The good germans don't always tell the truth...

Much has been said already about how the markets and therefore, savage capitalism rules the world. Almost none, about political nonsense blaming on the markets when confronted to their decisions. By not talking clear to their constituents, politicians are playing a 'no winner' game, which isn't the same as a draw. Whether moral or not, markets don't risk a penny if they will lose it. Political flaw works in the opposite way. Politicians will risk with populism, when losing. The ethical movements of our politicians can be questioned, but democracy is not always a reasonable output. Voters are willing to support nonsense as long as this nonsense never becomes real. Our politicians democratic transactions need to examined by truth and nothing but the truth.

State of the World's economy (US, Japan, UK and the EU)

The current financial position (private and public indebtedness, fiscal balance, trade balance, savings rate) of the European Union (EU) is much better than any of its major partners. Therefore, why prospects are so bad? The potential growth of the european economy to pay off its debts, maintain a sustainable health of public finances (high cost of unemployment and social security), pursing trade surplus that will secure current european wealth is unclear. Investors are pushing for single markets rules such as fiscal union with single european VAT, corporations tax rate and labour code, which needed to be implemented as the Euro was introduced.

German contribution to the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF)

Together with neighboring France (both AAA debt issuers), they make up for 47% of the total fund liabilities. The effective interest rate to which the fund is borrowing from the markets nears Germany's borrowing interest rate (at lowest in history). The fund (rated AAA by major credit agencies), will rescue european States unable to finance themselves at the markets. Currently, Ireland and Portugal are among countries rescued under this financial facility programme (Greece has been bailout under another financial programme that includes the EU and the IMF). To be able to lend the fund needs to borrow as low as possible. Austria, the Netherlands and Finland may add credibility to the fund but with their low stakes they aren't dissuasive. Moreover, two big AAA countries with deep influential markets like Germany and France are in need and while French banks credibility struggles at the markets risking France's AAA rate with them (France will have to bail out its Banks), German contribution to the fund is the only credible source for the markets. To dismiss current debate in Germany as 'simply german greed' denotes a lack of understanding on how financial markets work. Germany is risking its AAA rate, will have eventually to bail out its banks (again) and already has a higher debt in proportion to its GPD (over 82%). Therefore, germans need to decide, whether they want to be Europe's paymaster or not? But why are we here?

GDP or Y = C + I + G + (X - M)

Y represents a country's total gross domestic product (GDP) or its income. C stands for consumption of individuals, I equals the total investment in the country (public and private), G represents the net position of government (taxes vs expenditures) and its trade balance (X for exports vs M for imports).

One can lie in politics but in math, it is not that easy. Because most of Germany's income comes from trade balance (Exports), Germany needs healthy financial customers that will pay off for its high quality goods. About 65% of all german goods are sold in the European Union, establishing that a disruption inside the Union will have direct consequences on german companies. This is partially true but for different reasons. The hard truth is that politicians in Germany have been playing “the jobs card” to actually cut middle class salaries, benefits and therefore, inflating company balances, big managers salaries and DAX profits. If Germany is exporting more than ever, its workers are earning less than ever (discounting inflation real salaries are at 1991 levels), government is asking for less corporate tax; what are companies doing with their export income? Just sticking it on rich shareholders pockets while export jobs represent less than 18% of total employment.

After the Hartz reforms, DAX dividends (pay out to shareholders) together with profits has soared to levels never seeing before in the German Federal Republic. The corporate tax rate together with the effective corporate tax rate (what companies really pay after discounting credits and exemptions) has been at its lowest since the foundation of the Federal Republic in 1949. In the meantime, poorly paid jobs have flourished together with the amount of workers applying for government assistance because their wages are too low to live from.

Politicians are responsible for decisions like: reaching poverty line salaries, no federal minimum wage, low company taxes, higher profits, higher dividends, rising inequality and rising poverty.

Living in a deflationary world

The culture of 'low and cheap' has arrived to stay. Politicians convinced by the idea that 'tax credits and exemptions' (less State revenue) together with lower social charges for employers and low workers salaries would push costs down and therefore, boost economic activity is flaw because german economic activity is directly attached to its partners performance. In 2008 as global trade collapsed, Germany saw its GPD shrink by 5% (higher pace since the WWII). In the meantime, politicians were 'rescuing' regional banks (Landesbanken) well-fed with subprime mortgages that added up 15% in debt to GPD. The german economy is a reflection of global demand: as world trade grows, German exports rise not so workers wage.

Politically flaw and intellectually dishonest

Under this 'deflationary world scheme' a worker's salary is considered a 'company cost'. But does it? Of course not. A worker's salary is its capacity to buy (purchasing power), acquire goods and services available in the markets. Therefore, higher salaries (increase demand) mean higher consumption (increase profit). Increase demand and increased profit, means companies can put more money into the bank, pay their staff more and pay dividends to shareholders. Why not in Germany? Because politicians would have to confront their own lie: 1.export policy means salaries won't rise at parity with economic activity. If the wages of the neighbors ain't rising, yours can't rise either. 2.Export jobs which account for almost 18% of all jobs are ruling over the rest because companies not only finance campaigns but lobbies for friendly laws. 3.Inequality will continue growing because workers aren't shareholders and therefore, aren't profiting from 'export gains'. The workers will continue to pay (working for less) and the shareholders will continue to profit. 4.Most german workers can't buy their own products and moreover, you aren't in charge of your future.

Good Europeans vs Bad Europeans

While politicians labeled countries and their citizens as good and bad based on economic premisses (debt, deficit, indebtedness, trade balance) they failed to come up with the truth. In 2003 while Ireland and Spain where among the outstanding countries fully complying with the Maastricht Treaty, Germany and France asked for 'relaxed conditions' breaking up the rules for the first time. Who was bad back in 2003 or who's lying now? On past August, politicians of the two countries proposed a 'true economic government'. Certainly, we have only hear one part of the story and there's much to be say.

Currencies and the reckless neighbor...

Super QE, or beggar-thy-neighbour

Sep 6th 2011, 13:43 by Buttonwood

CURRENCIES don't tend to move 7-8% in one day in the modern era but the Swiss National Bank has achieved the feat today. It announced a "minimum" exchange rate target of 1.20 francs per euro ( hereis the announcement) and the markets fell into line. In reality, the target rate is a ceiling, not a floor; if you turn the cross-rate round, the Swiss want the franc to be worth no more than 83.33 euro cents.

As was remarked in a previous column, the Swiss franc has been rivalling gold as a safe haven and the authorities are worrying, as the statement shows, about the deflationary threat. So it will create Swiss francs to buy "unlimited" amounts of foreign exchange. Since the target rate is based on the euro, presumably it will buy euros. Traditionally, we think of central banks as pursuing the opposite policy; using its foreign exchange reserves to buy the domestic currency (like the UK's doomed effort in 1992). But this is doing the opposite, creating Swiss francs to accumulate reserves. And, in theory the scope is unlimited; the Bank of England ran out of resources in 1992, but the SNB can create francs without number.

Other countries have used QE without explicitly aiming to drive down their exchange rates, although the Bank of England has broadly welcomed the decline in the pound and QE enthusiasts cite the decline in the dollar as an example of the success of the Fed's policy. But this is shock-and-awe stuff and makes one wonder whether other countries will follow suit. As Chris Turner, head of FX strategy at ING, comments

This marks a major new round in the currency war. Could not Japan also set a minimum USD/JPY exchange rate at 75 as a means to battle deflation?

Any policy as aggressive as this is bound to have some side-effects, both domestic and international. The Swiss had been attempting to weaken their currency by a more roundabout route, repurchasing Treasury bills and diverting the money into bank deposits. This policy had already had the effect of making interest rates negative, in the very practical sense that UBS was charging institutional customers who held excess deposits in their accounts. The trouble with this strategy is that most currencies are currently paying little-or-nothing; investors might not mind paying 1% to hold a deposit if they felt the Swiss franc was set to rise 5% a year against the dollar or euro. And as Geoffrey Yu of UBS points out, this approach was limited in scope; deposits had ballooned from Sfr30 billion to Sfr230 billion in just a few weeks, already more than the Sfr200 billion target.

Eventually, one would expect such money creation to fuel inflation. The Swiss monetary base is already 50% of GDP (the equivalent figure for America is 18%) but there are no signs of inflation yet. There are also questions about the financial health of the SNB and about the potential losses if this strategy fails (the losses incurred on previous interventions have sparked calls for the governor's resignation).

The international side-effects may be even greater. It seems that all countries would like to see their currencies decline bar the Chinese who will only let the renminbi strengthen gradually. Some currencies must rise, however, and the Europeans may not be too happy to see the Swiss trying to drive the euro up, especially if the Fed opts for a third round of QE. And what will the Swiss buy exactly? A report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung suggests the cautious Swiss have been buying French and German government bonds, not Italian or Spanish (let alone Greek) debt..

But this has had unfortunate consequences. As Mr Yu remarks

It is highly likely that the SNB inadvertently made things worse for themselves (and everyone else); swiftly diversifying into German paper in large amounts caused periphery spreads to widen which only increased market fears and the subsequent risk aversion forced the euro lower (against the Swiss franc)

This process may continue if the Swiss live up to their promise to buy unlimited amounts of euros. Worse still, the Swiss may still attract deposits from elsewhere who may still despite the currency's perceived safety. Some of the flows into Switzerland may be coming from alarmed Italian and Greek depositors. As Simon Derrick of BNY Mellon comments

Rather than recycle these funds back into the markets they came from the (Swiss) money will be invested into French and German debt (if we believe the FAZ story). In other words, the money continues to flow from the south to the north of the continent (albeit by a slightly indirect route).

It is all a bit reminiscent of the 1930s. When countries went off the gold standard, they gained a competitive march on their rivals, increasing the pressure for such countries to leave the standard as well. If one country devalued by 10%, the next might do so by 15%. QE may similarly begat more QE.

David Bloom of HSBC has a further reflection on the consequences.

We have long argued that the Norwegian krone is a better safe haven play than the Swiss franc. In every respect, the krone has superior qualities. However, the market will now fear that if it pushes the krone (or the Singapore dollar) too far. there will be push back from the various central banks. The market must fear this will cause a sharp escalation in the currency wars. The only safe haven that will not do QE, put in capital controls, or complain about its strength is gold. It must emerge as the winner.

UPDATE: In response to various comments, I don't think this issue is a matter of patriotism or Anglo-Saxon perspective; see the quotes of Mr Yu from Union Bank of Switzerland, for example. This has indeed been a tactic pursued by many countries including the British; a recent blog note pointed out that the pound has undergone a record devaluation in recent years. The Swiss are very much reacting to pressure that has arisen from the actions of other governments; it is still worth pointing out that their actions will simply shift the deflationary pressures elsewhere, a game of "pass the parcel".

Multinationals and their finance engineering...

Goldman Sachs' UK tax bill falls 34pc after drop in profits

The London-based business of Goldman Sachs cut its tax bill for the first half of the year by just over a third after the US investment bank was a hit by a fall in profits.

Lloyds Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which saw first-half pre-tax profits at its London-based business fall by 17.4pc

By Harry Wilson 06 Sep 2011

In its accounts for the first six months of 2011, Goldman Sachs International recognised a tax credit of $156m (£96m), largely as a result of a $153m paper rebate on UK corporation tax.

The "rebate" cut Goldman Sachs International's tax bill for the period by 34pc to $303m after the bank accounted for its overpayment of UK corporation tax in previous quarters after being overly bullish on the prospects for its business.

Under UK law, companies must pay corporation tax on a quarterly basis based on their projections of their full-year profits.

The size of Goldman Sachs International's writeback of its corporation tax for the first six months of the year demonstrates the speed with which markets have deteriorated in 2011 amid the panic caused by the eurozone sovereign debt crisis.

First-half pre-tax profits at the London-based business fell by 17.4pc year-on-year to $1.21bn. Revenues from the bank's institutional client services business fell 44pc to $2.17bn, largely as a result of falling revenues from the fixed income, currencies and commodities division.

Businesses such as fixed income sales and trading, as well as commodities, were big earners for Goldman Sachs but have been among the hardest hit by the downturn in trading volumes as investors become more risk averse.

Last month, it emerged that Goldman Sachs International had invoked a clause in the contracts of its senior London-based staff to cut their basic salaries back to their pre-crisis level.

In common with other major investment banks, including Citigroup and UBS, Goldman Sachs increased basic salaries as bonuses were cut back in the wake of the financial crisis in 2008.

According to its latest filing, Goldman Sachs International paid taxes of $459m in so-called "provisions and other timing differences" in the first half of this year. This is more than double the $210m the bank paid out last year.

The majority of this payment is understood to be made up of income tax on bonuses paid to London-based staff of Goldman Sachs.

State: European Union, capital city: Frankfurt, President: Jean Claude Trichet

Paul Krugman, his liberal conscience and Texas's governor remarks Rick Perry...

Republicans Against Science

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.

To see what Mr. Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the G.O.P. nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile.”

The second part of Mr. Perry’s statement is, as it happens, just false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.

In fact, if you follow climate science at all you know that the main development over the past few years has been growing concern that projections of future climate are underestimating the likely amount of warming. Warnings that we may face civilization-threatening temperature change by the end of the century, once considered outlandish, are now coming out of mainstream research groups.

But never mind that, Mr. Perry suggests; those scientists are just in it for the money, “manipulating data” to create a fake threat. In his book “Fed Up,” he dismissed climate science as a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart.”

I could point out that Mr. Perry is buying into a truly crazy conspiracy theory, which asserts that thousands of scientists all around the world are on the take, with not one willing to break the code of silence. I could also point out that multiple investigations into charges of intellectual malpractice on the part of climate scientists have ended up exonerating the accused researchers of all accusations. But never mind: Mr. Perry and those who think like him know what they want to believe, and their response to anyone who contradicts them is to start a witch hunt.

So how has Mr. Romney, the other leading contender for the G.O.P. nomination, responded to Mr. Perry’s challenge? In trademark fashion: By running away. In the past, Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has strongly endorsed the notion that man-made climate change is a real concern. But, last week, he softened that to a statement that he thinks the world is getting hotter, but “I don’t know that” and “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” Moral courage!

Of course, we know what’s motivating Mr. Romney’s sudden lack of conviction. According to Public Policy Polling, only 21 percent of Republican voters in Iowa believe in global warming (and only 35 percent believe in evolution). Within the G.O.P., willful ignorance has become a litmus test for candidates, one that Mr. Romney is determined to pass at all costs.

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

And the deepening anti-intellectualism of the political right, both within and beyond the G.O.P., extends far beyond the issue of climate change.

Lately, for example, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has gone beyond its long-term preference for the economic ideas of “charlatans and cranks” — as one of former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisers famously put it — to a general denigration of hard thinking about matters economic. Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense,” the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyze things like financial crises and recessions?

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect.

La comercializacion de la libertad de expresion pierde fuelle...

La burbuja audiovisual pincha

Varios operadores de TDT atraviesan una situación crítica un año después del apagón analógico - Sobran canales y caen la audiencia y la publicidad

ROSARIO G. GÓMEZ - Madrid
EL PAÍS - Sociedad - 28-08-2011

La recesión publicitaria, unida a la crisis, acerca al abismo al modelo audiovisual un año después del apagón analógico, en abril de 2010. La televisión digital terrestre (TDT) generó una burbuja de canales que ya da síntomas de pinchazo. Operadores de cobertura nacional se encuentran en situación crítica, RTVE sigue sin resolver sus finanzas y los entes autonómicos se ven obligados a pedir más dinero a sus Parlamentos. Estas dificultades han llevado a más de una cadena privada a poner en venta sus frecuencias y a algunos Ayuntamientos a cerrar la televisión municipal para destinar los recursos a sanidad, educación o infraestructuras. En los últimos meses ha cesado la emisión de CNN+; Veo 7 se ha reconvertido en teletienda; La 10 busca socios, Intereconomía pide a sus espectadores que se rasquen el bolsillo y Libertad Digital se plantea alquilar parte de su emisión.

En el sector público el panorama es también preocupante. Madrid fue de los primeros grandes ayuntamientos en clausurar su televisión. Su alcalde, Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón (PP), mandó a negro hace un año es.Madrid, enfocada a la promoción turística de la ciudad. "No es prioritaria", dijo entonces. Ahora, la televisión de Mallorca echa el cierre. El PP insular asegura que "no es asumible en tiempos de crisis".

El ejemplo se extiende a localidades de menor tamaño, como la valenciana Onteniente, donde su alcalde, el socialista Jorge Rodríguez, ha anunciado que la televisión municipal dejará de emitir el 1 de septiembre para destinar los 150.000 euros anuales que consume a otros servicios básicos. "Una televisión es un lujo innecesario", dice. "Tenemos 400.000 euros destinados a asuntos sociales bloqueados y la Generalitat nos debe 3,5 millones que no hemos cobrado. La gente demanda responsabilidad a los políticos. Si hay que elegir entre ayudar a colectivos sociales o mantener una televisión, no tengo ninguna duda", añade.

No es un caso aislado. Algunos partidos empiezan a plantearse si son necesarias las televisiones autonómicas y locales en el escenario de la televisión digital, con sobreabundancia de canales.

El PP tiene clara su estrategia: anuncia que cuando llegue al poder cambiará la Ley General Audiovisual para privatizar las emisoras autonómicas. Una medicina que tal vez llegue demasiado tarde. Algunos entes gestionados por el PP no son un ejemplo de eficiencia. La Comunidad Valenciana, por ejemplo, ha convertido su televisión en un monstruo difícil de manejar. Canal 9 acumula una asfixiante deuda de 1.300 millones de euros (desde la llegada del PP, en 1995 el agujero se ha multiplicado por 40). Solo en 2009, perdió 278 millones. Su plantilla no ha dejado de aumentar (ronda los 2.000 empleados, más que Antena 3 y Telecinco juntas) y su audiencia no ha parado de caer (acabó julio con el 4,2%). Para evitar el completo naufragio, el presidente de la Generalitat, Alberto Fabra, no descarta un expediente de regulación de empleo. Sanear para después vender.

Telemadrid, también en manos del PP, ha reducido plantilla durante el mandato de Isabel Linares (los últimos cuatro años). En 2007 el ente madrileño tenía 1.442 empleados y actualmente son 1.156, aunque la plantilla es nueve veces mayor que la de la televisión de Aragón (130 personas). La diferencia estriba en que esta última tiene externalizada buena parte de la producción y de los servicios. Telemadrid oscila entre el 5% y el 6% de la cuota de pantalla y Aragón TV, el 10%.

España es el segundo país del la UE (tras el Reino Unido) con mayor número de televisiones. Están operativas más de mil y la tarta publicitaria no da para todas. Sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que dos terceras partes de ese pastel (cada vez más menguante) lo engullen solo dos operadores: Telecinco y Antena 3.

La facturación publicitaria cayó en el primer semestre del año un 5,9%, según un informe de InfoAdex. Aunque para la televisión el resultado fue peor (descendió un 7,4%), y para las cadenas autonómicas (TVE dejo de emitir anuncios el año pasado) el balance ha sido especialmente nefasto.

De los 1.214 millones de euros de inversión publicitaria que absorbió el medio televisivo, el grupo Telecinco acaparó 525 (43,3%) y Antena 3 facturó 366 (30,1%). Junto a estos dos colosos conviven emisoras con problemas de continuidad. Intereconomía, con una facturación en el primer semestre de 6 millones de euros (el 33% menos que en el mismo periodo del año anterior) ha iniciado una cuestación entre sus espectadores para sobrevivir. Los ingresos no llegan casi ni para pagar a Abertis, la distribuidora de la señal. El principal competidor de Intereconomía (1,3% de audiencia), Veo 7, la televisión de Unidad Editorial (editora de El Mundo y Marca), ha despedido a la plantilla y ha llenado la parrilla de teletienda. Ahora espera llegar a un acuerdo con alguna multinacional (Fox y Discovery son las mejor situadas) para alquilar la frecuencia. Con el cambio, Veo 7 es prácticamente invisible. Casi tanto como 13 TV, una de las frecuencias que Unidad Editorial tiene arrendadas. Este canal ha sustituido a Popular TV, impulsado por la Conferencia Episcopal, con unu audiencia residual: 0,5% el pasado julio. En situación similar (0,6%) está La 10, la televisión de Vocento. Cuotas demasiado exiguas para mantenerse en el aire.

Asociarse para ser eficientes
	Con las arcas de las Administraciones al límite, el debate es si son necesarias o no las televisiones públicas. "En Europa existen diversos modelos. El español se parece más al alemán, con fuertes servicios públicos regionales", explica Lluís Borrell, experto en medios audiovisuales. En Reino Unido operan algunos servicios regionales, en particular en Gales, aunque están insertados en la televisión nacional. En Francia y en Italia la regionalización la desempeña especialmente el canal público estatal (RAI 3 o France 3). Borrell sostiene que comparado con España, los modelos alemán y británico aportan la posibilidad de afrontar el debate aceptando y facilitando asimetrías en el mapa estatal. Es decir, que unas regiones tengan televisión propia, otras no y otras se asocien para adquirir tamaño y ser eficientes.

This blog / Este blog / Ce blog

has come to life again / ha vuelto a la vida / Il y a vie apres la mort...

Banlieues

Cual es la receta para lidiar con estos mega barrios convertidos en suburbios? Les dejo aqui un articulo interesantisimo de Le Monde.

Banlieues : les recettes classiques des candidats
LE MONDE | 24.03.07

©

Renault: ¿trabajo o muerte?

Tres suicidios en un lapso de cuatro meses concentrados en los empleados de un centro de ingeniería han disparado todas las alarmas en Renault. El grupo automovilístico francés reaccionó y anunció medidas para mejorar las condiciones laborales en ese centro de ingeniería -situado en Guyancourt, en los alrededores de París- después de la cadena de suicidios dejara al descubierto un problema de sobrecarga de trabajo. La empresa tiene previsto incorporar a 110 empleados hasta 2008 para aligerar la carga de trabajo del centro de ingeniería. "Quieren ahorrarse despachos y reducir alquileres. 20 millones al año ganados para la empresa" calculan los sindicatos. Pero Dijoux recuerda que "ninguno de los tres suicidas compartía despacho. En su carta de despedida, uno de ellos hablaba de problemas de sobrecarga de trabajo pero también de conflictos familiares". En Guyancourt los trabajadores dicen que "la informática acabó con la relación humana.

Para el psiquiatra Christophe Dejours "esos suicidios son un fracaso para los sindicatos" porque no han sabido proteger a los trabajadores. En su opinión "la revolución informática liga una persona a un ordenador. La evaluación individual pasa a ser posible y antes era colectiva. Eso separa los asalariados y les lleva a competir entre ellos, destruyéndose la noción de trabajar en equipo".

No hablamos con las personas, le mandamos un e-mail, los jefes te envían mensajes por pantalla y todos debemos ser polivalentes, saber dibujar con el ordenador, ser buenos negociadores y escribir, en inglés, a los colegas que trabajan en otros países". Y las críticas "se hacen delante de todo el mundo". Es difícil no establecer algún vínculo con el destino de esos tres hombres que eligieron la muerte: tirándose por la ventana desde el quinto piso de la ruche, ahogándose en un lago vecino a la fábrica o ahorcándose en su domicilio.

Un Millonario en el Super

Bernard Arnault es hoy la séptima fortuna del mundo, la primera de Francia, y dispone de unos 26.000 millones de dólares de patrimonio estimado. Desde hace más de veinte años su nombre se asociaba siempre a operaciones que ponían en relación el lujo y la cultura: era el patrocinador de las mayores exposiciones en Francia o de las restauraciones de edificios como la ópera Garnier o el palacio de Versailles al tiempo que propietario de Louis Vuitton, Dior, Moët-Chandon, del sauternes Château Yquem o de las marcas Céline o Bottega Veneta. Gran coleccionista de arte, acaba de encargarle a Frank Ghery que le construya un edificio en París donde poder presentarlo al público. Pero Arnault, que ha cumplido 58 años y de quien decían que había perdido el apetito de su juventud, cuando gracias a sus inversiones en el inmobiliario y el textil consiguió hacer fortuna y sorprender a quienes le estimaban demasiado tímido y educado para triunfar en un mundo de tiburones, lo ha recuperado para hacerse con el 9,1% de la conocida cadena de distribuición Carrefour, la segunda del mundo tras el gigante estadounidense Wal-Mart y que de su mano se atreve a aventurarse en el mercado indio, sin duda más que prometedor. Carrefour vacilaba después de que su antiguo gerente, Van Velde, hubiera obtenido grandes plusvalías a espaldas de los accionistas de referencia, la familia Halley. Ésta la dicen fatigada, dispuesta a negociar la venta del 13% del capital y dejar que sea otro quien dirija el grupo. ¿Bernard Arnault se ha cansado de caviar beluga y desea sardinas? ¿Está harto del corte delirante de John Galliano y quiere llevar los mismos jerséis que el resto de los mortales? Lo que sí sabemos es que Arnault confía en Nicolas Bazire, mano derecha del primer ministro Balladur entre 1993 y 1995, que ha comprado Go Voyages y dispone de la confianza de todos los bancos franceses.

L'allocution de Jacques Chirac

“No estaré solicitando vuestros sufragios para un nuevo mandato. Serviré a Francia, un país que amo apasionadamente, de otra manera” – ha esgrimido, Chirac.

Además, como se preveía, el presidente no ha querido dar un voto de confianza a Nicolas Sarkozy, con el que ha mantenido profundas divisiones pese a pertenercer al mismo partido: "No os pediré vuestro apoyo a ningún nuevo candidato", ha dicho el hombre que ocupa la jefatura del Estado desde 1995. Chirac ha prometido seguir luchando por "la justicia, el progreso, la paz y la grandeza de Francia", pero no ha aclarado a qué candidato ve más capacitado para conseguir esas metas. "Nunca he dejado de servir a Francia. Esta Francia que amo tanto como ustedes", ha proclamado. El todavía presidente ha dicho que abandona sus responsabilidades de gobierno "orgulloso del trabajo que hemos llevado a cabo juntos", citando entre las mejoras que, a su juicio se han producido en su etapa presidencial, las pensiones y la reducción del paro y la criminalidad.

Se abre una etapa de reflexión en Francia. Se abre una etapa de reflexión en el mundo. La politica queda abierta a nuevos nombres, esperemos que en Francia quien ocupe la jefatura saque a Europa del marasmo en que se encuentra. Por una Europa fuerte, Que Viva FRANCIA!!!

Power 8: ¿Empresa o Politica?

Airbus suprimirá 10.000 puestos de trabajo en los próximos cuatro años. Francia y Alemania serán los más afectados, con la desaparición de 4.300 y de 3.700 puestos de trabajo, respectivamente, en Reino Unido se suprimirán 1600 empleos y 400 en España. Además, se contempla la venta de plantas: 3 en Francia, dos en Alemania y una en Reino Unido. En principio, Airbus no prevé bajas forzadas y el proceso se organizará en función de salidas voluntarias negociadas en cada país. Louis Gallois, también copresidente del consorcio aeronáutico EADS, matriz de Airbus, insistió en que el plan de ahorro de costes hay que aplicarlo. 'No tenemos otra opción, que quede claro', subrayó. Las nuevas contrataciones se suspenden hasta nuevo aviso y se congelará el sueldo de los cuadros de la empresa en 2007. Gallois advirtió que los conflictos nacionales son un veneno para Airbus.

En Francia, el país más afectado por el plan de ajuste y en plena campanya electoral, las reacciones no se han hecho esperar. Los sindicatos franceses han anunciado movilizaciones y la candidata socialista a las presidenciales de 2007, Ségolène Royal, iba más lejos pidiendo 'una moratoria' en la reestructuración y un acuerdo con la canciller alemana Angela Merkel. En Alemania y en el Reino Unido las reacciones han sido más moderadas. Alemania ha ganado una tercera cadena de ensamblaje para el A-320, por el aumento 'brutal' del ritmo de producción de este modelo.

Y estamos frente al proyecto industrial europeo mas importante actualmente y ante el reto de potenciar la empresa antes que los patriotismos nacionales. Airbus tiene mil caras y muchos empenyos tras de si, pero debemos dejar a los empresarios hacer su trabajo y a los politicos el de ellos. Francia juega un papel fundamente dentro del consorcio no tan solo por su capital institucional, -el Estado Frances tiene el 15% de las acciones- sino porque el Estado Frances tambien financea y subvenciona muchas de las actividades de Airbus. Por lo tanto, estan en su derecho de reclamar para sus plantas cargas de trabajo correspondientes a su participacion dentro del proyecto empresarial.

Al final, seran los elementos del Mercado (competitividad y costes), los que decidan por Airbus, si los politicos no se ponen de acuerdo.