How To Fix Dark Spots On Lcd Tv Screen

Who needs capitalism ...

... Hugo Chávez when you can save 32% ?

Powerful Pokemon In Pokemon Deluge

House prices in London

is expensive to live in London. We all know that. I am amazed that a newspaper like the Telegraph warm, even in its blogs section, have a bullshit like that Ian Cowie wrote yesterday. It appears that house prices in London are challenging the falls in the rest of the country. A Mr Cowie seems that everything is fully justified: Gordon Gekko and any self-respecting Arab sheik wants to have some property here.

Only, of course, a lie. According to the indicator mentioned Cowie, housing prices in London were in the last quarter by 19.4% below its level three years ago. The average for the whole country is 'just' 16.8%.

Samantha 38g Full Movies

More about Roosevelt and the Great Depression

I continue in my efforts to defend against unjustified attacks Roosevelt. We, at this rate I do Keynesian (and yes, I realize that you have not analyzed any economic data currently English). Angel gives me a piece of test - in fact would have to find the time to respond point by point, but for now I will simply present this graphic:



The facts are the same as presents Angel in his post (in the first frame and second figure), but instead of giving the figures in billions of dollars I do it in% of GDP. This is quite important in the case of the thirties, due to the deflation of a horse above them. I also extend a little period of time covered by the chart until the end of the 50, because I think that five years after the war just might be a bit atypical.

Some observations:

(1) It is interesting to see how government spending and private investment are "mirror images of each other" (sorry but can not find a way to put it so simply in English).

(2) Where is the encouragement of Roosevelt? I do not see. When it comes to power in 1933 FDR seems that spending public is already over 15% of GDP (an increase of 6% since 1929). With FDR maximum to be achieved by increased spending for the war will be from 16.1% in 1939. As is pointed out Angel is a change in the composition of spending, with a transfer of state and local spending at the federal level, but the net impact on the total seems to be very small.

(3) What do you mean private investment recovers? Passed from a paltry 3% of GDP in 1933 to a healthy 13% in 1937, before the famous relapse 37-38 (which is so well illustrated in the graph of unemployment Angel), and then recovering again to 13% in 1940.

(4) History the uncertainty of both Higgs regime like Rallo and Angel seems like a convincing hypothesis to explain the relapse of 1937-38 but I'm not so sure that can be applied to all the three terms of Roosevelt. And indeed, it seems much more convincing than the explanation of Romer, Krugman and all other band that relapse was caused by fiscal contraction in 1937. What fiscal contraction of 1.7% of GDP caused a drop of 4% and unemployment rose by five percentage points? I do not buy it.

(5) Finally, Angel and Rallo asked about comparisons with other countries (that if Germany, Canada, etc). Maybe I chart comparing some more countries, but in my previous post I chose the comparison with the United Kingdom because it seemed the most relevant. In 1933 the U.S. had lost its position as the richest economy in the world per capita, surpassed not only by the United Kingdom by Switzerland and Denmark. In 1939 he had regained that status once again and no major economy has achieved again.

Conversion Of W/v To W/w

A mountain of a molehill?

That's what Stephanie Flanders asks on the Spending Review that is on tenterhooks throughout the country today (especially for public employees - here in the office as the Chancellor's speech begins in 10 minutes is most staff gather around the television director general). And also applies to the issue that is cover all the national newspapers: an alleged gaffe of a minister whose documents were photographed while reading in the ministerial car. The paper says it expects the number of public employees has been reduced by 490,000 people by mid-2015. The problem is:

(1) This figure refers to the projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility July, on which the press has already reported at the time.

(2) In a country with six million public employees this loss public employment simply means that you can probably still replace one in five civil servants who retire or get better jobs.

Sore Throat For Months

The former Spanish colony's richest ... Infant mortality in Africa

... you could have guessed ten years ago that was Mexico, Argentina, Chile or Venezuela with their petrodollars. And the answer had been correct: they all had in 2000 per capita income (in PPP terms) of between 8,000 and 9,000 dollars per person.

But today, according to data from World Bank, Equatorial Guinea, with a per capita income of almost $ 20,000 is in theory among the 30 richest countries in the world. And despite all nearly 15% of children die before reaching five years , a figure which is worse only in 13 countries worldwide. A shame that the international community, and Spain in particular, remains entertaining a character as despicable as Obiang Nguema.

How Do They Laser A Cervical Erosion

I missed the planting season and a PhD. But there was a period, especially between 2003 and 2006, during which I thought was a pretty attractive option. Then I went and I spent the few nest egg that we had two years ago to do a masters in energy and finance - as to make a second master was a decision that seemed to have the logic in that moment: if I wanted to jump into the private sector would have to go through business school, right? Anyway, after a year and a half to doubt the wisdom of that investment, it seems that in the end, that is going to cost.

Anyway, back to the doctorate, the fact is that yes I could think of some topics that I would have loved deeply microeconometrics based. One of them is the mysterious decline in infant mortality in Malawi, illustrated in the graph of google that I present below. Between 1992 and 2004 the rate of decline was greater than in any other country south of the Sahara (from 240 per 1,000 live births to 133 - the data does not correspond with the chart, here are ). The case is that it is a mystery because the general opinion of the elite in Malawi is that the first decade of democracy (1994-2004) was a lost decade. It is an opinion that was leaked to official publications, including the assessment World Bank poverty reduction in the country in 2006.



have explored the hypothesis, and on which there is still no quantitative assessment had been that reducing infant mortality has been the result of:

(1) a fall in the poverty caused by sector liberalization snuff (which before 1992 could only cultivate a privileged few to whom the government granted a license);

and (2) the introduction of free primary education in 1994, which marked a dramatic increase in literacy especially among girls.

Why still no evidence of the positive effects of these reforms as simple as a fundamental indicator such as infant mortality? For me it is a reflection of everything that is wrong with the international development sector:

(1) because the message that the liberalization of agricultural markets in Africa could have a beneficial impact not fit unequivocally and with 'post-Washington consensus.

(2) Because the government that carried out much of the reform was very corrupt in his second term (1999-2004) and therefore the international agencies were not interested in acknowledging the successes they might have previously.

(3) For the new president (elected in 2004) was also interested to see the mandates of his predecessor as a resounding failure.

(4) For the national elites will not benefit changes - had to compete with farmers producing more snuff and quality of primary education fell enough - and therefore their perception of that period in its history was and is very negative.

Y (5) because this Development Programme United Nations and other inconsequential little characters could be noted, completely implausible, the success of reducing child mortality.

So there you have it. The Spaniard Random doctoral never was and never will be. Of course, the question is still left there, hoping that a young researcher willing to go against current anime someday.

Which Mascara For Conditioning

Roosevelt "Prolonged the Great Depression?

What better way to start a week with two economists getting better (and younger) than me? In this case Rallo and Angel. The two have been around a while making statements like Roosevelt is "responsible President of the Great Depression was prolonged until shortly after his death." And the truth is that the trial of Angel (the second link) is fine. But the numbers fail.

The truth is that never before or since Roosevelt has grown the American economy as the eight years of FDR's first two terms. 72% or more than 7% per capita over the period. Of course I agree with them that:

(1) FDR took command in 1933, when they probably already had purged much of the bad investments of the system;

and (2) The Second World War is a great stimulus to the U.S. economy from 1939 (by their own military spending and probably also the rest of the world exports and capital flight to USA).

But the fact is that in the absence of a credible counterfactual, even if some think that could have grown without the New Deal, what remains are those numbers that always cling Keynesians. And speculations as those of Robert Higgs on uncertainty regime can help, but will never be entirely convincing.



The graph shows the two largest economies of the moment. In 1933 the U.S. was poorest (per capita) than the UK again (had been well ahead since the first decade of the century). The year 1937 was the last time that the island where the richest live outside the U.S. average.

[This post had been prepared some time, but inspired me to finish reading this magnificent profile of Ron Paul in The Atlantic . I am surprised that Joshua Green, who created quite sympathetic with the Tea Party, write something like this: "Only when Roosevelt Took the dollar off the gold standard and Committed to Deficit Spending, and the Fed ADOPTED Consistently low Interest rates, the economy did finally start to recover. This Validated the argument of the Austrians' intellectual adversaries, Economists like John Maynard Keynes, Rather Than That stand aside, governments mitigates Should Intervene to recessions. "]

Emu Difference Stinger And Bronte

Huerta de Soto, 28 October at the London School of Economics

Albert Since leaving London in August for liberal intellectual stimulation in London has fallen . To compensate, if only a little, it seems that Huerta de Soto has decided to accept the invitation the Institute of Economic Affairs to give the Hayek Lecture at the London School of Economics. The small group of characters who we met through Blog reading Albert and we continue to meet monthly plan to attend mass (actually only five are fixed).

Someone else is coming? Halifax

Chinese Curry Sauce Nutritional Values

Double dip: at least the British housing market has already reached

published its index showing a fall in house prices of 3.6% in September. The truth is that in this case I prefer to see how it has changed over the average price in absolute terms than do the annual growth rate usually show the BBC. In other words, I prefer my chart to yours.

Wat Dbz Episode Does Vegetta And Bulma Kiss

Over the past fiscal adjustment in the UK and income distribution

The issue of income distribution has caused rivers of ink in the blogosphere over the past two weeks for Todd Henderson, a professor at the University of Chicago who feels poor despite winning more than $ 250,000 year. As you climb the tax burden will intensify the debate on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here, the week has been dominated by the withdrawal of Child Benefit to families where there is a tribute to the taxpayer (old) 40% maximum rate, which applies to all those who earn more than 44,000 pounds annually. The Child Benefit is a payment of 20 pounds a week to get all the families for their first child until the latter reached 16 (or 18 if still studying) and 13 pounds per week for each subsequent child. Total, 1,700 pounds per year, than someone who is taxed at the rate of 40% it is the equivalent of 2,900 pounds in gross salary.

Some observations random:

(1) Amparo Polo says it is "a child receiving aid all families in the country, and now only receive low incomes, reflecting the mantra that this is an attack on Middle England. In fact only 10% of taxpayers earning more than 44,000 pounds and the number of affected families is limited.

(2) The government has estimated that the change will affect 1.2 million families, although some think that this number could grow in 2013, when the measure is applied. It is complicated to explain, but basically it seems that the installment of 40% surely be reduced something in the next two years.

(3) For me at least it seemed entirely predictable, although during the campaign that conservatives were explicitly refused to do so. And in the background does not make much sense to be giving taxpayers families the highest decile distribution of income a public subsidy of this type.

(4) The system is really ridiculous. As Alex Massie question (via Andrew Sullivan ) "If You Were Starting from scratch Would you really take the view That What the Country Needs to do is collect taxes and Then use STI Those taxes to send child-support checks to Every in the family Country, Regardless of need? "The question is rhetorical. Obviously the answer is "clearly not, unless You are Gordon Brown," because that's what Brown did with its complex web of tax credits.

(5) Much has been said about the impact on a hypothetical family with a single taxpayer who earns only a little over 44,000 pounds a year, with two children, and addressing the cost of living in London. The line of defense that conservatives have been prepared to say that the median family income of those affected by the change is from 72,000 pounds a year (that's what Phillip Hammond says Jeremy Paxman here.) But obviously that does not negate the fact that yes, there will be some low income families with a little more that 44,000 pounds a year to whom change is going to be a major sacrifice. The Random Family would be one of them, but thank God the Rio Tinto offer more than adequately compensates for the loss of Benefit.

Sorry no graphic notation - do not think the party compensated links.

Brazilian Waxing For Men Images

Fall 17% " Spanish GDP?

Obviously I'm not at all optimistic with respect to the English economy. But what of the anonymous report is passed. I'm no expert in national accounts (and Gold Angel Martin tells me that maybe I'm wrong in this interpretation), but I seems that differences in the indicators presented in the report can be explained by two facts:

(1) public spending has risen from 60,000 million euros in 2007;

and (2) the current account gap has been closed in nearly 50,000 million euros since 2007.

So with only these data can be reconciled to a drop in private domestic demand by 17% with a total GDP decline of only 4% ... almost.




I also find it curious that this analysis arose in the week mentioned both electricity demand and economic activity indicator (to measure up the strike). And is that electricity demand in Spain fell only 4% in the 18 months between mid 2008 and early 2010 and to my surprise, he has been recovering since the beginning of the year. As the chart shows, the picture is much more positive than in the UK, where demand has fallen nearly 9% since April 2008 and shows no signs of recovery. And of course the good thing about these data is that they are Power Grid, a privately held company less susceptible to manipulation by the government.

Finally, the paradox of the decline in employment in Spain seems to me that is explained in Jonathan Tepper graphics in this program Singulars Els (go to minutes 7). Can be summarized in the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (13 v. 12): "Anyone who has, more will be given and still have an abundance, but did not have, will be taken away even what he has. "

Melena Velba After The Party

Spain 2010 Argentina 1978

spoke this weekend with an Argentine friend of my brother and told me the funny thing is that when a country goes wrong partner "Economically it is usually good in sports.

I answered that yes, maybe Argentina Spain 2010 = 1978. I seems likely that the economic experience of Argentina during the 80's and 90's is what to expect in Spain in the next twenty years.

So tonight, before finishing the weekend, I began to play with the data from Angus Maddison and have produced this chart. My predictions, with no theoretical basis, economic or statistical, are therefore:

(1) Within 25 years, Spain has the same per capita income now (in 2003 per capita income of Argentina was less $ 8,000 per capita, as in 1978).

(2) Within eight years, Spain will win the World Cup again (Argentina won its second World Cup in Mexico in 1986).