Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
You're still don't get what I'm saying. The fact that they took those risks (high debts) was because they knew that when everything would go wrong, the government would save their asses. If they knew the government wasn't going to save them, they'd have been more conservative in taking risks.
people take debts because someone give it them-
banks offer loan because they take money for cheap and loan it for good interest.
they both make their interest. none of them care about failure. there's no difference at all if they'll be saved or not.
That's just not true. Exporting hasn't dropped dramatically in Northern Europe (in the traditional exporting countries like Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, ...). The problem we have is that our banks owned too many financial products of southern countries.
This is false.
your bank are safe until Draghi says "UE pays for all", you are not seeing the economic crisis is coming to "north".
Repay? Repay? Pay you mean.
re-pay, when you take something with cheat (not respecting threaty you accepted)
you re pay back.
and Friedman was smarter than his henchmen..
people take debts because someone give it them-
banks offer loan because they take money for cheap and loan it for good interest.
they both make their interest. none of them care about failure. there's no difference at all if they'll be saved or not.
That's just not true. Exporting hasn't dropped dramatically in Northern Europe (in the traditional exporting countries like Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, ...). The problem we have is that our banks owned too many financial products of southern countries.
This is false.
your bank are safe until Draghi says "UE pays for all", you are not seeing the economic crisis is coming to "north".
Repay? Repay? Pay you mean.
re-pay, when you take something with cheat (not respecting threaty you accepted)
you re pay back.
and Friedman was smarter than his henchmen..
they both make their interest. none of them care about failure. there's no difference at all if they'll be saved or not.
This is simply denial of reality. 1) Interest is largely determined by the central bank (=government intervention). 2) People do take into account whether or not their company can go broke or not. They really do.
This is false.
your bank are safe until Draghi says "UE pays for all", you are not seeing the economic crisis is coming to "north".
It has already arrived. The difference is that we have a stronger economy, that is less dependent on the public sector than most countries in the South.
This is simply denial of reality. 1) Interest is largely determined by the central bank (=government intervention). 2) People do take into account whether or not their company can go broke or not. They really do.
This is false.
your bank are safe until Draghi says "UE pays for all", you are not seeing the economic crisis is coming to "north".
It has already arrived. The difference is that we have a stronger economy, that is less dependent on the public sector than most countries in the South.
This is simply denial of reality. 1) Interest is largely determined by the central bank (=government intervention). 2) People do take into account whether or not their company can go broke or not. They really do.
1 - interest determinated by central bank but central bank is "indipendent" (monetaristic theory, you know..), has its gola that doesn't necessarily accord with gov's (by the way: which gov? UE 's gov? LOL )
so there's no gov, no market, nothing.. (I'll say elites rules..)
2- people thinks that interest rate take count of profit AND risk.
If the rate is very low they think there's NO RISK at all.
they are wrong, but still they do it.
Low rate make people more tempted to make loans (more activities get economically substainable)
and contemporary make banks more tempted to give loans (even if someone don't repay they get a big profit, it's a calculated risk) . Take a look at the banks stocks in past 10 years to have an idea of how much..
The difference is that we have a stronger economy, that is less dependent on the public sector than most countries in the South.
I'll sit by the river and wait..
1 - interest determinated by central bank but central bank is "indipendent" (monetaristic theory, you know..), has its gola that doesn't necessarily accord with gov's (by the way: which gov? UE 's gov? LOL )
so there's no gov, no market, nothing.. (I'll say elites rules..)
2- people thinks that interest rate take count of profit AND risk.
If the rate is very low they think there's NO RISK at all.
they are wrong, but still they do it.
Low rate make people more tempted to make loans (more activities get economically substainable)
and contemporary make banks more tempted to give loans (even if someone don't repay they get a big profit, it's a calculated risk) . Take a look at the banks stocks in past 10 years to have an idea of how much..
The difference is that we have a stronger economy, that is less dependent on the public sector than most countries in the South.
I'll sit by the river and wait..
1 - interest determinated by central bank but central bank is "indipendent" (monetaristic theory, you know..), has its gola that doesn't necessarily accord with gov's (by the way: which gov? UE 's gov? LOL )
so there's no gov, no market, nothing.. (I'll say elites rules..)
First of all, yes, the European Union is a government layer. It really is. You should search for how many of your legislation is coming from Europe. It would probably surprise you.
Secondly, the central bank is part of the central government. It really is. It is a public organization that is working independently (apart from Sweden that is) from the rest of the government. The ECB, does that ring any bell?
2- people thinks that interest rate take count of profit AND risk.
If the rate is very low they think there's NO RISK at all.
I agree with this. Which is why I consider the Fed to be a criminal organization. (The Fed is not a part of the government, but it is a central planner within the financial markets.) The interest rate should be determined by the free market, not by central planning.
so there's no gov, no market, nothing.. (I'll say elites rules..)
First of all, yes, the European Union is a government layer. It really is. You should search for how many of your legislation is coming from Europe. It would probably surprise you.
Secondly, the central bank is part of the central government. It really is. It is a public organization that is working independently (apart from Sweden that is) from the rest of the government. The ECB, does that ring any bell?
2- people thinks that interest rate take count of profit AND risk.
If the rate is very low they think there's NO RISK at all.
I agree with this. Which is why I consider the Fed to be a criminal organization. (The Fed is not a part of the government, but it is a central planner within the financial markets.) The interest rate should be determined by the free market, not by central planning.
1-
BCE works indipendently from UE 's gov (if you call gov it..)
BCE works with a proper goal: low inflaction, given by UE's threaty, not from any actual european gov
2-
The problem is that we have different economies under the same coin.
If I have inflaction, but I can't modify my rates.. I'll loose productivity.
this is what Germany did.
Lower its inflaction to gain productivity against southern countries (but in UE's threaties there were written to do something different..).
Look here:
balance of payments
BCE works indipendently from UE 's gov (if you call gov it..)
BCE works with a proper goal: low inflaction, given by UE's threaty, not from any actual european gov
2-
The problem is that we have different economies under the same coin.
If I have inflaction, but I can't modify my rates.. I'll loose productivity.
this is what Germany did.
Lower its inflaction to gain productivity against southern countries (but in UE's threaties there were written to do something different..).
Look here:
balance of payments
@ Red:
Regards communism and capitalism its more complicated. In poor countries where poor are dying socialism should be step forward. Communist countries were not maybe on par with developed countries of western world but were still better than majority of rest world. Totalitarian countries are also effective in imposing social changes (for example limiting number of children and proper healthcare that needed in Africa).
In the long run, they're better off with capitalism. But real capitalism. Because let's take the poorest continent of all, Africa. The local economy is growing slowly. Why? Because the Europeans dump their heavily subsidized product over there. We should stop doing that. We should not give them a fish, we should learn them how to fish.
Socialism focuses on redistributing wealth. That's not what is needed in poor countries. Wealth creation is what they need. And for that, socialism is not the solution. In contrary.
Regards communism and capitalism its more complicated. In poor countries where poor are dying socialism should be step forward. Communist countries were not maybe on par with developed countries of western world but were still better than majority of rest world. Totalitarian countries are also effective in imposing social changes (for example limiting number of children and proper healthcare that needed in Africa).
In the long run, they're better off with capitalism. But real capitalism. Because let's take the poorest continent of all, Africa. The local economy is growing slowly. Why? Because the Europeans dump their heavily subsidized product over there. We should stop doing that. We should not give them a fish, we should learn them how to fish.
Socialism focuses on redistributing wealth. That's not what is needed in poor countries. Wealth creation is what they need. And for that, socialism is not the solution. In contrary.
BCE works indipendently from UE 's gov (if you call gov it..)
BCE works with a proper goal: low inflaction, given by UE's threaty, not from any actual european gov
Strictly, that is true. We all know that's not the case though. (Actualy, only two days ago, I had the final class of my course of "Economic Aspects of European Integration".) And Europe has more financial institutions than the ECB. The ESM for instance.
(And btw, could you use the English abbreviations? Because sometimes it's difficult to see what you mean.)
The problem is that we have different economies under the same coin.
Oh, you don't have to convince me of that.
(edited)
BCE works with a proper goal: low inflaction, given by UE's threaty, not from any actual european gov
Strictly, that is true. We all know that's not the case though. (Actualy, only two days ago, I had the final class of my course of "Economic Aspects of European Integration".) And Europe has more financial institutions than the ECB. The ESM for instance.
(And btw, could you use the English abbreviations? Because sometimes it's difficult to see what you mean.)
The problem is that we have different economies under the same coin.
Oh, you don't have to convince me of that.
(edited)
(And btw, could you use the English abbreviations? Because sometimes it's difficult to see what you mean.)
excuse me. Wich abbreviation? Please correct me, as I don't konw them!
excuse me. Wich abbreviation? Please correct me, as I don't konw them!
Well, I guess that in Italian you have something like "Banco Centrale Europea", but it's just ECB (European Central Bank). Or EU (European Union, not UE). Or the UN. Quite frankly, I think all abbreviations are different. It's just annoying to have to search for what they mean (okay, UE and EU are similar, but I do recall that some weren't). That's all ;-)
Good news: French court has decided that Hollande's 75%-tax is unconstitutional.
Socialism is unconstitutional :D
Socialism is unconstitutional :D
Socialism on it's own isn't working, democratic social liberalism is the way forwards ;)
As far as i know, it is not about the tax itsalf but only the way it would be used : as the tax is individual, one couple and only one work and earns 1.2 M € / year i.e., the tx would be 75% of the 200k €... 2nd case : one couple and each one earns 800k € / year, then no one would be concerned by this tax whereas the total budget of each family is 1.2 M € for 1st one and 1.6 M € for 2nd one. That's why it has been decided to be unconstitutional. For info, tax is due for each family normally except this tax that was decided for each person...
Cherry-picking for evidence as usual :)
My last sentence was a joke, I hope you realized that.
do you know what is funny ?
In socialism times Slovakia and others always look on western europe, economics boom and private property and low taxes. Then we get in free market too and Slovakia is now growing (we have every year top GDP), we have low taxes and so.... and now we are looking that Germany and France have 50% or higher taxes and are very close to socialism :-DD
In socialism times Slovakia and others always look on western europe, economics boom and private property and low taxes. Then we get in free market too and Slovakia is now growing (we have every year top GDP), we have low taxes and so.... and now we are looking that Germany and France have 50% or higher taxes and are very close to socialism :-DD