Newsgroup: it.economia.borsa
Titolo: Ma perche' oggi sti stronzi scendono?

Che hanno da vendere cosi' in fretta , oggi non mi sembra che ci siano state
notizie negative dall'America o mi sbaglio?
La disoccupazione che aumenta e' normale se le aziende licenziano. Da un
punto di vista dare/avere meno occupati=meno costi, meno produzione=meno
scorte. Quindi le società non dovrebbero soffrire più di tanto vendendo
quello che hanno fabbricato a regime ridotto. Non posso pensare che da un
giorno all'altro la gente non compra più niente, i salari si sono dimezzati
, i prezzi delle materie prime sono aumentati a dismisura ecc...
 In un anno per lo me qui in Italia non e' cambiato proprio nulla. Ma sti
stronzi americani fino a ieri navigavano nell'oro?
Mahh
io certe cose non  me le so spiegare.
Ciao

 wrote in message
9mm17g$33mn8$1...@ID-45263.news.dfncis.de...


 ha scritto:

aumento del risparmio privato a fronte di un debito privato mostruoso le
sembra nulla?
chi risparmia non compra e quindi chi produce non guadagna.
la spirale recessiva è così, finchè non si raggiunge un nuovo equilibrio.
inoltre i prezzi delle azioni scontano anni di crescita che pare essersi
fermata e anche per un bel pezzo.
-- 
Cordiali Saluti, Marco Marfisi
[Magly]

 fermata e anche per un bel pezzo.
beh, la cosa e' un pochino piu' complicata. Pero' interessantissima.
Sul forum di 
www.clubcommodity.com
e' apparso questo SPLENDIDO articolo in inglese a proposito di tale
questione.
Lo consiglio a tutti (cosi' come il forum):
-----------------------------------------
Is Saving Bad for the Economy?
-----------------------------------------
At the March meeting of the Fed’s Open Market Committee, officials expressed
concern that consumers might boost their savings, thereby weakening or even
aborting the economic expansion. Most economists concur with the view that
what keeps the economy going is consumption expenditure.
Furthermore, it is generally held that spending, rather than individual
saving, is the essential condition for production and prosperity. Saving is
seen to be detrimental to economic activity, as it weakens the potential
demand for goods and services.
Economic activity is depicted as a circular flow of money. Spending by one
individual becomes part of the earnings of another individual, and vice
versa. If, however, people have become less confident about the future, it
is held that they will cut back on their outlays and hoard more money. So
once an individual spends less, this worsens the situation of some other
individual, who in turn also cuts his spending.
A vicious cycle is in place: The decline in people’s confidence causes them
to spend less and to hoard more money; this lowers economic activity
further, thereby causing people to hoard more, etc. The cure for this, it is
argued, is for the central bank to pump money. By putting more cash in
people’s hands, consumer confidence will increase, people will then spend
more, and the circular flow of money will reassert itself.
All this sounds very appealing. Business activity shows that during a
recession, businesses emphasize lack of consumer demand as the major factor
behind their poor performances. Notwithstanding this, can demand by itself
generate economic growth? Note that this model says nothing about the
production of goods and services. Are we to take them for granted? Are they
always around, and all that is required is demand for them?
In short, it would appear that what impedes economic prosperity is the
scarcity of demand. But is it possible for the general demand for goods and
services to be scarce?
At any point in time, the amount of goods and services available are finite.
This is not so with regard to people’s demand, which tends to be unlimited.
Most people want as many things as they can think of. What thwarts their
demand is the availability of means. Hence, there can never be a problem
with demand as such, but with the means to accommodate demand.
Moreover, no producer is preoccupied with demand in general, but rather with
the demand for his particular goods. A baker is concerned with the demand
for his particular brand of bread. He is not preoccupied with the general
demand for bread, or the general demand for goods and services.
In the real world, one has to become a producer before one can demand goods
and services. It is necessary to produce some useful goods that can be
exchanged for other goods.
For instance, when a baker produces bread, he doesn’t produce everything for
his own consumption. Most of the bread he produces is exchanged for the
goods and services of other producers, implying that through the production
of bread, the baker exercises his demand for other goods. His demand is
fully covered—that is, funded by the bread that he has produced. Demand
cannot stand by itself and be independent; it is limited by prior
production. It is the production of bread that permits the baker to procure
various goods and services. Bread is a baker’s means of payment.
What limits the production growth of goods and services is the introduction
of better tools and machinery (i.e., capital goods), which raises worker
productivity. Tools and machinery are not readily available; they must be
made. In order to make them, people must allocate consumer goods and
services that will sustain those individuals engaged in the production of
tools and machinery.
This allocation of consumer goods and services is what savings is all about.
Note that savings become possible once some individuals have agreed to
transfer some of their present goods to individuals that are engaged in the
production of tools and machinery. Obviously, they do not transfer these
goods for free, but in return for a greater quantity of goods in the future.
According to Mises, "Production of goods ready for consumption requires the
use of capital goods, that is, of tools and of half-finished material.
Capital comes into existence by saving, i.e., temporary abstention from
consumption."
Since saving enables the production of capital goods, saving is obviously at
the heart of the economic growth that raises people's living standards. On
this Mises wrote, "Saving and the resulting accumulation of capital goods
are at the beginning of every attempt to improve the material condition of
man; they are the foundation of human civilization."
The introduction of money will not alter the essence of what saving is all
about. Money fulfills the role of a medium of exchange. It enables the
produce of one producer to be exchanged for the produce of another producer.
Observe that while money serves as the medium of exchange, it doesn’t
produce goods and services; it only enables goods and services to be
exchanged—that is, it allows a change of ownership to take place.
Also, it should be remembered that in the money economy, the ultimate
payment is with real goods and services for other real goods and services.
Thus, a baker exchanges his bread for money and then employs the obtained
money to buy other goods and services, implying that he pays for other goods
and services with his bread. Money only facilitates this payment.
Another important role of money is to serve as a medium of saving. Instead
of saving goods, which must be stored, people can save money. In the world
of barter, perishable goods are difficult to save for too long. These
difficulties are resolved by the money economy.
Once a producer has exchanged his goods for money, he has in fact begun
saving. When a baker sells his bread for $1 to a shoemaker, he has supplied
the shoemaker with his saved ( i.e., unconsumed) bread. The supplied bread
will sustain the shoemaker and allow him to continue making shoes. Note that
money received by the baker is fully supported by his production. Being the
medium of exchange, money will enable the baker to secure goods and services
some time in the future, whenever he requires them.
Through money, people channel real savings, which permit economic activity
to take place. Thus, the saving of money by one individual supports the
production of another individual, who in turn, by exchanging his produce for
money, supports a third individual. Likewise, when a company issues stocks
or bonds, the money received for these financial instruments enables the
company to buy real savings— goods and services—which will enable it to
pursue planned objectives.
In this way, money enables real savings to permeate across the economy and
lift the pace of production of goods and services. Contrary to popular
thinking, saving doesn't weaken aggregate spending; on the contrary, it
reinforces it. On this, Henry Hazlitt, in his "Economics in One Lesson,"
wrote:
When money is saved and then invested it is used to buy or build capital
goods. Any of these projects puts as much money into circulation and gives
as much employment as the same amount of money spent directly on
consumption. Saving in short in the modern world, is only another form of
spending.
It doesn’t follow, however, that one can lift economic growth and effective
real aggregate spending via the printing presses. When money is printed—that
is, created "out of thin air" by the central bank—it sets in motion an
exchange of nothing for money and then money for something. An exchange of
nothing for something amounts to consumption that is not supported by
production.
Because every activity has to be funded, it follows that an increase in
consumption that is not supported by production must divert funding from
wealth-generating activities. This, in turn, diminishes the flow of real
savings to the producers of wealth, which weakens the flow of production,
which sets in motion an economic recession.
For instance, when money "out of thin air" gives rise to consumption that is
not supported by preceding production, it lowers the amount of funding that
supports the production of goods and services of the first wealth producer.
This, in turn, undermines his production of goods, thereby weakening his
effective demand for the goods of another wealth producer. The other
producer is then forced to curtail his production of goods, thereby
weakening his effective demand for the goods of a third wealth producer. In
this way, money "out of thin air" destroys savings and sets up the dynamics
of the consequent shrinkage of the production flow.
Observe that what has weakened the demand for goods is not a sudden
capricious behavior of consumers, but the monetary injections of the central
bank. In short, every dollar that was created "out of thin air" amounts to a
corresponding dissaving by that amount.
So long as the real pool of savings is expanding, the central bank and
government officials can give the impression that loose monetary and fiscal
policies drive the economy. This illusion is shattered once the pool becomes
stagnant or starts declining.
While savings are an important factor in fueling economic growth, for them
to become effective they must be properly employed. On this Mises wrote:
Neither have capital or capital goods in themselves the power to raise the
productivity of natural resources and of human labor. Only if the fruits of
saving are wisely employed or invested, do they increase the output per unit
of the input of national resources and of labor. If this is not the case,
they are dissipated or wasted.
Furthermore, Mises wrote, "Without saving and successful endeavours to use
the accumulated savings wisely, there cannot be any question of a standard
of living worthy of the qualification human."
This sheds light on current events in Japan, where the high savings rate
that has ranged between 15 percent and 20 percent is blamed for the economic
slump. What is happening in Japan is not the result of "too much saving," as
suggested by many experts, but rather of too many loose fiscal and monetary
policies that continue to destroy households' savings. The misguided policy
of lowering interest rates to almost nil is a major catalyst behind the
destruction of real savings.
By means of the artificial lowering of interest rates and monetary pumping,
the Bank of Japan has been diverting real funding away from
wealth-generating activities toward wealth consumers, and in the process has
significantly weakened the potential for economic growth. Hence, the only
way to prevent the current economic slump from developing into a galloping
depression is to abort the present loose fiscal and monetary stance.
Furthermore, the size of the government must be cut to the bone in order to
enable the private sector to channel savings toward wealth-generating
activities.
To conclude: What enables the expansion of the flow of production of goods
and services is savings, not demand. It is through savings, which give rise
to production, that demand for goods can be exercised. In short, no
effective demand can take place without prior production. If it were
otherwise, then poverty in the world would have been eradicated a long time
ago.
After all, every individual aspires to have a good and comfortable life.
What always thwarts these aspirations are the means that have to be
produced. Any attempt to create an illusion that people's wishes somehow
could be accommodated through the monetary presses is sooner or later
shattered by reality—the reality that it is not possible to get something
out of nothing.
Frank Shostak, Ph.D
_________________

 fermata e anche per un bel pezzo.
Verissimo io stimavo ai tempi del 5000 del nasdaq che l' indice si sarebbe
dovuto portare a quota 1500 per avere un P/E sostenibile ovvero 40, ma avevo
sbagliato i miei conti perchè non avevo considerato che la recessione
avrebbe falcidiato i pochi utili del nasdaq ora la vedo molto grigia se
anche il nasdaq andasse a 1000 il suo p/e sarebbe di 50 , la media storica
del p/e del nasdaq prima dell' internet mania era di 12,7!
di spazio per scenderne ce ne è in abbondanza anche per il Dow non
dimentichiamoci che nel 29 prima del crollo il P/E del Dow era di 34

 dimentichiamoci che nel 29 prima del crollo il P/E del Dow era di 34
Francesco sempre preparato...
ma ricordo bene o male   ? E' vero che dopo il crash del 29 per tornare ai
prezzi da cui si era crollati si e' dovuto attendere fino al 1950 ?
Immaginatevi un po'.... un bell'orso fino al 2021 :-O
-

 ai prezzi da cui si era crollati si e' dovuto attendere fino al 1950 ?
si in termini nominali, se tieni conto dell' inflazione credo anche dopo gli
anni 60


E i dividendi ?

 E i dividendi ?
anche con i dividendi la fonte è Schiller e l' indice è un total return

40, ma avevo 
quello che ormai da tempo vedo io e' solo speculazione
Il rialzo a 5000 e' servito unicamente a fare entrare
i piu' fessi e a far uscire i furbi con le tasche
piene.. 
La cosa non si puo' ritenere casuale ma dolosa..
poi si sa.. il risparmiatore impreparato abbocca
sempre all'amo del forte rialzo.. (complici tutti ..
massmedia .. istituzioni .. ANAListi.. in concerto
per attuare il passaggio di mano delle azioni e
riguadagnare in discesa...