分类： 未分类

“AUTOSTAT”分析机构的专家们对俄罗斯最畅销的高端汽车进行了评级。

根据前2019年前九个月的评级结果，位居第一的是雷克萨斯RX ，汽车爱好者们已经购买了6437辆该款汽车。
榜单上位居第二的是梅赛德斯-奔驰E级，其销售量为6002辆。 其次是宝马5系列（5204辆）和宝马X3（4373辆），排名第五的是雷克萨斯NX（4101辆）。
此外，十大最畅销的高档车还有宝马X5、奔驰GLC、宝马3系、奔驰C级和雷克萨斯LX。

俄罗斯能源部副部长阿纳托利·雅诺夫斯基在《能源政策》杂志发表署名文章称，十年内俄罗斯对中国的煤炭出口规模可较2018年水平翻一番，达到每年5500万吨。

雅诺夫斯基指出，俄罗斯的煤炭储量大，煤炭产品品质优良，这都是俄罗斯在中国市场与亚太地区煤炭供应国竞争的优势。
雅诺夫斯基写道：“中国是与韩国和日本一样，都是煤炭进口大国。而正是因为中国等国，俄罗斯才能稳居（继澳大利亚和印度尼西亚之后的）世界第三大煤炭出口国的地位。”

他认为，由于俄中两国间的运输距离相对较短，俄罗斯对华煤炭供应量还具有很好的增长潜力。

他说，预计今年俄罗斯对华煤炭出口可增长27%，达到3500万吨，对亚太地区国家的煤炭出口总量可达1亿吨左右。

根据俄能源部5月的预测，俄罗斯2019年全年的煤炭出口总量可达2.25亿吨，同比增长7.1%，其中向亚太国家的出口量可占煤炭出口总量的近45%。

企业从银行借来家庭积攒的资金，对工厂等展开投资，以推动经济再次扩张——日美欧这种资金的循环正在发生异常变化。2000年代以后，日美欧的企业部门不用尽赚到的金钱的格局固定下来。即便已步入老龄化，家庭仍在持续积蓄资金。一方面，以猛烈的势头借贷过剩资金的则是政府，情况变得与以往的一般认识有所不同的日美欧经济将走向何方？

一个国家的经济可以分为企业、家庭、政府和海外等4个部分。关注资金流动的“资金循环”统计显示，企业在传统上通过借贷来花费比收入更多的资金，属于“资金不足”的主体。

另一方面，家庭一般来说则呈现为了将来而储蓄一部分收入的“资金过剩”状态。家庭的储蓄通过金融机构流向企业，企业为了推出新商品和服务而建设工厂和店铺。这种机制一直支撑着经济增长。按与国内生产总值（GDP）之比来看，1960～1980年代的日美企业大体上维持2～7％左右的资金不足。

不过，在2000年代情况为之一变。据欧盟委员会统计，日美欧的企业部门合计自2002年起维持资金过剩的趋势，之后截至2018年累计超过10万亿美元。企业只在盈利的范围内展开投资的情况浮现。

日本企业因1990年代后半期的金融危机而减少贷款，抑制了投资。美国也受2008年的雷曼危机影响，抱着资金不放的企业出现增加。

背后存在产业结构的变化。在日美欧经济中，制造业的基地转移至新兴市场国家，数字产业等开始成为经济增长的核心。因此，展开像制造业那样的巨额设备投资的必要性下降。其代表是美国IT巨头“GAFA（谷歌、苹果、Facebook、亚马逊）”。谷歌母公司 Alphabet的净现金收支最近5年合计盈余约1000亿美元。

日本一桥大学的祝迫得夫教授认为“看似有利可图的投资机会在减少”。由于潜在增长率低迷，企业难以找到有望获得相应回报的项目。信用等级低的企业的债务膨胀令人担忧，但从整体来看，被健全的企业的储蓄抵消。使用途径也多为再融资和投机性的企业收购等无法带来健康增长的情况。

从家庭收支来看，过剩资金的增加日趋明显。日美欧迈向老龄化，本来不断动用储蓄的情况理应增加。但由于长寿化影响，人们对晚年的不安突出，长期工作、持续积攒金钱的人正在增加。

一手借用这些过剩资金的是政府。在日美欧，过去30年政府部门的资金不足金额累计达到37万亿美元，企业和家庭的过剩资金（34万亿美元）全部被吸收。即便如此，以日欧为中心，很多国家的国债收益率降至负值区间。

彼德森国际经济研究所的奥利维尔·布兰查德(Olivier Jean Blanchard)表示“国家背负债务，或许不是什么严重问题”。在利率低于增长率的现状下，财政赤字的容忍度将随之提高。监督各国财政的国际货币基金组织（IMF）的前首席经济学家的“财政扩张建议”引发了激烈讨论。

日本上智大学的中里透副教授表示，“如果对经济低迷置之不理，将陷入通货紧缩。作为经济政策，难以选择财政健全化”，同时警告称“效率低下的开支增加，生产效率存在下降的风险”。政府能否找到比企业更能推动经济增长的资金的用途？在无法摆脱长期停滞的情况下，存在政府债务滚雪球般膨胀的风险。

日本调查公司富士经济（东京中央区）汇总的预测数据显示，到2035年纯电动汽车（EV）的全球市场规模（新车销量）将扩大至2018的16.9倍，达到2202万辆。预计将以中国和欧洲为中心快速增长，到2021年将超过先行一步的混合动力车（HV）的市场规模。最大市场中国2035年的市场规模将占到整体的5成。

2018年的纯电动汽车全球市场规模较2017年增长71%至130万辆。受全球加强环保限制的趋势影响，纯电动汽车的销量出现增长。续航里程在400公里以上的车型上市，此外充电频率与汽油车的加油频率相仿，这也促使纯电动汽车的市场规模出现扩大。

从各地区2035年的纯电动汽车市场规模来看，预计最大市场中国将增至2018年的13.7倍，达1056万辆，欧洲将增至2018年的32.1倍，达674万辆，仅次于中国。中国和德国的汽车厂商正在积极开发和销售纯电动汽车。

预计2035年混合动力车的全球市场规模将达785万辆，是2018年的3.4倍。其中，日本市场占到2成左右。此次统计仅以高电压的“全混合动力（FULL HYBRID）”为对象，不包括海外汽车厂商采用的名为“弱混合动力（MILD HYBRID）”的简易型混合动力车。

美国联邦储备委员会(美联储/FED)周五发布的报告指出，总体来看，美国金融体系稳定，但企业债务水平高企、全球利率长期处于低位的影响、以及＂稳定币＂提议的出现，都可能构成风险。

在其最新出炉的半年度金融稳定报告中，美联储表示，自5月发布上一份稳定报告以来，金融体系状况几无变化，“金融业的核心看起来颇具韧性”。

美联储指出，一些资产的估值较高，尤其是商业地产。但认为“风险偏好”仍符合“历史正常水平”，家庭债务”相对于收入处于温和水平＂，大型银行的＂杠杆水平较低＂，对潜在波动性较大的短期融资工具的使用给金融机构构成的风险不大。

但该报告强调指出，美联储仍担心创纪录的企业债务水平。一些联储官员担心，如果企业活动放缓，这些债务将成为坏账，并加剧任何可能出现的经济滑坡。此外，联储还表示，随着时间的推移，全球性的低借贷成本可能侵蚀银行、保险公司和养老基金的回报，促使它们进行风险更大的投资。

随着时间的推移，新兴的金融技术，比如Facebook提议的“稳定币”加密货币网络，可能会带来问题。

“当前极低的信贷利差，和风险较高的非金融企业的高负债，包括通过杠杆贷款产生的负债，相结合的局面值得我们提高警惕，”美联储理事布雷纳德在一份事先准备好的声明中表示，“从中期来看，长时间的低息环境，以及与此相关的追求收益和承担额外债务的动机，可能会增加金融脆弱性。＂

“展望未来，出现一个覆盖全球的＂稳定币＂网络，可能对金融稳定构成重大风险。”

中国央行三季度货币政策执行报告中的专栏文章称，当前中国不存在持续通胀或通缩的基础。CPI同比涨幅走高，结构性特征明显，要警惕通货膨胀预期发散。近几个月PPI同比降幅扩大主要是受基数效应影响，并不意味着存在显著的工业品通缩压力。稳健的货币政策保持松紧适度，促进总体物价水平保持在合理区间运行。

以下是央行货币政策报告中，题为“全面看待CPI与PPI走势”专栏原文：

消费者价格指数（CPI）和工业生产者出厂价格指数（PPI）分别是反映某一时期内消费领域和生产领域价格变动情况的重要经济指标。2019年以来，CPI由年初不到2%的水平逐步走高至10月份的3.8%，PPI从4月份0.9%的年内高点逐步下探至10月份的-1.6%，对此应全面分析、辩证看待。

CPI同比涨幅走高，结构性特征明显，要警惕通货膨胀预期发散。2019年以来单月CPI 同比涨幅有所走高主要受食品价格尤其是猪肉价格较快上涨所拉动，关系到居民“菜篮子”消费成本，须引起重视并妥善应对。前十个月，食品价格同比上涨7.4%，其中受非洲猪瘟影响，生猪供给量下降较快，猪肉价格同比上涨29.7%，并通过消费替代效应带动牛肉、羊肉、蛋类价格分别同比上涨10.2%、11.7%和4.5%，是CPI上行的最主要拉动因素。此外，鲜菜、鲜果价格在个别月份受极端天气影响也出现了阶段性上涨，近期已回落趋稳。2019 年以来，除 品外的其他商品和服务价格基本保持稳定。前十个月，非食品价格、服务价格分别同比增长1.4%和1.8%，涨幅均处于近两年来的低位水平。其中，衣着、房租、旅游、医疗保健价格分别同比上涨1.7%、2.0%、2.0%和2.5%，均相对温和，交通和通信价格还同比下降1.7%。

PPI低位运行，通常反映工业需求偏弱，但近几个月PPI同比降幅扩大主要是受基数效应影响，并不意味着存在显著的工业品通缩压力。10月份PPI同比下降的1.6个百分点中，有 1.2个百分点是翘尾因素，即受上年同期基数较高影响；有0.4个百分点是新涨价因素，主要是2019年1月份PPI环比下降了0.6%，6月份以来PPI月度环比变化表现出一定的回升迹象。总体来看，工业品价格并未出现明显下行压力，未来几个月随着基数效应的逐步消退，预计 PPI同比涨幅将回升。

当前，中国经济运行总体平稳，总供求大体平衡，不存在持续通胀或通缩的基础。预计进入2020年下半年后，翘尾因素对PPI的影响将小于2019年且更加稳定，CPI受食品价格上涨的冲击将逐步消退，两者间的差距有望趋于收窄。下一阶段，稳健的货币政策保持松紧适度，根据经济增长和价格形势变化及时预调微调，稳定经济主体的通胀预期，促进总体物价水平保持在合理区间运行。

Pop stars and designers drive a growing trend for non-binary outfits

When two of the biggest pop stars on the planet sign up to a fashion movement, you know something must be afoot. On Wednesday, Rihanna posted a photo of herself to her 76.8 million followers on Instagram wearing a T-shirt by London-based fashion label Art School. Last month, Harry Styles put out his video for Lights Up in which he wears a blue silk moire suit designed by long-time collaborator Harris Reed.

Both Art School and Harris Reed identify themselves as non-binary labels. On Instagram, Art School defines itself as “a non-binary queer luxury label”, while Harris Reed is “fighting for the beauty of fluidity”. Despite there being a long history of LGBTQI designers working in fashion (McQueen and Lagerfeld among the most famous), they have notably been cis-identifying, white men. The label of “non-binary” in fashion is new (Collins recently announced it was adding “non-binary” to its dictionaries) and pertinent to a younger generation where more than one in 10 millennials identify as transgender or gender non-conforming. There are a clutch of new fashion labels, from One DNA to Riley Studio, that offer the same clothes to everyone, and where dividing your fashion into gendered lines feels out-of-date.

“Previously, fashion was very binary – it was men’s or women’s, and you never could transgress between the two,” Preston Souza, chief of staff and buyer at The Phluid Project, New York’s first gender-free clothes shop, explained to website Rivet. “And what is really beautiful is that Generation Z is rejecting these labels. Sixty per cent of Generation Z will shop across gendered sections, proof that these binary structures are slowly phasing out.”

Younger stars like Billie Eilish, Yungblud and Lil Uzi Vert dress androgynously and speak openly of shopping across the genders (“The women’s section is waaaaay better than the men’s section,” Lil Uzi Vert told US GQ).

Mainstream fashion is playing catch-up. New York fashion week featured 36 models who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming (30 more than last season), while Pose star Indya Moore was the first non-binary person to be the face of a Louis Vuitton campaign.

“It’s not about a girl wearing a suit or a guy wearing a heel, it’s about you feeling yourself and feeling the fantasy and the look,” designer Christopher John Rogers, who has dressed Michelle Obama, Lizzo and whose label won the prestigious CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund award earlier this month, told The Fader. “It’s about queerness in terms of you fully embodying the nuances of yourself when dressing up.”

With high street brands such as Zara and H&M doing gender-neutral lines, this could be the future for fashion. But for the creatives at the heart of this change, there are deeper issues at stake. “To see someone as powerful as [Rihanna] wearing [our label] is really important,” says Eden Loweth, who has run Art School with partner Tom Barratt for three years. For him, “non-binary” is more than a trend: there’s a political element too. “When we formed Art School, we wanted it to be more than a label, more than just about whacking out clothes on the catwalk. It’s about supporting the rights of our [queer]community.”

Eden says that their company is a non-binary one to its core. “Words like ‘queer’ and ‘trans’ are used quite a bit [in fashion] but we are the only brand who work with the entire community,” he says, adding that they do extensive castings, so models are representative of their queer collective. From now on, he says, the onus is on the bigger brands.

“The next step is for fashion to stop seeing gender fluidity as a trend,” fashion and lifestyle blogger Ben Pechey says, “but to see us as real people and ensure that the queer community is given more rights, safety and respect”.

Some apartments from Britain’s biggest retirement builder have dived in value due to hefty charges

McCarthy & Stone’s Laurel Court in Folkestone, where Tony Cross’s father was one of the first buyers Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian
When Tony Cross’s father was the first buyer at a McCarthy & Stone retirement development in Folkestone, Kent, he thought he was getting a bargain. The sales rep offered him an “early bird” discount, knocking £3,000 off the cost of a one-bed flat, selling it to him for £161,950 in 2007. But since inheriting it four years ago, Cross has been unable to find a buyer, and is considering selling it to a “buy it now” company – for just £28,000.

How could a relatively newly-built apartment in good condition, with more than 100 years remaining on the lease, collapse in value so spectacularly? The average apartment in Folkestone has gone up in price from £137,000 to £162,000 since 2007 – so why is the McCarthy & Stone flat potentially going for less than the price of a garage in the seaside town?

McCarthy & Stone is the biggest builder of retirement flats in Britain, with 1,200 developments across the country, and sales of about £700m a year, but has faced repeated accusations of poor resale values.

Perhaps even more shocking is the council tax bill on Cross’s one-bed flat, which has spiralled to £3,000 this year and is heading to £4,500 next year – or more than the tax on a multimillion-pound mansion in Mayfair.

When Cross first inherited the flat in 2015, the estate agents put it on the market for £143,000. But there wasn’t a sniff of interest. It was reduced to £135,000, then £120,000. Cross changed agents seven times. The valuation kept falling – to £99,000, then £89,000, then £69,000, then £59,000. But even at this price, he can’t find a buyer.

Why not? Cross blames what he describes as the “punitive” service charge on the one-bed flat. Last year the charge was £562 every month – equal to £6,744 a year, although this year it dropped back to £519 a month. On top of that, the ground rent is a further £415 a year. In other words, a retired person could be paying nearly all their state pension in service and ground rent charges.

“The feedback from the selling agents is that the high cost of service charges puts people off buying,” says Cross.

While the flat has been on the market, Cross has been liable for the service charge, ground rent and council tax, shelling out £18,000 so far. “I’m going to go bankrupt at this rate,” he says. “In total it’s costing me £900 a month to keep. I’ve got my own home to pay for, and you can’t run two houses on a normal wage. It’s been one huge money pit. One of the buy-it-now companies has offered me as little as £15,000 for it. The stress has been so much, and to be honest it’s made me so stroppy and moody, it’s cost me my relationship too.”

Cross says that when he researched Land Registry figures, he found that other flats in the development had been sold for £99,000 when new. “So much for the early bird discount,” he says.

Cross is not alone in finding that retirement flats can be a poor investment. Figures prepared for the BBC in 2017 by the Elderly Accommodation Counsel, a charity, found that about half of new-build retirement homes sold during a 10-year period were later resold at a loss. But more recent research from the EAC showed that retirement flats built since 2009 have increased their value upon resale.

That’s no comfort for many who bought in Cross’s development, Laurel Court. A flat bought in April 2010 for £150,000 sold for £75,000 last year. Another purchased for £151,000 in November 2009 sold for £105,000 in April this year. A two-bed flat in the block is currently listed on Rightmove at £45,000, and is the cheapest property for sale in the whole of Folkestone. The agent says it is in “impeccable condition” but warns that service charges apply. When Guardian Money checked this week, there were 18 listings on Rightmove of flats in Laurel Court, many with “reduced” stickers.

Of the other flats going cheap in Folkestone, many are in Pleydell Court – another McCarthy & Stone development. The most recent sale there was for £80,000, a £15,000 fall from the price it sold for 11 years earlier.

One problem is the very limited range of people allowed to buy. Like most retirement developments, it only permits couples aged over 55 or single people aged over 60. What’s more, mainstream mortgage firms won’t lend against these types of retirement properties.

“They are really lovely, immaculate flats, with a lovely communal lounge,” said one Folkestone estate agent contacted by Guardian Money. “But people are just very wary about the service charges, which on the two-bedders are around £7,500 a year.”

Council tax has turned into a nightmare for Cross. He showed Guardian Money his latest bill from Folkestone and Hythe council. Although the one-bed flat is only a band B property – one band above the lowest valuation – this year’s bill is £2,969.44. Next year it will rise to nearly £4,500.

Cross has been caught by the empty homes premium, an initiative designed to bring longstanding empty homes back into use. It allows councils in England to double the council tax on properties empty for two years, and triple it if they have been empty for five.

As Cross’s home has sat on the market since 2015, the local council has applied the doubling in tax, and can triple it next year. Cross says the flat was initially left empty after his father had to go into special care before he died. He says he can’t be the only person in a situation to have inherited a retirement flat and not left it empty out of choice but because they can’t find a buyer. Even if he let it out, he says he has been advised the rent would be about £600 a month at most, leaving him with an ongoing loss every month.

When Cross does find a buyer, there is a final sting in the tail – he will have to give the freeholder a 2% share of the proceeds. He says he has also been asked for £324 for a “seller’s pack”.

As Warren and Sanders have gone on the attack, some plutocrats are getting angry at the billionaire-bashing – and others are running for the White House

Michael Bloomberg is making moves to enter the 2020 race – and some of his fellow billionaires are already coming out for him.
Michael Bloomberg is making moves to enter the 2020 race – and some of his fellow billionaires are already coming out for him. Photograph: Scott Eisen/Getty Images
The 1996 US election was all about the “soccer mom”; 2004 belonged to the “Nascar dads”; Donald Trump won the White House with a “basket of deplorables”. Every election cycle seems to have a key demographic said to define the race, and 2020 is no different. This is the campaign of the “boo-hoo billionaire”.

There’s a billionaire in the White House and two of the top Democratic rivals for Trump’s job, senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have made ever-widening income inequality central to their campaign.

“I don’t think that billionaires should exist,” Sanders said recently, citing the “immoral level of income and wealth inequality” that has only deepened under the Trump administration.

One billionaire bid for the White House has already flamed out. Howard Schultz, Starbuck’s former barista-in-chief, ended his run almost as soon as it had begun chased away by angry crowds who labeled him an “egotistical billionaire asshole!”

Howard Schultz called ‘billionaire elite’ by heckler in New York – video
That hasn’t stopped another billionaire, hedge-fund mogul Tom Steyer, running for the Democratic nomination. And now former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, founder of the eponymous media empire, is also making moves to enter the race, fired up by the billionaire bashing. Ironically, Bloomberg (net worth $52.3bn) signaled his intention to get in the race by getting his name on the ballot in Alabama, one of the poorest states in the union with a median household income of $48,123.

Kevin Kruse, professor of history at Princeton University and co-author of Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974, believes there’ll be more to come. “The Trump candidacy made a lot of them think, ‘Well, if this guy with his inherited wealth, who went bankrupt all the time, if he can do it, why not me?’”

The mistake they make is ignoring Trump’s charisma and “huckster showmanship”, said Kruse. “They think because they have even more money they will have more charisma. That’s not the case, It wasn’t with Schultz, it isn’t with Steyer and it’s not going to be with Bloomberg,” he said. “The idea that Mike Bloomberg is going to do well in Alabama is insane.”

That’s not what the billionaires think. As Warren and Sanders have stepped up their attacks, a host of plutocrats have gone public with their anger at all this billionaire-bashing, and some are already coming out for Bloomberg.

For them, this is personal. The “great plute freakout of 2019” as Anand Giridharadas, the author of Winner Takes All, a recent study of the deleterious impact of elites, has called it, is literally reducing billionaires to tears.

Asked about his views on the 2020 election on CNBC earlier this month, moist-eyed investment giant Leon Cooperman, worth $3.2bn according to Forbes, could barely hold back the tears.

“I care. That’s it,” he sobbed, eyes cast down and shuffling papers.

Cooperman has clashed with Warren in recent months after she proposed higher taxes on the super wealthy. “I believe in a progressive income tax and the rich paying more. But this is the fucking American dream she is shitting on,” Cooperman told Politico.

“The vilification of billionaires makes no sense to me,” Cooperman told CNBC. He called her policies “idiocy” and said it was “appealing to the lowest common denominator, and basically trying to turn people’s heads around by promising a lot of free stuff”.

Warren responded with a tweet, saying: “One thing I know he cares about – his fortune. He’s a shareholder in Navient, a student loan company that has cheated borrowers and used abusive, misleading tactics. He even went so far as to ask how I might impact his investment in the last earnings call with Navient.”

Her campaign is now selling mugs stamped with Billionaire Tears.

Days later, a far perkier Cooperman went on CNBC to celebrate the news that the “terrific” Bloomberg was potentially in the race. “He’s a unifier, he’s bright, he’s immensely successful, he’s been extremely generous with his resources,” he said.

Cooperman was particularly impressed that as New York’s mayor, Bloomberg successful blocked a proposed billionaires tax. “He resisted, and he explained that if you lose one billionaire, you lose more revenue than you are gonna get from everyone else. So he understands how the system works.”

The problem for this caterwauling Croesus and his cohorts is that, in fact, many billionaires know that the system does not work. Over the last few years a bevy of billionaires have warned that the society that created them faces an existential threat in income inequality.

The yawning gap between rich and poor is now a “national emergency”, hedge-fund king Ray Dalio ($18.7bn) wrote in an 8,000-plus-word blogpost on Linkedin back in April. Dalio’s fears have been echoed by JP Morgan boss Jamie Morgan ($1.6bn), Warren Buffett ($87bn) and others but none have matched his devastating and detailed critique.