Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
You're talking nonsense. What precedence? Bank going bankrupt? That's a precedence? Were you born yesterday? Can't you read? It's either 90% or bankruptcy, i.e. going towards zero and coming late or never.
What breaking of human rights? You're advocating that people lose ALL their money. And that also wouldn't be breaking of human rights.
My bank can go bankrupt tomorow as well. I am aware of that and I still don't put money in my matress. You go and put yours in the matress and then beware of Gypsies instead of bankers. ;)
What breaking of human rights? You're advocating that people lose ALL their money. And that also wouldn't be breaking of human rights.
My bank can go bankrupt tomorow as well. I am aware of that and I still don't put money in my matress. You go and put yours in the matress and then beware of Gypsies instead of bankers. ;)
That's not argumentation. That's wishful thinking. ;)
So, how would you avoid a bank run? (Yes, a bank run is not rational, but then again, a lot of people aren't rational.)
By the way, it's a tax on all accounts, also those at healthy banks (if there are any healthy banks). At least, only take money away from those who have accounts at the banks that must be saved.
(edited)
By the way, it's a tax on all accounts, also those at healthy banks (if there are any healthy banks). At least, only take money away from those who have accounts at the banks that must be saved.
(edited)
It is foolish to intervene in a discussion that understand and even worse if they use the words of the enemy. Your comment is really very poor.
Unfortunately not think you understand what I mean.
Unfortunately not think you understand what I mean.
Bankruptcy? Gypsies? The state is taking away between 6.75% and 10% from ALL damn accounts, regardless of banks and mattresses and all the other shit...
So, how would you avoid a bank run? (Yes, a bank run is not rational, but then again, a lot of people aren't rational.)
The way it's always done. Limit daily liquidity and close daily when the money runs out. If it persists, file for bankruptcy.
By the way, it's a tax on all accounts, also those at healthy banks (if there are any healthy banks). At least, only take money away from those who have accounts at the banks that must be saved.
Maybe they also need to prevent the domino effect. I don't know enough. Do you?
The way it's always done. Limit daily liquidity and close daily when the money runs out. If it persists, file for bankruptcy.
By the way, it's a tax on all accounts, also those at healthy banks (if there are any healthy banks). At least, only take money away from those who have accounts at the banks that must be saved.
Maybe they also need to prevent the domino effect. I don't know enough. Do you?
The way it's always done. Limit daily liquidity and close daily when the money runs out. If it persists, file for bankruptcy.
That won't stop it.
Maybe they also need to prevent the domino effect. I don't know enough. Do you?
If a bank is not in trouble right now, that means they didn't get hit by the financial crisis (or at least not hard). It means they won't get hit when another domino effect unrolls.
That won't stop it.
Maybe they also need to prevent the domino effect. I don't know enough. Do you?
If a bank is not in trouble right now, that means they didn't get hit by the financial crisis (or at least not hard). It means they won't get hit when another domino effect unrolls.
"Ok. So you say it's not 100%, but it's not 50/50 either. What are the chances then in your opinion, and why? 75/25? 99/1? Why does it matter? As far as I know, the fact is, we don't know anything about the chances. People can choose to believe or not. I don't mind if people say they don't believe, it's their personal choice and doesn't effect me. But when someone calls me names just for picking one of the options, I don't think that I'm either the malicious or the stupid one"
I didn't call you stupid. You could have been holding a position for purposes of debate.
I think that it is a lot more than 99% likely that god does not exist. On this basis, people who believe in god should have exactly the same legal rights as people who believe in other equally improbable things. They should have the right to believe them, of course, but the rest of the world shouldn't have to watch their tongues around people who believe in eight-legged, three tailed unicorns (as Gohf suggested) or similar.
You say people's beliefs are personal choices and don't affect the wider public. Well that may be true in the case of unicorns, but it almost never is in the case of religions. I'm not prepared, for instance, to maraud across Europe on a horse wielding a sword, strap an explosive vest on and kill myself, dodge taxes or oppress large swathes of society in the name of atheism.
As you can guess, I'm not a believer, but what I actually am is an antitheist. I believe that all religions are actually a force for evil on this earth for a multitude of reasons. If religious people could go about their business without propping up their evil empires or filling their children's minds with the same nonsense, I'd have no issues with it. Sadly, almost to a person, they can't.
[link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/nov/29/pseudoscience-science-argument[/link]
Here's a (hopefully humorous) link about maintaining a position that really isn't backed up by any evidence.
I didn't call you stupid. You could have been holding a position for purposes of debate.
I think that it is a lot more than 99% likely that god does not exist. On this basis, people who believe in god should have exactly the same legal rights as people who believe in other equally improbable things. They should have the right to believe them, of course, but the rest of the world shouldn't have to watch their tongues around people who believe in eight-legged, three tailed unicorns (as Gohf suggested) or similar.
You say people's beliefs are personal choices and don't affect the wider public. Well that may be true in the case of unicorns, but it almost never is in the case of religions. I'm not prepared, for instance, to maraud across Europe on a horse wielding a sword, strap an explosive vest on and kill myself, dodge taxes or oppress large swathes of society in the name of atheism.
As you can guess, I'm not a believer, but what I actually am is an antitheist. I believe that all religions are actually a force for evil on this earth for a multitude of reasons. If religious people could go about their business without propping up their evil empires or filling their children's minds with the same nonsense, I'd have no issues with it. Sadly, almost to a person, they can't.
[link]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/brain-flapping/2012/nov/29/pseudoscience-science-argument[/link]
Here's a (hopefully humorous) link about maintaining a position that really isn't backed up by any evidence.
I think that it is a lot more than 99% likely that god does not exist.
God is rather abstractive for us... but what about Jesus Christ? How do you explain the rapid expansion of Christianity in Roman Empire? Do you suppose that Saint Peter or Paul had any benefits of telling people about Christ's life?
(edited)
God is rather abstractive for us... but what about Jesus Christ? How do you explain the rapid expansion of Christianity in Roman Empire? Do you suppose that Saint Peter or Paul had any benefits of telling people about Christ's life?
(edited)
1) Sorry for my bad English, I didn't mean that you called me stupid. My original comment was a reaction to Gohf's comment, who said that believers disrespect human sense, and later he also told we're weak.
2) Ok, then you think, it's more than 99%. So you believe in atheism. You are also free to start a movement about those unicorns. If you'll have enough members, you'll also get lots of legal rights. You can manage a lot of things, if you're backed with enough supporters, so I don't see why should we artificially break down the legal rights of religions.
3) Wars are started in the name of religions... The classic topic. Btw, did you know, that communism killed about 100 million people (a classic religious response)? For example the war in Afghanistan was started in the name of atheist progression, when going into temples was banned by the commies. That soviet war had about 1 million civilian victims.
I know, you are not a bloodthirsty communist, but believe me, I'm not a muslim terrorist either, and I'm not even a medieval era inquisitionist.
Religions don't start wars, people do. Sometimes they use religion as a tool, sometimes they use other concepts, like nationalities, equality, justice or anything that has enough power on people's emotions. If we throw out everything that could help causing wars, we would have nothing left. Wars would still be started tho. Someday, if the unicorn movement will be strong enough, wars can be started in the name of unicorns too. ;)
4) This evil empire thingy, I don't even wanna understand. You sound scary. :O
5) The sloppy thing in the article is this:
PERSON 1: Well, you're claiming that a team of enthusiastic amateur volunteers, who by definition drink regularly, are better at a sport than a team of professional athletes selected from across the world and paid millions for their ability to play the sport in question better than others. All logic and rationality would suggest that this isn't the case.
There's a very obvious evidence: the championship. ManU is in PL, often winning it, PP is nowhere. I was asking for such an obvious evidence. Until I don't get one, it's more like a Real - Barca debate to me.
2) Ok, then you think, it's more than 99%. So you believe in atheism. You are also free to start a movement about those unicorns. If you'll have enough members, you'll also get lots of legal rights. You can manage a lot of things, if you're backed with enough supporters, so I don't see why should we artificially break down the legal rights of religions.
3) Wars are started in the name of religions... The classic topic. Btw, did you know, that communism killed about 100 million people (a classic religious response)? For example the war in Afghanistan was started in the name of atheist progression, when going into temples was banned by the commies. That soviet war had about 1 million civilian victims.
I know, you are not a bloodthirsty communist, but believe me, I'm not a muslim terrorist either, and I'm not even a medieval era inquisitionist.
Religions don't start wars, people do. Sometimes they use religion as a tool, sometimes they use other concepts, like nationalities, equality, justice or anything that has enough power on people's emotions. If we throw out everything that could help causing wars, we would have nothing left. Wars would still be started tho. Someday, if the unicorn movement will be strong enough, wars can be started in the name of unicorns too. ;)
4) This evil empire thingy, I don't even wanna understand. You sound scary. :O
5) The sloppy thing in the article is this:
PERSON 1: Well, you're claiming that a team of enthusiastic amateur volunteers, who by definition drink regularly, are better at a sport than a team of professional athletes selected from across the world and paid millions for their ability to play the sport in question better than others. All logic and rationality would suggest that this isn't the case.
There's a very obvious evidence: the championship. ManU is in PL, often winning it, PP is nowhere. I was asking for such an obvious evidence. Until I don't get one, it's more like a Real - Barca debate to me.
So, how would you avoid a bank run?
are you asking how technically it is possible to do so?
you block the prelevation and decide to make the tax on the deposit of some days ago.
In Italy (1992) they taxed the amount of deposit of 3/or 4 days before.
are you asking how technically it is possible to do so?
you block the prelevation and decide to make the tax on the deposit of some days ago.
In Italy (1992) they taxed the amount of deposit of 3/or 4 days before.
If a bank is not in trouble right now, that means they didn't get hit by the financial crisis (or at least not hard). It means they won't get hit when another domino effect unrolls.
well..
Abank (cyprus) has Greek bonds
Bbank (italy) has Abank bonds
Cbank (blegium) has Bbank bonds
Dbank (japan) has Cbank bonds
and that is a semplification, because in reality everyone has bonds of everyone else, and they have the public debt of every countries. So when the italian or belgian bank get saved by govs, increasing public debt and increasing the public debt risk, the same circuit run for the public debt owners..
contagium easily reach other countries banks.. i really hard to imagine something different to do else than save banks..
well..
Abank (cyprus) has Greek bonds
Bbank (italy) has Abank bonds
Cbank (blegium) has Bbank bonds
Dbank (japan) has Cbank bonds
and that is a semplification, because in reality everyone has bonds of everyone else, and they have the public debt of every countries. So when the italian or belgian bank get saved by govs, increasing public debt and increasing the public debt risk, the same circuit run for the public debt owners..
contagium easily reach other countries banks.. i really hard to imagine something different to do else than save banks..
2) Ok, then you think, it's more than 99%. So you believe in atheism.
That's where you're wrong. I don't 'believe' in atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. We look at the scientific facts. And then we make assumptions. One assumption is that there is no god, because there has been no scientific validation of its existence. We accept that that assumption can be wrong.
You are also free to start a movement about those unicorns. If you'll have enough members, you'll also get lots of legal rights.
Why should religions get special rights? Humans get rights, not ideas or religions. And the rights of humans should not depend on their religion or their (political) ideas.
The classic topic. Btw, did you know, that communism killed about 100 million people (a classic religious response)?
How does that change the fact that religion has been the cause of quite some wars? (I'm both anti-religious and anti-communist.)
Religions don't start wars, people do.
True. So you're in favor of private gun ownership without restrictions by the government?
Religions didn't start wars, but they were the cause of quite some wars. That's a fact too.
That's where you're wrong. I don't 'believe' in atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. We look at the scientific facts. And then we make assumptions. One assumption is that there is no god, because there has been no scientific validation of its existence. We accept that that assumption can be wrong.
You are also free to start a movement about those unicorns. If you'll have enough members, you'll also get lots of legal rights.
Why should religions get special rights? Humans get rights, not ideas or religions. And the rights of humans should not depend on their religion or their (political) ideas.
The classic topic. Btw, did you know, that communism killed about 100 million people (a classic religious response)?
How does that change the fact that religion has been the cause of quite some wars? (I'm both anti-religious and anti-communist.)
Religions don't start wars, people do.
True. So you're in favor of private gun ownership without restrictions by the government?
Religions didn't start wars, but they were the cause of quite some wars. That's a fact too.
you block the prelevation and decide to make the tax on the deposit of some days ago.
In Italy (1992) they taxed the amount of deposit of 3/or 4 days before.
I don't know if - in my country - it's possible to tax on a situation before the tax was announced. You cannot be guilty of something before it was illegal. You cannot tax something before you - as the government - announce the tax.
And this doesn't change the fact that a lot of Cypriots will think: if they can tax me once, they can tax me another time next year. So let's get our money out of the bank. Do you have a solution for that?
In Italy (1992) they taxed the amount of deposit of 3/or 4 days before.
I don't know if - in my country - it's possible to tax on a situation before the tax was announced. You cannot be guilty of something before it was illegal. You cannot tax something before you - as the government - announce the tax.
And this doesn't change the fact that a lot of Cypriots will think: if they can tax me once, they can tax me another time next year. So let's get our money out of the bank. Do you have a solution for that?
I know what a domino effect is, I'm an economist. Read, please, for once.
Those banks (that are healthy today) survived the domino effect (since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers). So why would you assume they wouldn't survive another domino effect?
Those banks (that are healthy today) survived the domino effect (since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers). So why would you assume they wouldn't survive another domino effect?
I don't know if - in my country - it's possible to tax on a situation before the tax was announced. You cannot be guilty of something before it was illegal. You cannot tax something before you - as the government - announce the tax.
well taxation is not being guilty, I think this mechanism is perfectly legal everywhere.
And this doesn't change the fact that a lot of Cypriots will think: if they can tax me once, they can tax me another time next year. So let's get our money out of the bank. Do you have a solution for that?
I think that the only answer to this is to look to the past.
In Italy we didn't had this problem (we had "only" a 0.6% tax, but there is anyway the problem of breaking the "sacrality" of bank's deposits!!!)