• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Разное21
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации1
      Люди28
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы18
      • Показать ещё
      Компании28
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели13
      • Показать ещё
      Издания4
      Формат2
Фискальный обрыв
20 ноября, 11:00

Америку планово разоряют?

Экономические интриги в США все более и более начинают выглядеть как детский сад. Я уже писал и говорил о том, что вся концепция т.н. «фискального обрыва» была раскручена с одной-единственной целью – списать на нее ухудшающееся экономическое положение в стране. Соответственно, та реальная проблема, которая лежит в основании «фискального обрыва», должна быть решена достаточно быстро […]

30 октября, 01:00

John Boehner Unchained

The former House speaker feels liberated—but he’s also seething about what happened to his party.

29 октября, 14:09

House GOP tosses conservative playbook in bid for tax reform

Lawmakers look willing to move beyond their party’s orthodoxy in bid for win ahead of 2018 midterms.

11 октября, 18:46

How Republicans Got Trump Catastrophically Wrong

GOP leaders assumed the president’s campaign-trail rhetoric would give way to Washington realities—the trajectory they’d followed themselves.

28 сентября, 22:02

The Myth of Mitch McConnell, Political Super-Genius

The Senate majority leader has been coasting on an inflated reputation for too long. This week exposed just how little he has achieved.

03 июля, 12:10

How the GOP Medicaid overhaul could become the next fiscal cliff

Even some Senate Republicans acknowledge the changes in their repeal bill might never see the light of day.

05 июня, 16:56

The Worst Investment Strategy Ever

Fearmongering analysts, or “permabears,” make money by hawking illogically pessimistic investment strategies. This bull market threatens their livelihoods.

09 мая, 12:07

Republicans war over taxes

Full-on reformers face resistance from those willing to settle for tax cuts.

08 мая, 12:03

Coming soon: The fiscal cliff to end all fiscal cliffs

President Donald Trump and the GOP Congress will have to avert a debt default and government shutdown — and that's just for starters.

01 мая, 22:23

Why the Phrase 'Late Capitalism' Is Suddenly Everywhere

An investigation into a term that seems to perfectly capture the indignities and absurdities of the modern economy

17 апреля, 19:26

Poll: Trump woes take toll on GOP

President Donald Trump continues to lag his predecessors in public approval and his unpopularity appears to be trickling down to other Republicans in Washington.Trump’s approval rating, according to a new Pew Research Center survey released Monday, is 39 percent — precisely the same as two months ago. The percentage of Americans who disapprove of Trump is virtually unchanged: 54 percent, compared to 56 percent in February.Forty-four percent of Americans disapprove of Trump very strongly, according to the poll conducted April 5-11, more than the 30 percent who approve very strongly.The most profound shifts in the Pew survey are in Americans’ perceptions of the GOP beyond Trump. Just 40 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, down from 47 percent in January, prior to Trump’s inauguration.The Democratic Party, however, isn't faring dramatically better — views of the Democratic Party also ticked down from 51 percent in January to 45 percent now.On the issues, Americans trust Republicans over Democrats on dealing with the threat of terrorism by a 12-point margin, 48 percent to 36 percent. The GOP also has a 5-point edge on gun policy, 46 percent to 41 percent.Americans are more evenly divided on the economy and trade, with Republicans holding 3-point advantages on each, and on taxes. But more Americans think Democrats would do a better job on a number of other issues, including some that were previously GOP strengths.By an 8-point margin, Americans say Democrats better represent their views on government spending, 48 percent to 40 percent. In January 2013, just days after lawmakers avoided the so-called “fiscal cliff” by passing spending and taxation provisions, Republicans held a 6-point advantage on this question.Americans now trust Democrats over Republicans when it comes to dealing with immigration, 50 percent to 39 percent. In nine separate Pew surveys conducted over the course of Barack Obama’s second term as president, the two parties were never separated by more than 2 points on this question.On foreign policy, Americans have shifted drastically toward Democrats: Forty-nine percent say the party would do a better job, compared with 36 percent who trust the GOP more. But last April, more Americans trusted Republicans (46 percent) than Democrats (38 percent).Health care has represented the GOP’s most concerted domestic effort so far, and the poll shows little confidence in the party moving forward. A 54 percent majority says Democrats would do a better job on health care, far greater than the 35 percent who say Republicans would do a better job.Trump struggled to unite the disparate factions among Republicans in the fight to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act, and 68 percent of poll respondents describe the GOP as “mostly divided” on issues and its vision for the future. By comparison, 48 percent say Democrats are mostly divided. The internecine battles have also taken a toll on House Speaker Paul Ryan’s popularity, the poll suggests. A majority of Americans, 54 percent, disapprove of the way Ryan is handling his job, while only 29 percent approve. That puts Ryan on par with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Pelosi’s low approval ratings during the first two years of Obama’s presidency resulted in successful Republican efforts to tie Democratic candidates to the unpopular speaker.The Pew Research Center poll surveyed 1,501 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

11 апреля, 22:45

Update: Predicting the Next Recession

CR April 2017 Update: In 2013, I wrote a post "Predicting the Next Recession". I repeated the post in January 2015 (and in the summer of 2015, early last year and in August 2016) because of all the recession calls. In late 2015, the recession callers were out in force - arguing the problems in China, combined with the impact on oil producers of lower oil prices (and defaults by energy companies) - would lead to a global recession and drag the US into recession.  I didn't think so - and I was correct.I've added a few updates in italics by year.  Most of the text is from January 2013.A few thoughts on the "next recession" ... Forecasters generally have a terrible record at predicting recessions. There are many reasons for this poor performance. In 1987, economist Victor Zarnowitz wrote in "The Record and Improvability of Economic Forecasting" that there was too much reliance on trends, and he also noted that predictive failure was also due to forecasters' incentives. Zarnowitz wrote: "predicting a general downturn is always unpopular and predicting it prematurely—ahead of others—may prove quite costly to the forecaster and his customers".Incentives motivate Wall Street economic forecasters to always be optimistic about the future (just like stock analysts). Of course, for the media and bloggers, there is an incentive to always be bearish, because bad news drives traffic (hence the prevalence of yellow journalism).In addition to paying attention to incentives, we also have to be careful not to rely "heavily on the persistence of trends". One of the reasons I focus on residential investment (especially housing starts and new home sales) is residential investment is very cyclical and is frequently the best leading indicator for the economy. UCLA's Ed Leamer went so far as to argue that: "Housing IS the Business Cycle". Usually residential investment leads the economy both into and out of recessions. The most recent recovery was an exception, but it was fairly easy to predict a sluggish recovery without a contribution from housing.Since I started this blog in January 2005, I've been pretty lucky on calling the business cycle.  I argued no recession in 2005 and 2006, then at the beginning of 2007 I predicted a recession would start that year (made it by one month with the Great Recession starting in December 2007).  And in 2009, I argued the economy had bottomed and we'd see sluggish growth.Finally, over the last 18 months, a number of forecasters (mostly online) have argued a recession was imminent.  I responded that I wasn't even on "recession watch", primarily because I thought residential investment was bottoming.[CR 2015 Update: this was written two years ago - I'm not sure if those calling for a recession then have acknowledged their incorrect forecasts and / or changed theirs views (like ECRI and various bloggers). Clearly they were wrong.] [CR April 2017 Update: Now it has been over four years!  And yes, ECRI has admitted their recession calls were incorrect.  Not sure about the rest of the recession callers.]Now one of my blogging goals is to see if I can get lucky again and call the next recession correctly.  Right now I'm pretty optimistic (see: The Future's so Bright ...) and I expect a pickup in growth over the next few years (2013 will be sluggish with all the austerity).The next recession will probably be caused by one of the following (from least likely to most likely):3) An exogenous event such as a pandemic, significant military conflict, disruption of energy supplies for any reason, a major natural disaster (meteor strike, super volcano, etc), and a number of other low probability reasons. All of these events are possible, but they are unpredictable, and the probabilities are low that they will happen in the next few years or even decades.[CR 2016 Update: The recent recession calls are mostly based on exogenous events: the problems in China and in commodity based economies (especially oil based).  There will be some spillover to the US such as fewer exports (and an impact on oil producing regions in the US), but unless there is a related financial crisis, I think the spillover will be insufficient to cause a recession in the US.]2) Significant policy error. This might involve premature or too rapid fiscal or monetary tightening (like the US in 1937 or eurozone in 2012).  Two examples: not reaching a fiscal agreement and going off the "fiscal cliff" probably would have led to a recession, and Congress refusing to "pay the bills" would have been a policy error that would have taken the economy into recession.  Both are off the table now, but there remains some risk of future policy errors.  Note: Usually the optimal path for reducing the deficit means avoiding a recession since a recession pushes up the deficit as revenues decline and automatic spending (unemployment insurance, etc) increases.  So usually one of the goals for fiscal policymakers is to avoid taking the economy into recession. Too much austerity too quickly is self defeating.[CR 2017 Update: Austerity was a mistake (obvious at the time).  And it is possible that we will see serious policy mistakes from the new administration (a complete wildcard).  And it is possible the Fed could tighten too quickly. ]1) Most of the post-WWII recessions were caused by the Fed tightening monetary policy to slow inflation. I think this is the most likely cause of the next recession. Usually, when inflation starts to become a concern, the Fed tries to engineer a "soft landing", and frequently the result is a recession. Since inflation is not an immediate concern, the Fed will probably stay accommodative for a few more years.So right now I expect further growth for the next few years (all the austerity in 2013 concerns me, especially over the next couple of quarters as people adjust to higher payroll taxes, but I think we will avoid contraction). [CR 2015 Update: We avoided contraction in 2013!] I think the most likely cause of the next recession will be Fed tightening to combat inflation sometime in the future - and residential investment (housing starts, new home sales) will probably turn down well in advance of the recession. In other words, I expect the next recession to be a more normal economic downturn - and I don't expect a recession for a few years. [CR April 2017 Update: This was written in 2013 - and my prediction for no "recession for a few years" was correct.  This still seems correct today, so no recession in the immediate future (not in 2017). ]

08 апреля, 01:12

McConnell delivers first big win of Trump's presidency

After a rough start for the new administration, ’It’s nice to have a success,’ the GOP leader tells POLITICO in an interview.

25 марта, 03:27

Nobody Knew Governing Could Be So Complicated

The Obama years left Republicans with excellent ratings from the Heritage Foundation, and no idea how to whip a vote.

16 марта, 02:55

The Ryan Myth Is In Big Trouble

The myth of Paul Ryan is in serious trouble. This was likely inevitable, but it certainly is on stark display in the debate among Republicans over his “Ryancare” bill, which was supposed to be the “repeal and replace Obamacare” answer to all conservatives’ dreams. Quite obviously, Ryan’s bill fell far short of this lofty goal. It is currently being savaged from all sides within the Republican caucus alone. But beyond the bill’s likely failure, the myth surrounding Ryan is also on life support. The Ryan myth began with a book about three Republican “young guns” who were the best and the brightest of their generation and who seemed destined for leadership positions within the party. Ryan was lauded along with Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy as the future of the Republican Party, but ― importantly ― this was before the Tea Party phenomenon. The phrase “young guns” itself projects a certain cowboy swagger, a manly Reaganesque image of a gun-totin’ fighter for the cause. But again, that was before the Tea Party was launched. Nowadays, Ryan doesn’t seem to have quite the swagger of a “young gun” anymore, because that role has been co-opted by the Tea Partiers themselves. But the Ryan myth didn’t end there. Ryan was supposed to be the wonkiest of the wonky, a real numbers guy who understood all the details and could call them up from memory with ease ― a counterpart to Bill Clinton’s wonkiness, in a lot of ways. Before he took the reins of the House, he was in charge of the Republicans’ efforts to hammer the federal budget into their preferred conservative mold. The budgets he came up with were Draconian in their treatment of the poor, but not a whole lot of people noticed because the House budget bills were routinely ignored by the Senate. Ryan won kudos from within his own party, but didn’t actually influence policy all that much. This was the perfect position for the Ryan myth to thrive. Without any real-world consequences, Ryan was held up to be a genius at putting the numbers together in an orthodox conservative fashion. Nobody complained much, because nobody was really affected by Ryan’s dream budgets, to put it another way. But then the Tea Partiers essentially forced Speaker of the House John Boehner to step aside. Boehner had tried herding these particular cats without much success, and eventually he got tired of beating his head against the Tea Party’s brick wall. The budget negotiations had broken down multiple times in spectacular fashion (see: fiscal cliff, government shutdown) because the Tea Partiers refused to ever budge one tiny inch on their outlandish demands. It was their way or the highway, and eventually Boehner chose the highway ― all the way back home to Ohio. Paul Ryan was then very reluctantly drafted to take Boehner’s place. He really didn’t want the job, but all the other House Republicans told him he was the only possible person who could get things done in the House. He was needed by his party, so eventually he (still very reluctantly) stepped up. Since that time, the House has not noticeably gotten any more productive. But also since that time, they haven’t had very many public intraparty battles, by design. Ryan began his tenure by strongarming everyone into kicking all the big budget decisions far down the road ― after the 2016 elections, in other words. This avoided any contentious Tea Party revolts during the campaign, and in that respect it worked perfectly. That was then, but now all those deadlines are beginning to loom once again. And the Tea Party problem hasn’t gone away in the meantime (although they did re-brand themselves the “Freedom Caucus” for some inexplicable reason). What this means is that 2017 is going to see a return to the same old knife fights within the Republican caucus. The debt ceiling is going to have to be raised, the budget is going to have to be voted on, and on top of that Republicans are itching to “reform the tax code” (which, of course, is a euphemism for “give enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy, once again”). The Ryan myth was that he was the knight in shining armor who was going to be able to get all Republicans to agree on actual bills (with actual numbers), for the good of the party and for the betterment of the conservative agenda. He was the uber-wonk. He could reach out to the Tea Party faction and convince them to get with the Ryan program. That myth is soon going to be revealed to be nothing more than a fantasy. The entire Ryancare fiasco is informative. Ryan put out his favored bill, and fully expected Republicans to fall into line behind him, while he bravely fought off the slings and arrows from the Democrats. That was the plan, at any rate. They were going to rush the bill through both houses with lightning speed, and prove to the country that they were incredibly capable of governing, now that they had a Republican in the White House. It has only been a week and a half since the bill was publicly unveiled, and already Ryancare is in deep trouble ― within his own Republican ranks. Ryancare is being attacked by the Tea Partiers (for not being sufficiently cruel to the poor) and by moderate Republicans (for already being too obviously cruel to the poor). Ryan may not even be able to scrape up enough votes to pass the bill in the House, and even if he does manage that Herculean feat, it has already been pronounced “dead on arrival” in the Senate ― by Republicans. Ryan, so far, is refusing to change his bill in any meaningful way, but the opposition from both the far right and the center within his party means that any possible meaningful shift in the bill is going to please one group while further disappointing the other. If it was just the Tea Partiers grousing, Ryan might have some room for compromise, but that’s not the case. Somewhere, John Boehner is laughing. Because this is exactly the sort of thing which so frustrated him. The competing demands by the various GOP factions are impossible, at times, to reconcile. And remember, Ryancare is a bill without an obvious deadline to meet on the calendar. The only pressure to pass the bill comes from Republicans’ own political needs. There is no date when Social Security checks are going to stop being mailed if the bill doesn’t pass, in other words. The situation (and the time pressure) is entirely self-imposed by Ryan and the Republicans. What all this means is that Ryancare probably won’t pass, at least not in anything like its current form. But what does all this disarray mean for the upcoming budget fights? If Ryancare goes down in flames, the conservative media and the Tea Partiers are all going to be patting themselves on the back in a big way. They’re already personally demonizing Ryan in the same fashion they used to treat Boehner. But the upcoming legislative fights do actually have deadlines attached. When a bill simply must be passed (as with the debt ceiling, for instance), Ryan’s going to have only one route left open to him ― the same route Boehner routinely took. Ryan will have to allow the Tea Partiers to make as much noise as they want for a period of time, but then he’s going to eventually have to sit down with persuadable Democrats in an effort to pass a bill. If Ryan’s own caucus won’t back him up, then he’s got to cross the aisle to get the votes. This will give Nancy Pelosi the same power she regularly wielded with Boehner, the power to strip the most odious parts of the Republican bill away before a single Democrat would vote for it. Which, in a feedback loop, will further enrage the Tea Partiers. Ryan (and, to a lesser extent, Mitch McConnell) will be held up as a traitor to the conservative cause for “backing down.” This is the point where the Ryan myth will lie in tatters on the floor of the House. For all his supposed wonkiness, Ryan still won’t be able to get the Tea Partiers to see any sort of reason. If they’ve already defeated him once, over Ryancare, then they’re only going to see themselves as stronger for the upcoming fights. Which will make Ryan’s position weaker. Which, again, was exactly where John Boehner regularly found himself. Of the three supposed young guns, Ryan is the only real success story (so far). Eric Cantor was primaried out of his congressional seat by a Tea Partier. Kevin McCarthy was briefly considered for the job Ryan’s now doing, but that only lasted about fifteen minutes. What’s truly ironic is that the image of the young guns was that of outsiders challenging their party to come up with a youthful and modern approach to conservatism. But now Ryan’s on the inside looking out at the Tea Partiers storming his castle. Ryan’s mythical brand of radicalism has been supplanted by the Tea Party’s truly radical attitudes towards governing. The failure of Ryancare is going to be momentous, because it not only will be a massive disappointment to Republicans who love to hate Obamacare, but also because it will be a harbinger for future congressional battles to come. If Ryancare comes to a disastrous end, one has to wonder how much longer Paul Ryan will be able to keep his speakership. Call it the Ryan myth smacking head-on into the Tea Party reality.   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
10 февраля, 18:04

Preliminary February Consumer Sentiment declines to 95.7

The preliminary University of Michigan consumer sentiment index for February was at 95.7, down from 98.5 in January.Consumer confidence retreated from the decade-peak recorded in January, with the decline centered in the Expectations Index. To be sure, confidence remains quite favorable, with only five higher readings in the past decade. Importantly, the data do not reflect any closing of the partisan divide. The Michigan survey includes several free-response questions which ask respondents to answer in their own words, without any prompting or proposed answer categories. When asked to describe any recent news that they had heard about the economy, 30% spontaneously mentioned some favorable aspect of Trump’s policies, and 29% unfavorably referred to Trump’s economic policies. Thus a total of nearly six-in-ten consumers made a positive or negative mention of government policies. In the long history of the surveys, this total had never reached even half that amount, except for five surveys in 2013 and 2014 that were solely dominated by negative references to the debt and fiscal cliff crises. Moreover, never before have these spontaneous references to economic policies had such a large impact on the Sentiment Index: a difference of 37 Index points between those that referred to favorable and unfavorable policies. emphasis addedClick on graph for larger image.Consumer sentiment is a concurrent indicator (not a leading indicator).

02 января, 11:46

Your Paycheck in 2017

Uncle Sam is a greedy and angry man. And in 2017, he's going to take money that you worked hard to earn straight of your paycheck before you even get it! Not that that's much of a surprise. For Americans, that is something that will not be any different from any other year since 1943, but since Uncle Sam is always changing how much he takes out of your paycheck each year, we here at Political Calculations do our best to keep up with those changes so you can know in advance what your paycheck will look like after Uncle Sam has taken what he's going to from it. The way we keep up with those changes is by building tools each year to estimate how much of your income the U.S. government will withhold from your paycheck each year, where we also make it possible to answer paycheck-related questions that might come up for you during the next year, which include: How much take home money will I have each payday? How will that change if I get a raise? What if I boost my pre-tax 401(k) or 403(b) retirement plan contributions - how will that change my paycheck? Will I take a hit from the Additional Medicare Tax? [That's the "shared responsibility contribution" that doesn't ever go into Medicare's trust funds, which can affect higher income earners.] How would a flexible savings account for health care or dependent care expenses affect my take home pay? Our tool below is designed to answer those questions, as well as a number of others that may occur to you that we haven't considered! Just enter the indicated information as it applies for you, and we'll do our best to estimate how much of the money you work hard to earn will still be in your possession after the federal government has withheld what it wants from your paycheck! .nobrtable br { display: none } Your Paycheck and Tax Withholding Data Category Input Data Values Basic Pay Data Current Annual Pay Pay Period Daily Weekly Biweekly Semimonthly Monthly Quarterly Semiannually Annually Federal Withholding Data Filing Status Single Married Number of Withholding Allowances 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 401(k) or 403(b) Contributions Pre-Tax Contributions (%) After Tax Contributions (%) Flexible Spending Account Annual Contribution Data Health Care Spending Account Dependent Care Spending Account What if You Had a Raise? Desired Raise (%) Your "Typical" Paycheck Data Category Calculated Results Values Basic Income Data Proposed Annual Salary (Including Raise!) Typical Paycheck Amount Federal Tax Withholding Amounts U.S. Federal Income Taxes U.S. Social Security Taxes U.S. Medicare Taxes U.S. Additional "Medicare" Taxes (If Applicable) 401(k) or 403(b) Contributions Pre-Tax Contributions After-Tax Contributions Total Contributions Flexible Spending Account Contributions Health Care Spending Account Dependent Care Spending Account Your Paycheck's Bottom Line Take Home Pay Estimate Basic Net Paycheck Amount ... But, After Social Security's Taxable Income Cap Is Reached, It Becomes (If Applicable, for a Full Paycheck) ... And Then, After Additional Medicare Tax Income Threshold Is Reached, It Becomes (If Applicable, for a Full Paycheck) Now that we've given you a sense of how much money you'll have withheld in 2017 from each of your paychecks by the U.S. federal government, we should note that there are some really complicating factors that may come into play during the year depending upon how much you earn. For example, in 2017, once you have earned over $127,200, you will no longer have the Social Security payroll tax of 6.2% of your income deducted from your paycheck (or 12.4% if you are self-employed, but our tool above is designed for those employed by others). But then, by the time that happens, you'll have long been paying taxes on your income that are taxed at rates that are at least 10% higher than those paid by over half of all Americans. There's also the complication provided by the so-called "Additional Medicare Tax" that your employer is required to begin withholding from your paycheck if, and as soon as, your year-to-date income rises above the $200,000 mark, which is part of the new income taxes imposed by the "Affordable Care Act" (a.k.a. "Obamacare"). Since the money collected through this 0.9% surtax on your income does not go to directly support the Medicare program, unlike the real Medicare payroll taxes paid by you and your employer, it is really best thought of as an additional income tax. In the tool above, in case the amount of your annual 401(k) or 403(b) retirement savings contributions exceed the annual limits set by law, we've limited the results our tool provides to be those consistent with their statutory limits, and will do so as if you specifically set the percentage contributions for these contributions with that in mind. Also, our tool does not consider whether you might take advantage of the "catch-up" provisions in the law that are available to individuals Age 50 or older. Things That May Happen in 2017With a new President coming into office on 20 January 2017, it likely won't be long before proposals to reform U.S. personal income taxes start working their way through the U.S. Congress. If and when any such legislation that alters income tax withholding might be passed into law, we will supersede this tool with a new tool that reflects the changes in the nation's tax laws. Until that happens, this tool should present results that reasonably resemble what your paycheck will look like in 2017. Elsewhere on the WebThere are other paycheck calculators like this on the Internet, including the very well done tools available at PaycheckCity.com. We really like PaycheckCity's calculators because they allow you to determine the amount of state income tax withholding that will be taken out of your paycheck separately from what the federal government takes. Payroll processor ADP also has a salary paycheck calculator, but we think that it's not quite as user friendly as PaycheckCity's calculators. Then again, if you live in one of the seven states that have no personal income tax for wage and salary income (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, or Wyoming), our tool above will provide you with a very good estimate of your actual take-home pay. We'll also note that both New Hampshire and Tennessee do not tax wage and salary income, but they do both tax dividend and interest income (Tennessee will eliminate this state income tax in 2022). Fortunately, those state-level income taxes won't affect your paycheck (and our tool's results), but if you live in these states and have significant investment income, it's something of which you should be aware. Previously on Political CalculationsWe've been in the business of calculating people's paychecks (not including state income tax withholding) since 2005! Your 2005 Paycheck Your 2006 Paycheck Your 2007 Paycheck Your 2008 Paycheck Your 2009 Paycheck Your Paycheck in 2010 Your Paycheck in 2011 Your Paycheck in 2012 Your Paycheck in 2013: Part 1 - the "same as 2012" version. Your Paycheck in 2013: Part 2 - the "over the fiscal cliff" version. Your Paycheck in 2013: Part 3 - the "post-fiscal cliff deal" version. Your Paycheck in 2014 Your Paycheck in 2015 Your Paycheck in 2016 Your Paycheck in 2017

11 февраля 2014, 19:59

Джанет Л. Йеллен_наследница Бернанке Бена встаёт за печатный станок)

Г-жа Йеллен также призвал не преувеличивать опасения по поводу турбулентности на развивающихся рынках, таких как Турция "Мы внимательно следим за неустойчивостью на глобальных финансовых рынках. Нам кажется, что на данном этапе эти события не представляют значительную опасность для экономических перспектив США. Работа, чтобы сделать финансовую систему более надежной, до сих пор не завершена." Значительная часть работы по увеличению надежности финансовой системы США заключается в том, что даже не печатать бумагу и называть её деньгами, а в том, чтобы производить изменения в Специальных Финансовых Программах, чтобы ежемесячно почти из ниоткуда в финансовых и кредитных учреждениях США на счетах обновлялись цифры (конечно, в сторону увеличения) Чистая магия! Кто не знает -- эта магия называется количественное смягчение QE (нетрадиционная монетарная политика). Поначалу волшебная сила ФРС (единовременно) напитала экономику США на общую сумму в районе 2 трлн. долларов (официально) -- QE1, QE2 (вертолеты Бени). Потом ФРС стала регулярно впрыскивать магию от 40 до 85 млрд.$ ежемесячно. Получалось обычно больше -- 85 да 85) В общем, ФРС каждый месяц добавляла экономике США по 70, 80 млрд. надежности -- т.е. впрыскивала сумма почти в 1,5 раза большую, чем России удалось освоить за 7 лет на строительстве Олимпийских объектов в Сочи (даже по самым нескромным расчетам Навального) -- только у нас появились олимпийские объекты, а в США удалось поддержать прежний уровень комфорта проживающих там граждан Единственный минус -- пока еще многие считают, что эта магия приводит к тому, что вырастает государственный долг США (в целом получилось более 4 трлн. S -- примерно на эту сумму Казначейство США приобрело ипотечные ценные бумаги -- дав свежие нолики, забрав заплесневевший финансовый мусор). Чтобы еще как-то помочь своей экономике Центральный банк США сохраняет краткосрочные процентные ставки около нуля. Бернанке и Йеллен солидарны в использовании экономических стимулов. Их два: -- снижать процентные ставки, чтобы снизить стоимость заимствований для бизнеса и потребителей -- поощрять принятие рисков инвесторами (в т.ч. в покупке инвестиционного мусора) К февралю 2014 года QE3 снизили до 65 миллиардов долларов -- но это всё равно больше стоимости семилетнего строительства олимпийских объектов в Сочи Г-жа Йеллен уже сказала о своих планах для краткосрочных процентных ставок -- они должны удерживаться около нуля. В прошлой серии изумительного американского сериала "Повысим потолог госдолга" республиканцы и демократы договорились до 7 февраля 2014 года вообще не париться по поводу того, что государственный долг растёт, а планы по его обслуживанию всё нереалистичнее (не исключаю, что американские политики где-то глубоко подозревали, что сюжет следующего сезона сериала "Повысим потолог госдолга" будет подсказан какими-то серьезными изменениями в политике и экономике и не придется играть так же как в прошлый раз -- в американских сериалах вообще очень хорошая тенденция от сезона к сезону накал страстей увеличивать)) В общем, 7 февраля наступило, а сюжет остаётся столь же скучным. Чтобы хоть как-то разнообразить, политики уже почти договорились связать увеличение потолка долга с планом полностью восстановить пенсии для некоторых военных ветеранов (видимо, какие-то пенсии урезали, теперь их опять поднимут -- слабый сюжетный ход). Свежая передовица в Вашингтон Пост успокаивает: "... появилась опция обратного хода, которая, по существу позволяет демократам утвердить предел долга без каких-либо условий, почти полностью самостоятельно" В общем, в прошлом сезоне, когда "выключали" Правительство и т.д., всё произошло гораздо драматичнее. Голливуд сдулся. Можно почитать эту передовицу -- не рекомендую, дичь полная: нашим фантазерам из Правительства и Министерства энергетики есть чему учиться. Как там любят завершать свои паранормальные расчеты критики реальности из виртуальности?: "каждый россиянин заплатил за эту стройку..." "на эту дорогу можно было намазать слой икры...")) здесь ситуация несколько похожая -- почти любой человек в мире, получающий зарплату, разговаривающий по айфону..., в нашем глобальном мире связан с Беном Бернанке-Вертолетом и его последователями, бросающими деньги американской экономике  АПД: Палата представителей конгресса США проголосовала за "чистый", без дополнительных условий, законопроект, позволяющий расширить лимит государственного долга, передает Reuters. Документ, подводящий черту под напряженным противостоянием демократов и республиканцев, был утвержден незначительным большинством голосов: за его принятие проголосовал 221 парламентарий, против - 201. После утверждения в палате представителей документ будет направлен в сенат для обсуждения с последующим голосованием. Дебаты в сенате могут начаться уже 12 февраля. Это первый с 2009г. законопроект о повышении "потолка" госдолга, не связанный с уступками республиканцам. Его утверждение положило конец трехлетнему периоду "парламентских войн", отягощенных угрозой дефолта, октябрьским коллапсом федеральных бюджетных учреждений и общей экономической нестабильностью.