Econ&Fin What's Up

[MayDay]

Danas čula da u Aziji trenutno ima 500 miliona pripadnika srednjoj klasi, a da će u 2020. godini taj broj nadmašiti 1.75 milijardi. To znači da će Azija da kreira ne samo potrošačke, već i kulturne obrasce.A Jurop i dalje sebi gleda u pupak.E da, ko će da nam proizvodi jeftinu tehniku?!!!

[fonTelefon]

sta ima jeftino u galaxy4 i iphone 5?

[Ravanelli]

neverovatno, ali fashion interviju sa verovatno najkvalitetnijim opisom izgradnje vetroparkahttp://ego-magazine.com/maja-turkovic-energija-vetra/

[Indy]

E da, ko će da nam proizvodi jeftinu tehniku?!!!

Afrika?

[Zaz_pi]

Danas čula da u Aziji trenutno ima 500 miliona pripadnika srednjoj klasi, a da će u 2020. godini taj broj nadmašiti 1.75 milijardi.To znači da će Azija da kreira ne samo potrošačke, već i kulturne obrasce.A Jurop i dalje sebi gleda u pupak.E da, ko će da nam proizvodi jeftinu tehniku?!!!

Upravo citam analizu QInvest fonda, mislim najveci fond iz Katara, puno novca u igri.Podaci za Kinu su frapantni:

If one defines the middle class as those who earn between $6,000 and $30,000, China now has roughly 335 million people whose incomes fall in that range, compared to 50million in the U.S., and by 2020 over 75% of Chinese income-earners will belong to this middle class, up from 25%today. To put this in some perspective, approximately 740 million Chinese people will join the middle class club over the next decade, more than Europe’s entire current population

By 2015, Chinais expected to have four million wealthy households,defined as having annual household income exceeding 250,000 yuan ($38,000), making it the world’s fourth-largest host of wealthy households after the U.S., Japanand the U.K. Although these wealthy households currently account for less than 1% of total urban Chinese households, they are growing quite rapidly,with the number projected to increase by 16% annually over the next five years.According to McKinsey, sales of luxury items in China may more than double within five years to 180 billion yuan ($27 billion) in 2015. CLSA forecasts that demand for luxury goods and travel from Greater China will account for 44% of global sales by 2020, up from 15% currently wealthy consumers in China are about twenty years younger than their counterparts in the U.S. and Japan

China’s new car market will grow by 15% annually to 2016. In addition to the new car market, China’s passenger carfleet will grow from around 60 million in 2010 to more than 145 million by 2015, according to AlixPartners. By 2020, two out of every ten Chinese individuals could own an automobile. Total sales are expected to exceed 30 millionunits by 2020 in China, assuming an annual growth rate of 5.3% in the next decade. In Southeast Asia (Indonesia,Malaysia ), annual demand for motor vehicles is expected to expand at an even faster rate of 10.5% per year from 2.2 million units in 2010 to 5.9 million units in 2020.Despite rapid growth in automobile sales in recent years, the penetration rate is still below 100 cars per 1,000 inhabitants in China (compared to about 500 cars per 1,000 inhabitants in the developed world), implying huge upward sales potential in the future. Consider that Japan’s ownership rateis over 300 cars per 1,000 inhabitants. If China grew to half of this level, it would imply a total number of 200 millioncars, about 200% above current levels. Given this market potential, as well as its likely impact on other support industries,the urgency of understanding China’s autoindustry has never been greater.In China, per capita GDP reached $1,000 in 2000. In 2010,when it reached $3,000 the growth of car sales grew exponentially, from 1 million to 18 million. In the next 5 years, when per capita GDP reaches $6,000, some 460 million people will be able to afford a car.

Greota je ovo propustiti ali ce Srbiji uspeti.Kineska populacija stari i postaje sve bogatija, to znaci da ce farmaceutska industrija i industrija medicinske opreme da dozive veliki rast u narednim decenijama u Kini. To je ogromna zarada ali Srbije tu nece biti.Potreba za hranom ce da raste. I, to ne samo u Kini ali Srbija je nesposobna da sredi svoju proizvodnju i preradu. Govorim o desetinama milijardi $. Edited April 13, 2013 by Zaz_pi

[Prospero]

kako rojters javlja - umro soroš! ups, nije.

[Indy]

[Ravanelli]

ispada da su najveće naftne kompanije godinama nameštale platts kotacije. recimo da je to u anftnom svetu nešto kao LIBOR skandalhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/statoil-raided-by-competition-authorities-in-oil-price-probe.html

[MayDay]

Ja nisam imala pojma da dva lika iz NISa kod mene gostuju kao predavači. Čak je napisan i kejs o preuzimanju NISa ovde kod mene.

[Prospero]

Krugman Accused of ‘Uncivil Behavior’By Brenda Cronin

Bloomberg News Paul Krugman in January

The gloves are off in the roiling academic dispute over the merits of austerity and the dangers of debt.In the latest round, Harvard economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart accused Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman of “spectacularly uncivil behavior” and the inaccurate allegation that they refused to share data supporting their work linking heavy debt levels to subsequent slow economic growth.Papers such as Mr. Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart’s, which warn of the perils of too much government debt, “haven’t just lost their canonized status, they’ve become the objects of much ridicule,” Mr. Krugman wrote in a recent New York Review of Books attack on advocates of austerity.“Despite their paper’s influence, Reinhart and Rogoff had not made their data widely available—and researchers working with seemingly comparable data hadn’t been able to reproduce their results,” Mr. Krugman wrote.Mr. Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart responded Sunday in a five-page letter and a four-page appendix to Mr. Krugman, posted on their website:“We admire your past scholarly work, which influences us to this day. So it has been with deep disappointment that we have experienced your spectacularly uncivil behavior the past few weeks,” the letter said. “You have attacked us in very personal terms, virtually nonstop, in your New York Times column and blog posts. Now you have doubled down in the New York Review of Books, adding the accusation we didn’t share our data.”The data in question were used in a body of research by Mr. Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart, including their seminal 2010 paper, “Growth in a Time of Debt.” That paper concluded that during the post-World War II era, levels of public debt above 90% of a country’s gross domestic product generally translate into years of slow growth.The data used to support their thesis included country figures on real gross domestic product, as well as debt to GDP. The 2010 paper—along with other works by Mr. Rogoff and Mr. Reinhart—were cited by austerity advocates as a justification for ratcheting back public spending after the financial crisis.The findings came under a cloud last month. Thomas Herndon, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, found a spreadsheet error in the Rogoff-Reinhart calculations in attempting to replicate the paper for an econometrics homework exercise. Mr. Herndon published his findings with two UMass Amherst professors, Robert Pollin and Michael Ash.Mr. Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart conceded the spreadsheet error but stood by their findings. Early this month, they published on their website a correction to the 2010 paper.The challenge to a bedrock of post-crisis austerity policy-making had an immediate and global effect. The Rogoff-Reinhart research had made a strong argument for promptly cutting government spending and chipping away at deficits. Mr. Krugman has long attacked this line of thought, warning that curbing government spending now is likely to hinder the economic recovery.The UMass Amherst paper sparked a world-wide rethink of austerity policies. In recent weeks, Mr. Rogoff and Mr. Reinhart have found themselves squaring off not just with a 28-year-old doctoral student, but also with a Nobel Prize winner in Mr. Krugman.“Not surprisingly, Reinhart and Rogoff have tried to defend their work; but their responses have been weak at best, evasive at worst,” Mr. Krugman wrote in the New York Review of Books. “Notably, they continue to write in a way that suggests, without stating outright, that debt at 90% of GDP is some kind of threshold at which bad things happen.”Mr. Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart in their letter told Mr. Krugman, “Your characterization of our work and our policy impact is selective and shallow. It is deeply misleading about where we stand on the issues.”They also wrote that the UMass Amherst paper “reinforces our core result that high levels of debt are associated with lower growth.” And they said “the accusation in the New York Review of Books” that they had failed to share their data earlier is “a sloppy neglect on your part to check the facts before charging us with a serious academic ethical infraction” and “an unfounded attack on our academic and personal integrity.” The debt and GDP data, they said, have been available on their website since 2010.Mr. Herndon’s recollection meshes in part with that of Mr. Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart. On Sunday, he recalled accessing debt and GDP data for his replication exercise either directly from the authors’ website or from links on the site. However, Mr. Herndon—who began his attempt to replicate the Rogoff-Reinhart findings in the fall of 2012—noted that he didn’t receive the authors’ spreadsheet—a key piece of his replication exercise and one that revealed the Excel glitch—until early last month. In short, he found some of the data on their web site, but not enough to complete a full replication.The public challenge to the authors has raised “important issues…over the past few weeks,” for economists, said Justin Wolfers, of the University of Michigan. The dispute, which rippled across the Internet over the weekend, has underscored “the importance of replication in economics,” he said.On Sunday, Mr. Krugman responded with two posts, including one titled “Reinhart and Rogoff Are Not Happy.”“This could go on forever, and both they and I have other things to do,” he wrote, adding that he thinks Rogoff and Reinhart have some explaining to do about the relationship between the 90% threshold and growth.There is “an enormous difference between the statement ‘countries with debt over 90% of GDP tend to have slower growth than countries with debt below 90% of GDP’ and the statement ‘growth drops off sharply when debt exceeds 90% of GDP’. The former statement is true; the latter isn’t. Yet R&R have repeatedly blurred that distinction,” he wrote.

[noskich]

Edited June 4, 2013 by noskich

[noskich]

[Roger Sanchez]

Pukla Alpine Bau. Bilanca im zvuči intrigantno.

Alpine Bau employs 6,500 and has liabilities of up to 2.6 billion euros and assets of 661 million, creditor agencies said.

U Sloveniji grade tunel Markovec, oni već znaju da ''gradnja nije ugrožena''. U Beogradu ''nisu obavešteni'' o bankrotu. :koštunica:

[noskich]

The gloves are off in the roiling academic dispute over the merits of austerity and the dangers of debt.

Mrtva trka sta je gore, nije dobro ni jedno ni drugo, cisto produzavanje agonije i zabasurivanje sistemskih problema.Seci usi, krpi pozadinu pristup.

[noskich]

Btw kakvo divljanje na trzistu ove nedelje. Nafta dole 4-5%, zlato 7-8%, srebro 8-9%, US obveznice 4%, sada i akcije pocele da padaju. Nema bilo kakve pravilnosti, totalna manipulacija svega.Ozi dolar 0.91 prema americkom, najnize u poslednje tri-cetiri godine.Simon Black je izgleda dobro savetovao da se likvidna sredstva drze u HK dolaru. Ima paritet sa USD, a ako USD pukne povuci ce paritet i opet ne gubis nista. Jedini problem su nepostojece kamate na HKD.

Edited June 21, 2013 by noskich