SACO estourando a boca do balão!!!

Mercado espera corte de 0,25 ponto percentual em juros americanos

Mercado espera corte de 0,25 ponto percentual em juros americanos

27/04 - 18:29

Jorge A. Bañales Washington, 27 abr (EFE).
- Os mercados financeiros prevêem que na quarta-feira o Federal Reserve (Fed, banco central americano) aprove outra redução de 0,25 ponto percentual na taxa de juros, enquanto alguns economistas acreditam que o banco central poderá fazer uma pausa no afrouxamento de sua política monetária.

Na reunião do dia 18 de março, o Fed baixou em 0,75 ponto percentual a taxa básica de juros, assim como a taxa de desconto cobrada aos bancos por seus empréstimos, em outro esforço por conter a crise de liquidez e estimular a economia.

A medida monetária deixou em 2,25% a taxa de juros nos empréstimos interbancários de curto prazo e em 2,50% a taxa de desconto.

A última vez que a taxa básica de juros esteve em 2,25% foi no início de fevereiro de 2005.

Após essa diminuição, a sexta nos últimos seis meses, o Comitê de Mercado Aberto da Reserva emitiu um comunicado no qual advertiu que os indícios de inflação já começaram a aparecer.

Os mercados financeiros continuam apostando que na quarta-feira haverá outro corte da taxa básica de juros de curto prazo, mas nos últimos dias essas expectativas foram frustradas depois que as principais razões para um barateamento do crédito se dissiparam.

A próxima semana estará cheia de vários indicadores sobre a conjuntura econômica dos Estados Unidos antes da chegada dos cheques de devolução de impostos, previstos no plano de estímulo econômico de US$ 150 bilhões, aprovado em fevereiro pelo Congresso e promulgado pelo presidente dos EUA, George W. Bush.

O grupo empresarial Conference Board divulgará na terça-feira seu índice sobre a confiança dos consumidores, cuja despesa equivale nos EUA a mais de dois terços do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB).

Na quarta-feira, antes da conclusão da reunião de dois dias do Fed, o Departamento de Comércio divulgará seu cálculo preliminar do crescimento do PIB no primeiro trimestre deste ano, e o consenso entre os analistas é de que haverá um aumento de 0,3%.

O ritmo de crescimento do PIB, que no terceiro trimestre do ano passado atingiu 4,9% ao ano, caiu no quarto trimestre para 0,6%. Se os analistas acertarem na previsão, a atividade econômica dos EUA entre janeiro e março desacelerou ainda mais.

Na quinta-feira o Governo dará seu relatório sobre a renda e a despesa pessoal referente a março, e os analistas esperam parcos incrementos de 0,3% em ambos.

Nesse mesmo dia, o Departamento de Comércio informará sobre as despesas de março no setor de construção, no qual segundo o consenso do mercado houve uma redução de 0,9%, enquanto a crise no segmento imobiliário continua.

Também o Departamento de Trabalho informará na sexta-feira sobre o desemprego em abril, e a expectativa dos analistas é de que o índice suba dois décimos para 5,2% da força de trabalho, em um mês no qual a economia terá perdido aproximadamente 75 mil postos de trabalho.

Todas estas expectativas pessimistas corroboram com a previsão de uma queda das taxas de juros, mas vários economistas advertem que o Fed poderá optar por aguardar o impacto que a devolução de impostos terá.

A partir do dia 2 de maio, mais de 100 milhões de contribuintes começarão a receber os cheques do Governo federal com montantes que variam de US$ 600 por indivíduo, a US$ 1.200 por casal, mais US$ 300 para cada filho.

Outro fator importante que sugere uma pausa nas quedas das taxas de juros é a queda do valor do dólar frente a outras moedas, que aparece vinculada a uma inquietante situação global de inflação, especificamente o aumento dos preços do petróleo cru e dos alimentos.

Além disso, as quedas das taxas de juros não fornecem um estímulo econômico onde mais é necessário, já que os consumidores não sentiram os benefícios imediatos como os que, supostamente, dará a devolução de impostos.

Nobel Laurelates on the Economy

Nobel Laurelates on the Economy

from The Big Picture by ritholtz

CNBC had three Nobel winners on Friday morn -- Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Engle and Edmund Phelps -- discussing Housing, Credit, and the state of the US economy.  It was terrific television, and showed how good the medium can be when it sets its mind on it.

Incidentally, longtime readers may remember our amusing encounter with Prof Robert Engle back in 2003. If you haven't seen that, its definitely worth reading.

Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Prize winner and Columbia University professor

"The real important point from an economic perspective is the gap between the economy’s potential growth and its actual growth. And without a doubt, there’s a big gap. I think we’re probably in a recession. The real concern is how long, how deep. This is one of the worst—clearly going to be the worst ... downturns since the Great Depression.”

>
>
>

Robert Engle, Nobel Laureate Economist winner 2003 and New York University professor

"I think that we've got a lot of strength that's going to come out of the export sector, the technology sector. We've seen good earnings reports from some of them. They're thriving on this weak dollar. It's giving them a chance to sell goods all over the world. And I think that's going to probably pull us out."

>
>
>

Edmund Phelps, Nobel Prize winner in economics 2006

"The rise of the unemployment rate has been mild, and it started from a very, very low level of 4.3 just ten or twelve months ago. By that metric, this is a mild downturn.”

The Market Domino Effect: Staying Ahead of the Curve

by: Brian Davis posted on: April 27, 2008

The market domino effect has taken hold.

There Is Plenty to Fear in This Market

by: Bill Cara posted on: April 27, 2008                               

The markets are being manipulated by hedge funds probably a little more than usual.

Go Speed Racer Go Music Video

u2-Beautiful day

Why Paul Krugman is Wrong

Why Paul Krugman is Wrong

Saturday April 26th 2008, 8:16 pm
Filed under: American Politics, - Democrats

Most people know that New York Times columnist (and Princeton economist) Paul Krugman has deep ties to the Clintons, all the way back to 1992 when Bill recruited him to counter Bush I’s economic policies. So it’s no surprise he’s been writing pro-Hillary, anti-Obama pieces throughout the campaign. His latest piece “Self-Inflicted Confusion” is more of the same. The central argument here is that “[Obama] still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class. As a result, he keeps losing big states.”

Perhaps Krugman simply chose his words poorly but the above statement implies that the white working class constitutes a large bloc of Democratic voters. By “white working class” I presume Krugman means precisely the white, heavily religious, rural, gun-owning, blue-collar voters that Hillary has won. But do these really constitute a “large bloc of Democratic voters”, as Krugman suggests? Not really. The majority of this voting bloc votes Republican, as 2004 Pennsylvania exit polls clearly show.

In 2004, of those who said religion was their top issue, Bush won 92% to 8%. Bush won rural voters 73% to 27%. And Bush won gun-owners over John Kerry 62% to 38%. The point is, while the Clinton campaign has used this voting bloc to point to Obama’s weaknesses, it isn’t a voting bloc that Democrats typically win, regardless of the candidate. They are solidly Republican.

Looking at the big picture, the fact is, both candidates have their stronger and weaker demographics. Hillary does well with older, rural, Latinos, and card-carrying Democrats. But we could just as easily question why Hillary can’t win youth, urban, African-Americans and independents, which are Obama’s strong demographics.

We should not be too surprised that Hillary won Pennsylvania since it was a closed primary (independents — Obama’s stronger demographic — could not vote) and where Hillary had the backing of the Democratic machine (governor, mayors, etc). That Obama cut a 25-point deficit a few weeks ahead of the vote down to 9.3% shows he’s making in-roads with her demographic. Recall that Obama won independents by 37 points in Missouri, 30 points in California, and even 15 points in Clinton’s home state of New York. Had 15% of the electorate been independent (as it’s typically been in open Democratic primaries) and Obama won them by 65-35, the result would have been very close — 51.7-48.3 — just a 3.4% margin. And that’s despite the fact that a whopping 32% of the voters were over 60 (Hillary’s strong demographic).

That Obama is making in-roads is clear when you compare the 2008 exit polls for Ohio and Pennsylvania. For example, Obama won 26% of the senior (65+) vote in Ohio, but improved to 37% in PA. He also won 26% of the rural vote in Ohio, and again improved to 37% in PA. Of course, there were more seniors (22% in PA vs. 14% in OH) and rural folks (20% in PA vs 10% in OH), so Hillary could put up big raw numbers in those demographics to offset her lower margins. Obama even improved among lower income voters — he actually won <$15k households (which he lost in OH) and improved from 36% to 45% among $15-30k households. He also improved his share of the white vote by a few points. And so on. So he’s making progress with his weaker groups. By contrast, Clinton isn’t making in-roads with her weaker groups. For example, she won 35% of the youth vote (18-29) in Ohio and 35% again in Pennsylvania. And she won 13% of the African-American vote in Ohio and just 10% in PA.

But the central question here is why does the media define “electability” based on winning the poor, white, rural, gun-owning worker, as opposed to the urban- or suburban voter? (Krugman’s entire argument rests on Obama not winning as many white working-class voters as Clinton) I would suggest it’s because we cling to the myth — propagated largely by Republicans, ironically — that less-educated, rural, salt-of-the-earth blue-collar Americans present the “real” America while educated, urban, more liberal white-collar workers do not. It goes back to John Locke — the idea that the guy who “works the land” has a higher claim on it than others. To me, if Democrats are going to improve the disparities between the haves and the have nots, fix the messes in education and health care, and adopt a more sensible foreign policy, they need to make their case on its own merits, not simply accept how Republicans have framed the debate (and then proceed to demonstrate how they, too, can pander to the Republican base).

The reality is, America today is largely an urban, service-based economy, not a rural, resource-based one. Americans are primarily suburban (50%) and urban (30%) — 80% in urban areas — and only 20% rural. The battleground in November is the suburbs (also where the highest % of independents live), not the sparsely-populated rural areas, which are solidly Republican, nor the cites, which are solidly Democrat (even in red states). The key to Democratic victory is winning over suburban independents and mobilizing huge turnout in solidly Democratic cities, not trying to convert gun-toting rural Republicans to suddenly vote Democrat (it ain’t gonna happen!).

Now it’s pretty clear that Hillary cannot catch Obama in delegates. Hillary picked up only 10 extra in PA, so Obama dropped from 166 to 156. He’s on pace to win 55-60% to 40-45% in North Carolina, which would net him between 15-25 extra delegates, so even if Hillary narrowly wins Indiana (he currently leads by a point or two), she’ll be worse off on May 7 than she was before PA. That’s why Axelrod says the basic dynamics of the race haven’t changed. It’s hardly accurate for Krugman to say that because his campaign manager said this that his campaign isn’t still transformational (indeed, Obama’s largest rally yet drew 35,000 in Philadelphia last week). So whether you argue it on the “math” or whether you look at the progress he’s making with her demographic groups, it’s clear to any objective observer that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Unless…

But let’s say she makes an argument to the 300 or so undecided superdelegates so they overturn the results from 30+ million voters. Given that the Democrats need to win over independents — a demographic in which Hillary doesn’t do well, especially against McCain, who is popular among independents — and a large turnout in the (heavily African-American) cities, it should be clear that if Hillary wins by swaying the party establishment, she’s going to have a hard time winning the election. She won’t get the independents and she’ll have a hard time mobilizing the (heavily African-American) cities, who will feel dis-enfrachised that Obama isn’t the nominee, despite winning the primaries and caucuses.

Mark my words. If Hillary is the nominee, the Democrats lose. There’s no guarantee that Obama will win, but he sure gives the Democrats the best chance.

Self-Inflicted Confusion

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 25, 2008

After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”

Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal

He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”

This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

What’s gone wrong?

According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.

But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.

It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.

And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall. 

Nobel Joseph Stiglitz acusa Bush e Fed por crise financeira

27/04/2008 - 10h37
Nobel Joseph Stiglitz acusa Bush e Fed por crise financeira

Viena, 27 abr (EFE).- A desvalorização do dólar e a crise financeira nos Estados Unidos são fatos atribuíveis à política do Governo americano e do Federal Reserve (Fed, banco central), e afetarão a economia européia, diz o Prêmio Nobel de Economia de 2001, Joseph Stiglitz.

"Toda essa história de que a Europa agora quer se desassociar dos EUA é um mito. O dólar fraco continuará afetando a economia européia porque dificultará as exportações européias", declarou o economista americano à revista austríaca "Profil".

Stiglitz, que foi assessor do ex-presidente americano Bill Clinton, também afirma que o enfraquecimento do dólar frente ao euro e ao iene é parte de uma política proposital para "empobrecer os vizinhos".

Para ele, os principais responsáveis pela crise são o presidente dos EUA, George W. Bush, e o ex-presidente do Fed Alan Greenspan.

Segundo Stiglitz, Bush encarregou Greenspan de estimular a economia após fracassar em sua tentativa de fazê-lo basicamente através da diminuição dos impostos.

Contudo, a redução dos juros decidida por Greenspan favoreceu o crédito de tal forma que provocou uma crise no setor hipotecário.

Na entrevista que a "Profil" publicará amanhã, Stiglitz diz que, "infelizmente, esse homem (Greenspan) cometeu muitos erros".

"O primeiro foi seu apoio a todas essas reduções tributárias feitas na Administração Bush. Elas não estimularam muito a economia.

Essa incumbência depois foi transferida à política monetária. Mas depois, mediante taxas de juros baixas, essa uma avalanche de créditos", acrescentou.

O Nobel da Economia também diz que Bush é o responsável, "mediante as constantes reduções fiscais e os enormes gastos com o conflito no Iraque", pela economia ter se tornado menos resistente do que deveria ser.

Também segundo Stiglitz, os responsáveis pelas bolsas de Wall Street contribuíram para o desastre: "Estes defensores do livre mercado são para mim autênticos hipócritas. O que realmente pretendem é ter liberdade para exploram o sistema. E, enquanto isso, negam o fato de que em um mercado desenfreado não existe a igualdade de oportunidades".