emergentes de mano de obras baratas y mantener los salarios altos que hay en eeuu Y mantener la competitividad en los precios de nuestros productos en el mundo. Por algo EEUU es el mayor exportador del mundo por una milla, EEUU exporto al mundo en el 2007 unos 1,8 Trillones de dolares!!! (eso es mas que el PIB de Italia! Y espana). En pocas palabras EEUU esta exportando 90 millones de dolares por segundos!!.

Otra ventaja es que Nos hace mas compettiivo, el Euro Fuerte es un enorme problema para europa ya que destruye sus exportaciones mundialmente, los hace menos competitivos Y crea un imbalance entre las naciones de la Union debido a su forma como esta structurados, es por eso que vemos que los grandes europeos tienen un deficit de cuenta superior al de EEUU en % a su PIB.. Por ejemplo, en terminos monetarios EEUU es el pais mas endeudado del mundo, Pero en terminos en % a su PIB es uno de los menos endeudados.

Estados Unidos tiene un deficit de cuenta de 600 billones de dolares, pero eso es 5% del PIB de estados unidos (el PIB yanquee es de 14 Trillones de dolares) Sin embargo el deficit de Japon en comparacion su PIB es del 154%%!!! El de Francia es del 74% y el de Alemania el de 67% el de Italia es del 110% y el de portugal sobre el 100% su PIB!. Y en gran medida el euro fuerte es parte de ese problema.

However, el mayor problema de tener un Dollar debil es que de esa forma eeuu exporta la inflacion al mundo entero mientras aliviana su propia inflacion, Ya que todos los productos del mundo cotizan en USD y no en Euros.. However, tambien nos afecta a nosotros esa inflacion.

Es por eso que vemos que la gasolina en europa por ejemplo promedia los $8 dolares el galon y en eeuu los $4 dolares el galon (aunque es importantisimo notar que los impuestos y subsidios en europa son 10 veces mayores que en eeuu).

Y por ultimo es importante notar algo que tiene una relacion muy directa con el problema del deficit de comercio de eeuu en especial con China.

El dollar esta debil ante ele euro y un pequeno punado de divisas, pero esta fuerte antes las mayores divisas Asiaticas, por lo que Los asiaticos Nos llevan una ventaja en precio Y por eso sus precios son mas atractivos en el mundo entero que los que producen los latinosamericanos O europeos Y nostros claros esta.

However, China, India y demas paises que tiene atados sus monedas al dollar estan sufriendo de la inflacion que produce el euro fuerte ante el dollar.. Al estos paises no tener felixbilidad cambiaria en los mercados de divisas, esta ejerciendo enorme preciones....

Todo esto ha desatado en gran medida una ultraferoz comptencia mundial sobre los bienes basicos, en especial los metales y el petroleo.. Por ejemplo, Hoy se anuncio que australia vendio niveles records historicos de Hierron tipo Ore en lo que va de year, unos 25 millones de toneladas, la mayoria vendida a China, sin embargo Brazil que ocupo ese lugar en el 2007 ha quedado muy detras Y unos de los motivos principales es que el real de brazl ha venido fortaleciendose ante el dollar desde finales del 2007 Y el dollar australiano ha venido debilintandose ante el dollar Yanquee en comparacion al mismo periodo en el 2007.

Por eso, que cuando usted pregunta, es el dollar debil bueno o malo??? dependera mucho a quien le pregunte, si le pregunta a un Norteamericano educado le dira que es bueno, si le preguntan a un ingles o un aleman le dira que definitivamente que no..

Yo estoy mas que feliz con el dollar debil.. aunque me gustaria verlo cotizar entre los $1,45 - $1,50 de manera estable.