Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mimapr

Puerto Rico Greece In The Caribbean.

40 posts in this topic

La crisis económica en PR no comenzó en el 2013. Esto viene de hace tiempo y se comenzó a sentir en el 2006.

El único gobernador con la capacidad de arreglar este problema era Aníbal pero la legislatura y el Comisionado residente hicieron todo lo posible para que el no pudiera gobernar gastando 4 años en politiquería. AGP lleva casi un año en el poder, el PNP ha estado en el Poder desde el 2004. 8 años para hacer su trabajo y al final no hicieron lo propio. Las dificultadas de LF fue causado por su mismo partido bajo durante el término gubernamental de AAV






Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muy de acuerdo y la pregunta es:

¿Qué hizo PRG? El gobierno más corrupto en la historia.

¿Qué hizo Sila? Le entrego el gobierno al jevo y se echaron al bolsillo 1,000 con el pretexto de las comunidades especiales.

¿Qué hizo Animal? 3,000 millones perdidos con UBS.

Absolutamente nada.

Como lo que ha hecho el retardado ahora que es control de daños para evitar una degradación pero sin realizar los cambios estructurales necesarios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mobu...... Los mas grandes gastos que contribuyeron fueron bajo la administración de Rosselló. Durante ese término se hicieron gastos gigantescos sin mirar el costo que tendría hacia el futuro. Fue bajo la administración de Aníbal seguido por la administración de Fortuno la cual se comenzó a recortar los gastos buscando bajar el costo de servicio del gobierno central.

Mobu, tu apoyas la reforma de salud de Rosselló?


Sent from my iPhone

Profesor Soto desconozco la reforma del Robeyo.

Pero si conozco la calidad mediocre de los servicios de salud en Macondo.

Eso si, le recuerdo al Profesor de Bloomfield que uno de sus pocos defectos

es que utiliza diferentes estándares al momento de defender/criticar.

Esos gastos gigantescos que usted conoce, tendria la amabilidad de informar

exacto a cuantos dolares asciende?

Edited by Mobutu Sese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name="Mobutu Sese" post="2980748" timestamp="1382796721"] Profesor Soto desconozco la reforma del Robeyo. Pero si conozco la calidad mediocre de los servicios de salud en Macondo. Eso si, le recuerdo al Profesor de Bloomfield que uno de sus pocos defectos es que utiliza diferentes estándares al momento de defender/criticar. Esos gastos gigantescos que usted conoce, tendria la amabilidad de informar exacto a cuantos dolares asciende?[/quote] Ya empezaron las preguntas!!!!!! LOL. Si al día de hoy desconoces esos problemas, pues mijo, retírate. Llamas a Rosselló "robeyo" pero desconoces de su trabajo. Entonces porque lo llamas Robeyo si usted no sabe nada de el? Sent from my iPhone Edited by Soto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Muy de acuerdo y la pregunta es:
¿Qué hizo PRG? El gobierno más corrupto en la historia.
¿Qué hizo Sila? Le entrego el gobierno al jevo y se echaron al bolsillo 1,000 con el pretexto de las comunidades especiales.
¿Qué hizo Animal? 3,000 millones perdidos con UBS.
Absolutamente nada.
Como lo que ha hecho el retardado ahora que es control de daños para evitar una degradación pero sin realizar los cambios estructurales necesarios.


La única persona que voy a Defender es Aníbal. El nunca tuvo la oportunidad de gobernar. La legislatura le hizo lo que el congreso le hace a Obama pero 10 veces peor. Aníbal era el único popular, mientras el comisionado residente era PNP, la legislatura Cámara y Senado PNP, la mayoría de los municipios PNP. Me acuerdo cuando la legislatura dijo: "aquí vamos a gobernar nosotros, no el gobernador".

El PNP cerró el gobierno, el PNP implementó su reforma. El IVU fue el PNP y la única razón por la cual el gobernador firmo la ley fue para salvar el crédito de PR. Desde el 2006 hasta hoy las legislaciones establecidas han sido las del PNP.



Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Negro Animal fue de los peores porque por no hacer lo que tenía que hacer (luego lo hizo LF con la ley 7) dejo de pagar a los suplidores del gobierno dejando una deuda monumental. NO solo eso, fue el artífice del desmadre de USB.

Ya quisiera que hubiese visto su otro desmadre con el DE federal, donde el secretario de educación le decía: el día que te decidas a hacer algo por la educación de PR entonces hablamos”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Vamos a ver que dicen LOS QUE SABEN!!

 

 

More than One Cause for Puerto Rico's Debt Problem
BY    ROBERT SLAVIN
OCT 18, 2013 12:24pm ET
 

There is plenty of blame to go around for Puerto Rico's precarious financial position, which has become a major worry for many municipal market participants.

 

While analysts point to years of bad Puerto Rico government policies as primary cause of the commonwealth's debt problem, in which bond obligations ballooned while its economy stagnated, they also believe state-side investors and rating agencies bear some responsibility.

 

The ratio of total Puerto Rico government debt to the island's gross national product grew from about 30% in 1962 to about 74% in 1975, according to data compiled by the Center for a New Economy, a think tank in San Juan, the commonwealth's capital. It then decreased and stabilized around 60% until 2000.

 

Many economists would be comfortable with the 60% level, said Sergio Marxuach, the center's public policy director. But by 2012 the ratio had risen to 100.6%.

 

The $70 billion figure for 2012 includes all government debt in Puerto Rico, including local municipalities, public corporations, non-recourse and revenue-specific debt. Of the $70 billion, $44 billion (63% of GNP) is for the central government and the public corporations, including about $9.5 billion of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority debt.

 

While analysts and the ratings agencies are united in saying that the size and growth of the debt has been a problem, some say the use of the debt has also been negative in various ways.

 

It would have been better if the debt had been used for strategic investments like building universities and dams, Center for a New Economy president Miguel Soto-Class said. Instead, in recent years it has been going to cover recurring costs like payroll.

 

In 1996 the United States government started a 10-year phase out of a tax incentive for United States companies to locate operations in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico government realized it needed a self-supporting economy and started to issue bonds to finance buildings, schools, roads, water and power infrastructure, said Municipal Market Advisors managing director Robert Donahue.

However, around 2000 the government started running operating deficits. The government started to look at bonds not only as a means of long-term investment but also as short-term stimulus and a way to finance deficits, he said.

 

The practice of financing deficits with bonds can be traced back to the 1980s, University of Puerto Rico professor Juan Lara said.

 

Starting around 2000 the government expanded a health care program for island residents, Mi Salud, and used debt to build a convention center and a sports arena, Marxuach said.

 

Since 2007 the government has also chosen to issue new debt to pay off old debt, assuring the further growth of debt, Donahue said.

 

Puerto Rico's weak economy has been a major contributor to its growing debt burden, several analysts said. Since 1972 the island's weak economy has led to an expansion of both public and private debt, said Jorge Duany, professor at Florida International University.

 

The economy has been particularly depressed since 2005, shrinking from that date to 2012 by 10% in inflation-adjusted gross national product.

 

Analysts also say political factors contributed to Puerto Rico's debt problem. The government has lacked budgetary discipline, said AllianceBernstein senior vice president Joseph Rosenblum.

 

Puerto Rico politics is dominated by the Popular Democratic Party and the New Progressive Party. Their main philosophical distinction is over statehood; the New Progressive Party is pro-statehood for Puerto Rico while the Popular Democratic Party supports the current status.

 

In practice, Soto-Class said, the parties have tried to outdo each other in building things in an unhealthy competition to gain votes.

 

Puerto Rico's nonvoting representative to Congress, Pedro Pierluisi, president of the New Progressive Party, said the island's debt problem is caused by its economic problems. These, in turn, are rooted in the island's territorial status, he said.

 

Puerto Rico is deprived of billions of dollars each year in federal grants and tax credits that would otherwise aid the economy, he said. Also, the federal government provides inferior services, including those for health care, public safety, and aid to the needy. The inferior services also harm the economy, Pierluisi said.

 

A final political cause of the debt problem is the island's ineffective tax system, two analysts said.

"Puerto Rico has had an ineffective tax system for decades," Lara said. "Even when the economy was growing (more than seven years ago), tax revenues did not grow at a healthy step. The deep, structural causes for this loss of buoyancy lie in the system's increasing complexity over time, the growing number of special exemptions and tax breaks for special interest groups, and the lax enforcement of tax laws that make it all too easy to avoid and evade taxes."

 

Marxuach agreed that in the last decade lax tax enforcement hurt government revenues.

Several analysts and observers also said that the municipal bond community and the ratings agencies also have a share of the blame.

 

"I think the rating agencies have a big part of the guilt for what's going on right now," Marxuach said. "For many years the rating agencies let the government go on a borrowing binge."

 

If the ratings agencies had lowered their ratings of Puerto Rico sooner, the government would have been pushed to address its debt problem when it was more manageable, he said.

 

However, it was not in their financial interests to lower Puerto Rico so they did not do so until recently, Marxuach said.

 

Janney Capital Markets managing director Alan Schankel agreed that the ratings agencies may have been too soft on Puerto Rico in the last decade and thus have some responsibility for the current situation. Part of the problem was that Puerto Rico's situation was not comparable to that of any of the other states or even other territories.

 

"Moody's has lowered Puerto Rico's credit rating twice over the last three years and it is currently rated Baa3 with a negative outlook, which reflects the commonwealth's weak economy, high debt levels, and high unfunded pension liabilities," said Moody's Investors Service managing director Bob Kurtter. "Moody's ratings reflect the independent, objective opinions of our analysts and are not influenced in any way by factors other than credit quality."

 

“The general trajectory of the credit has been down over a long period of time,” said Standard & Poor’s spokesman Ed Sweeney. “Our role is to reflect the credit performance of an issuance and our ratings on Puerto Rico have reflected it.”

 

“The idea that we let a government do something is not an accurate reflection of our role.” S&P’s role is just to observe, Sweeney continued. S&P has actively monitored the credit.

 

Fitch Ratings did not immediately respond to Marxuach’s and Schankel’s statements.

Municipal bond investors and mutual funds also have some of the blame, several said.

 

Bond investors have some responsibility. For too many, Puerto Rico bonds just represented high yields, Marxuach said. Supply and yield hungry state-specific mutual funds saw Puerto Rico bonds as "blank Scrabble tiles," Donahue said.

 

The commonwealth's triple tax exemption spurred stateside demand, lowering the yields that Puerto Rico would have to pay, and making bond sales attractive to Puerto Rico, Schankel and Soto-Class said.

 

The election of Luis Fortuño as Puerto Rico governor in late 2008 led to new government policies, several said. He was committed to balancing the budget and stimulating economic growth through shrinking the government.

 

As his term continued, Fortuño faced substantial economic, financial and political challenges, Donahue said. Fortuño lost his focus and became more politically motivated.

 

The fiscal 2012 audit that showed government spending and deficit increasing and Fortuño's failure to implement a pension reform prior to a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline given to the rating agencies, showed his commitment to spending restraint diminished at the end of his term, Donahue said.

 

As for the current governor, Alejandro García Padilla, one has to give him credit for the pension reform, Marxuach said. However, García Padilla has not put out a thought-out strategy as to how to get out of the recession, Marxuach said.

 

For the last 10 years the government has said it would have a structurally balanced budget within two years and this has hurt its credibility, Marxuach said.

 

This year's Detroit bankruptcy had a big impact on the way the bond market views Puerto Rico, Marxuach said, out of proportion to the impact created by earlier municipal bankruptcies such as Jefferson County's.

"It's one thing to have a small county in Alabama go bankrupt and it's another thing to have a big city go bankrupt," Marxuach said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ya empezaron las preguntas!!!!!! LOL. Si al día de hoy desconoces esos problemas, pues mijo, retírate. Llamas a Rosselló "robeyo" pero desconoces de su trabajo. Entonces porque lo llamas Robeyo si usted no sabe nada de el? Sent from my iPhone

Primero te las echas de genio.

Despues acusas de gastos gigantescos PERO NO LOS CONOCES.
Que se te puede creer? Presenta la evidencia mijito.

Dinos a cuanto ascienden esos gastos gigantescos segun tu.

Edited by Mobutu Sese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Primero te las echas de genio.
Despues acusas de gastos gigantescos PERO NO LOS CONOCES.
Que se te puede creer? Presenta la evidencia mijito.
Dinos a cuanto ascienden esos gastos gigantescos segun tu.


Que chistes eres Mobu. Tu pidiendo evidencia. LOL!


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Vamos a ver que dicen LOS QUE SABEN!!

 

 

More than One Cause for Puerto Rico's Debt Problem
BY    ROBERT SLAVIN
OCT 18, 2013 12:24pm ET
 

There is plenty of blame to go around for Puerto Rico's precarious financial position, which has become a major worry for many municipal market participants.

 

While analysts point to years of bad Puerto Rico government policies as primary cause of the commonwealth's debt problem, in which bond obligations ballooned while its economy stagnated, they also believe state-side investors and rating agencies bear some responsibility.

 

The ratio of total Puerto Rico government debt to the island's gross national product grew from about 30% in 1962 to about 74% in 1975, according to data compiled by the Center for a New Economy, a think tank in San Juan, the commonwealth's capital. It then decreased and stabilized around 60% until 2000.

 

Many economists would be comfortable with the 60% level, said Sergio Marxuach, the center's public policy director. But by 2012 the ratio had risen to 100.6%.

 

The $70 billion figure for 2012 includes all government debt in Puerto Rico, including local municipalities, public corporations, non-recourse and revenue-specific debt. Of the $70 billion, $44 billion (63% of GNP) is for the central government and the public corporations, including about $9.5 billion of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority debt.

 

While analysts and the ratings agencies are united in saying that the size and growth of the debt has been a problem, some say the use of the debt has also been negative in various ways.

 

It would have been better if the debt had been used for strategic investments like building universities and dams, Center for a New Economy president Miguel Soto-Class said. Instead, in recent years it has been going to cover recurring costs like payroll.

 

In 1996 the United States government started a 10-year phase out of a tax incentive for United States companies to locate operations in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico government realized it needed a self-supporting economy and started to issue bonds to finance buildings, schools, roads, water and power infrastructure, said Municipal Market Advisors managing director Robert Donahue.

However, around 2000 the government started running operating deficits. The government started to look at bonds not only as a means of long-term investment but also as short-term stimulus and a way to finance deficits, he said.

 

The practice of financing deficits with bonds can be traced back to the 1980s, University of Puerto Rico professor Juan Lara said.

 

Starting around 2000 the government expanded a health care program for island residents, Mi Salud, and used debt to build a convention center and a sports arena, Marxuach said.

 

Since 2007 the government has also chosen to issue new debt to pay off old debt, assuring the further growth of debt, Donahue said.

 

Puerto Rico's weak economy has been a major contributor to its growing debt burden, several analysts said. Since 1972 the island's weak economy has led to an expansion of both public and private debt, said Jorge Duany, professor at Florida International University.

 

The economy has been particularly depressed since 2005, shrinking from that date to 2012 by 10% in inflation-adjusted gross national product.

 

Analysts also say political factors contributed to Puerto Rico's debt problem. The government has lacked budgetary discipline, said AllianceBernstein senior vice president Joseph Rosenblum.

 

Puerto Rico politics is dominated by the Popular Democratic Party and the New Progressive Party. Their main philosophical distinction is over statehood; the New Progressive Party is pro-statehood for Puerto Rico while the Popular Democratic Party supports the current status.

 

In practice, Soto-Class said, the parties have tried to outdo each other in building things in an unhealthy competition to gain votes.

 

Puerto Rico's nonvoting representative to Congress, Pedro Pierluisi, president of the New Progressive Party, said the island's debt problem is caused by its economic problems. These, in turn, are rooted in the island's territorial status, he said.

 

Puerto Rico is deprived of billions of dollars each year in federal grants and tax credits that would otherwise aid the economy, he said. Also, the federal government provides inferior services, including those for health care, public safety, and aid to the needy. The inferior services also harm the economy, Pierluisi said.

 

A final political cause of the debt problem is the island's ineffective tax system, two analysts said.

"Puerto Rico has had an ineffective tax system for decades," Lara said. "Even when the economy was growing (more than seven years ago), tax revenues did not grow at a healthy step. The deep, structural causes for this loss of buoyancy lie in the system's increasing complexity over time, the growing number of special exemptions and tax breaks for special interest groups, and the lax enforcement of tax laws that make it all too easy to avoid and evade taxes."

 

Marxuach agreed that in the last decade lax tax enforcement hurt government revenues.

Several analysts and observers also said that the municipal bond community and the ratings agencies also have a share of the blame.

 

"I think the rating agencies have a big part of the guilt for what's going on right now," Marxuach said. "For many years the rating agencies let the government go on a borrowing binge."

 

If the ratings agencies had lowered their ratings of Puerto Rico sooner, the government would have been pushed to address its debt problem when it was more manageable, he said.

 

However, it was not in their financial interests to lower Puerto Rico so they did not do so until recently, Marxuach said.

 

Janney Capital Markets managing director Alan Schankel agreed that the ratings agencies may have been too soft on Puerto Rico in the last decade and thus have some responsibility for the current situation. Part of the problem was that Puerto Rico's situation was not comparable to that of any of the other states or even other territories.

 

"Moody's has lowered Puerto Rico's credit rating twice over the last three years and it is currently rated Baa3 with a negative outlook, which reflects the commonwealth's weak economy, high debt levels, and high unfunded pension liabilities," said Moody's Investors Service managing director Bob Kurtter. "Moody's ratings reflect the independent, objective opinions of our analysts and are not influenced in any way by factors other than credit quality."

 

“The general trajectory of the credit has been down over a long period of time,” said Standard & Poor’s spokesman Ed Sweeney. “Our role is to reflect the credit performance of an issuance and our ratings on Puerto Rico have reflected it.”

 

“The idea that we let a government do something is not an accurate reflection of our role.” S&P’s role is just to observe, Sweeney continued. S&P has actively monitored the credit.

 

Fitch Ratings did not immediately respond to Marxuach’s and Schankel’s statements.

Municipal bond investors and mutual funds also have some of the blame, several said.

 

Bond investors have some responsibility. For too many, Puerto Rico bonds just represented high yields, Marxuach said. Supply and yield hungry state-specific mutual funds saw Puerto Rico bonds as "blank Scrabble tiles," Donahue said.

 

The commonwealth's triple tax exemption spurred stateside demand, lowering the yields that Puerto Rico would have to pay, and making bond sales attractive to Puerto Rico, Schankel and Soto-Class said.

 

The election of Luis Fortuño as Puerto Rico governor in late 2008 led to new government policies, several said. He was committed to balancing the budget and stimulating economic growth through shrinking the government.

 

As his term continued, Fortuño faced substantial economic, financial and political challenges, Donahue said. Fortuño lost his focus and became more politically motivated.

 

The fiscal 2012 audit that showed government spending and deficit increasing and Fortuño's failure to implement a pension reform prior to a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline given to the rating agencies, showed his commitment to spending restraint diminished at the end of his term, Donahue said.

 

As for the current governor, Alejandro García Padilla, one has to give him credit for the pension reform, Marxuach said. However, García Padilla has not put out a thought-out strategy as to how to get out of the recession, Marxuach said.

 

For the last 10 years the government has said it would have a structurally balanced budget within two years and this has hurt its credibility, Marxuach said.

 

This year's Detroit bankruptcy had a big impact on the way the bond market views Puerto Rico, Marxuach said, out of proportion to the impact created by earlier municipal bankruptcies such as Jefferson County's.

"It's one thing to have a small county in Alabama go bankrupt and it's another thing to have a big city go bankrupt," Marxuach said.

Acaso implicas que la deuda de 70,000 millones pertenece al gobierno anterior?

Cuando Sila entro al poder la deuda estaba en 24 y ella la dejo en 40 o sea 16 billones más.

El animal la dejo en 55 o sea 15 Billones más.

Al terminar su mandato LF esta deuda estaba en 69 billones o sea 14 billones más.

Ahora Mima para que lo entiendas ¿Qué numerito es más grande 16, 15 o 14? Si escogiste el 14 estas en lo correcto. Como lo hizo? Fácil haciendo el trabajo. El gobierno dejo de regalarles 80 millones del fondo general a la AAA por su incompetencia (Esto ya lo revirtieron al pasarle el ahorra que logro LF en la AEE a la autoridad); Ajustándole la formula a la UPR para que fuese más competitiva (ups esto lo revirtieron también); haciendo avances en el caso Morales Feliciano para no tener que pagar las multas (ya mismo comienzan a pagarlas de nuevo), y de paso sacando al territorio de la sindicatura en educación y estabilizando la caída económica (que volvió a caer en cuanto gano el retardado).

 

Tu otra aseveración sobre que LF perdió el foco y estuvo más políticamente motivado obedece a la decisión sobre el sistema de retiro. Claro los rojos se levantaron de la mesa porque el costo político era grande y ya vez lo hicieron peor con un costo político mayor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Como duele!!!!!!!!!!!!    :hysterical:   Tomate otra cerveza que de aqui a la noche vas a estar llorando como una nena recordando a tu ex....jajajajajajajajajajajajajaja   

 

 

Fortuño lost his focus and became more politically motivated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Los popvletes estan cada vez mas desesperados y atacando "a lo loco" :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Los popvletes estan cada vez mas desesperados y atacando "a lo loco" :hysterical:


Bravo paladín, LOL!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bravo paladín, LOL!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone

  jajajajaja mucho hace que camina en 2 patas!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Acaso implicas que la deuda de 70,000 millones pertenece al gobierno anterior?

 

Cuando Sila entro al poder la deuda estaba en 24 y ella la dejo en 40 o sea 16 billones más.

 

El animal la dejo en 55 o sea 15 Billones más.

 

Al terminar su mandato LF esta deuda estaba en 69 billones o sea 14 billones más.

 

Ahora Mima para que lo entiendas ¿Qué numerito es más grande 16, 15 o 14? Si escogiste el 14 estas en lo correcto. Como lo hizo? Fácil haciendo el trabajo. El gobierno dejo de regalarles 80 millones del fondo general a la AAA por su incompetencia (Esto ya lo revirtieron al pasarle el ahorra que logro LF en la AEE a la autoridad); Ajustándole la formula a la UPR para que fuese más competitiva (ups esto lo revirtieron también); haciendo avances en el caso Morales Feliciano para no tener que pagar las multas (ya mismo comienzan a pagarlas de nuevo), y de paso sacando al territorio de la sindicatura en educación y estabilizando la caída económica (que volvió a caer en cuanto gano el retardado).

 

 

Tu otra aseveración sobre que LF perdió el foco y estuvo más políticamente motivado obedece a la decisión sobre el sistema de retiro. Claro los rojos se levantaron de la mesa porque el costo político era grande y ya vez lo hicieron peor con un costo político mayor. 

Aja y cuentame otra de vaqueros.  Por ejemplo esos 16 billones del 2001 al 2004 para que tu crees que fueron?  .....Exacto muy bien, que bueno que recuerdas, Tren Urbano, Supertubo, Tarjetita, Choliseo, 66, etc...  A todo el mundo le gustaban esas obras pero nadie quiere admitir que costaban muchisimo mas de lo que se presupuesto y de lo que podiamos pagar.  Ahi estan, gracias a PRG, SIla y AAV que las empezaron, terminaron, financiaron y/o pagaron, vamos a vere cuanto dura el TU operando.   

 

LF no tiene excusa alguna, el tipo cogio prestado para no subir el agua y para bajar la electricidad temporeramente el año electoral, eso es vanidad, egocentrismo personal inperdonable, nos embrolló hasta el ñu solo por razones politicas para salir re-electo, no veo como nadie decente puede apoyar a gente asi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Lo que dice The Economist …el diagnostico objetivo……les guste o no..la REALIDAD

Primero llama a Macondo la Grecia del Caribe…ahora lo llama "Puerto Pobre"...

Y que mas dice?????

- current debt , between $52 billion and $70 billion , is the third largest behind California's and New York's,

  despite a far smaller and poorer population. ( Se creen ricos y ponderosos y no lo son)

- Moody's rating agency puts Macondo's tax-supported debt at an eye-watering 89% ( USA is 3.4%)

- Macondo kept borrowing despite its shaky economic and financial condition ( se mantienen cogiendo fiao)

- Macondo's economy has big structural problems, participation in the labour force , at 41%, is some 20%

  points below America's. (  existen mas vagos que trabajadores)

- Macondo has the federal minimum wage, even though local productivity and incomes are far lower than in  

  the rest of America, creating strong disincentive to hire. ( situation colonial = ELA)

- Macondo's inflated benefit payments for disability discourage work. ( se acostumbran gobierno los  

  mantenga)

- Macondo's bloated public sector accounts for 20%  of employment, compared with 3.7% for the average

   state. El gobierno es enorme, mas y mas burocracia gracias a políticos sin escrupulos)

- Macondo's growth and investment are hampered by bureaucracy , stunted infrastructure and crime.

  ( problemas que la gente en Macondo si podría resolver si quisiera)

 

More…...

- Macondo has been in recession virtually since 2006, when the federal tax break for corporate income expired. prompting many businesses to leave. ( Gracias Robeyo y quieren postular al Ricky)

- As habitants with prospects emigrate, the remaining population has aged and shrunk. ( los professionals con

  potencial se van, menos y menos pagan impuestos)

- The government has run budget deficits for the past decade, averaging 2.5%  of GDP from 2009 to 2012.

   (todos los gobiernos anteriores lo han hecho para tener al pueblo contento y sin preocupaciones)

- It's pension fund is only 7% funded, which is abysmal. ( Buena suerte si esperas una pension del gobierno)

- The current government  has increased taxes by $1.1 billion and raised retiring age for government

   employees, as well as the  share they contribute to their pensions. It has promised to wipe out its budget

   deficit , projected to be $820 millions this fiscal year by 2016. (  Paco Tilla en accion)

- Such austerity could further hobble growth, making it harder to shrink debt ratios. ( Las consecuencias de 

   Paco Tilla en acción)

- Macondo has no control over monetary policy  and cannot mitigate a fiscal tightening with lower interest

  rates or a cheaper  currency (condicion colonial)

- Investors are now openly debating whether Macondo will default. Its Constitution requires that its general

   obligation bonds ( $10.6  billion of the total) get first claim on tax revenues.( Primero se le paga a los bonistas

   que a los pensionados, no se les olvide)

- The federal government cannot be counted on for a bail out. (Esta vez el Imperio no los va a rescatar)

- Unlike a city Macondo cannot declare bankruptcy. ( Uyyyyy)

Edited by Mobutu Sese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Se me olvido dar la referencia….

The Economist Oct 26-Nov 1, 2013

Paginas 14 y 84.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Se me olvido dar la referencia….
The Economist Oct 26-Nov 1, 2013
Paginas 14 y 84.


Puedes poner el link?


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
Un videito va a cambiar las cosas?? jajajajaja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0