Hungary's election The re-election precedent Apr 27th 2006 | BUDAPEST From The Economist print edition
A sign that politics in central Europe may be maturing
THE first rule of post-communist politics in central and eastern Europe has long been that, whatever a government does, it will be voted out of office. All the reforming administrations of the early 1990s met this fate. So did the softly-softly governments that replaced them. [...] This week's news from Hungary may herald a change, towards governments that can sometimes win again. After the second round of the election, on April 23rd, the ruling centre-left coalition led by Ferenc Gyurcsany took 210 of the 386 seats in the lower house of parliament, against only 164 for the conservative opposition led by Fidesz. Fidesz's outspoken leader, Viktor Orban, who was prime minister between 1998 and 2002, proved divisive and unconvincing. Even his announcement after the first round that he would not seek to be prime minister again failed to win voters back. At least, unlike some earlier elections, this one was free of anti-Semitism, coded or otherwise.
Mr Gyurcsany's victory was largely personal. A youthful, smooth-talking tycoon with links to the communist-era elite, he is now a keen Blairite, Atlanticist and market-friendly, quite unlike the older ex-communists who still dominate his Socialist Party. He handled Hungary's smaller parties cleverly, keeping his liberal allies, the Free Democrats, happy and also wooing a moderate right-wing party, Hungarian Democratic Forum. This party then doomed Fidesz by refusing to co-operate with it in run-off votes.
The Socialists' slick campaign contrasted with Fidesz's gaffe-strewn effort. Mr Orban gained a few votes on the far right (the main extremist party saw its vote fall by half, to 2%). But he did not appeal to the centre. Having dominated Hungary's right-wing politics for more than a decade, he is now talking of quitting. A big shake-up of the political right looms.
Mr Gyurcsany faces a more immediate test: how to fill the gaping holes in Hungary's public finances, many of which his own government created in a pre-election binge. This year's budget deficit is approaching 8% of GDP; including such off-balance-sheet items as road-building, it would be nearer 10%. The current-account deficit is over 8% of GDP, one of the biggest in Europe. Foreign investors are edgy.
The government promises “reform without austerity”. It intends to bring in insurance-based health-care and to cut the number of ministries and municipalities. “Our objective is to transform the work of the state so that it is not a burden, but instead serves us,” Mr Gyurcsany has said. Yet, as Juliet Sampson of HSBC, a British-based bank, puts it, “given the Socialists' record on reform, we'll believe real fiscal adjustment is on the way when we see it. [...]"
Hungary's election Sense and nonsense Apr 6th 2006 | BUDAPEST From The Economist print edition
The politicians promise everything, but will find life harder if they win
BOTH sides talk nonsense in public while promising in private to be sensible. That, in brief, is Hungarian politics in the run-up to the first round of parliamentary elections on April 9th.
Looking at the government, spendthrift and sleazy, it is easy to see why the opposition is cross. The Socialist-liberal coalition has presided over the worst mismanagement of public finances anywhere in post-communist Europe. Officially, the budget deficit is 8% of GDP. Including off-balance-sheet financing, it is more like 10%. That has helped to stoke a huge current-account deficit, and has now sent the forint to a 28-month low (see chart).
Most damage was done in the government's first two years, in a bid to reward its supporters. As one finance minister from a neighbouring country comments, “I can understand why they made these idiotic promises, but not why they kept them.” When Peter Medgyessy, who became prime minister in 2002, turned out to have a background in communist-era intelligence, that was too much to swallow even in Hungary's forgiving political culture. So in 2004 in came Ferenc Gyurcsany, a tycoon who combines capitalist credentials with family links to the old regime.
Asked to list his practical achievements in the past two years, his supporters look faintly baffled. Their big feat, they say, has been staying in power and getting ready to win the election—which, according to Hungary's often unreliable polls, they seem likely to do. The Socialists are polling around 46%, and, crucially, their small coalition partner, the leftist liberals, seems likely to get over the 5% threshold necessary to enter parliament.
That will be a huge disappointment for the opposition Young Democrats (usually known, by their Hungarian acronym, as Fidesz) and their leader, the outspoken Viktor Orban. Mr Orban has impeccable credentials as a brave and effective communist-era dissident. But he has moved sharply away from the radical liberalism of his youth, in a conservative, nationalist and populist direction. Many Hungarians' discontent with the government tends to evaporate as soon as they look at the opposition.
Mr Orban's campaign has been gaffe-strewn, and his programme is peppered with expensive spending commitments, including bigger housing subsidies. He rails against “luxury profits” and rapacious foreigners, though he insists also that he wants “a country with less bureaucracy, a pro-business government and lower taxes.” His public speeches, though, more often feature lines such as this: “Grant us...a national government in Hungary, which sees the world through Hungarian eyes, thinks with a Hungarian mind and senses in its heart a Hungarian beat.”
That could just be a robust yet defensible bid to appeal to patriotic voters. But others hear a cynical, demagogic appeal to revanchism and xenophobia. Some also charge Mr Orban with coded anti-Semitism. He strongly denies this; so do his Jewish colleagues. Even so, his colourful election tactics put one question-mark against Mr Orban's suitability for office.
His record raises another. His previous stint as prime minister, until 2002, showed mixed results. He ran the economy well—until a vote-grabbing binge in the final year. Hungary gained NATO membership and moved fast towards the European Union. But relations with the neighbours were scratchy. Fidesz still hankers after justice for the Hungarians deported from neighbouring countries after 1945. “Sooner or later, they have to pay,” says one senior figure, “200,000 Hungarians were expelled and lost all their possessions.” That contrasts sharply with the present government's emollient foreign policy of being friends with everybody.
In private, both parties say much the same things: in the short term, there must be fiscal tightening and, thereafter, radical public-sector reform. The first, particularly, will be an unpleasant shock for Hungarians, who have got used to living well but dangerously on borrowed money.
Tudod mi nem érünk rá mindennap fórumozni. Nektek kurva jól mehet, gondolom fizetnek ezért.
Hogy lehetsz ennyire buta? Amikor ilyet írsz, ne azt a nikkedet használd, amelyen napi 20 beírást megejtesz, hanem egy olyat, amelyen "nem érsz rá naponta fórumozni". Tökfilkó.
"A demokrácia intézményei zakatolnak ugyan, de a demokrácia szíve kiüresedett, állította Orbán, aki szerint vannak, akik pártja új politizálását populizmusnak nevezik, pedig csak a nyugat-európai demokráciával kerültek szembe."
A mai nap tanulsaga: az Economist szembe kerult a nyugati-demokraciaval.... ;-DDDD
Nem baj, majd felállít a Vik megint egy Kontroll csoportot, oszt tán még hadat is üzenünk a nem jól viselkedő újságok országának:-))) Egyre jobban erősödik a véleményem, hogy ez a Fityisz zsebhuligán csipet-csapat bukásra játszik, és ezekkel az eksönjeikkel tuliképpen csak az agyhalott turulmagorjaiknak főzik, a szájaízük szerinti magyarázatot. Impijirilista, ürgebörbe bujtatott ármány, ami a genfi tó méklyén köttetett, az nem engedte meg hogy ők felvirágoztassák kishazánkat, oszt ezé nem lesz Orbáni Kánaán, pedig ők aztán nagyon akarták:-)))
Hat ugye tajekozatlan olvtarsunk kedveert: az Economist szerkesztosege es az EIU nem ugyanaz. Mindketten az Economist Grouphoz tartoznak, de ettol meg nem ua. az emberek szerkesztik az ujsagot akik a felmereseket vegzik :-). Persze a MaNemhez szocializalodott tomegeknek nehez elkepzelni, hogy milyen egy normalis nyugati lap szerkesztese: pl. a NYTimes eseten (de nemcsak) a velemeny es hir rovatok teljesen kulon vannak, igy egyaltalan nem meglepo, hogy sok republikanus, aki a Times szerkesztosegevel amugy egyaltalan nincs egy hullamhosszon megelegedessel olvasgatja a hireiket :-). (De, hogy fagolyo bonyolultsagu kis osszeeskuves elmeletedet segitsek tovabb szoni: kepzeld az Economist Group reszben az FT tulajdonaban van. Biztos Tompika machinacioitol annyira, de annyira tele lett a gatyajuk, hogy most igy probaljak mosdatni magukat. Csakis igy lehet, ugye.... )
Mint az frankon megjosolhato volt, Tompika korteskedese "kivivta" az Economist figyelmet is. Ehelyt gratulalnek ... ;-))) :))))))))))))))))))) inkabb CC vedi a vedhetetlent..
Christopher Condon, a former editor of Budapest Week, is a correspondent for Business Week and The Economist Intelligence Unit*.
A FIDESz ismét betévedt a porcelánboltba és ott tör- zúz. Ha- ha- ha !!!!
Eddig két vezető gazdasági lap foglakozott az üggyel. Vajon még kik harapnak rá a jövőben? (Handelsblatt, Wall Street Journal, Wirtschaftwoche, stb.) Kíváncsi vagyok, vajon milyen reflexiói lesznek még ennek az ügynek? :-)
Mint az frankon megjosolhato volt, Tompika korteskedese "kivivta" az Economist figyelmet is. Ehelyt gratulalnek ... ;-)))
Hungarian politics Wrap up Jan 5th 2006 | BUDAPEST From The Economist print edition A squabble about a newspaper, a fur coat and an election
AS ONE of the country's richest men, Ferenc Gyurcsany can afford the sleekest of fur coats. So it was something of a surprise to find the Socialist prime minister appearing in an advertisement wrapped in a scraggy-looking pelt. But then one realised that the advertisement had been placed by the main opposition party, the right-wing (and increasingly populist) Fidesz.
The ad's trigger was, rather improbably, a survey of Hungary published in the Financial Times last month. One line of the survey provoked much gnashing of teeth at Fidesz's headquarters: “In spite of dangerous imbalances in the economy, Hungarians are better off than ever on average.” When the Socialists quoted selectively from this report to their advantage, Fidesz placed advertisements claiming that the government had paid the Financial Times a Bunda (a fur coat, but also slang for a bribe) of 20m forints ($95,000) to secure favourable editorial copy.
The government had indeed paid such a sum, but for advertisements in the survey that were clearly marked as such. With an election likely to take place in April, and the Socialists narrowing Fidesz's lead in the polls, Fidesz leaders seem to think that they must snatch any opportunity to knock the government. It speaks volumes for the insular nature of Hungarian politics that nobody seemed to grasp that their advertisement might also be libelling the Financial Times and its journalists, who have reacted angrily and demanded an apology and a retraction.
Bashing the foreign press is a popular pastime for Fidesz supporters during elections. In the 2002 campaign a mysterious cabal known as the Kontroll Csoport (Control Group) drew up a list of foreign correspondents supposedly guilty of the thought-crime of “anti-Hungarianness”, and published it in the pro-Fidesz Magyar Nemzet newspaper. Things turned nastier when several right-wing journalists then appeared on television and verbally abused people on the list, using both anti-Semitic and homophobic slurs.
Fidesz, which was then in power, denied any connection to the Kontroll Csoport. Yet curiously, after a western diplomat had told a government spokesman that such behaviour was not encouraged in countries that wished to join the European Union, it stopped immediately. And Magyar Nemzet performed a prompt U-turn, publishing a series of laudatory articles about those on the Kontroll Csoport list.
This time around Fidesz has taken a more conciliatory position from the outset. When the Hungarian International Press Association issued a statement condemning the Bunda advertisements as a slur on the integrity of both the Financial Times and its correspondents, Fidesz claimed that the whole thing was a misunderstanding and praised the country's “much-valued” foreign press corps. But the Financial Times is still waiting for an apology.
Overview Apr 7th 2004
From The Economist print edition
Two of central Europe's biggest emerging economies are perking up on the eve of their accession to the European Union. Poland's GDP grew by 4.7% in the year to the fourth quarter, up from 4.0% in the year to the third quarter. Industrial production in Poland rose by 18.4% in the year to February. Hungary's economy grew by an upwardly-revised 3.6% in the year to the fourth quarter.
Consumer-price inflation in Turkey fell to 11.8% in the year to March, from 14.3% in the year to February.
Namostakkorkeremszepen, en szivesen olvasok Economistot, meg akkor is ha nem ertek vele mindenben egyet. De ami sok ,az sok; ez (nem tudom maskepp mondani) egy ordenare nagy hulyeseg (lasd kiemelest a cikk vegen):
Central Europe
Happy hotch-potch
Jan 29th 2004 | RIGA
From The Economist print edition
What is different about new EU members from central Europe
CONTIGUOUS they may be, consubstantial they are not. The countries of central Europe (not, they insist, eastern Europe, which each of them says begins to their east) are growing tired of being lumped together in generalisations of all kinds, as they prepare to join the European Union, together with Cyprus and Malta, on May 1st. So here is a brief attempt to set the record straight.
Not every country in central Europe is a poor, small place with bad roads, corrupt officials, a rackety Russian-built nuclear-power plant and a squabbling coalition government. They are all rather charming, in their different ways. And they are all rather different, in their different ways.
Start with “poor”. The eight newcomers to the EU have an average GDP per head of about one-quarter of today's EU average. But that conceals some wide differences. Incomes in the richest country, Slovenia, are three times those in the poorest, Latvia—a far greater gap than exists inside the EU now.
However, measured by purchasing-power parity, which takes prices into account and so gives a better indication of local living standards, the whole region looks better off. Slovenia's GDP per head rises to more than 70% of the EU average. Its average wage in 2002 was higher than that of Greece or Portugal. Cross the border from Austria into Slovenia and you have to look hard to notice the difference.
Slovenia could be called “small”, at 20,000 square kilometres (7,700 square miles) in area, yet it is still seven times the size of Luxembourg and 70 times Malta. But the three Baltic countries find it irritating to be tagged as “tiny”. Each is bigger in area than Belgium, the Netherlands or Denmark, albeit less populous than any of them. Poland, the biggest country in central Europe, will be the sixth-biggest country in the EU in both area and population.
Linguistically, the central Europeans are more diverse than the Union they join. Each has a different national language (if one accepts Czech and Slovak as separate languages), or roughly one for every 6m people, not counting Russian and the Romany dialects spoken by the region's largest minorities. Today's 15 EU countries make do with 11 national languages among them, or one for every 34m people. Half of central Europe's national languages are Slavic in origin. Latvian and Lithuanian stem from the Baltic branch of the Indo-European tree. Estonian and Hungarian are Uralic languages, distantly related to one another, closely related to Finnish in the case of Estonian, and perhaps more distantly related to Japanese.
Politically, the central European countries all escaped from communism at the turn of the 1990s, albeit from different manifestations of it. The Baltic three were occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union for half a century. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia (the latter two were one country until 1993) had titular independence, but they were run from Moscow by national communist parties, and garrisoned with Soviet troops. Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia, which favoured a more liberal brand of communism and sparred ideologically with the Soviet Union. Pro-American feeling in the region correlates closely with lingering anti-Russian sentiment. It is strongest in the Baltic countries and Poland, a touch weaker in Hungary and the Czech Republic, weaker still in Slovakia and Slovenia.
All of which is not to say that all generalisations about central Europe are false. Many are at least half-true. Rural populations are large everywhere. Nationalism is rarely far from the political mainstream. Squabbling coalition governments are the rule except in Slovenia, which is also the only country with decent roads. The beer is excellent everywhere. So drink to diversity—but skip the food. The region lacks any national cuisine worth celebrating. ----------------
Nem epp szukkoru gasztronomiai tapasztalatok birtokaban, merem allitani, hogy a magyar konyha igenis felveszi a versenyt a vilag barmelyikevel, es aki ennek ellenkezojet allitja, az valszleg nem is probalta meg ki.....
Na, ha mar ugyis ez a "szaktopic", akkor lassunk egy aktualissa valo augusztusi cikket:
Hungarian mortgages
House party
Aug 21st 2003 | BUDAPEST
From The Economist print edition
Lavish subsidies lure hungry homebuyers
HUNGARY'S economy, once central Europe's star performer, is sputtering. A strong currency and unjustified wage increases are sapping its competitiveness, while last year's budget deficit of nearly 10% of GDP is proving hard to cut. Monetary policy is in disarray after a botched devaluation of the forint in June, which tarnished the central bank's inflation-fighting credentials.
Yet Hungary's consumers seem unconcerned. Buoyed by their pay rises, they are borrowing with a vengeance. Retail loans grew by almost 70% last year, compared with roughly 30% in the Czech Republic and only 9% in Poland. The growth is fuelled by lending for residential mortgages, which accounted for 60% of household credit last year. Between 2000 and 2002, mortgage loans increased by 260%, albeit from a tiny base.
Hungary's previous government kick-started the market in 2000 by introducing generous state subsidies and tax breaks designed to widen access to modern housing. The initial target was newly built properties for young couples with children. Six forms of relief were offered, including a popular interest-rate subsidy. But as mortgage lending caught on and parliamentary elections loomed in 2002, the government extended the scheme to older homes, increasing the numbers eligible. It also gave a fillip to the country's shallow capital market by encouraging a German-style covered mortgage bond market. The lender receives a subsidy when making a mortgage loan. A subsidised fixed-rate loan, with a maximum maturity of 20 years, now costs borrowers 5-6% a year—roughly half the market rate.
With shrinking margins on corporate lending as interest rates fall, banks are turning to mortgages. FHB, a state-owned bank mandated to meet the government's target of building 40,000 new homes a year, dominates the fast-growing mortgage bond market. It refinances loans originated by other banks, enjoying the subsidy without taking the credit risk. OTP, Hungary's giant savings bank, is the biggest mortgage lender, with over half the market. It set up its own mortgage bank last year and increased its housing loans by 164%. “Hungary is the only country in the region where mortgage loans make a meaningful contribution to bank profitability,” notes Paul Tucker, a bank analyst at Merrill Lynch.
Yet a housing bubble still seems a remote danger. Property prices have not risen significantly since the subsidy kicked in, while mortgage debt accounts for only 5% of GDP—one-eighth of the average in the European Union, which Hungary is due to join in May. Reckless demand is tempered by robust foreclosure procedures and lending well below the regulatory limit of 70% of a property's value. Recently the subsidy has been scaled back. Banks' margins have thinned, while borrowers' abuse—such as multiple loans on the same property—has lessened. Yet the scheme is a victim of its own success: customers, ever fearful that the prized subsidy will be scrapped, rush for more mortgages, forcing the government to dish out ever more funds.
In its latest health check on the Hungarian economy, the IMF questioned the fiscal sustainability of the programme. Housing relief costs nearly 1% of GDP. This could rise sharply if the scope of the subsidy is not reduced. Last year the government spent 14% more on subsidies than originally planned; this year it expects to overshoot its target by nearly 47%. Yet despite the government's pledge to cut the budget deficit to 2.5% of GDP by 2006, with a view to joining the euro in 2008, few expect the subsidy to be phased out fully given its political importance. “Without sounding populist, the government owes this to the population,” says George Fenyo, a managing director at OTP. This may be true—but it has to worry about qualifying for euro entry too.
Artist: Rod Stewart Lyrics
Song: THREE TIME LOSER Lyrics
(Rod Stewart)
Stand here ev'ry night,
I'm wearin' my number,
but she said wear it,
touching up another fool.
In a jukebox job downin' blues
in her leopard-skin anklehigh boots
while I'm jackin' off
readin' Playboy on a hot afternoon.
I'm a three time loser.
Caught it up in Monterey,
shook it up in East Virginia,
now my friends say it's here to stay.
How dare you have a party
in a Chelsea basement
when the poor excited Jezebel said come outside.
She felt me up and kissed my face,
put her dirty hands down in my pants.
She took all of my money,
left me naked by the silvery moon.
I'm a three time loser.
Caught it up in Monterey,
shook it up in East Virginia,
now my friends say it's here to stay.
Roll away, roll away, all of you women;
I don't think I need you anymore.
There'll be no more doctor's bills,
there'll be no more swallowing pills.
And I've found a woman
that can witness that in blood out of me.
I'm a three time loser.
Caught it up in Monterey,
shook it up in East Virginia,
now my friends say it's here to stay.
I'm a three time loser.
Caught it up in Monterey,
shook it up in East Virginia,
now my friends say it's here to stay.
I'm a loser
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be
Of all the love I have won or have lost
there is one love I should never have crossed
She was a girl in a million, my friend
I should have known she would win in the end
I'm a loser
And I lost someone who's near to me
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be
Although I laugh and I act like a clown
Beneath this mask I am wearing a frown
My tears are falling like rain from the sky
Is it for her or myself that I cry
I'm a loser
And I lost someone who's near to me
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be
What have I done to deserve such a fate
I realize I have left it too late
And so it's true, pride comes before a fall
I'm telling you so that you won't lose all
I'm a loser
And I lost someone who's near to me
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be
Miket nem olvas az ember a Magyar Hírlap vezércikkében..:))))))
Járait Szászért! MH-álláspont
Sok fontos poszt van az országban. De a legtöbb közvetlen anyagi kárt a jegybankelnök és a pénzügyminiszter tudja okozni. Látjuk. Ízlelgetjük a szót: valutaválság. A magyar családok mindegyikének súlyos tízezrekben mérhető kárt okoz a forint gyengülése és a két számjegyű állampapírhozam. És ez csak a közvetlen hatás, a gazdaság lassulásával még nem is számoltunk.
Az ország pénzügyi vezetése nagyon elrontott valamit. A pénzügyminiszter hagyta érvényre jutni az MSZP populista, szavazatvásárló, osztogató és adóemelő politikáját (Macisajt: Sic! SZDSZ már nincs is a kormánykoalicíóban?:)))))
Bár tett kísérleteket a költségvetés rendbetételére, nem tudta elhitetni, hogy képes arra. A jegybankelnök nem lépett föl az Orbán-kormány osztogatásai ellen sem. Ennél is súlyosabb bűn volt a túl erős forint vaksi politikája. Ha lehet, még nagyobbat buktak mindketten taktika, ütemérzék tantárgyakból. A jegybank ügyetlenül kezelte a spekulánsok támadásait. A Pénzügyminisztérium akkor erőltette a forint leértékelését (a sáveltolást), amikor éppen nem használt, hanem ártott, a jegybank pedig belement ebbe.
A forint tegnapi gyengülését pedig - ha hihetünk a beszámolóknak - László Csaba Londonban tett egyik kijelentése okozta. Természetesen a szaktárca ezt határozottan cáfolta, mondván: félreértették a pénzügyminisztert. A sok-sok hibát azzal tetézte László és Járai, hogy - többszöri ígéreteik ellenére - az ismétlődő válságok alkalmával képtelenek voltak azt a látszatot kelteni, hogy ugyanazt mondják.
A befektetők bizalma végérvényesen elszállt. A legjobb az lenne, ha - egy nyugodtabb pillanatban - László Csaba és Járai Zsigmond egyaránt venné a kalapját. A miniszter a könnyebb eset, nyílt titok, hogy a költségvetés megszavazása után az MSZP visszahívhatja elhasználódottnak tartott emberét. Járait viszont nemigen lehet leváltani. Nagy hiba volna megpróbálni "kiszekálni”. Járainak tehát önként kellene lemondania. Talán a Fidesszel lehetne erről háttéralkut kötni. Cserébe például a kormánypártok visszavonhatnák a Szász Károly eltávolítását célzó szégyenletes törvényjavaslatot.
( Sic!:)))
Nagy kérdés persze, van-e mindehhez elég nagyvonalúság a két nagy párt döntéshozóiban.
----
És hogy hol van ebben Csillag és az SZDSZ
"szakértő" minisztereinek/államtitkárainak szerepe a jelenlegi katasztrófában...azt most ne várjuk el a mAGYAR hÍRLAPTÓL..:)
Tény hogy jól láthatóan László lenne Dugovits Titusz Járainak aki őt a mélybe rántaná(neki már úgyis mindegy), az MSZP a felelős mindenért, az SZDSZ meg kimaradna a buliból...
amíg aszt hallod a vegyépszer építette, nos addig a sztárnak semmi köze hozzá, hacsak az nem, hogy addig késleltette a finanszírozását, hogy később vehessük használatba, még többen haljanak meg az utakon!
amit ő adott a vegyépszernek, az úgyis csak a választások előtti napokban lesz átadva! :-)
xal érted, még neked is eccerű lesz!
vegyépszer - fityesz út
strabag - emeszpé út
csillag első autópályája az M7-es új szakaszai lesznek.....
addig faarccal adhatja át a fityeszeseket.....
xak a kérdés felvetője a saját koncepciójuakra utalt.....
de egyébként inkább ne építsen!
azonal vásárolják ki az M5-öst a postabank léből, mielőtt mégtöbb budai ingatlant vásárolnának a minisztereknek belőle!
A spekulánsokon kívül a magyar gazdaság fejlődésében bízó alapok egy része is eladta magyar állampapírjait a napokban - állítja a Bank of America elemzése. A Financial Times szerkesztői szerint Magyarország kedden közelebb került a pénzügyi válsághoz, amiért csak gazdaságának irányítói okolhatók.
A magyar kormánykötvények legutóbbi tömeges eladásában az utóbbi időben először vettek részt a térségi konvergenciára játszó befektetési alapok - áll a Bank of America szerdán Londonban kiadott, a távirati iroda által ismertetett jelentésében. A pénzintézet szakértői szerint ez azért rendkívüli jelentőségű, mert az említett konvergenciaalapok (amelyek a magyar gazdaság uniósnál gyorsabb növekedésében bízva fektették pénzüket magyar államkötvénybe - a szerk.) nem fognak egykönnyen visszatérni a magyar piacra. A bank szerint a november eleji 2300 milliárd forintról a hónap 27-ére 2184 milliárd forintra csökkent a külföldi befektetők által birtokolt magyar államkötvények értéke.
A Bank of America országjelentése szerint a térségben továbbra is Magyarországon a legmagasabb az árfolyamkockázat.
Nagyobb a vártnál a novemberi államháztartási hiány
Hasonlóan lehangoló képet fest a Financial Times szerdai szerkesztőségi cikke a devizapiaci helyzetről: a lap szerkesztői szerint a kedd délelőtti államkötvény-aukció elmaradása után Magyarország közelebb került a pénzügyi válsághoz. Úgy vélik, hogy a befektetők bizalmatlanságáért az ország pénzügyi vezetése csak önmagát okolhatja, mert ahelyett, hogy a minden erejükkel az államháztartási hiány csökkentésére koncentráltak volna, rövid távú intézkedéssel próbálták a forint helyzetét stabilizálni - katasztrofális eredménnyel.
---
Világos.
A "költségvetés" láttán elkezdődöt a tőke kivonása...
"Mr. Starék minden héten más autópálya-tervel rukkolnak elő elő, de eddig egyetlen egy elcseszett kilométernyi új autópályát sem sikerült megépiteniük"
A napokban adtak át vagy 8 kilométernyit az M30-ból :-))
Úgy látszik a külföldi befektetők képben vannak, nyilván a saját érdekükben. Őket nem érdekli a nagy blablaa igéregetések, nem célszerü őket hitegetni, átverni túl sokszor(lehet, de akkor lépnek is tovább), nem annyira agyatlanok mint Bolgár György hallgatói, vagy az ATV szellemi terroristáinak, médiatálibjainak a törzsközönsége.
Ha már lúzerkormány a téma, akkor a leg lúzerebb miniszter talán Mr.Star. Ez azért baj, mert a legfontosabb minisztérium került pitiánér pártkoaliciók alkujának áldozatáva. Egy harmatgyenge, hozzánemértő lúzerrel az élén, aki úgy beszél, mintha egy sódrófával jól szájba b....ták volna. Ráadásul még SZDSZ-es is.
Mr. Starék minden héten más autópálya-tervel rukkolnak elő elő, de eddig egyetlen egy elcseszett kilométernyi új autópályát sem sikerült megépiteniük. És ez csak az autópálya projekt. Gondoljátok bele, milyen káosz lehet a többi témában is. Micsoda összhang lehet itt. Jöttek ezzel a Smart Hungaryval. Hogy ez jelenti a gyógyirt. Pedig egy irtó nagy kudarc. Semmi visszhang. Kudarcba fulladt ez is. És hol van ez az Európa-terv? Vagy ez is csak egy retorikai blöff volt a Kárpátok Cicerójától? Ki emlékszik már olyan baromságokra, mint a "térdmagasságban" lévő villanykapcsolók telepitése?
Ilyen hazudozással, hitegetéssel, mellébeszéléssel, koncepciótlansággal nem lehet ide vonzani befetketőket. Ez az ad-hoc, hol ezt mondom, hol azt, mindenkinek azt amit hallani akar, aztán szarok rá, szóval az ötlettelen, célnélküli, sodrodó gazdaság politikából, ebből van elegük a befektetőknek. Erről szól az Economist cikk. Nem tudnak tervezni előre, nincs világos gazdaság politikai célkitüzésük, azonkivül, hogy 2020-ban szeretnék az eurót, minden évben 56*szor változnak az adójogszabályok, az ügyintézés nem hogy könnyebb lenne igy az EU kapujában, a korrupicó egyre jobban virul, na ezért még nagy árat fogunk fizetni.
