Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
And yes I showed it are science fiction books, as that's what they are.
So every political and/or philosophical book is science fiction? You can disagree with Rand's principles, but they are a valid theory (objectivism). Just like socialism, conservatism or progressivism.
The fact that you keep insisting on putting The Fountainhead (have you even heard about that one?) or Atlas Shrugged in Sci-Fi/Fantasy, just shows you have no idea what these books are about. It's not like the Bible or the Koran making claims on the history of the world and something supernatural.
maybe you should also start to read some books about psychology to know what effects early experiences have on human behaviours and ideas
So? Because somebody fled Russia after the October Revolution doesn't mean their theories are worth any less. Of course it influenced her life and her ideas.
also the crazy behaviours and ideas when they get older
She was in her late thirties when The Fountainhead was published.
(edited)
So every political and/or philosophical book is science fiction? You can disagree with Rand's principles, but they are a valid theory (objectivism). Just like socialism, conservatism or progressivism.
The fact that you keep insisting on putting The Fountainhead (have you even heard about that one?) or Atlas Shrugged in Sci-Fi/Fantasy, just shows you have no idea what these books are about. It's not like the Bible or the Koran making claims on the history of the world and something supernatural.
maybe you should also start to read some books about psychology to know what effects early experiences have on human behaviours and ideas
So? Because somebody fled Russia after the October Revolution doesn't mean their theories are worth any less. Of course it influenced her life and her ideas.
also the crazy behaviours and ideas when they get older
She was in her late thirties when The Fountainhead was published.
(edited)
Hmm saying that having same currency has not advantage sounds unlogical to me. For me as businessman/tourist when I will decide visit or invest in some country same currency would be big advantage and part of reason why go/invest there.
For me as businessman/tourist when I will decide visit or invest in some country same currency would be big advantage and part of reason why go/invest there.
business man/tourist:
why?
can't you do a moltiplication? what advantage give the same currency?
The only real advantage is in avoiding the floating currency risk to whom who want to export MONEY!
If I have some money to invest,but in my home market interest rates are low, I probably want to invest them in growing countries markets, where rates are high, but I don't want to have the risk they devaluate their currency, causing me a loss.
What is the only solution? A fixed exchange area! Where banks of investment can export money gaining great proficts WITHOUT any risk.
Who cares if it produce bubbles and crashes of productivity? Who cares if it create inflaction and destroy the production substainability? Who cares if we lend money to every one wants them without any assurance that he is able to pay?
we can ever impose to public sector of invaded countries to pay for those debts. And then impose some austherity to that un-efficent public sector (always stealing the good taxpayers!)
Then comes the question: Who export money? (and import credit obviously)
Who import money (and debit) ?
edit: lot of errors!
(edited)
business man/tourist:
why?
can't you do a moltiplication? what advantage give the same currency?
The only real advantage is in avoiding the floating currency risk to whom who want to export MONEY!
If I have some money to invest,but in my home market interest rates are low, I probably want to invest them in growing countries markets, where rates are high, but I don't want to have the risk they devaluate their currency, causing me a loss.
What is the only solution? A fixed exchange area! Where banks of investment can export money gaining great proficts WITHOUT any risk.
Who cares if it produce bubbles and crashes of productivity? Who cares if it create inflaction and destroy the production substainability? Who cares if we lend money to every one wants them without any assurance that he is able to pay?
we can ever impose to public sector of invaded countries to pay for those debts. And then impose some austherity to that un-efficent public sector (always stealing the good taxpayers!)
Then comes the question: Who export money? (and import credit obviously)
Who import money (and debit) ?
edit: lot of errors!
(edited)
what advantage give the same currency?
The only real advantage is in avoiding the floating currency risk
Why asking the question if you know the answer?
It's important in the debate that you make a difference between the general idea of a single currency area and the practical example of the poorly constructed Euro-area. You're not doing that. You're looking at one example of a single currency area, and from that example, you conclude that a single currency area is not a good idea. A bit shortsighted if you ask me.
(edited)
The only real advantage is in avoiding the floating currency risk
Why asking the question if you know the answer?
It's important in the debate that you make a difference between the general idea of a single currency area and the practical example of the poorly constructed Euro-area. You're not doing that. You're looking at one example of a single currency area, and from that example, you conclude that a single currency area is not a good idea. A bit shortsighted if you ask me.
(edited)
Why asking the question if you know the answer?
read again. the first question is versus businessman/tourists
the answer versus money investors.
It's important in the debate that you make a difference between the general idea of a single currency area and the practical example of the poorly constructed Euro-area. You're not doing that. You're looking at one example of a single currency area, and from that example, you conclude that a single currency area is not a good idea. A bit shortsighted if you ask me.
you're right.
But there very few examples of fixed exchange rates or single currency areas that are free from those problems. The point is that you can do them only if the areas you want to unite have all the same: language, culture, public sector, democratic structure, labour market, inflaction, productivity, infrastructures etc.
If this precondition is not guaranteed you have 2 possilities:
-to re-equilibrate with transfers (stronger areas gives money to weaker areas), for example it happnes in USA (a great example of one currency area!)
-breaking of fixed currency .
In Europe we had experience of this with SME (broken) and euro (going to broke), every time because of the stupidity and ignorance of German government that rule those choices. But if you look at the whole world you'll find a lot more of examples.
read again. the first question is versus businessman/tourists
the answer versus money investors.
It's important in the debate that you make a difference between the general idea of a single currency area and the practical example of the poorly constructed Euro-area. You're not doing that. You're looking at one example of a single currency area, and from that example, you conclude that a single currency area is not a good idea. A bit shortsighted if you ask me.
you're right.
But there very few examples of fixed exchange rates or single currency areas that are free from those problems. The point is that you can do them only if the areas you want to unite have all the same: language, culture, public sector, democratic structure, labour market, inflaction, productivity, infrastructures etc.
If this precondition is not guaranteed you have 2 possilities:
-to re-equilibrate with transfers (stronger areas gives money to weaker areas), for example it happnes in USA (a great example of one currency area!)
-breaking of fixed currency .
In Europe we had experience of this with SME (broken) and euro (going to broke), every time because of the stupidity and ignorance of German government that rule those choices. But if you look at the whole world you'll find a lot more of examples.
So, nobody force you take a loan but Germany controls Italy so they can force Italy to take their loans.
----
that is quite stupid. money goes where interest rates are higher.
---
money goes.... :-DDD.
No people are taking money and political parties are taking money... :-)
As I said it is so easy to blame others than blame own mistakes....
----
that is quite stupid. money goes where interest rates are higher.
---
money goes.... :-DDD.
No people are taking money and political parties are taking money... :-)
As I said it is so easy to blame others than blame own mistakes....
money goes...
well.
i think you don't want to understand,
if a bank gives loans to companies and people that are not "safe", who has to pay for it?
If I have a 3 months work contract and a bank gives me a 25 years loan for buying a house without any real warranty, who has to pay?
You would ask why a bank would do such a stupid thing..
1- because it get saved by state if it fails, so the risk is ZERO.
2- because it has to find out where to invest the money it collect. If it doesn't find where to put them, and where those money produce a good rate, money soon will go to find better "performances" away.
Anyway, history teach that there are no case where this didn't happen. so your (very stupid and superficial) point about blaming ourselves for it is useless. it happens everywhere there are the condition to.. (s. america, s.east asia, african developing countries, europe 1990/92)
About politicians it is more stupid, because state intervene only when the damage is done (look at spain or Cyprus examples..)
just try to think with your head, and don't believe the lie about good working people against bad lazy thiefs..
that lie is so stupid only a blind man can believe it.
well.
i think you don't want to understand,
if a bank gives loans to companies and people that are not "safe", who has to pay for it?
If I have a 3 months work contract and a bank gives me a 25 years loan for buying a house without any real warranty, who has to pay?
You would ask why a bank would do such a stupid thing..
1- because it get saved by state if it fails, so the risk is ZERO.
2- because it has to find out where to invest the money it collect. If it doesn't find where to put them, and where those money produce a good rate, money soon will go to find better "performances" away.
Anyway, history teach that there are no case where this didn't happen. so your (very stupid and superficial) point about blaming ourselves for it is useless. it happens everywhere there are the condition to.. (s. america, s.east asia, african developing countries, europe 1990/92)
About politicians it is more stupid, because state intervene only when the damage is done (look at spain or Cyprus examples..)
just try to think with your head, and don't believe the lie about good working people against bad lazy thiefs..
that lie is so stupid only a blind man can believe it.
So every political and/or philosophical book is science fiction?
I never said that. Is this a new strategy of yours, turning it around into a dumb question?
You can disagree with Rand's principles, but they are a valid theory (objectivism).
That depends of what you mean by valid. A lot of theories can be valid theories but just as many and most probably even more aren't, and/or only considered valid by those who believe in it.
And no, I haven't read her books, only parts of her theories about objectivism, egoism and selfishness, and that was enough to know what she stands for.
But I have a question for you, which you can deny, ignore, gloze over, trivialize, or whatever, or on the other hand really think over. Why do I get the same feeling when I read your conversations with others and also when writing with you myself about this subject as I get with some in the religious topic (I don't need to mention names as you know them also and many times faced the same ignorance, blinkers and (self)imposed straight line thinking which prevents them to have a critical view, to oversee the whole picture and the effect it has on their ideas about, for example, right(s) and wrong)?
I never said that. Is this a new strategy of yours, turning it around into a dumb question?
You can disagree with Rand's principles, but they are a valid theory (objectivism).
That depends of what you mean by valid. A lot of theories can be valid theories but just as many and most probably even more aren't, and/or only considered valid by those who believe in it.
And no, I haven't read her books, only parts of her theories about objectivism, egoism and selfishness, and that was enough to know what she stands for.
But I have a question for you, which you can deny, ignore, gloze over, trivialize, or whatever, or on the other hand really think over. Why do I get the same feeling when I read your conversations with others and also when writing with you myself about this subject as I get with some in the religious topic (I don't need to mention names as you know them also and many times faced the same ignorance, blinkers and (self)imposed straight line thinking which prevents them to have a critical view, to oversee the whole picture and the effect it has on their ideas about, for example, right(s) and wrong)?
I can say same "from another side", side of bank.
why I (bank) should give you huge amount of MY money, if you not gonna pay it ??? I will lend you money just if you will sign contract where will be written that you will pay it back in next 25 years and if not I can take you that house or what ever. If you dont like, just dont ask for my money. Nobody force you to ask for them.
In case of state debt and politicians. It is very simple. States and politicians are taking loans so they can spend them and people=voters will give them more votes. Nobody care if it will destroy national treasury later. There is no problem till the time GDP is growing, but now GDP is not growing.
EU said at the past that we can have max 3,5% yearly debt or so and 60% of GDP. But stupid politicians dont listen, they destroyed own treasury just to get more voters on their side so now we have problem. It is true that this problem started by crises, but it is not core/author of the problem. I think, EU should not solve this problem, each state with problems should go to bankcrupcy also with people pensions :-). But every state, also Greece can solve their own problem, they just need sold they national property. But EU need to save our own currency, which is now in bad condition so all states need to pay for states which were abusing our common currency long time. That is not fair.
You are telling stories about bad banks, bad system and so... but system is so easy and simple that I can not listen this :-). If you think that system and banks are bad, I would never lend to you or your country euro, never!
System is ok, but fact that a lot of states and also banks are abusing system is ill. But we can have laws and follow them. If somebody takes a lot of money and is not able to pay it back, EU should not care about it. Bank should solve it with owner, not our business and if that bank will go to bancrupcy too, I dont care, they deserve it. There should be just good law to see this before it can happends and make huge problem and this is called control! So system is ok.
sorry for long post and maybe bad english, but I can not hear that fairy tales that banks are evils and we poor people are innocent. Everybody can vote batter leaders and if they will vote stupid leaders it is not bad that they will cheat them, such a stupid voters deserve to be cheated, that is democracy :-)
Market can not solve everyting maybe, but all this we are talking about can be solved very easy just by market, without state influence.
why I (bank) should give you huge amount of MY money, if you not gonna pay it ??? I will lend you money just if you will sign contract where will be written that you will pay it back in next 25 years and if not I can take you that house or what ever. If you dont like, just dont ask for my money. Nobody force you to ask for them.
In case of state debt and politicians. It is very simple. States and politicians are taking loans so they can spend them and people=voters will give them more votes. Nobody care if it will destroy national treasury later. There is no problem till the time GDP is growing, but now GDP is not growing.
EU said at the past that we can have max 3,5% yearly debt or so and 60% of GDP. But stupid politicians dont listen, they destroyed own treasury just to get more voters on their side so now we have problem. It is true that this problem started by crises, but it is not core/author of the problem. I think, EU should not solve this problem, each state with problems should go to bankcrupcy also with people pensions :-). But every state, also Greece can solve their own problem, they just need sold they national property. But EU need to save our own currency, which is now in bad condition so all states need to pay for states which were abusing our common currency long time. That is not fair.
You are telling stories about bad banks, bad system and so... but system is so easy and simple that I can not listen this :-). If you think that system and banks are bad, I would never lend to you or your country euro, never!
System is ok, but fact that a lot of states and also banks are abusing system is ill. But we can have laws and follow them. If somebody takes a lot of money and is not able to pay it back, EU should not care about it. Bank should solve it with owner, not our business and if that bank will go to bancrupcy too, I dont care, they deserve it. There should be just good law to see this before it can happends and make huge problem and this is called control! So system is ok.
sorry for long post and maybe bad english, but I can not hear that fairy tales that banks are evils and we poor people are innocent. Everybody can vote batter leaders and if they will vote stupid leaders it is not bad that they will cheat them, such a stupid voters deserve to be cheated, that is democracy :-)
Market can not solve everyting maybe, but all this we are talking about can be solved very easy just by market, without state influence.
I never said that. Is this a new strategy of yours, turning it around into a dumb question?
Then what is the reason why you would put Rand in science fiction?
A lot of theories can be valid theories but just as many and most probably even more aren't, and/or only considered valid by those who believe in it.
Make a difference between a valid theory and a 'right' (from your POV) theory.
Why do I get the same feeling when I read your conversations with others and also when writing with you myself about this subject as I get with some in the religious topic
You should ask yourself that question. I think it's a bad habit to reject a political ideology because you think it's a belief. Every political ideology is a belief. Including yours.
Then what is the reason why you would put Rand in science fiction?
A lot of theories can be valid theories but just as many and most probably even more aren't, and/or only considered valid by those who believe in it.
Make a difference between a valid theory and a 'right' (from your POV) theory.
Why do I get the same feeling when I read your conversations with others and also when writing with you myself about this subject as I get with some in the religious topic
You should ask yourself that question. I think it's a bad habit to reject a political ideology because you think it's a belief. Every political ideology is a belief. Including yours.
just dont read it
Mission accomplished.
Mission accomplished.
why I (bank) should give you huge amount of MY money, if you not gonna pay it ??? I will lend you money just if you will sign contract where will be written that you will pay it back in next 25 years and if not I can take you that house or what ever. If you dont like, just dont ask for my money. Nobody force you to ask for them.
But they did,
in spain now there are a enormous problem of loans guaranteed by houses.. but this doesn't solve any problem!!!
States and politicians are taking loans so they can spend them and people=voters will give them more votes.
THAT IS FALSE!
This is a PRIVATE debit crisis.
Private made loans they didn't pay, banks were failing for not having back their money, so states comes to save them (of course!). Only then it becamed a public debt problem (if the public debt could really be a problem for a nation with monetary sovereignity.. ops, we don't have it..)
EU said at the past that we can have max 3,5% yearly debt or so and 60% of GDP.
NB: numbers invented by some fantasy burocrats, in fact those number are never been explained!
You are telling stories about bad banks, bad system and so... but system is so easy and simple that I can not listen this :-). If you think that system and banks are bad, I would never lend to you or your country euro, never!
please open your eyes.
please read some news.
System is ok, but fact that a lot of states and also banks are abusing system is ill. But we can have laws and follow them. If somebody takes a lot of money and is not able to pay it back, EU should not care about it. Bank should solve it with owner, not our business and if that bank will go to bancrupcy too, I dont care, they deserve it. There should be just good law to see this before it can happends and make huge problem and this is called control! So system is ok.
It is impossible to have one currency in europe.
You are wrong, I explained it too many times. But your faith in the lies that you heard are stronger than any data/information I give...
but I can not hear that fairy tales that banks are evils and we poor people are innocent.
never said banks are evil.
Banks are necessary, but still they are dangerous.
Anyway we don't have problems because of the banks, but because of the euro.
Market can not solve everyting maybe, but all this we are talking about can be solved very easy just by market, without state influence.
ROTFL, the ideological conclusion without any clue. market solve the problems of people (how?)
sorry man you are too much ignorant to steal my time discussing of this bullshits!
But they did,
in spain now there are a enormous problem of loans guaranteed by houses.. but this doesn't solve any problem!!!
States and politicians are taking loans so they can spend them and people=voters will give them more votes.
THAT IS FALSE!
This is a PRIVATE debit crisis.
Private made loans they didn't pay, banks were failing for not having back their money, so states comes to save them (of course!). Only then it becamed a public debt problem (if the public debt could really be a problem for a nation with monetary sovereignity.. ops, we don't have it..)
EU said at the past that we can have max 3,5% yearly debt or so and 60% of GDP.
NB: numbers invented by some fantasy burocrats, in fact those number are never been explained!
You are telling stories about bad banks, bad system and so... but system is so easy and simple that I can not listen this :-). If you think that system and banks are bad, I would never lend to you or your country euro, never!
please open your eyes.
please read some news.
System is ok, but fact that a lot of states and also banks are abusing system is ill. But we can have laws and follow them. If somebody takes a lot of money and is not able to pay it back, EU should not care about it. Bank should solve it with owner, not our business and if that bank will go to bancrupcy too, I dont care, they deserve it. There should be just good law to see this before it can happends and make huge problem and this is called control! So system is ok.
It is impossible to have one currency in europe.
You are wrong, I explained it too many times. But your faith in the lies that you heard are stronger than any data/information I give...
but I can not hear that fairy tales that banks are evils and we poor people are innocent.
never said banks are evil.
Banks are necessary, but still they are dangerous.
Anyway we don't have problems because of the banks, but because of the euro.
Market can not solve everyting maybe, but all this we are talking about can be solved very easy just by market, without state influence.
ROTFL, the ideological conclusion without any clue. market solve the problems of people (how?)
sorry man you are too much ignorant to steal my time discussing of this bullshits!
here you are your public debt crisis
so explain us, why is spain so in trouble?
why belgium has no the same problems?
so explain us, why is spain so in trouble?
why belgium has no the same problems?
Then what is the reason why you would put Rand in science fiction?
Read some of the definitions of Science Fiction and you know why books of her are categorized as Science Fiction: scifi.about.com - Definitions of Science Fiction.
Make a difference between a valid theory and a 'right' (from your POV) theory.
I wasn't talking about 'right', I also was talking about valid. So what is valid (wiki)? Is a theory still valid if the logic isn't, e.g. if you have to ignore and rule out well known and common human characteristics which will never correspond with the theory and just can't be ignored and ruled out, can the theory still be valid than? I don't think so.
You should ask yourself that question. I think it's a bad habit to reject a political ideology because you think it's a belief. Every political ideology is a belief. Including yours.
I don't reject it because I think it's a belief, but because of what it mainly idealizes, and with that I do nothing different as you do when rejecting political ideologies. And I critize you because of the way you are propagating it, how you deal with criticism and counter arguments, use a lot of words (and time) on a soccer manager forum but no deeds to actually make your ideology come true, or not that I know of (btw, time on a forum which could also be used to actually do some work as a volunteer and live your ideology in stead of only talking about it), etc. (for more: see last part of my previous post).
And I don't place myself in stereotype boxes, or at least I try to do that as less as possible. Boxes have the tendency to blind people. I try to live my personal life ideals, and when it's time to vote I voted (most of the times) for the party closest to these life ideals. Ofcourse many different concepts of my country (also some politics) has partially made me to who I am today, but I don't live according some political ideology.
A last thing, about the question I asked you, apparently you choose the first option :/
Read some of the definitions of Science Fiction and you know why books of her are categorized as Science Fiction: scifi.about.com - Definitions of Science Fiction.
Make a difference between a valid theory and a 'right' (from your POV) theory.
I wasn't talking about 'right', I also was talking about valid. So what is valid (wiki)? Is a theory still valid if the logic isn't, e.g. if you have to ignore and rule out well known and common human characteristics which will never correspond with the theory and just can't be ignored and ruled out, can the theory still be valid than? I don't think so.
You should ask yourself that question. I think it's a bad habit to reject a political ideology because you think it's a belief. Every political ideology is a belief. Including yours.
I don't reject it because I think it's a belief, but because of what it mainly idealizes, and with that I do nothing different as you do when rejecting political ideologies. And I critize you because of the way you are propagating it, how you deal with criticism and counter arguments, use a lot of words (and time) on a soccer manager forum but no deeds to actually make your ideology come true, or not that I know of (btw, time on a forum which could also be used to actually do some work as a volunteer and live your ideology in stead of only talking about it), etc. (for more: see last part of my previous post).
And I don't place myself in stereotype boxes, or at least I try to do that as less as possible. Boxes have the tendency to blind people. I try to live my personal life ideals, and when it's time to vote I voted (most of the times) for the party closest to these life ideals. Ofcourse many different concepts of my country (also some politics) has partially made me to who I am today, but I don't live according some political ideology.
A last thing, about the question I asked you, apparently you choose the first option :/
Read some of the definitions of Science Fiction and you know why books of her are categorized as Science Fiction:
Okay. In what category would you place Marx?
if you have to ignore and rule out well known and common human characteristics which will never correspond with the theory and just can't be ignored and ruled out, can the theory still be valid than?
Is communism a valid theory? If you ask me, yes it is. I hugely reject it, but it's still a valid theory in my opinion. Just like objectivism.
And I critize you because of the way you are propagating it, how you deal with criticism and counter arguments, use a lot of words (and time) on a soccer manager forum but no deeds to actually make your ideology come true, or not that I know of (btw, time on a forum which could also be used to actually do some work as a volunteer and live your ideology in stead of only talking about it), etc. (for more: see last part of my previous post).
You still don't get a shit about what my ideology is. My ideology is not that everyone should do some work as a volunteer. My ideology is that everyone should have the freedom to do with his life, his time and his money what he wants. Doing work as a volunteer is one of the many options. So no, I'm not doing any work as a volunteer. Play the ball, not the man.
Like I said many times before, you're just making the classical leftist argument: moral superiority.
Ofcourse many different concepts of my country (also some politics) has partially made me to who I am today, but I don't live according some political ideology.
Sure you do. You have your opinion. You live by it (I assume and I hope). I live by mine. What's the difference? You seem to make a difference between an ideology and an opinion. An unclear difference if you ask me.
A last thing, about the question I asked you, apparently you choose the first option :/
You seriously expect me to think about myself because you have the same feeling when talking to a religious person? You seriously expect that?
(edited)
Okay. In what category would you place Marx?
if you have to ignore and rule out well known and common human characteristics which will never correspond with the theory and just can't be ignored and ruled out, can the theory still be valid than?
Is communism a valid theory? If you ask me, yes it is. I hugely reject it, but it's still a valid theory in my opinion. Just like objectivism.
And I critize you because of the way you are propagating it, how you deal with criticism and counter arguments, use a lot of words (and time) on a soccer manager forum but no deeds to actually make your ideology come true, or not that I know of (btw, time on a forum which could also be used to actually do some work as a volunteer and live your ideology in stead of only talking about it), etc. (for more: see last part of my previous post).
You still don't get a shit about what my ideology is. My ideology is not that everyone should do some work as a volunteer. My ideology is that everyone should have the freedom to do with his life, his time and his money what he wants. Doing work as a volunteer is one of the many options. So no, I'm not doing any work as a volunteer. Play the ball, not the man.
Like I said many times before, you're just making the classical leftist argument: moral superiority.
Ofcourse many different concepts of my country (also some politics) has partially made me to who I am today, but I don't live according some political ideology.
Sure you do. You have your opinion. You live by it (I assume and I hope). I live by mine. What's the difference? You seem to make a difference between an ideology and an opinion. An unclear difference if you ask me.
A last thing, about the question I asked you, apparently you choose the first option :/
You seriously expect me to think about myself because you have the same feeling when talking to a religious person? You seriously expect that?
(edited)