高楼成庄

wangting

Made a record for history again?  We will see who is right in the near future.

At Atlanta now  housing market is pretty hot, no more Buyer's market, bidding wars for buying a house had happened every day....

他山砍玉

Generation X, the first generation that made less than their parents' generation in their prime times.

Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the Western post-World War II baby boom. Demographers, historians and commentators use beginning birth dates from the early 1960s to the early 1980s.
The term was popularized by Douglas Coupland's 1991 novel Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. Before that, it had been used for various subcultures or countercultures after the 1950s.[1]
In economics, studies (done by Pew Charitable Trusts, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation and the Urban Institute) challenged the notion that each generation will be better off than the one that preceded it.[38][39] The study, 'Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?" focuses on the income of males 30-39 in 2004 (those born April, 1964 – March, 1974) and is based on Census/BLS CPS March supplement data
The study, released on May 25, 2007, emphasized that in real dollars, this generation's men made less (by 12%) than their fathers had at that same age in 1974, thus reversing a historical trend. The study also suggests that per year increases in the portion of father/son family household income generated by fathers/sons have slowed (from an average of 0.9% to 0.3%), barely keeping pace with inflation, though increases in overall father/son family household income are progressively higher each year because more women are entering the workplace, contributing to family household income if they're married or cohabitating.

他山砍玉

Generation Y, the generation of boomers' kids, was said to be 76 million (the same as the boomers) or 95 millions. Now, 80 millions seems an official number.

Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation is the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when Generation Y starts and ends. Commentators use beginning birth dates from the latter 1970s, or from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

Experts differ on Millennial birth date(s). Some sources estimate starting dates beginning in the latter part of the 1970s.  Some sources estimate even later dates, describing millennials as people who were born between 1982 and the early 2000s (decade)  William Strauss and Neil Howe projected in their 1991 book "Generations" that the U.S. Millennial population would be 76 million people. Later, Neil Howe revised the number to over 95 million people (in the U.S.). As of 2012, it is estimated that there are approximately 80 million millennials residing in the United States.
In his book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson called millennials the "New Boomers," (born 1983 to 2001) because of the upswing in births after 1983, finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, and the "persistent economic difficulties" of the time. Generally speaking, Millennials are the children of Baby Boomers or Gen Xers. Older Millennials may have parents that are members of the Silent Generation. Since the 2000 U.S. Census which allowed people to select more than one racial group, "Millennials" in abundance have asserted their right to have all their heritages respected, counted and acknowledged.

Economic prospects for the Millennials have worsened due to the Late-2000s recession. Several governments have instituted major youth employment schemes out of fear of social unrest due to the dramatically increased rates of youth unemployment. In Europe, youth unemployment levels were very high (40% in Spain, 35% in the Baltic states, 19.1% in Britain and more than 20% in many more). In 2009 leading commentators began to worry about the long term social and economic effects of the unemployment. Unemployment levels in other areas of the world were also high, with the youth unemployment rate in the U.S. reaching a record level (19.1%, July 2010) since the statistic started being gathered in 1948.
In the U.S. the economic difficulties have led to dramatic increases in youth poverty, unemployment, and the numbers of young people living with their parents. In April 2012 it was reported that 1 in 2 new college graduates in the US were still either unemployed or underemployed. It has been argued that this unemployment rate and poor economic situation has given Generation Y a rallying call with the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement. In Canada, unemployment amongst youths aged 15 to 24 years of age in July 2009 was 15.9%, the highest it had been in 11 years. However, according to Christine Kelly, Occupy is not a youth movement and has participants that vary from the very young to very old.
Generation Y who grew up in Asian countries show different preferences and expectations of work to those who grew up in the US or Europe. This is usually attributed to the differing cultural and economic conditions experienced while growing up. They spend over $170 billion a year.

他山砍玉

The well-worn Chinese maxim: 苦其心志，劳其筋骨。 Boy, how have I raised my Millennial on the wrong track!  Guess the real life will just do the part I missed out.

The Real Reason Millennials Don’t Buy Cars and Homes
By Rick Newman
They’re narcissistic. Apathetic. Pampered. And addicted to their four-inch screens.
If you believe the conventional wisdom about the millennial generation — those 16 to 34 years of age, by most calculations — you’ve got considerable reason to worry about the future of the U.S. economy. Millennials show far less interest in buying cars, homes and other big-ticket items than their parents did at the same age, which has generated an intense effort among companies that produce those things to crack the code of these crazy kids and figure out how to sell them stuff.

But the millennials may not be as mystifying as an army of sociologists makes them out to be. “Every generation eventually sheds their most extreme characteristics,” says Jason Dorsey of the Center for Generational Kinetics, a consulting firm in Austin, Texas. “What is different about millennials is delayed adulthood. They’re entering into many adult decisions later than ever before.” And the reason may be fairly straightforward: They don’t have much money. Not yet, anyway.
One of the biggest mysteries of millennials is why they seem to have little interest in cars, which have been an irresistible source of freedom and mobility for young people since the interstate highway system opened the whole country to Chevys and Mercurys in the 1950s. Yet millennials seem to scoff at the open road. The percentage of 16-to-24-year-olds with a driver’s license has dropped sharply since 1997, and is now below 70% for the first time since 1963. “Millennials are demonstrating significantly different lifestyle and transportation preferences than older generations,” declared a recent report by the U.S. Public Interest Group. Overall, it concluded, “the driving boom is over.”
Smartphone: The new starter car?
One common theory is that the smartphone is the new starter car, with social networks providing new kinds of freedoms for young people, and new ways of connecting with friends. Yet millennials, as a whole, are also buying homes later than prior generations, having children later and delaying their careers. It’s as if America’s youth are rejecting social conventions that generations have held in common for decades.
At a recent panel discussion on millennials sponsored by Ford Motor Co. (F) in New York City, a fairly mundane explanation surfaced: This generation simply faces a far tougher economy than their elders tend to realize, which has made it much harder to reach traditional life and career milestones. “We attract a ton of millennials,” said David Rabkin of American Express (AXP). “But we aren’t able to approve them for a lot of products that we have. Young people who once graduated from school and would go into a traditional corporate job now might move back in with their parents.”
There’s plenty of evidence that younger workers may face the most difficult economy since the Great Depression. The national unemployment rate is 7.5%, but it’s 16.1% for 16-to-24-year-olds. Many baby boomers are working longer, to rebuild wealth lost during the recent recession, which has pushed the retirement age to the highest level in more than two decades. That has reduced turnover in the labor force, further limiting openings for younger workers in an already challenging job market.

Many young people have done what they’ve been told to do and gone to college, since education remains an important pathway to success. But many are graduating with heavy student-debt burdens and finding they can’t get jobs that pay enough to make the hefty payments on those loans. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that high student-debt loads may be one of the biggest reasons young people buy fewer cars, homes and other appurtenances of modern life.
There are a few other reasons younger people may not be embracing cars the way their freewheeling parents did. Insurance premiums for young drivers can be exorbitant these days. With more focus on safety, a lot of parents don’t want their teenage kids behind the wheel and they’re quite happy to delay "driving day." And more Americans of all ages are moving closer to cities, which cuts down on the need for a car.
Once millennials find their financial footing, however, they might just turn into materialistic spenders who love cars and other costly things — just like their parents.
“Millennials are not going to buy cars? That’s hogwash,” Dorsey said at the Ford panel. “You’re going to see those big purchases starting to happen but they’re just not there yet.” Maybe living with their parents and saving money is just what millennials need to do to become the powerhouse purchasers of the future.

他山砍玉

Like many other conscientious, opinioned, self-made thinkers, I don’t like Helicopter Ben. As the most famous student of the Great Depression, fate has put him on the path of the Great Recession or the other way around. He has been carrying a heavenly heavy weight on his shoulders with a scholastic composure. For that, he should have earned respects from American people including myself, however he has exerted his given power to skew the rational redistribution of personal wealth. Now, he cracked a flicker of light on the humor side of himself. I was amused and touched by this brief flee of normality.  Unsurprisingly, my thoughts of him start to turn toward a different direction.


Who says the Federal Reserve chairman can't be funny once in a while?
Ben Bernanke's advice on careers and love
Ben Bernanke delivered a hilarious commencement speech to Princeton undergrads Sunday, in which he laid out 10 life suggestions complete with "Forrest Gump" quotes and even relationship advice.
1) "Don't be afraid to let the drama play out." Nodding to Forrest Gump's "life is like a box of chocolates," Bernanke remarked: "Life is amazingly unpredictable; any 22-year-old who thinks they know where they will be in 10 years, much less in 30, is simply lacking imagination."
He offered up a case study from his own life. "A dozen years ago I was minding my own business teaching Economics 101 in Alexander Hall and trying to think of good excuses for avoiding faculty meetings. Then I got a phone call..."

2) Focus on becoming a better human being: "If you are not happy with yourself, even the loftiest achievements won't bring you much satisfaction."

3) Those who are luckiest also have the greatest responsibility: "As the Gospel of Luke says (and I am sure my rabbi will forgive me for quoting the New Testament in a good cause): 'From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."
He gave the Biblical quote an academic spin. "Kind of grading on the curve, you might say."

4) Effort matters: "I think most of us would agree that people who have, say, little formal schooling but labor honestly and diligently to help feed, clothe, and educate their families are deserving of greater respect -- and help, if necessary -- than many people who are superficially more successful," Bernanke said. "They're more fun to have a beer with, too."

5) Most policymakers are trying to do the right thing: "The greatest forces in Washington are ideas, and people prepared to act on those ideas. Public service isn't easy. But, in the end, if you are inclined in that direction, it is a worthy and challenging pursuit."

6) On economics: "Economics is a highly sophisticated field of thought that is superb at explaining to policymakers precisely why the choices they made in the past were wrong. About the future, not so much."

7) Money isn't everything: "I'm not going to tell you that money doesn't matter, because you wouldn't believe me anyway," Bernanke quipped.
"If you are part of the lucky minority with the ability to choose, remember that money is a means, not an end."

8) Don't be afraid to fail: "Nobody likes to fail but failure is an essential part of life and of learning. If your uniform isn't dirty, you haven't been in the game."

9) On choosing a partner: "Remember that physical beauty is evolution's way of assuring us that the other person doesn't have too many intestinal parasites. Don't get me wrong, I am all for beauty, romance, and sexual attraction --where would Hollywood and Madison Avenue be without them? But while important, those are not the only things to look for in a partner."
"Speaking as somebody who has been happily married for 35 years, I can't imagine any choice more consequential for a lifelong journey than the choice of a traveling companion."

10) "Call your mom and dad once in a while:" "A time will come when you will want your own grown-up, busy, hyper-successful children to call you," said Bernanke, who has two adult children. "Also, remember who paid your tuition to Princeton."
The Fed chairman ended with a battle cry: "Congratulations, graduates. Give 'em hell!"

他山砍玉

Is MarketWatch's Paul Farrell Patently Insane?
June, 2013
Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal recently shined a light on MarketWatch.com columnist Paul B. Farrell's latest unintentionally hilarious "Behavioral Economics" column.
I've learned something brand new today: the next time I go on a bender and start incoherently rambling about a book I glanced at in the self-help aisle the other day, I need only explain to those around me that I'm working on my new "Behavioral Economics" column. Behaving. Economically. To help my readers, man. That's why I do all of this painstaking research: to help you get rich. Rich beyond your wildest dreams.
What I'm getting at here is that Farrell might be deemed absolutely insane by almost any objective third party, if it were not for the fancy MarketWatch columnist title. Here's an excerpt from his latest "commentary":
How? Becker goes deeper than Wall Street's aggressive, narcissistic and dangerously obsessive inner child. Becker's views expose Wall Street's blind, insatiable death wish ... why it exists ... why they deny it ... why it's growing ... and ultimately why this "guy thing," their out-of-control macho testosterone culture is hell-bent on more than self-destruction ... why Wall Street secretly wants to destroy American capitalism and democracy ... and why, unless Venus conquers Mars ... unless women gain more power on Wall Street, Washington and Corporate America ... unless a new collective Venus triggers a paradigm shift, soon ... Mars, Wall Street, the Alpha-male will continue winning ... and killing capitalism and democracy. Becker's opening paragraph cuts deep:
The prospect of death ... woefully concentrates the mind ... the idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else. It is the mainspring of human activity -- activity designed largely to avoid the fatality of death, to overcome it by denying in some way that it is the final destiny of man.
It keeps going on like that for a while. I'm not entirely sure how readers are supposed to trade on that psycho-babble. And it's not even fresh psycho-babble; didn't John Gray's Men Are From Mars stuff come out in 1993 or 1994?
Also, does this guy dictate his columns via telegraph or something? Every other sentence trails off. Wall Street ... not good ... too much greed ... too many men ... need more ladies up in here ... STOP. That was exhausting. Another day's work done, hand me a cigar and a Klonopin, good sir.
Am I Being Mean?
Maybe. But I am hardly alone. My distaste of Farrell's anachronistic jibberish is in good company.
Here's a reader comment from trueamerican1 that has my back: "Dear Marketwatch, you really need to consider upgrading your editorial staff. Articles like this one are only fit for the recycle bin on my desktop."
Marketskeptic is similarly unimpressed with Farrell: "I saved myself some time and didn't even bother to read this article. As soon as I saw the word 'armageddon' and the phrase 'the end is near' in the headline I knew it was a big waste of time. Farrell has become laughably predictable."
Nexus974 goes right for the jugular: "It's sad to see a mind beginning to slip away. It's time to call it a career Paul!"
Perhaps the best reader comment over on MarketWatch, though, has to be this one: "FARRELL...YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT SOME THORAZINE....ASK YOUR DOCTOR.."
Said by someone who knows, I suppose.

他山砍玉

5 Real Estate Recovery Myths
| June 24, 2013 5:12 PM |

Like anything else, real estate has its urban legends, its stories that get told so often they seem like they must be true. But unlike urban legends about exploding Pop Rocks or the origins of Jennifer Aniston’s ‘Friends’-era haircut, real estate myths have the potential to create fear, panic, paralysis and all sorts of other decision glitches.

The recent market upturn, coming on the heels of 6 years of near-Depression, has given rise to its own set of real estate myths. Here is a handful, along with some ways you can and should rethink them.

Myth #1. It’s recovering too fast. According to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home-price index, American home prices increased an average of 10.6 percent between March 2012 and March 2013. Twelve of the 20 major metro areas tracked had year-over-year median home price increases in the double-digits. The list was topped by Phoenix, San Francisco and Las Vegas, all of which saw 20 percent or greater annual home price increases.

That seems crazy fast, to some. So crazy, in fact, that it’s created the fear that the current market’s exuberance will re-create the steep incline and decline in home values that we all remember not-so-fondly from the last boom-bust cycle.

Here’s the deal: markets have cycles, period. So I can guarantee you that the ups and downs will repeat, though hopefully not to such extremes. Part of what made the last down cycle so extreme was the fact that lenders were greenlighting massive home loans to borrowers without requiring them to document their ability to pay for the property over the long term. Buyers, in turn, overextended themselves regularly. Today’s loans are allowing people to buy without putting much down, but I haven’t seen almost any examples of the fully stated income or so-called “liar’s” loans that really got people in trouble. (Yet.)

Here’s the other thing: the data can be a bit misleading. When an area’s home values have been very, very depressed for long, it simply doesn’t take that vast of an uptick to generate double-digit percentage point increases. When you look at the top five recovery markets, according to the Case-Shiller, four of them: Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami and Tampa – ranked among the hardest hit markets in the foreclosure crisis and resulting downturn. (San Francisco was the anomaly.) When you look at other markets that skated through the recession relatively unscathed, like New York, you see the percentage point increase year-over-year was much less impressive/ less scary (depending on your outlook), at 2.6 percent.

Myth #2. Investors are driving demand. In some areas, investors are buying up lots of low-priced homes. From big Wall Street investment groups to Mom-and-Pop investors, people who don’t plan to live in the homes they’re buying were responsible for about 20% of May home sales. But this number is actually on a downward path – investors were responsible for 22% of home sales in April, and investor activity should continue to decline as prices increase, putting a cap on the profits investors can realize.

While investor activity is declining, buyer demand is increasing, as evidenced by increasing numbers of cash transactions, offers per property and speed of homes leaving the market.

First-time buyers are responsible for 36% of current buyer activity and repeat homeowners for over 43%. Investors have been active, but by no means are they responsible for creating the intense buyer demand that now characterizes the market.

Myth #3. Sellers are stuck. This time, let’s start with what’s true. Many, many sellers in hot markets are in the midst of an exasperating Catch-22: they can finally sell their homes, which have been underwater for years. But now they struggle to buy, amidst the multiple offer mania – some report having to make offers on dozens of homes, or even having to rent a place until they can buy one.

As I see it, sellers aren’t stuck as much as they are being forced into being strategic about sequencing their transactions and setting up their deal points. During the recession, millions of sellers had no equity – or negative equity. That meant they couldn’t sell, which meant they didn’t have the money to buy – heck, many couldn’t even refinance. That’s what I call stuck. Now, they have the option to pull cash out to buy first, the option to refinance and stay put, and the option to sell – period. So for my dollar, today’s sellers are nowhere near stuck, compared with the truly stuck sellers of yesteryear.

Most of the sellers who have recently, truly gotten stuck (i.e., sellers who’ve been forced to rent until they could successfully buy) ended up in that situation because they listed their homes first, unaware that the market truly had shifted and that their home would fly off the market. Now, we know. So, if you’re selling in a super-hot market, work with your agent to put a strategy in place. Consider buying first, if you have the means or can get them. Or list your home with a Seller’s Contingency or a rent-back agreement (where your home’s buyer rents it back to you for a short time), to buy yourself some extra time to score a new place. Your agent and mortgage pros can help.

Myth #4. Rates are through the roof. Have mortgage interest rates gone up? Yes. Is the Fed signaling they intend to raise rates, too? Yes - in 2015. (Not exactly tomorrow.)

Last week’s reported 30 year mortgage rates were 3.94 percent, and 15-year rates were right around 3%. Given that the record low rates clocked in at 3.31 (30-year) and 2.62 (15-year), even today’s higher rates are not worth your worry. Nor is an increase of rates likely to cause all the pent-up buyer demand of the last few years to dissipate. My Dad used to remind me that people bought homes when rates were 14% in the 80’s, and they will buy them now, even as they inch up – because they need and want places to live.

Myth #5. Foreclosures are a thing of the past. Through the recession, many banks and mortgage servicers began to hold hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes off the market to avoid flooding it, depressing prices even further than they already were. And even now, these institutions continue to trickle them onto the market, rather than creating a deluge of home inventory. Additionally, mortgage regulators now allow servicers to rent out REOs, versus selling them, and to hold them as long as 5 or 10 years following foreclosure, if needed.

While we are seeing a steep decline in the number of newly foreclosured homes, we can expect to have a higher-than-average number of foreclosed homes – REOs – on the market for some years to come. This so-called “shadow inventory” had declined over 10% nationwide between January 2012 and January 2013. And with the uptick in demand, we should continue to see this so-called “shadow inventory” of homes decline as banks take the opportunity to get these homes off their books.

他山砍玉

金融危机 vs 经济危机
来源: FreeTrader 于 2013-07-19

金融危机 vs 经济危机

美国和欧元区的危机，都是先发生金融危机，然后才发生经济危机。

这种经济危机，实际上是顺应阶段性经济结构调整（希腊这种小国家边缘性经济体除外，是牺牲品）。其中，欧元区的金融危机，更表现为欧元货币危机。这种危机是可控的，有序的，本质是美元发行和运作的高层集团与欧元发行和运则的高层集团之间的从未间断的博弈。

即使欧元崩溃了，欧盟的经济还是会迅速地调整好，只不过对美元财团更有利。以前出现过，就是二战后的马歇尔计划。欧盟的经济再差，差不过二战之后的废墟吧？

德法希望的是，通过欧元整合整个欧洲抗衡美国。目前欧元区的混乱是预料之中的，原因在于，必须要建立统一的欧盟政治条约，即在欧元央行的经济宪法之下统一欧盟内除外交和军事之外的所有政治权力，这样才有真正的能力约束各国的财务预算。这是德国挑起两次世界大战希望达到的大部分目的，只不过现在要用经济的手段来达成（日本也部分一样地成功了，比如，低价买中国的煤炭填海，低价几乎已经掠空了中国稀土矿产，等等，以前想军事征服中国的部分目的不就是这些么？）。

现在，美国搅局使得困难重重，个人认为德国的希望会落空。但落空了不要紧，这个回合失败，还可以再来，只是暂时的失败。这个回合失败，具体表现可能是欧元区引入有序地退出机制，比如希腊退出，往后可以再在条件许可时更谨慎地加入。不过到时可能会出现新的变数，比如，美国可能向扩大化美元的政治意义，就如大英帝国解体后，还是有英镑区和英联邦那样，在欧洲比如希腊，引入美元贸易区，这样，希腊就成了一个美国在欧洲的经济特区，被纳入美元范围。这将增加往后欧元统一欧洲的难度。

欧元区经济和美国经济都一直是在金融的掌控控制之下，这控制并非时时都高效，但都运行在被控制的轨道上。而中国经济大体与金融脱钩，这是中国经济与西方市场经济的本质区别。

中国的危机是中国领导集团控制不了的，或者说是没能力、没手段、没意愿去控制。是先发生经济危机，然后期望用金融手段去修补，但基本上步步皆错。比如，2008年10月的四万亿刺激后，发生的大规模高铁、铁路和公路的重复无效（或低效）建设，对实体经济（实际上就是民企）的整合和转型没有任何帮助。

中国经济在2007年就已经灭了，表现为大量的农民工返乡。随后的金融手段也的确支撑了一段时间，但这个支撑不是支撑了西方意义上的经济，而是支撑了金融和银行体系的继续运行，以及套现了部分既得利益集团的表面实物资产（比如，一些以前未卖出的房地产存量）。普通百姓吃苦耐劳，农民工返乡后就自生自灭，跟社会和经济状况就基本无关了。

中国的统治集团与外资基本不存在争斗，而是逆来顺受+主动表忠心。这次汪副经济总经理的态度尤其简单直接，而他在现内阁主管金融和对外贸易。外资当前对中国经济的控制虽还没达到直接有效的地步，但成功地卡住了中国经济的两头：进口原材料(Supply)和出口成品(Demand)。事实上，没有了外资的引导(无论说是引导，还是说控制)，没有了外资的有意识介入，中国人自己主导的部分就是搞不好，比如4万亿刺激后到现在的中国经济运行情况：丝毫无起色，依旧一团乱糟。

现在，中国处于剪羊毛和互剪羊毛的收割阶段。表现为，官僚资本集团要对民企下手(吴英案，曾成杰案)，官僚资本集团内部的互斗(薄熙来案)，以及官僚资本集团与官僚资本+外资集团混合体的争斗(比如，GSK是太子党胡耀邦女儿代表的官僚资本+外资的混合体；GSK是英资+胡不是当台的嫡系，所以失势；如果有美资的被收割，才是好戏)。

收割分配完了后，表面上的金融危机才会结束，才会再次启动中国的低级加工经济。到时，劳动力还会向十年前那样便宜，新一代的幸运年轻农民工将继承父辈的衣钵当奴隶继续为外资出卖苦力的青春，不幸运的连当奴隶的机会都不可得。

他山砍玉

人民币会暴跌吗？现在要不要把国内的存款换成美元？
来源: newstudent9 于 2013-07-19
80年代就开动印钱机器，超发人民币，这几十年中国的通涨不停，通涨的程度只能粗略估计，因为官方的数字严重缩水。同时，人民币汇率因为不自由兑换，近年却一直升值。这种反差，更加剧贸易顺差降低，拟制国内经济发展，因此，人民币汇率降下来是迟早的事情。人民币如果狂跌，对普通百姓意味着什么？对富豪阶层意味着什么？对欠债的美国意味着什么？

笔者有一定的经济学教育背景，但这些问题，不需要专业经济学的知识，本文只是简单通俗的解读：何种因素会导致人民币贬值？人民币贬值时，金融崩溃，后果是什么？本文对急着买房者、已经购买房屋者、持有大量人民币存款者，都应该至关重要。

1、何种因素会导致人民币贬值？
伯南克一句“不升息”全球股市大涨，为什么一句话有这么大的作用？原因有三：1）存款利息低，更多资金会流向股市，而不是存款；2）企业借贷、民众消费成本降低，刺激经济发展。3）利息低，货币的汇率会低，有利于出口，抑制进口。升息是防止经济过热的直接手段。
正因为利率至关重要，因此，企业和经济界都认为美国的总统对经济并无太大的影响，他只能调控政府开支和税收，但真正左右美国经济是联储局。纵观美国历次经济衰退、危机，一定是经历降息、降息，每次降息直接导致美元贬值，然后贸易朝顺差方向转变。
中国长期以来的高通货膨胀，银行的低效、滥用存款，导致企业的借贷成本离奇的高。正如河北企业家孙大午一次访谈中所表述，中国很多民间企业倒闭不是因为经营不好，而是因为融资成本太高。
中国存款利息5年定期不到5%，活期的才0.35%，但借贷成本又奇高，同时，中国各大银行，如果没有政府的政策，早就都破产了。最近一则广为流传的微博:“中国经济已转不动了：2005-2008年，1元社会融资量能带动4元GDP；2012年，1元社会融资量仅带动1.93元GDP。2012年，未扣除利息前的规模以上工业企业资产收益率为8.88%，而银行一般贷款的加权利率为7.07%，再考虑到各种理财、影子银行中的高利率因素，企业融资成本已接近甚至高于其资产收益率。没法走了！”
而银行贷款中，又有多少是房地产的呢？能找到的官方数字是：2009年12家上市银行涉及房地产市场的贷款就达到5.28万亿元（占银行贷款总额的24%），2010年房地产新增贷款2万亿，2011年房地产新增贷款共1.26万亿元，2012年房地产新增贷款共1.48万亿元。
从以上零碎的信息，可以总结为：中国金融有几个相冲突的现象共存——存款低息、贷款高息；银行坏账高；人民币国内通涨贬值、对外币兑换升值。
对经济的影响：拟制出口、鼓励进口；拟制企业扩大投资、逼死非暴利企业。因此，人民币汇率不断升值是个梦，经济无法支撑人民币的升值。而人民币的触发诱因最可能是房地产和政府财政入不敷出引发的金融崩溃，因此，人民币贬值发生时，必然会迅雷不及掩耳。

记得2007年，全民炒股，大家见面问候的口头语成了：今天赚了多少？沪指冲破6000点，市场专家宣称上看10000点，更促使未能入市的继续涌入。股市暴跌，到2008年时，股市蒸发了24万亿，比中国2006年的全国GDP还多。

中国的房地产情况基本处于2007年全民炒股的状态：有钱的买多套房子、没钱的借钱买房子，因为信念非常明确：中国人口多，都往城市里钻，需要大！完全忽视了简单的现实：中国人均收入仍处在发展中国家，房价却世界第一（以同样的面积、质量、土地等比较），这样的房价还要看涨，不是被房价不断攀升而冲昏了头脑？

中国的股市一直以来不如赌场有规则，属于赌场和庄家一起参与，榨取股民钱财的游戏。而中国的房地产，是房地产商和政府共生死的一个怪胎。中国房地产成了政府（很多企业）的支柱产业，政府财政收入半数靠卖地，房地产一旦停滞，政府财政必然出问题。无锡一个区政府就发出通知，要加快强拆，否则政府人员工资无法发出。

房地产市场崩盘比人民币贬值更有必然性，已经奇高的中国楼市，不可能无限制的涨下去。但从房地产商买地皮开始，地皮定价、打点官员等费用，不是按楼市降价或者不涨预期估算的，而是按楼市延续以前高速增长，折现到交易发生时（经济学的预期理论），因此，中国楼市必须保持相当的增长速度，一旦低于预期的增长，或者不增长，接下来会出现房地产商无法按预期价格和速度售楼，银行贷款无法偿还，银行要么破产、要么加印人民币，引发更大的通涨，房地产项目停滞，卖地停滞，政府财政紧缺，再加印人民币。这时，民间的资金会更紧张，银行无法持续贷款给民众买楼，楼市下跌。如此互相牵涉、循环，金融危机爆发。一旦人民币开始贬值，热钱外逃，民企、贪官资金继续加快逃离，人民币需求锐减，贬值势如破竹。

他山砍玉

11 cities where workers are disappearing
By Annalyn Kurtz @AnnalynKurtz
May 2013
Cincinnati, Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio

The labor force has been shrinking in all of Ohio's major cities other than its state capital, Columbus.
Cleveland has lost 52,000 workers, or about 5% of its labor force, since November 2007, and Cincinnati lost 39,000 workers, or about 4% of its labor force, since May 2009, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Job growth is anemic, particularly in Ohio's main industry, manufacturing. Signs point to workers giving up, said Amy Hanauer, executive director of Policy Matters Ohio.
"I think people are getting discouraged and leaving the labor market," she said.
Ohio lost 388,000 jobs in the financial crisis, and has since gained only about a fifth of them back.
Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz.

The fallout from the housing bust is still felt here. The construction sector slashed more than half its jobs in the crisis, and they've only started to trickle back in the last few months.
But the decline in the labor force isn't solely due to construction. In neighboring Nevada, the heart of the housing bust, the labor force didn't drop nearly as dramatically as in Arizona.
Phoenix alone lost 64,000 workers, or 3% of its labor force, and Tucson lost 29,000 workers, or a 6% of its labor force, over the last four years.
Most of those declines have come from young men, ages 25 to 34, and middle-aged women, ages 45 to 59.
The Latino labor force has also declined, which could be due in part to stricter immigration laws.
Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven, Conn.

Like much of New England, Connecticut generally has an older population than the nation as a whole. With the stock market improving since the recession ended, the number of Baby Boomers retiring has been increasing, said Alissa DeJonge, director of research at the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.
At the same time, the unemployment rate among young minorities has climbed in the state's urban centers, such as Hartford and Bridgeport.
"It may be that these younger minority workers have stopped looking for work and will reenter the labor force when the state's economy improves," said Orlando Rodriguez, senior policy fellow at Connecticut Voices for Children.
Detroit and Kalamazoo, Mich. and Milwaukee, Wis.

Michigan's population was declining three years before the recession even hit, as the auto industry moved jobs elsewhere.
The state's largest city, Detroit was hit particularly hard. Three years ago, the U.S. Census found that the city's population had fallen to its lowest level since 1910.
Other manufacturing cities in the Midwest are facing similar declines.
Milwaukee lost 16,000 workers, or 2% of its labor force since June 2009. And Kalamazoo lost 17,500 workers -- a whopping 10% of its labor force -- since January 2007.