Lino escribió:A mí me han convencido estos tíos. Yo me uno a ellos. Como dicen, estoy HASTA LOS COJONES.

http://vimeo.com/21880662

http://opvdevotaciones.tk/

"Si los ricos no pagan impuestos se enfrentarán a una revolución" ·

Paul Farell, analista de 'The Wall Street Journal', se hace eco de una corriente de opinión que pone en entredicho la recuperación en EE UU

RAMÓN MUÑOZ 04/04/2011

Predice un cataclismo económico y una revolución social en EE UU. Pero no es el polémico y a veces abiertamente demagogo director de cine Michael Moore. Ni el predicador televisivo Glenn Beck, insignia mediática del movimiento conservador estadounidense del Tea Party. Ni, más cercanamente, Niño Becerra, el catedrático que vaticina el cataclismo de la economía española cada año y cada año lo aplaza. Se trata de Paul B. Farrell, un prestigioso columnista de The Wall Street Journal, el diario financiero por excelencia nada sospechoso de sensacionalismo. Y esta semana ha lanzado un aviso ciertamente preocupante aunque con argumentos y cifras mucho más contundentes que la de los otros teóricos apocalípticos citados.


"O los ricos comienzan a pagar impuestos o se enfrentarán a una revolución". Con ese provocativo arranque, Farell, que trabajó para Morgan Stanley, advierte en su columna que la brecha entre el 1% de los "súper ricos" y el 99% restante de la población en EE UU no había sido tan grande desde la Gran Depresión de 1929, y que solo el "engaño" o el "espejismo" que lanza esta clase privilegiada desde sus diversas tribunas, ya sean políticas o mediáticas, impiden a la gente darse cuenta de que estamos a punto de vivir otro colapso como el de hace casi un siglo. Y concluye que o los ricos vuelven a pagar los impuestos que les corresponden por su nivel de riqueza u Occidente se enfrentará a una revuelta social como las que se están viviendo en el norte de África

Farrell señala que, tras el estallido de la crisis financiera en 2008 y la intervención del Estado para salvar el sistema, Estados Unidos vive ahora de la falsa esperanza que le transmiten los "súper ricos", las "estadísticas del Gobierno que tratan de exagerar la recuperación" o los mensajes sobre un nuevo mercado alcista de Wall Street.

"Sigan soñando", apunta Farrell, que avisa de que el 93% de lo que se oye acerca de los mercados, las finanzas y la economía "son conjeturas, ilusiones y mentiras con el único fin de manipular en la toma de decisiones para sacar el dinero de los bolsillos" de la gente. "Ellos se enriquecen diciendo mentiras sobre los valores. Odian a las normas de la SEC que les obligan a decir la verdad". Y pone un dato como ejemplo: en los últimos 10 años, el 20% de los fondos de pensiones de los trabajadores -10 billones de dólares- se ha esfumado en Wall Street.

Apoyado en otros testimonios, el columnista establece un paralelismo entre las revoluciones como las que han ocurrido en Egipto, y las que están por venir en los países desarrollados. Ambas serán impulsadas por los jóvenes, las mayores víctimas de la crisis, condenados a un desempleo crónico. "Los jóvenes van a ser los más doloridos cuando los gobiernos traten de reequilibrar sus presupuestos. Se elevarán los impuestos de los trabajadores y caerá el gasto de educación (...) mientras que los recortes fiscales para ricos siguen intocables"."¿Cuánto tiempo resta para que el resto de los países ricos estalle como Egipto?", se pregunta.

El análisis de Farrell no es aislado. En Estados Unidos se está formando una creciente corriente de opinión que denuncia que la crisis se ha cerrado en falso, que la recuperación económica que vende la Administración Obama no es sino un maquillaje estadístico y que cuando toque pagar la factura del rescate mediante más impuestos para la clase media y recortes sociales, se desvelará la verdadera gravedad de la situación.

Una de las abanderadas de esta teoría es Arianna Huffington, la editora que acaba de hacerse multimillonaria tras la venta de su portal de noticias online a AOL. Pese a que su actitud personal no sea muy ejemplarizante (se vanagloria públicamente de no pagar a la mayoría de sus periodistas), su opinión es muy crítica hacia el sistema. "Se está madurando la América del Tercer Mundo. Washington se apresuró al rescate de Wall Street, pero se olvidó de Main Street (la calle principal, metáfora para expresar a la gente común en EE UU). Uno de cada cinco estadounidenses es desempleado o subempleado. Una de cada nueve familias no tiene un saldo mínimo en sus tarjetas de crédito. Una de cada ocho hipotecas está en mora o ejecución hipotecaria. Uno de cada ocho estadounidenses vive con cupones de alimentos. La movilidad social hacia arriba siempre ha estado en el centro del sueño americano. Y esa promesa se ha roto. El sueño americano se está convirtiendo en una pesadilla. Y pronto va a implosionar", asegura.

El magnífico documental Inside Job, ganador del último Oscar, también ha desperezado muchas conciencias, sobre todo las de aquellos que confiaron en que con la llegada de Barack Obama a la Casa Blanca se cambiarían las reglas del juego, se restablecerían los controles y la regulación sobre el sistema financiero y se pondría coto a la "avaricia de Wall Street"como prometió el ahora presidente durante la campaña electoral. Pero como denuncia la cinta, las tímidas reformas que inició están varadas en las comisiones del Congreso o han sido bloqueadas por el poderoso lobby financiero que controla no solo la esfera política sino la académica para hacer valer su falso mensaje.

Inside Job deja en evidencia también que Obama no solo no ha perseguido a los "avaros" que provocaron el desastre con productos financieros tóxicos como las subprimes o los CDO, sino que ha puesto al mando de su equipo económico a algunos de sus más señeros representantes, que participaron o, al menos no quisieron ver la crisis, y fueron reclutados por el anterior presidente, George W. Bush, para diseñar el rescate a costa del contribuyente y sin pedir responsabilidad alguna a sus causantes. Ben Bernanke, presidente de la Reserva Federal, Timothy Geithner, secretario del Tesoro, o Lawrence Summers director del Consejo Nacional Económico de la Casa Blanca, están entre ellos. El capitalismo refundado de rostro social con el que se presentaba Obama en las primeras reuniones del G-20 tras al estallido la crisis sigue teniendo el mismo perfil injusto e inmisericorde en EE UU: récord de desahucios en 2010 y récord de bonus para los ejecutivos de las agencias de calificación como Moody's o Standard & Poor's, que avalaron los productos financieros basados en las hipotecas basuras precipitando el desastre financiero. También fuera de las fronteras de la primera potencial mundial hay una creciente corriente en la misma dirección y que tiene en ¡Indignaos! (Destino), del francés de origen alemán Stèphane Hessel, uno de sus puntos de ignición. En España, el testigo lo ha cogido, entre otros, el escritor y pensador José Luis Sampedro.

Desde la sección de mercados del periódico de referencia de Wall Street, a Farrell no le tiembla el pulso al hacer un llamamiento a que la gente despierte ante "el espejismo de los súper ricos que está destruyendo el sueño americano para el resto de nosotros". "Los súper ricos no se preocupan por usted" exhorta a sus lectores, porque viven al margen de la crisis, a lo sumo se preocupan "en abstracto" por el bienestar del país, envueltos en una burbuja en la que "disfrutan de vacaciones en los mejores resorts, de los mejores profesores de pilates, el mejor masajista, los mejores cirujanos y las mejores escuelas privadas para sus hijos. "Y nada de lo que se escriba va afectarles". Y acaba: "No digan que no fueron advertido. Tienen tiempo para preparar la revolución que se avecina, la depresión".

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

Justin [Gen]aro MacDuro escribió:Los eurodiputados han aceptado reducir una sesión en Estrasburgo (Francia) en el mes de septiembre para así ahorrar gastos, pero no han aceptado congelar su sueldo, como proponían algunas enmiendas introducidas por un grupo de eurodiputados de la Izquierda Unitaria Europea y de los Verdes, liderados por el portugués Miguel Portas y entre los que no se encuentran ningún español.

Kal escribió:Contra los jetas, movilización en la red. Que aprendan.

http://www.abc.es/20110407/economia/abc ... 62307.html

KIM escribió:Si justin, la cosa esta mal, si quieres te lo digo yo



El otro dia vi una entrevista, no me acuerdo de dónde, y entendi por que los eurodiputados votaron en contra de volar en clase turista.

PORQUE YA VUELAN EN CLASE TURISTA !!!! , pero pasan el gasto como si viajaran en Bussines y la diferencia al bolsillo.

Eso me cuadra más, desde Roma ya se sabe lo poderoso que es binomio dinero/politica.