Las reservas saudíes disminuyen a razón de 6 millardos de dólares al mes

Aun así, sigue teniendo obstante 450, para siete años.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign assets have fallen by about $6 billion per month in December and January (SAMA data) likely as the fall in the oil price means past savings are needed to meet expanding fiscal needs.

The assets of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (Sama) shrank to nearly SR1,681.3bn ($448b) at the end of January, from around SR1,709.9bn ($455B )at the end of 2008, the second consecutive month of decline. deposits with banks abroad fell to $94b from $101b. Investment in foreign securities remained unchanged at around SR1,154bn.  (Ziemba, 24/7)

Lo leo en el RGE monitor, que nos dice que Arabia saudita necesita el petróleo a 50 dólares el barril para equilibrar su economía.

3 comentarios

  1. Siempre pueden recurrir a la «banca islámica», que vive del petróleo y del zakat de quienes ocupan Occidente… juas

    (P.D.: la banca de bajo interés resulta que la han inventado éstos, si los mutualistas decimonónicos levantaran la cabeza…)

  2. Sin coña:

    ¿Puede un católico ser militar y al mismo tiempo vivir conforme a Cristo?

    Afortunadamente parece que… sí. ¡Uf!

    The Danger of Diversity

    «…In the last chapter an explanation is given about why multiculturalism does not furnish beliefs and sentiments that are useful in the long run for managerial elites. No hope is expressed about converting these elites, who believe as they do because of a moral disposition as well as because of concrete interests. Besides, these elites and their minions will make sure my ideas are not widely advertised, except as an illustration of psychopathology.

    Nonetheless, let me sum up this final argument for the benefit of LRC readers. Multicultural beliefs inevitably create a condition of cultural fluidity, characterized by xenophilia and by a weakening of bourgeois morality. The faithful bearers of such beliefs thereby set up conditions favorable to their own replacement. Although state planners, social engineers, corporate pals of big government, and American imperialists all benefit from our ideologically driven regime, they are reaping what may be short-term gains.

    Neither the politics of guilt nor the glorification of diversity leads to real patriotism; though they can contribute to political expansion at home and abroad, they also undermine the respect for tradition and ordered liberty that is necessary for social stability. And porous borders here and in Europe that bring foreign populations that are an economic drain and represent alien national and civilizational loyalties will test the system even more. Such problems are apparent to the more rational elements of the political elite, particularly the neoconservatives, who advocate «democratic» indoctrination in public schools and the propagation of their own form of civil religion…»

    Feeling Unnecessarily Guilty

    «…Were Richard Weaver’s or Donald Davidson’s opinions on racial matters, to cite just two Southern conservatives treated in the Encyclopedia, any less progressive than those of Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, or Abraham Lincoln? Yet the Times has no difficulty discussing the last three figures without feeling morally compelled to discuss their blatantly racist views, which have long been available in print.

    The third problem with Nelson’s condemnation is that it overlooks the fact that some of the critics of the civil rights movement may have been correct in their interpretation of contemporary American history. They were looking at the long-range historical dynamic of administrative intrusiveness combined with social turmoil, the bedeviling consequences of which we continue to live with. Although neoconservative George Will notes with delight «the amazing speed with which America has changed for the better» because of the civil rights revolution (New York Post, June 25, 2006), this is not the view of a social conservative or of a strict constitutionalist. What we now have is a permanent revolution fueled by the war against «discrimination» and white guilt over real or alleged racial disparities. We also see, as Bill Buckley presciently warned in his better moments in the 1960s, what happens when tens of millions of black voters, mobilized by civil rights leaders, push the American government steadily leftward. The effect of the black vote mobilized in the 1960s has been to accelerate the social engineering and anti-discrimination shakedowns that «our forebears» sensed would come. My own forebear, that is, my father, warned against these trends until the end of his life and used to complain as a fire commissioner that because of this political mobilization, it was impossible to maintain high, consistent standards for testing prospective firefighters. Such difficulties are not incidental to a supposedly glorious development that Charles Krauthammer and George Will can only speak about in reverential tones. Taken together with racial and gender quotas, government-encouraged racial and gender programs in universities, and the stress from public communicators on the unique evil of the white race, they are all developments that the civil rights movement ushered in.

    Most of these themes could already be found in the published views of Martin Luther King, before his non-martyred successors came on the scene. The conservatives who now stand under judgment were not wrong in what they imagined would happen. They simply interpreted a development that was contemporaneous with their adult lives in a less cheerful way than George Will. Like my father, they took a justifiably dim view of where things were going. They knew that the end of History would not be reached as soon as Southern states featured integrated water fountains or earnest black students were admitted to previously all-white Southern universities. Without doubt Southern segregationist politicians could be every bit as sleazy and opportunistic as most of the present members of the US Senate. But the more important question is whether the conservative critics who have now fallen under fire were «outright wrong» in how they understood their own times and in how they explained the incremental revolution that was unfolding before their eyes. The jury is still out on these matters…»

  3. Claro por eso decía en el post anterior que Stern tenía razón.

    Son más solventes que Espan/a

    Nadie se acuerda ya cuando el inepto Banco de Espan/a se gastó gran parte de las reservas en 1992 en mantener el tipo de cambio de una peseta en vez de dejarla flotar.

    Todo va hand-in-hand

    Sobrevivirán los países que han hecho mejor las cosas.

Dejar una contestacion

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada.


*