jueves, 8 de agosto de 2013

¿Qué provocó la bancarrota de Detroit: China o los robots?

What Bankrupted Detroit: China? Or Robots?

The Motor City's population collapsed as manufacturing jobs disappeared.


We know that, unlike most defeats, Detroit's bankruptcy has a thousand fathers -- everything from mismanaged pension funds to interest rate swaps gone the wrong way to years of racial animus that hollowed out the core of an already too-sprawling metropolis.
But the fundamental problem of late has been the city's depleted population: More than a quarter of its residents leaving town between 2000 and 2010. That's a function of bad city services and urban blight, but it's also because it's hard to make a living there. You can see that reflected in the chart above. Jobs in the Detroit metropolitan area, which held fairly steady through the nineties, plunged after 2000, as the unemployment rate rose. Between 2001 and the end of 2012, Detroit's Wayne County lost more than 60,000 manufacturing jobs alone.

What changed in 2000? After all, Detroit had weathered other economic challenges. The auto factories that once defined Detroit have been moving out since the fifties, when big auto-makers sent them to the American sunbelt in the hopes of avoiding pesky unions, and as pressure from Japan's auto industry began building in the 1980s.
Besides the popping of the tech bubble, it's easy to point to trade normalization with China. GM (which sells more cars in China than in the US) and other automakers invested in factories in China, and many parts suppliers did the same.
And as you might expect, if you look at Detroit's manufacturing GDP in the same time period, it decreases:
And in the last decade, the US's global imports of both cars and auto parts have increased. But though their rise has been slower than that of imports, US exports of cars and auto parts have climbed as well. In fact, the US continues to make more stuff than ever -- even Detroit. Its metropolitan area exported $55 billion in goods last year, according to the US Department of Commerce. That's more than it produced seven years ago, and good enough to make it the fourth-largest exporting city in the country.
So why did exports rise even as the city shed manufacturing jobs and output fell?
Detroit factories rely more than ever on parts from other places -- and that's where some of those jobs went. Some did indeed go to China, leading to a US complaint at the World Trade Organization that the country subsidizes its parts industry. However, some of those jobs went to factories within the US: Detroit's share of total US production fell from 3.1% in 2001 to just 1.7% in 2011.
That still doesn't explain why, between 2005 and 2011, Detroit's manufacturing jobs fell by 30%, while its manufacturing production fell by only 16%. Where did those job go?
In the end, you can blame robots--or increased productivity in these factories. As manufacturing requires fewer and fewer people to make more goods, there is less work to go around. Detroit, heavily dependent on manufacturing, suffers the most today. But the problem of adapting social and economic institutions to a world where mechanization enhances productivity but costs jobs is one that all wealthy countries face, regardless of trade competition.

miércoles, 7 de agosto de 2013

Que puestos se demandan en el mercado y son difíciles de encontrar en Argentina

Escasez de talentos: cuáles son los 10 perfiles que a las empresas les cuesta más encontrar en el mercado
Pese a la menor demanda laboral, al momento de cubrir un puesto, 41% de las empresas tiene dificultades para dar con el postulante indicado. Empleadores remarcan la falta de competencias técnicas de los candidatos y apuntan a una desconexión entre carreras elegidas y qué requiere el sector privado
POR CECILIA NOVOA







Pese a que el menor crecimiento económico, el alza de los costos laborales y la incertidumbre típica de todo período preelectoral, entre otros factores, frenaron la creación de nuevos empleos, al momento de salir al mercado para cubrir un puesto de trabajo el 41% de las compañías no encuentra el perfil buscado.
El dato surge de la Encuesta de Escasez de Talentos 2013 de ManpowerGroup, la cual también marca una baja de la dificultad de cuatro puntos porcentuales respecto al 2012 (45%). La caída, según explican, está relacionada con una menor demanda laboral.
Para el relevamiento de este año, la firma consultó a cerca de 40.000 empleadores en 42 países y territorios. Dentro del ranking general, la Argentina ocupa el puesto 13 y, en la medición regional, se ubica segunda por detrás de Brasil (68 por ciento).
Desde las compañías locales manifestaron que las razones más comunes detrás de la dificultad para encontrar estos recursos humanos son:
  • La falta de competencias técnicas (42%)
  • La ausencia de habilidades de "empleabilidad" (32%)
  • La coherencia de calificaciones específicas a la industria (19%)
En este sentido, por tercer año consecutivo, los técnicos ocupan el primer lugar dentro de los puestos más difíciles de cubrir seguidos, por segundo año, por los ingenieros y los oficios manuales calificados.

Si se lo compara con los resultados de 2012, el personal contable y de finanzas y las secretarias, asistentes personales/administrativos y personal de oficina intercambiaron roles, quedando en el cuarto y quinto lugar respectivamente. (Ver infografía a continuación). 
Esta falta de correspondencia entre lo que necesitan y piden las empresas y la oferta disponible "es un problema estructural que va a continuar hasta que no cambien los hábitos de elección de carreras", coinciden los reclutadores.
Desde hace varios años se observa una desconexión entre las profesiones elegidas y la demanda del mercado laboral. Sumado a esto, se registra falta de experiencia en posiciones clave y carencia de competencias técnicas para determinadas industrias que han despegado en el último tiempo como consecuencia del cepo a las importaciones. 
Si bien en todos los mercados hay menos ingenieros de los que se necesitan, los empleadores argentinos hacen mayor hincapié en la escasez de perfiles técnicos calificados.
De hecho, cuando en el relevamiento se indaga cuáles son las causas por las que no pueden hallar perfiles técnicos, la falta de competencias técnicas o habilidades "duras" es lo que más resaltan los empresarios locales.
Por el contrario, en el caso de posiciones contables o financieras, la referida escasez está más vinculada al déficit de habilidades "blandas".
En estos casos, el problema no pasa por los conocimientos técnicos ni de formación sino por lafalta de experiencia o de habilidades como, por ejemplo, trabajo en equipo, liderazgo o adaptabilidad de los postulantes.
El impacto en los negocios
Hoy, el 35% de los directivos encuestados globalmente está teniendo problemas para encontrar lo que necesitan, mientras que el número de empresarios a nivel mundial que creen que las limitaciones para reclutar talentos afectarán negativamente a su negocio ha aumentado casi de un tercio a 54 por ciento.
"En este mundo complejo y dinámico, la única certeza es la incertidumbre. La demografía cambiante, la evolución tecnológica y un mundo propenso a crisis económicas, políticas y sociales han creado un ambiente global en el que la escasez de estos recursos humanos es la regla en lugar de la excepción", comentó Alfredo Fagalde, Director de ManpowerGroup Argentina.
A nivel local, en tanto, el 41% de los 800 empresarios encuestados manifestó enfrentar problemas para cubrir puestos, mientras que el 49% dice que la falta de talentos tiene un impacto medio o alto en su capacidad de satisfacer las necesidades de los clientes.
"Si bien los empleadores reconocen cada vez más que esta situación amenaza su capacidad de competir, todavía están frustrados por la falta de una solución sencilla. Se dan cuenta de que ampliar su fuerza laboral, aumentar la compensación o cazarlos de los competidores son soluciones insostenibles", dijo Fagalde.
La situación a nivel mundial
El déficit de perfiles más grande se ubica en Japón (85%) y en  Brasil (68%), mientras que desde el año pasado se agudizó en mercados como Hong Kong (+22 puntos porcentuales), Turquía (+17 puntos porcentuales), Israel (+14 puntos porcentuales), Grecia (+14 puntos porcentuales), India (+13 puntos porcentuales) y China (+12 puntos porcentuales). Por el contrario, los valores más bajos se dan en Irlanda y España (3 por ciento).
Al igual que sucedió en 2012, las vacantes de trabajadores de oficio calificados son las más difíciles de cubrir a nivel mundial.
Esta categoría lideró los rankings en cinco de los últimos seis años, siendo la excepción 2011 cuando estuvo situada en el tercer lugar. Las categorías laborales en segundo, tercer y cuarto puestos - ingenieros, representantes de ventas y técnicos, respectivamente - permanecen iguales año tras año. Personal contable y de finanzas se situaron quintos, y gerentes y ejecutivos sextos.
En tanto, personal de IT figura en el séptimo lugar y los choferes profesionales en el octavo. La categoría de secretarias/asistentes y personal de oficina se encuentra en noveno, mientras que los operarios son los que esté año cierran el "top ten" de los puestos más difíciles de cubrir.

La peor pérdida de puestos de trabajo de la posguerra en USA

THE SCARIEST JOBS CHART EVER


The U.S. economy added just 162,000 jobs in July, missing expectations for 185,000 new jobs.  To make things worse, the June jobs number was revised down to +188,000 from last month's estimate of +195,000 jobs.
And as the labor force participation rate fell, the unemployment rate ticked down to 7.4%.
All of this reminds us that despite the upticks in jobs, the overall jobs market remains anemic four years into the economic recovery.
Calculated Risk runs a chart every month that puts the current jobs recovery into perspective.
"This shows the depth of the recent employment recession — worse than any other post-war recession — and the relatively slow recovery due to the lingering effects of the housing bust and financial crisis," writes Bill McBride of Calculated Risk.


Business Insider 

¿Los suburbios dejan de ser el sueño americano?

Are the Suburbs Where the American Dream Goes to Die?

New research shows upward mobility is higher in denser cities
The Atlantic



Wikimedia Commons

Rumors of the American Dream's demise have been greatly exaggerated -- at least in parts of America. 
That's the message of a new study that looks at the connection between geography and social mobility in the United States. It turns out modern-day Horatio Algers have just as much a chance in much of the country as they do anywhere else in the world today. But if you want to move up, don't move to the South. As you can see in the chart below from David Leonhardt's write-up in theNew York Times, the American Dream is on life support below the Mason Dixon line.
So why does a kid from the bottom fifth in the South or the Rust Belt have such a hard time making it to the top fifth? It's not how progressive local taxes are. Or the cost of college. Or how unequal a place is. At least not much. The research team of Raj Chetty and Nathanial Hendren of Harvard and Patrick Kline and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California-Berkeley found that these factors only correlated slightly with a region's social mobility. What seems to matter more is the amount of sprawl, the number of two-parent households, the quality of elementary and high schools, and how involved people are in things like religious and community groups.
The suburbs didn't quite kill the American Dream, but a particular type did. That's the low-density and racially-polarized suburbs that have defined places like Atlanta. Indeed, as you can see in the chart below from Paul Krugman, there's a noticeable relationship between a metro area's density and its social mobility.
As usual, the elephant in the room here is race. So let's address it: the researchers found that the larger the black population, the lower upward mobility. But on closer inspection, this has something to do with population density too. I went back to the Census data, and looked at the same ten cities Krugman did, but this time I compared their population-density ratios and the percent of their population that's black. There isn't nearly a perfect relationship -- look at Boston or Dallas or Houston -- but there is a relationship.

Now, it's not that suburbs outside the South and Rust Belt are some kind of integrated utopia -- far, far from it -- but rather that density changes things. Well-off whites who work in the city and live close by have an interest in paying for the kind of public goods, like mass transit, that benefit everybody. Well-off whites who live far away don't. Atlanta, of course, is the prototypical case here:going back to the 1970s, it's under-invested in public transit, because car-driving suburbanites haven't wanted to pay for something they think only poor blacks would use (to come, they fear, to their lily-white cul-de-sacs). Even last year, a compromise bill that would have increased the sales tax by 1 percentage points for 10 years to pay for expanded roads and railways in the always-congested citygot voted down. This malign neglect of infrastructure keeps low-income people from living near or commuting to better jobs -- and that's not a a race issue. Indeed, the researchers also found that whites and blacks in Atlanta both have a hard time moving up. In other words, racial polarization might spur sprawl, which makes cities less likely to invest in their infrastructure -- and underfunded infrastructure hurts low-income people of all races.
Of course, the story of mass transit isn't just a story about race. There's plenty else going on. Sprawl happens in the Sun Belt, because it can. There's more land. And coastal cities are denser, because they have to be -- though even then, they don't always build better infrastructure. Just look at Los Angeles. But for whatever the reason, upward mobility has a local flavor. And that means part of the solution will too. As Reihan Salam argues, loosening zoning restrictions and building out public transit would let cities become denser and more livable. Both, of course, die a thousand NIMBY deaths in a thousand different cities.
There's an old vision of the American Dream that is obsolete, and has been for quite awhile. That's Thomas Jefferson's idea of a nation of self-sufficient farmers -- an agrarian republic. Over time, as people left the countryside for the cities during the Industrial Revolutions, this vision morphed: it became a nostalgia for (and even snobbery of) small towns. It's a vision that Republicans still cling to. Remember when Sarah Palin talked about "real America"? Or when Republicans warned that high-speed rail and bike lanes were some kind of socialist plot? It's a vision of America at odds with the American Dream today.
It turns out the best place to pursue happiness -- and a career -- is in the city.

martes, 6 de agosto de 2013

Argentina: Los 2000s peor que los 90s

El rey está desnudo

Economista Serial Crónico

Estoy shockeado. Acabo de darme cuenta que, con un simple cambio metodológico, el INDEC acaba de destruir uno de los pilares del relato de la década ganada.

La historia es así. Hace algún tiempo, el INDEC realizó un cambio del año base con el cual mide los términos de intercambio del comercio exterior, es decir, los precios de las exportaciones y las importaciones. Como pueden ver aquí, el INDEC actualizó las ponderaciones del cálculo, pasando de usar las de 1993 a las de 2004*.

El pasaje de una base a la otra implico un fuerte cambio en la medición del efecto precio en las exportaciones, como pueden ver en el siguiente gráfico. Si con la base anterior el INDEC media un incremento del 100% en los precios entre 2001 y 2012, con la nueva base la suba paso a ser de 150%.


La contrapartida de una mayor suba del efecto precios es que una menor porción del crecimiento de las exportaciones (que crecieron un 200% durante el periodo) se explica por el efecto de mayores cantidades. Antes el INDEC registraba una suba del 55% en las cantidades durante la década, para pasar a 24% con la nueva base (0 3.7% y 1.8% anual equivalente).

Lo interesante es lo que pasa cuando uno analiza el cambio en las ponderaciones a nivel grandes rubros. El grueso del ajuste en el índice de precios corresponde a cambios en la medición del rubro de Manufacturas de Origen Industrial,mientras Productos Primarios, Manufacturas de Origen Industrial y Combustibles registran cambios menores.

La cuestión es que, nuevamente, la contrapartida de un mayor efecto precios en las exportaciones MOI son menores efectos cantidades, como se refleja en el siguiente gráfico.

Con el cambio de base, el INDEC pasó de registrar un crecimiento de las MOI de 132% entre 2001 y 2012 (o 7.2% anual) al también bueno pero menos impresionante 80% (o 5.0% anual). Lo interesante es que con esta corrección, el crecimiento de las exportaciones industriales durante el periodo de Tipo de Cambio Real Alto y Estable pasó de ser similar al de la década previa de Tipo de Cambio Real Bajo y Estable (con subas de 132% y 175% respectivamente) a ser casi la mitad (80% vs. 153% con la nueva base).

Repito.

Con el cambio de base, el crecimiento de las exportaciones industriales durante el periodo de TCRAE pasó de ser similar al de la convertibilidad a ser casi la mitad con la nueva base.

Espero que me alcance el fin de semana para reponerme del shock

Atte

Luciano

*Por las dudas, vale aclarar que, a diferencia de otros índices, y como explicaba hace tres años en este post , los datos de comercio exterior del INDEC son más creíbles y menos susceptibles a dibujos.

Distribución: 432 familias poseen el 50% de la tierra escocesa

Imagine a feudal country where 432 families own half the land. Welcome to Scotland

The country's vast estates are under threat of being broken up and sold to small farmers. The laird's response? Get off our land
The Duke of Buccleuch is Europe's largest landowner with holdings valued at more than £1bn
Their lineages date back to before the time of the Stuart kings whilst their farms and sporting estates sprawl across vast swathes of some of the most beautiful - and lucrative - landscapes in the world.

Yet the Scottish Lairds have found themselves under attack after breaking their silence and fiercely opposing reforms which could see their historic lands broken up and offered for sale to small farmers and community groups.

Scotland currently has the most concentrated pattern of private ownership in the developed world with just 432 individuals accounting for half of all non-public land.

Submissions by the aristocracy and their representatives to the Land Reform Review Group, which was set up by the Scottish Government to consider the stalled question of redistribution, reveal deep-seated opposition to change, critics claimed.

Among those to challenge the proposals was an estate belonging to the 10th Duke of Buccleuch - a title created in 1663 for the illegitimate son of Charles II - who is now Europe's largest landowner with holdings valued at more than £1bn.

Mark Coombs, the manager of the Duke's 33,000 ha Queensberry Estate said there was no call for the ownership structure to change.

"There are also concerns if the purpose of changing the ownership is simply to allow another party … to carry-out the same activity as is currently being undertaken by the existing owner as this strikes at the essence of ownership rights and suggests a clear move towards a more collectivist political view which is not representative of the body-politic of Scotland," he said.

Also critical was the Duke of Roxburghe, whose land and property company includes his home Floors Castle. In its submission the 24,000 ha estate said it was "disappointed" at the emphasis placed on the expansion of community ownership.

Seafield and Strathspey Estates, a 35,000 ha enterprise which includes some of the finest salmon beats on the river Spey, is managed on behalf of the family of the Earl of Seafield. It said landowners were being blamed for the inefficiencies of local and central government.

"There is a myth presented by individuals sponsoring land reform in Scotland that 'too many acres are owned by too few individuals.' It may be true that 'many acres are owned by few individuals' but there is very little evidence presented to show that this is a bad thing," the estate said.

Land reform activists and author Andy Wightman said land ownership had become even more concentrated. "We need to work towards a true property owning democracy. We need many more people with a stake in the land," he said.

"It's the first time they have addressed head on the fact that so much land is held in so few hands. They are denying it's a problem but they are conceding it is one of the central issues which is very interesting because they cannot win in the long term," he added.

Three-quarters of 484 respondents to the review - which will report in April next year - said they were content with the current status quo. Half of all submissions came from estates, farm owners, landowners and their representatives.

Sarah-Jane Laing, director of policy and parliamentary affairs at Scottish Land and Estates, which represents Scottish landowners said its members did not oppose community buyouts.

"It is disappointing that after being encouraged to 'come out of the trenches' by politicians, our members who willingly engaged and provided evidence are now being individually attacked and ridiculed by a well-known anti-land reform activist via social media," she said.


The Independent

¿Qué la pasó a la movilidad económica en USA? Una historia de dos familias

What Happened to Economic Mobility in America?

The plight of two American families in Milwaukee explains the other half of the winner-take-all economy


Over the last 20 years, two middle class American families -- the Stanleys and the Neumanns -- have done all the right things. Milwaukee natives, they worked hard, learned news skills,  and tried to show their children that strivers would be rewarded.
But their lives -- as captured in an extraordinary Frontline documentary -- are an American calamity. Followed by filmmakers for two decades, they move from dead-end job to dead-end job, one of the couples' divorces, and most of their children spiral downward economically, not up.
The Stanleys and the Neumanns are a microcosm of the middle class that President Barack Obama -- and House Republicans -- will spar over for the remainder of Obama's presidency. And they are part of a global trend. Across industrialized nations, income inequality is growing and people like the Stanleys and Neumanns are the losers.
"Mobility is a two-edged sword," said Miles Corak, an economist at the University of Ottawa who has studied income inequality across countries. "And you're looking at the other edge of the sword."
At the very top, life is getting sweeter. As my colleague Chrystia Freeland noted last month, the global "winner-take-all economy" is intensifying.
June study found that the number of people worldwide with more than $1 million to invest soared to a record 12 million in 2012, a 9.2 percent increase over the previous year. The number of ultra rich -- the 111,000 people with investable assets of at least $30 million -- surged 11 percent.
The Stanleys and the Neumanns, meanwhile, are falling behind. Whatever your politics, please watch this film. These two families, one black and one white, put a human face on the polarized debate about what is happening to the American middle class.
Conservative viewers may feel that the two couples made mistakes -- failing to go to college, for example, or not moving out of a dying industrial town like Milwaukee. Liberal viewers may see them as victims of a globalized economy that rewards the few spectacularly and relegates the many to low-paying jobs.
Whatever the cause, their spiral is startling.
When filmmakers Bill Moyers, Kathleen Hughes and Tom Casciato, first visited them in 1991, the family's wages from union factory work comfortably supported them. In the early 1990s, however, as Milwaukee factories moved overseas, both of the Stanleys, and Tony Neumann, the Neumann patriarch, lost their jobs. They took lower-paying work and, to makes ends meet, Tony Neumann's wife, Terry, also had to enter the workforce.
Throughout the 2000s, the couples struggled on. Claude Stanley, the Stanley patriarch, waterproofed basements, started his own home inspection business and became a minister. By 2012, an illness has saddled him with enormous medical bills and his business had failed. At 59,  he was a city forestry department worker making $26,000 a year trimming trees and collecting garbage. His wife Jackie became a realtor, but never gained a foothold in a declining housing market. Only one of their five children finished college, paying tuition with credit cards.
After his layoff, Tony Neumann took a low-paying overnight factory job, and rarely saw his wife and three children. His wife Terry worked as a security guard, forklift operator and home healthcare attendant. By 2012, the couple, high school sweethearts, had divorced and lost their home through foreclosure.
The children in both families fared even worse. Those who attended at least some college had steady work. Those who did not had low-paying jobs or no work at all.
Many also had failed relationships. As of 2012, one Neumann son was a high school dropout who had fathered two children with two different women. The other was unemployed and had fathered three children with two different women. Defying stereotypes, the Stanleys, who are black, proved to be a more stable family than the Neumanns.
In one of the film's most wrenching scenes, Terry Neumann visits the house she lost to foreclosure, where she had expected to live out her American dream. The family that bought it at auction for $38,000 looks on as she tours the home, wondering what went wrong.
"The way the economy is going, no, I don't think anybody is going to be financially secure, truthfully," she tells Moyers near the end of the film. "And we'll just work until we collapse and keel over and die."
Recent studies have found that economic mobility is stagnating in the United States. Where one grows up and who one's parents are increasingly determine a child's economic future. And a smaller percentage of Americans escape poverty than their peers in other wealthy nations, including Canada, Germany, Japan, France and Australia.
On Wednesday, President Obama again vowed to change all that. In the first of what administration officials say will be a series of speeches about the middle class, Obama repeated a laundry list of economic proposals that are stalled in Congress. House Republicans, meanwhile, vowed to do everything in their power to block Obama and slash government spending.
Americans, understandably, are tuning out the noise. Washington's deadlock is likely to continue. Yet the problem is real and global.
Corak, the Canadian researcher, said workers like the Neumanns and Stanleys who lack college degrees or specialized skills are struggling across many industrialized nations. Shifting manufacturing jobs overseas to developing nations as well as sweeping technological change has led to stagnant middle class wages.
But a recent study he authored found that the dynamic played out differently in different nations. In Canada, more equal public education and healthcare systems, as well as the lack of a large housing bubble, helped mitigate the impact of globalization. In the United States, meanwhile, families more often struggled on their own.
Corak said the polarization of the U.S. inequality debate puzzled him. Yes, an individual's actions mattered, such as the Neumann's divorce. But global economic trends beyond each family's control affected them as well, as did the quality of public education and healthcare.
"You can still accept that families are very, very important," he said, "without rejecting the economic issues."
On balance, Obama's proposals will do more to aid struggling middle class families than those of far-right House Republicans. White House officials vow that this Obama drive to aid the middle class will be different.
For the sake of the Neumanns and Stanleys -- and millions of families like them -- hopefully they're right.

This article initially appeared on Reuters.com, a sister site.

lunes, 5 de agosto de 2013

Argentina: Una inflación sana y saludable

Luego de seis meses de calma, el Banco Central emitió de golpe $18.000 millones
05-08-2013 Aunque todavía faltan conocer los datos de los últimos tres días del mes, las cifras oficiales muestran que se terminó la prudencia monetaria . iProfesional



Tras mantener a la base monetaria estable en los primeros seis meses del año, el Banco Central emitió en torno $ 18.200 millones en julio. La entidad conducida por Mercedes Marcó del Pont debió salir a socorrer al Tesoro, en un mes de fuerte gasto público por el pago del medio aguinaldo.
El viernes pasado el BCRA dio a conocer los datos de evolución de la base monetariacon datos actualizados hasta el 26 de julio. En esas cifras se pudo comprobar que el séptimo mes del año marcó el fin de la prudencia de la entidad, con una expansión de la base monetaria de $ 18.183 millones en julio, con sólo tres ruedas del mes sin computar.
La cifra multiplica por nueve el monto emitido en el mismo mes del año pasado: unos $ 2.300 millones.
Casi la mitad de los nuevos pesos emitidos en julio, $ 8.664 millones, fueron adelantos transitorios, es decir, tuvieron como destino el financiamiento del sector público.
Otros $ 8.212 millones se emitieron como resultado de la no renovación de pases pasivos -una variable bastante volátil de la masa monetaria, que puede variar mucho en pocosdías- y $ 1.523 millones más fueron resultado de la inyección de pesos que resulta de las poco exitosas licitaciones semanales de Lebac y Nobac, las letras y notas con las que se regula la masa monetaria.
En los tres días de julio cuyos datos la entidad aún no publicó hubo otra licitación de Lebac, en la que se inyectaron otros $ 450 millones.
Tras el récord de emisión monetaria de 2012, casi $ 50.000 millones, la autoridad monetaria tuvo una primera mitad de año prudente. Los efectos colaterales del cepo cambiario tuvieron mucho que ver con el giro ortodoxo.
Por un lado, la falta de oferta de dólares en el mercado cambiario y el correspondiente derrumbe de las compras de divisas del BCRA eliminaron como factor de emisión a las operaciones cambiarias con las que la entidad sostenía su nivel de reservas. Por el otro, la disparada de las cotizaciones paralelas del dólar obligo a subir tasas y esterilizar pesos.
Pero la moderación que mostró el BCRA en la primera mitad del año no muestra indicios de que vaya a mantenerse en la segunda, debido a la tradicional aceleración del gasto en los dos últimos trimestres del año.
Los datos sobre ejecución de las cuentas públicas nacionales que se conocieron la semana pasada confirmaron que el Gobierno no podrá cubrir el crecimiento del gasto con sus ingresos, y necesitará recurrir a sus prestamistas tradicionales: el BCRA y la ANSeS. En mayo, el gasto primario aumentó 32,5% nominal respecto a mismo mes del año anterior. En los primeros cinco meses, los ingresos impositivos aumentaron 27,9%, 2,8 puntos porcentuales por debajo de la suba de los gastos, según consigna Cronista.
“Esta brecha se profundizará en los próximos meses. Así, el resultado primario nacional profundiza su deterioro y suma sólo $ 4.571 millones en lo que va del año (-18,7% interanual). Neto de las utilidades del BCRA y las rentas del FGS de la ANSeS el superávit se transforma en un déficit $ 4.431 millones en los primeros cinco meses”, detalló un informe de la consultora ACM.
La consultora M&S, que dirige el economista Carlos Melconian, estima que la emisión monetaria continuará la suba que mostró en los últimos años. “Fueron de $ 19.000 millones en 2012, más de $ 32.000 millones en 2011 y casi $ 48.000 millones en 2012, rondará los $ 70.000 o $ 75.000 millones y podría duplicarse en 2014”, resaltó en un informe.




Los celulares más caros en Argentina que en el resto de LA

Los celulares en el país se pagan más caro que en el resto de América Latina
03-08-2013 El dato se desprende de una consultora que comparó el precio de 705 smartphones en la región. Los valores aquí superan en un 18% promedio al segundo. iProfesional   








Un reciente estudio de la consultora internacional Marco, especializada en tecnología comparó los precios en dólares de los celulares inteligentes en toda América Latina, y del estudio se desprende que en Argentina se pagan más caro.
El análisis, realizado en el mes de julio, tomó los mismos 705 modelos de smartphones, y evaluó el valor de los mismos, se vendan estos como liberados o atados a un plan de telefonía. El resultado demuestra que, en promedio, la Argentina es la plaza más cara para comprar estos equipos.

En comparación con Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y Perú, la Argentina es el único país cuyo precio promedio supera los u$s500 dólares (568). Esto es, un 17,6% más que en México, donde el precio promedio era de u$s483. Mientras que en Brasil el valor promedio resultó u$s445 y en Chile, u$s358. En Perú (u$s344) y Colombia (u$s313) se conseguían los precios más bajos.

Al contrastar un mismo producto en todas las naciones, en este caso el Samsung Galaxy S3, que es el teléfono más ofrecido de todos, los precios más bajos se encuentran en Perú, Colombia y Brasil (u$s628, u$s657 y u$s688), seguido por Chile (u$s739), mientras que en México y Argentina se pagan más caros (u$s819 y u$s849). En este análisis hay que tener en cuenta que se tomaron teléfonos liberados y con contratos de operadoras de telefonía móvil.

En Chile, Colombia, México y Perú se ofrecen teléfonos inteligentes por menos de u$s100, gracias a la presencia de marcas económicas, como Miray, Azumi, Nuqleo, VTR, entre otras siendo Chile donde mayor variedad de marcas de bajo costo hay. En cambio, en Argentina y Brasil, los teléfonos más económicos arrancan a partir de los u$s111.

En cuanto a presencia de marca, en Argentina es en el único país donde no se venden teléfonos Apple, mientras que en Colombia no se registran ofertas de Sony Ericsson.

Samsung, Motorola, LG, Nokia, y Blackberry tienen presencia en todos los países analizados.

Una mini casa para el mercado inmobiliario

A Prize-Winning Architect Designed This Sleek 'Tiny House'

Business Insider 


Renzo Piano is the brilliant mind behind some of the most visually arresting buildings of the past few decades — The New York Times Building in Manhattan, London's The Shard, and the Pompidou Museum in Paris, to name a few.
Now the architect has completed an ambitious project on a smaller scale. Called "Diogene," it's a tiny house prototype built for German furniture company Vitra.
"The minimalist house is an idea that continues to fascinate Piano, particularly in an era in  which his office is dealing with big projects," Vitra writes of Diogene.
Scroll down to find out more about Piano's tiny house.
According to Vitra, Diogene is a "voluntary place of retreat" that's entirely self-sufficient. The house collects, cleans, and reuses water, and supplies its own power.
Features include photovoltaic cells and solar modules, a rainwater tank, a biological toilet, and natural ventilation.
The tiny house is made of wood and aluminum paneling, with a surface area of 2.5 x 3 meters (8’2’’ x 9’7’’) when fully assembled and furnished. It can be easily transported anywhere.
The front part of the house serves as a living room with a pull-out sofa and folding table under the window. A shower, toilet, and kitchen are behind a partition.
According to Vitra, Diogene has many possible uses, from a weekend house to a study to a small office. It could also be placed alongside other "Diogenes" to create an informal hotel.
The prototype is currently located on Vitra's campus in Weil am Rhein, Germany. The company expects to produce them in three years, and they will cost around $45,000, or $75,000 for a deluxe model with rooftop photovoltaic panels, according to The New York Times.