jump to navigation

EL FIN DEL NEOLIBERALISMO Julio 9, 2008

Posted by diiego in Opinion.
add a comment

El neoliberalismo a sido la corriente ideológica que a dictado el rumbo de una gran mayoría de economías en el mundo siguiendo la doctrina del llamado “consenso de Washington” el 14 de marzo muchos dicen fue el día en que murió cuando la FED se lanzo al rescate de la firma Bearn Sterns en este contexto aquí la opinión de Joseph Stiglitz Nobel de Economía en el 2001. 

“The end of neo-liberalism?, by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Commentary, Project Syndicate: The world has not been kind to neo-liberalism, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently, and serve the public interest well. It was this market fundamentalism that underlay Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and the so-called “Washington Consensus” in favor of privatization, liberalization, and independent central banks focusing single-mindedly on inflation.

For a quarter-century, there has been a contest among developing countries, and the losers are clear: countries that pursued neo-liberal policies … lost the growth sweepstakes…

Though neo-liberals do not want to admit it, their ideology also failed another test. No one can claim that financial markets did a stellar job in allocating resources in the late 1990’s, with 97% of investments in fiber optics taking years to see any light…, [and the more recent] massive misallocation of resources to housing…

Nor did markets prepare us well for soaring oil and food prices. Of course, neither sector is an example of free-market economics, but that is partly the point: free-market rhetoric has been used selectively – embraced when it serves special interests and discarded when it does not. …

This mixture of free-market rhetoric and government intervention has worked particularly badly for developing countries. They were told to stop intervening in agriculture, thereby exposing their farmers to devastating competition from the United States and Europe. Their farmers… could not compete with US and European Union subsidies. …

Those who promulgated this mistaken advice do not have to worry about carrying malpractice insurance. The costs will be borne by those in developing countries, especially the poor. This year will see a large rise in poverty, especially if we measure it correctly. … In many countries, increases in food and energy prices will have a particularly devastating effect on the poor…

Defenders of market fundamentalism want to shift the blame from market failure to government failure. … But … US banks mismanaged risk on a colossal scale, with global consequences, while those running these institutions have walked away with billions of dollars in compensation.

Today, there is a mismatch between social and private returns. Unless they are closely aligned, the market system cannot work well.

Neo-liberal market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is it supported by historical experience. Learning this lesson may be the silver lining in the cloud now hanging over the global economy.”

Una Interesante Explicación de los precios del petroleo Mayo 30, 2008

Posted by diiego in Analisis.
add a comment

« Two from Jeff Frankel: Whether We are Currently in a Recession and the Impact of Monetary Policy on Commodity Prices |

May 29, 2008

“Crude Awakening: Behind the Surge in Oil Prices”

Stephen P. A. Brown, Raghav Virmani, and Richard Alm of the Dallas Fed look at why oil prices are so high, and whether the high prices are likely to continue. It’s a more optimistic view than many. Their bottom line is “Absent supply disruptions, it will be difficult to sustain oil prices above $100 (in 2008 dollars) over the next 10 years” (comments at Real Time Economics and The Big Picture):

Crude Awakening: Behind the Surge in Oil Prices, by Stephen P. A. Brown, Raghav Virmani and Richard Alm, Economic Letter, Vol. 3, No. 5, May 2008, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas: The first few months of 2008 saw crude oil prices breach one barrier after another. They topped $100 a barrel for the first time on Feb. 19, then rose past $103.76 about two weeks later, surpassing the previous inflation-adjusted peak, established in 1980. In April and early May, oil prices pushed past $110 and then $120 a barrel and beyond.[1]

These milestones reflect a new era in oil markets. After the tumult of the early 1980s, prices remained relatively tame for two decades—in both real and nominal terms (Chart 1). This long stretch of stability ended in 2004, when oil topped $40 a barrel for the first time, then embarked on a steep climb that continued into this year.

Oil prices hit record highs

Modern economies run on oil, so it’s important to understand how recent years—with their surging prices—differ from the preceding two decades. A good starting point is strong demand, which has pushed world oil markets close to capacity. New supplies haven’t kept up with this demand, fueling expectations that oil markets will remain tight for the foreseeable future. A weakening dollar has put upward pressure on the price of a commodity that trades in the U.S. currency. And because a large share of oil production takes place in politically unstable regions, fears of supply disruptions loom over markets.

These factors have fed the steady, sometimes swift rise of oil prices in recent years. Their persistence suggests the days of relatively cheap oil are over and the global economy faces a future of high energy prices. How they play out will shape oil markets—and determine prices—for years to come.

Supply and Demand
As incomes rise, economies use more energy for transport, heating and cooling and producing goods and services. A broad cross section of nearly 180 countries shows that doubling per capita income more than doubles per capita oil consumption (Chart 2). How much each country contributes to increases in global energy demand depends on its population and rate of income growth. Big nations moving quickly up the income ladder have huge implications for oil markets.

Oil consumption rises with Income

China and India, two giants with a combined population of nearly 2.4 billion, shook themselves out of a long economic slumber and began growing rapidly in the 1990s. Adjusted for inflation and purchasing power parity, China’s per capita GDP rose from $1,103 in 1990 to $4,088 in 2005; India’s went from $1,202 to $2,222. In this decade, new energy demand from China, India and other emerging countries has added to continued growth from the U.S., Europe and other parts of the world.

As economic activity in the U.S., the world’s largest oil consumer, began accelerating in 2003, markets began feeling the full force of the world’s increased appetite for oil. Global consumption rose from 82.6 million barrels a day in 2004 to 85.6 million in 2007. Since the beginning of the oil era, prices had ebbed and flowed around the U.S. economy’s ups and downs. Now, markets view demand increases as a fact of life that won’t be blunted much by a slowing U.S. economy.

With consumption on the rise, oil markets grew tighter as suppliers neared productive capacity. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a 13-member group that produces more than a third of the world’s oil, has maintained excess capacity of only 1 million to 2 million barrels a day since 2004, down from 4 million in 2001 and 5.6 million in 2002 (Chart 3).

OPEC's excess capacity dwindles

Although OPEC’s excess capacity has rebounded from its 2005 low, the gains are largely in heavy crude oils that can only be processed in specialized refineries. Those facilities are running full bore, so the added supplies aren’t relieving a tight market. The latest evidence also suggests OPEC is now restraining its output.

While some warn that oil production has peaked—or will soon—most industry experts contend that oil resources are plentiful; it just takes time and money to get them out of the ground and into the market.

Higher prices have done what economics would predict—stimulated efforts to increase supply. Companies have expanded their exploration budgets. Oil-producing nations have announced new projects. Drilling activity is at a high level, both offshore and on land. Wages and oilfield services costs are being bid up, while shortages persist for some key skills and equipment.

So far, new supplies haven’t materialized quickly enough to keep up with growth in world demand, largely because various hurdles have slowed their development. Oil resources, for example, are concentrated in countries with state-run oil companies or little economic freedom. Where market signals aren’t allowed to work, incentives to boost production may be muted.[2]

Oil demand is inelastic in the short run—that is, it doesn’t react quickly to changing prices. Consumers adjust their spending to maintain consumption as prices rise, even if they have to pay more for it.[3] Most likely, this reflects businesses’ commitment to keep up production and individuals’ need to drive to work, run errands and heat homes.

When demand is inelastic, even modest tightening in markets translates into strong price movements. In recent years, this inelasticity has magnified tight markets’ impact on prices.

The Role of Expectations
The fundamentals of supply and demand not only led to higher crude oil prices but also fed expectations that world demand will continue to grow faster than supply. The result is escalated price expectations, which show up in futures markets. The anticipated price for 2011 crude oil has moved steadily upward—from around $60 in January 2007 to more than $120 in the first week of May 2008 (Chart 4).

Markets' rising expectations

Futures prices reveal oil traders’ expectations, but they also feed back into current prices. As a market efficiency condition, spot prices have to increase with futures prices to keep investors equally willing to hold or sell the marginal barrel of oil. If current and futures prices get out of sync, traders taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities bring prices back in line.

Forecasters offer another window on expectations. Their outlooks can provide additional information about possible price scenarios because they incorporate data beyond traders’ sentiments. Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) presents a mainstream forecast, which incorporates projections on the supply and demand forces expected to shape the marketplace.

As the realities of higher oil prices have sunk in, EIA forecasts have marched steadily upward (Chart 5). The 2004 projection, for example, saw prices relatively flat in the $30 range through 2025. The latest forecast, issued in 2007, anticipates a price decline in upcoming years, with oil settling above $60 for the long haul out to 2030.

Forecasters look for higher prices

While $60 oil looks good in today’s markets, it’s worth noting that the EIA’s best guess for long-term prices doubled in just four years. It did so because the EIA decided its earlier demand projections were too low and supply projections were too high.

Consider the projected market for 2025 (Chart 6). It can be inferred that the EIA’s projected demand curve moved significantly to the right between 2003 and 2007, signaling the expectation that consumers will want more oil at all prices. It can also be inferred that the projected supply curve moved significantly to the left, reflecting a more pessimistic view about future production. The market-clearing price ends up considerably higher.

Views change on 2025 supply, demand picture

Dollar’s Weakening
Oil has long traded in U.S. dollars. Having a single-currency system lowers transaction costs for a commodity that trades globally. In recent years—while oil prices were rising on supply and demand fundamentals—the dollar has weakened against the currencies of the nation’s trading partners, particularly the European Union’s. The dollar has fallen 46 percent from its mid-2001 peak against the euro and 21 percent since 2004.

A declining dollar makes oil cheaper for Europeans and other foreign consumers, propping up their demand. A weakening U.S. currency also reduces the dollar-denominated supply from foreign producers. Together, these two factors exert additional upward pressure on prices. Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, adds a third element in arguing that some investors have used oil as a hedge against the dollar’s decline.

How much has the weakening dollar added to oil prices? If the U.S. currency had held its 2001 value against the euro, oil would have traded at about $80 a barrel in early 2008, about $21 below its actual price (Chart 7). Put another way, exchange rate movements accounted for roughly a third of the $60 increase in oil prices from 2003 to 2007.

Weaker dollar drives oil prices higher

Most of the dollar’s price impact occurred toward the end of the period. When it comes to adjustments in oil consumption and production, a declining dollar takes time to reshape crude oil prices because expectations don’t shift quickly. Factors that push up expectations of future prices, however, also put upward pressure on spot prices because markets will adjust until investors are indifferent between holding and selling the marginal barrel of crude oil on the spot market.

Would it matter if oil were priced in euros or a basket of consuming countries’ currencies? The headlines might be somewhat less alarming, but little would change in real terms. As the dollar’s value declined, U.S. consumers would still be paying more for oil. It would take more dollars to acquire the euros needed to buy oil. In a world where the dollar is weakening, the burden of higher oil prices would still fall more heavily on the U.S. than Europe.

Geopolitical Risks
The geopolitics of oil is a brew for sleepless nights. The Middle East sits atop two-thirds of the world’s reserves. The region pumps oil amid a war in Iraq, potential conflicts elsewhere and terrorists prowling for targets. Russia, a major non-OPEC producer, has expanded state control over the oil sector, pulling more of it into the realm of dicey internal politics tinged with nationalism. In recent years, violence has cut production by a quarter in Nigeria, Africa’s top oil producer. Venezuela, South America’s largest producer, is under the sway of the quixotic Hugo Chavez, who has threatened to cut off sales to the U.S.

Tight oil markets don’t have the luxury of spare capacity to offset supply interruptions resulting from trouble in important oil-producing countries or regions. Because oil demand is inelastic, even the temporary or partial loss of significant production capacity can strongly impact prices. Wars, political intervention or unexpected breakdowns send shock waves through oil markets. Just the fear of a supply disruption is itself enough to prompt price spikes.

Fears of disruptions are reflected more in short-term price movements than in longer-term ones. The increases can prove temporary, particularly when rumored troubles fail to materialize. However, the persistent threat from some disputes—for example, Iran’s long-simmering conflict with the U.S.—are likely to keep upward pressure on oil prices for longer periods.

Fear is hard to measure, but the futures market offers some help. We usually expect futures prices to slope upward from the spot price, a pattern the financial markets call “contango.” However, prices for future delivery sometimes dip below the spot prices, creating a phenomenon called “backwardation.” This can occur because of sudden shortages or a jolt of uncertainty.

It’s in this phenomenon that we find indirect evidence of fears of oil supply disruptions. When fear spreads, refiners bid aggressively for short-term oil supplies because they face extremely high costs for shutting down operations. Not enough oil can be brought to market quickly, and spot prices rise above futures prices, putting the market into backwardation.

Oil markets have been in the grip of backwardation lately, with futures prices declining. As spot prices climbed toward $120 a barrel in early 2008, for example, futures prices stood at $102 a year out and $100 two years out—a clear backwardation (Chart 8).

Backwardation suggests fear of supply disruptions

Oil Price Prospects 
What happens with oil prices will be determined by the same four factors that have shaped the market in recent years—global demand, expectations about future market tightness, the value of the dollar and fear of supply interruptions. If these factors stay on their present course, prices are likely to be pushed higher. If one or more factors change, markets could see some easing of price pressures.

At first blush, crude oil demand doesn’t offer much hope for lower prices. It is likely to grow with an expanding world economy. Higher oil prices will prompt some conservation and take some of the edge off prices—but not much.

The past response of U.S. oil consumption to rising prices suggests the quadrupling of oil prices since 2003 might reduce U.S. consumption by 10 to 20 percent over the next decade. Europe might see similar declines. However, these reductions won’t be sufficient to relieve pressures on prices, given the projected demand growth from China, the Middle East, India and other rapidly expanding economies. Only a dramatic, worldwide move toward energy conservation or a much stronger U.S. and European response to higher oil prices could substantially alter the outlook.

Geopolitical factors affecting supply disruptions aren’t likely to change much, either. The Middle East’s heavy concentration of conventional oil resources suggests the region will become an even more important source of world oil production. Given the region’s historical instability, episodic fears of supply disruptions could remain part of oil pricing well into the future.

The dollar might offer some relief. Forecasting exchange rate movements is fraught with difficulty, but the currency is likely to strengthen with the U.S. economy. An appreciating dollar would lower oil prices for U.S. consumers. Further dollar weakening, however, would lead to higher prices.

Geopolitics and exchange rates aside, long-term oil prices will largely be set by supply and demand, which will affect prices directly and influence the expectations that shape futures markets. The key lies in how much new oil reaches markets. Four scenarios for conventional oil resources show a range of outcomes and impacts for the trajectory of prices:

  • Oil production reaches a plateau or peak—prices likely to rise further.
  • Oil nationalism continues to slow the development of new resources—prices likely to remain relatively high.
  • In a shift of strategy, OPEC increases its output sharply—prices likely to fall.
  • Aggressive exploration activities pay off with the quick development of significant new resources—prices likely to fall.

Both the futures markets and EIA forecasts currently anticipate some softening of oil prices over the next few years, suggesting markets expect supplies to gain ground on demand. International Strategy and Investment, an energy consulting business, has documented a substantial number of projects under way that would boost world oil supplies. The development of these resources could undermine the expectations underlying the higher oil price scenarios—even those of oil nationalism.

Supplies could be bolstered by nonconventional oil sources—tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liquids. Industry experts regard these resources as plentiful, with development and production costs well below current oil prices. Tar sands and oil shale are already in production. Biofuels are too limited in scale and currently too costly to make much difference to crude oil pricing.

The substantial development of these nonconventional oil resources could mean downward pressure on crude oil prices in future years. Actual and expected costs of nonconventional resources suggest it might be difficult to sustain oil prices above $70 a barrel. However, the relatively high costs of these nonconventional oil sources could inhibit development because producers fear losses during a price collapse. The production and use of nonconventional resources would also generate more pollution, which could mean conventional oil could command a premium.

What’s the bottom line? Absent supply disruptions, it will be difficult to sustain oil prices above $100 (in 2008 dollars) over the next 10 years.

How High Are Oil Prices, Really? 

As oil prices rose to $50, $70 and $90 a barrel, analysts often pointed out that these prices hadn’t yet breached the all-time high in real, or inflation-adjusted, terms. That barrier finally fell in early March, when prices topped the real 1980 peak.

Looking beyond post–World War II or even 20th century oil prices presents a somewhat different picture. Real oil prices were nearly as high as they are today when North American oil production began before the Civil War in 1860.

Oil prices can also be measured relative to changes in productivity and the level of technology, factors captured by manufacturing wages.[1] In the first quarter of this year, a typical factory worker needed slightly less than four hours to “earn” one barrel of oil. In 1980, it was just above five hours. Going further back in time, the number rises—to 6.4 hours in 1920, 7.9 in 1910 and an average of 15.4 in the 1870s.

Technological advances have bolstered productivity, raised wages and made the work-time price of oil lower today than it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Finally, it is important to note that—despite rising real prices and imports—oil siphons relatively less money out of the American economy than it did in the past. Expenditures on petroleum products today account for about 5 percent of all after-tax income earned in the United States, less than half of the 11.6 percent spent in 1980.[2]

Notes

  1. “Natural Resource Scarcity and Technological Change,” PDFby Stephen P. A. Brown and Daniel Wolk, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic and Financial Review, First Quarter 2000.
  2. Also see â€œWhat’s Driving Gasoline Prices?” by Stephen P. A. Brown and Raghav Virmani, Federal Reserve Bank of DallasEconomic Letter, October 2007.

a long view

Notes

  1. This article looks at oil prices through the first week of May and uses West Texas Intermediate as the reference price. Throughout the article, we’ve used a combination of daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual data, which may alter the apparent timing of peaks and troughs in prices.
  2. “Running on Empty? How Economic Freedom Affects Oil Supplies,”by Stephen P. A. Brown and Richard Alm, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Letter, April 2006.
  3. In some countries, government policies that maintain low prices interfere with the link between world oil prices and energy consumption. China, for example, hasn’t fully passed price increases on to its consumers.

 

sobre dudas Abril 8, 2008

Posted by diiego in 1.
add a comment

Hola todos los lectores, últimamente me han estado enviando correos en los cuales se encuentran por lo regular las mismas preguntas, sobre todo en lo relativo a las ventajas comparativas y absolutas en México, los cuales he tratado de responder de la mejor forma posible, sin embargo me gustaría aclarar que por favor sus dudas sean especificas es complicado, contestar a preguntas demasiado generales o que requieren construcciones teóricas para ser contestadas, una ves dicho esto una ves muchas gracias a los lectores, de mi parte tratare de continuar respondiendo de la mejor forma sus dudas. 

Trabajo de Investigación-Competitividad Regional y Geografía Económica Marzo 8, 2008

Posted by diiego in Investigacion.
add a comment

 Después de un tiempo sin actualizaciones aquí un modelo en el cual he estado trabajando.En descargas ahora se encuentra un nuevo paper en el que he estado trabajando sobre la competitividad regional, y la geografía económica, es un modelo de dos sectores, dos regiones y dos bienes, para aquellos que se interesen por la economía internacional y la geografía económica o ramas afines probablemente lo encuentre interesante.competitividad-regional-y-geografia-economica.pdf 

RECAPITULANDO EL 2007 Diciembre 23, 2007

Posted by diiego in Opinion.
add a comment

El filosofo griego Heráclito de Efeso  decía “ Si no esperas lo inesperado no lo reconocerás cuando llegue “ eso sin duda podría decirse de los sucesos en el mundo político y económico a lo largo de este año; sin duda fue un año lleno de sorpresas en muchos ámbitos y en el que no las hubo en otros tantos. Ahora tratare de recapitular los principales acontecimientos en este año que termina para ver que tan inesperado fue.

El año inicio sin duda con un gran susto para los mercados internacionales  el día 28 de febrero las bolsas de la mayor parte del mundo se desplomaron por temores a desequilibrios en el mercado financiero chino, el principal motor de esto fue el pánico en los mercados, pues los temores de problemas en China tanto como en Estados Unidos se esparcieron rápidamente.

Sin duda esto fue imprevisto, es cierto que se esperaban problemas en el sistema financiero chino debido a su aun débil estructura pero nadie esperaba que se generalizara de esta manera, de la misma forma esto se ha estado repitiendo de forma constante a lo largo del año con esporádicas caídas en los mercados mundiales.

El siguiente acontecimiento de importancia podría decirse que ha sido la gran des aceleración  de la economía estadounidense producto de grandes presiones  inflacionarios en parte por la subida en el precio del petróleo y sus derivados entre otros energéticos, pero también al estallido de la burbuja hipotecaria en el sector inmobiliario, en breve el problema fue que se presto mas dinero del que se debía a deudores que no tenían la capacidad de pagar y al subir las tasas de interés,  se genero una falta tanto de liquidez como de solvencia en el mercado, la cual ha hecho mas notables los problemas en la economía de Estados Unidos y de gran parte del mundo.

Esto sin duda no fue inesperado pues muchos economistas entre los cuales me incluyo y para eso pueden revisar los análisis y opiniones suscritas en este mismo espacio; esperábamos que ocurriera algo como esto, sin embargo no de forma tan acelerada en cuanto al impacto a la liquidez, aunque es mucho menos pronunciado que los que se pensaba como el caso extremo de una estanflacion, por ultimo a este evento económico debe sumársele la llegada de los precios del petróleo a los 100 dólares, cantidad histórica y que parece en ascenso y la cual sin duda generara presiones inflacionarias para muchas economías pero también dotara de una gran cantidad de recursos alas economías productoras y exportadoras del crudo.

En el ámbito político, no fue un año con grandes acontecimientos, en estados unidos la carrera presidencial inicio con dos punteros que ala fecha lo siguen siendo Hilary Clinton y Rodolf Giuliani por los Demócratas y Republicanos respectivamente con otros contendientes atrás de ellos, sin duda darán mucho de que hablar el siguiente año por lo que no abordare el tema a profundidad.

En Latinoamérica el entorno político siguió siendo el mismo, el movimiento de izquierda en Sudamérica a continuado y se ha reafirmado con triunfos como el de Cristina Kitchner en Argentina y a tenido algunas dificultades como la derrota de la reforma constitucional en Venezuela pero sin duda sigue siendo la corriente dominante en casi toda América latina con la excepción de México en el cual el gobierno del ala derecha es el que tiene el control, año duro en mi opinión para el gobierno mexicano, pues no se pudo cumplir con ninguna de las promesas del nuevo presidente sobre todo en la cuestión económica , la cual fue la base de su campaña, el desempleo sigue siendo el problema mas grande y el crecimiento económico no se ha podido mejorar, de hecho para ser precisos el 2008 será difícil para esta economía pero hablaremos de eso después en los pronósticos del siguiente año.

El principal acontecimiento político del año posiblemente sea el enfrentamiento diplomático en torno a Kosovo, Kosovo tiene la intención de declararse independiente se Serbia y es apoyado en esto por la OTAN y principalmente por Estados Unidos, sin embargo el principal opositor a esto es Rusia, pues para el gobierno ruso es asunto de suma importancia mostrar su control de la zona, pues esta reconstruyendo su influencia y poderío en el mundo de la mano de Vladimir Putin.  También lo que ya algunos llaman la segunda o la nueva guerra fría entre Moscú y Washington fue importante en este año por las intenciones de poner escudos anti misiles en Europa oriental área de influencia rusa a pesar de la negativa de esta a permitirlo, y a los conflictos relativos a Irán quien por sus intenciones de obtener fuentes de energía nuclear a sido razón de enfrentamiento entre estas dos potencias.

Estando en el medio oriente Irak sigue en las mismas condiciones cada ves mas desesperadas para Estados Unidos pues la retirada es cada ves mas difícil y costosa sobre todo políticamente.

Por ultimo para cerrar este breve recuento de acontecimientos no me gustaría dejar el lado académico de mi profesión, el premio Nóbel de economía de este año otorgado el Lunes 15 de Octubre fue dado a tres ganadores Leonid Hurwicz, Eric Maskin, Roger Myerson, por su aportación a la teoría  sobre los mecanismos de colocación de los mercados es decir las formas en las que el mercado coloca los recursos en condiciones no perfectas, teoría que ayuda a entender mejor como las instituciones y agentes económicos afectan y hacen de forma mas eficiente  su labor en la economía.

Eso es todo por ahora, me gustaría continuar pero los temas que faltan es mas apropiado abordarlos en el análisis sobre lo que ocurrirá el próximo año así que por ahora esto es lo mas importante que ocurrió desde mi punto de vista en el 2007 que aun no termina pero difícilmente algo pasara. 

LAS TASAS DE INTERES EN EL MUNDO ¿ANTICIPANDO UNA RECESIÓN? Diciembre 12, 2007

Posted by diiego in Analisis.
add a comment

No resulta novedoso el hecho de que el FED en su junta de gobierno nuevamente decidiera cortar la tasa de interés en un cuarto de punto (0.25%) dejando esta en 4.25%, esto sin duda es una respuesta claro al miedo que circula sobre una fuerte desaceleración en la economía norteamericana y por ende en la economía mundial, sin embargo lo mas curioso de la reunión del FED es la intención de varios presidentes regionales de que se cortara también en al menos un cuarto de punto la tasa de descuento.

 Para aquellos no versados en la terminología económica o de la banca central, la tasa de descuento es la tasa de interés que el banco central le cobra a los bancos comerciales por prestamos a sus reservas de forma que estos puedan tener la liquidez necesaria para cumplir sus obligaciones.

 Ahora resulta interesante debido a lo siguiente, como sabemos la teoría económica nos dice que la disminución de la tasa de descuento es uno de los mecanismos por medio de los cuales el banco central afecta la economía es un instrumento de política monetaria; y esta a su ves al ser mas baja incrementa la liquidez es decir el dinero en circulación, ya que al los bancos poder tener mas recursos a un costo menor, también prestaran mas lo cual colocara mas dinero en circulación en la economía, es decir aumenta la masa monetaria.

 Esto como la misma teoría económica nos dice, lubrica la economía y la hace funcionar un poco mas rápido, lo cual parecería una buena solución si lo que nos preocupa es la desaceleración en la economía, sin embargo el riesgo aquí es mas grande, ya que otro de los temores en la economía norte americana es la creciente presión inflacionaria, y la misma teoría económica predice que el aumento en la liquidez en un mayor tamaño al crecimiento de la economía misma genera aun mas inflación.

 Ahora esta es la parte interesante por que el FED estaría dispuesto a sacrificar una mayor presión inflacionaria por lubricar en el corto tiempo a la economía, sin duda no podemos saber una respuesta clara, pero podemos pensar en algunas ideas, tal como el tratar de generar una estabilidad temporal por las venideras elecciones presidenciales en las cuales gran parte del debate se centrara en la polémica relacionada ala política económica de la actual administración y a como ambos partidos pretenderán solucionar los problemas que esta misma administración les hereda.

 Sin duda debe de existir una razón política relacionada, pero no distraeré la atención de lo mas importante, como se ha venido diciendo desde hace poco más de un año se pronostica una recesión fuerte en EUA, lo cual ha sido fuertemente sustentado en la caída de los precios inmobiliarios y todos los problemas relacionados al crédito en el mismo sector, a lo cual las medidas del secretario del tesoro Paulson difícilmente remediaran quedando meramente en un posicionamiento político, curiosamente una de las cosas que han ayudado a no agravar mas esta situación ha sido la caída del dólar lo cual a ayudado a mejorar los in balances comerciales y de esta forma a mantener los precios un poco mas bajos en lo referente a productos nacionales, sin embargo las fuertes presiones inflacionarias que siguen presentes podrían acabar en una estanflación que a nadie nos convendría.

 Afortunadamente lo único que cambio tras la reunión del FED fue la disminución de las tasas de interés, la tasa de descuento no se modifico ya que no se llego a un acuerdo, sin embargo el hecho de que se consideren medias de esta clase sin duda debe ponernos a pensar en que clase de problemas se encuentra la economía como para sacrificar algo así. 

NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS 2007 LECTURES Diciembre 10, 2007

Posted by diiego in Información.
add a comment


Después de un periodo sin actividad en el blog les dejo las lecturas de los ganadores del Nobel de economía de esta año entregado el 15 de octubre de 2007.

Leonid Hurwicz But Who Will Guard the Guardians? by Leonid Hurwicz
Eric S. Maskin Mechanism Design: How to Implement Social Goals by Eric S. Maskin
Roger B. Myerson Perspectives on Mechanism Design in Economic Theory by Roger B. Myerson

1 año agradecimientos 1 year thanks 1 année remerciements Julio 27, 2007

Posted by diiego in General.
add a comment

Hola a todos, estos días este espacio celebra 1 año de estar analizando y opinando sobre los temas mas destacados en el mundo de la economía y de otros temas, pero lo mas importante es agradecer a aquellos que siguen este espacio de forma frecuente, espero que este espacio continue siendo de su agrado por mucho tiempo.                                                                                           Hello all these days the space celebrate 1 year of being analising and making opinions in the most important themes in the world of economics and other related topics, but the most importat is to say thanks to those who follow this space, I hope you keep following and remain in your choice for a long time.                                                                                                       Bonjour à à tous, ces jours cet espace tient 1 année d’être analyser et en jugeant sur les matières les plus importantes dans le monde de l’économie et  d’autres sujets, mais le plus important est de remercier à ceux qu’ils suivent cet espace de manière fréquente, j’espère que cet espace continue en étant de son plaisir par beaucoup de temps

THE TAX CUTS A SUPPLY SIDE TROUBLE Junio 20, 2007

Posted by diiego in Analisis, Opinion, Politica.
add a comment

As common people we may think that a tax cut by the government is a really good idea because you will find yourself with some extra money to spend or to do whatever you may like but as a matter of fact it is a risky decision for the economy as a whole.

The supply side economists tell to us that a cut in the taxes is good because it stimulate the economic activity people spend more, the enterprises can re invest their new extra capital gains and in general it will attract foreign investment to bring new capital inflows to the economy that will end with a greater economical growth.

But experience has teach us that the result can be totally opposite and can endanger the whole business cycle and it is because of some very specific factors, the first is that the taxes are the source of the government revenue, so a cut tax will tend to drop the revenue and therefore the budget that the government can handle to their public policy, although the supply side economist argue that the revenue will increase since more enterprises will enter the economy in the reality it has not been as good and has ended in general drops in the growth rate and in the inefficiency of the government to achieve the goals that originally want.

Now we can easy analyze this problem with the tax cuts made by president Bush in the United States, since the administration cut the taxes the economy has not improve since the taxes just benefit the top percentages of the income in other words the big companies that rule the market, but this companies did not improve the salary of the workers even with the increase in productivity, therefore the administration fail to solve the real issues of the economy like the real slowing of the economy and the increase in the inflation rate.

Now we can compare this with the new policy that the Mexican government is about to take, the new fiscal reform proposal is very likely to the one taken by the Bush administration, but with worse scenarios, since Mexico is a country in which a third of the revenue is from oil exports another third from migrant remittances and just the other third from the taxes, if the country drop the taxes and also change the oil revenue the country will face and not easy to handle budget that will compromise the public policy and as a country in development that is too risky.

Is not financial healthy and since the right wing government has always take as a first priority the enterprises instead the social conflict it will end exactly that the one in the United States, increasing the gaining for the market giants and reduce the effectiveness of the programs to the lower income people, now the reform did not even modify the taxes to the consume so its not yet a clear way from where the resources for the budget will come, and that is the greater risk, a reduction of the government spending as an effect of the lower revenues will slow the economy, and if the government try to fix it in the short run will only face the way of the debt and that is not wise but foolish.

De regreso Junio 20, 2007

Posted by diiego in Noticias.
add a comment

Hola a todos los lectores, una disculpa por la salida sin aviso de esta publicación pero se presentaron diversos compromisos y conflictos personales que impidieron que me mantuviera escribiendo, sin embargo estamos de vuelta para continuar escribiendo como de costumbre.

por cierto ahora de ves en cuando escribire en ingles ya que hay lectores en otros paises que no entienden el español