Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
Private lenders know that public balance will ensure them for their lending risks..
Exactly. Even more, the governments have stimulated banks to merge (because those banks would be more stable, oh irony), which made them too big to fail. Which was for those bankers a ticket to paradise.
So I'm not saying the financial world didn't make mistakes, I'm just saying that those mistakes were a predictable outcome of the government intervention in the financial world. Just like the anti-American sentiment in some countries is the predictable outcome of America's foreign policy.
but this still doesn't explain why people started not to repay back their loans.
Which people are you talking about here?
Exactly. Even more, the governments have stimulated banks to merge (because those banks would be more stable, oh irony), which made them too big to fail. Which was for those bankers a ticket to paradise.
So I'm not saying the financial world didn't make mistakes, I'm just saying that those mistakes were a predictable outcome of the government intervention in the financial world. Just like the anti-American sentiment in some countries is the predictable outcome of America's foreign policy.
but this still doesn't explain why people started not to repay back their loans.
Which people are you talking about here?
I'm just saying that those mistakes were a predictable outcome of the government intervention in the financial world.
I would say the opposite.
this is a predictable outcome of an excess of freedom, that leads necessary to a public intervent.
Which people are you talking about here?
Why bankers are in crisis? because they don't get beck the money they loaned.
Who doesn't repay those money? consumers and companies.
Why? Because they lost their work or they don't sell product/services.
Why? Because of a lack of internal and contemporary external demand.
Why?
1becasue of the policys of deregulation of labour markets and of freetrade,
2becasue of the euro that gives an advantage to country that devalue their work salaries upon countries where it follow inflation
3becasue of the euro that gives an advantage to countries that keep artificially their inflation low with a strict labour salary politic (point 2 and 3 sum are the key of germany success!)
4 because of the austherity politics that cut publig spending in a crisis period (criminal choice!)
Thi is an aconomic crisis, that turned even into public one, because is not possible for countries simply "to let fail" bankers. and because when there are losses to be distributed those are always distributed to public sector, and so.. to work classes..
But the crisis is born and growed on the privates markets. not for sure in any happy public spending!!!
(editado)
I would say the opposite.
this is a predictable outcome of an excess of freedom, that leads necessary to a public intervent.
Which people are you talking about here?
Why bankers are in crisis? because they don't get beck the money they loaned.
Who doesn't repay those money? consumers and companies.
Why? Because they lost their work or they don't sell product/services.
Why? Because of a lack of internal and contemporary external demand.
Why?
1becasue of the policys of deregulation of labour markets and of freetrade,
2becasue of the euro that gives an advantage to country that devalue their work salaries upon countries where it follow inflation
3becasue of the euro that gives an advantage to countries that keep artificially their inflation low with a strict labour salary politic (point 2 and 3 sum are the key of germany success!)
4 because of the austherity politics that cut publig spending in a crisis period (criminal choice!)
Thi is an aconomic crisis, that turned even into public one, because is not possible for countries simply "to let fail" bankers. and because when there are losses to be distributed those are always distributed to public sector, and so.. to work classes..
But the crisis is born and growed on the privates markets. not for sure in any happy public spending!!!
(editado)
I would say the opposite.
Then how on Earth did you agree with this:
I have already explained what caused this crisis. The too close relationship between the financial world and the political world.
Try to have a coherent opinion. You said you agree with me that the government and the financial sector have a too close relationship. And your solution is an even closer relationship?
Then how on Earth did you agree with this:
I have already explained what caused this crisis. The too close relationship between the financial world and the political world.
Try to have a coherent opinion. You said you agree with me that the government and the financial sector have a too close relationship. And your solution is an even closer relationship?
I would say the opposite.
Then how on Earth did you agree with this:
I have already explained what caused this crisis. The too close relationship between the financial world and the political world.
because you think is politics too close to finance I 'll say the opposite.
Try to have a coherent opinion. You said you agree with me that the government and the financial sector have a too close relationship. And your solution is an even closer relationship?
never said it.
The solution.. is hard!
if you don't regulate finance and let it freedom it will eat politicians and make them work for its proper goals. (As it is now)
The solution is the primate of politic on finance and its control by public, but it has enormous problems of real control and efficence...
Then how on Earth did you agree with this:
I have already explained what caused this crisis. The too close relationship between the financial world and the political world.
because you think is politics too close to finance I 'll say the opposite.
Try to have a coherent opinion. You said you agree with me that the government and the financial sector have a too close relationship. And your solution is an even closer relationship?
never said it.
The solution.. is hard!
if you don't regulate finance and let it freedom it will eat politicians and make them work for its proper goals. (As it is now)
The solution is the primate of politic on finance and its control by public, but it has enormous problems of real control and efficence...
because you think is politics too close to finance I 'll say the opposite.
Then this is the end of the discussion. If you say the opposite of what I say just because it was me who said it, this discussion is pointless.
Then this is the end of the discussion. If you say the opposite of what I say just because it was me who said it, this discussion is pointless.
What's to say on swiss economy?
I explained, why the french government is bad. In France, the government form isn't a democracy. If there was, the french government wouldn't have accepted the treaty of Lisbon (french "citizen" voted against the european constitution, which is included in this treaty), and the homosexual marriage would already have been dismissed (big demonstrations against the marriage of about 700k - 800k people, still no referendum).
It's a representative government, which isn't bad. But the government would still have to follow the public meaning, and try to solve the real problem: the crisis.
The french government is atm working against their people.
I really doubt, that France is still the second economy of Europe. Its economy is shrinking, as you might see it here.
Finally: the IMF made the european crisis worse. All those financial help bundles didn't show any positive effect, on the opposite, it accelerated the fall of the euro. Just look at the unemployment rate.
Ask yourself, how much of that financial help was really "injected" in the economy, and how much did the banks (the moneylenders) receive.
I wouldn't trust the IMF, if I were you...
I explained, why the french government is bad. In France, the government form isn't a democracy. If there was, the french government wouldn't have accepted the treaty of Lisbon (french "citizen" voted against the european constitution, which is included in this treaty), and the homosexual marriage would already have been dismissed (big demonstrations against the marriage of about 700k - 800k people, still no referendum).
It's a representative government, which isn't bad. But the government would still have to follow the public meaning, and try to solve the real problem: the crisis.
The french government is atm working against their people.
I really doubt, that France is still the second economy of Europe. Its economy is shrinking, as you might see it here.
Finally: the IMF made the european crisis worse. All those financial help bundles didn't show any positive effect, on the opposite, it accelerated the fall of the euro. Just look at the unemployment rate.
Ask yourself, how much of that financial help was really "injected" in the economy, and how much did the banks (the moneylenders) receive.
I wouldn't trust the IMF, if I were you...
I have already explained what caused this crisis. The too close relationship between the financial world and the political world.
It's not the only cause, but I agree with you.
I would add the free trade and the speculation on stock exchange.
It's not the only cause, but I agree with you.
I would add the free trade and the speculation on stock exchange.
I would add the free trade
Why would free trade itself be one of the causes of this crisis?
and the speculation on stock exchange.
Speculation itself is not the problem. Speculation is indeed a high-risk financial activity. I know it is very popular nowadays to say we have to get rid of the high-risk financial products and activities. However, there is nothing wrong with taking risks. Every economic agent has his personal preferences concerning risks and pay-offs. I would personally never take such huge risks, because I'm very risk averse.
The problem is that financial institutions that were covered by the government started speculating. The back-up by the government wasn't necessarily by direct investments by the government (the government becomes an investor in or shareholder of the financial institution), but also by guaranteeing the clients of those financial institutions that they will have their money back if the financial institution fails (for instance, in Belgium, all saving accounts under 100,000 € were guaranteed). Because of these guarantees, banks could take huge risks (benefits were privatized, losses got socialized). So it was actually the government who - unwillingly - stimulated the banks to take bigger risks.
(editado)
Why would free trade itself be one of the causes of this crisis?
and the speculation on stock exchange.
Speculation itself is not the problem. Speculation is indeed a high-risk financial activity. I know it is very popular nowadays to say we have to get rid of the high-risk financial products and activities. However, there is nothing wrong with taking risks. Every economic agent has his personal preferences concerning risks and pay-offs. I would personally never take such huge risks, because I'm very risk averse.
The problem is that financial institutions that were covered by the government started speculating. The back-up by the government wasn't necessarily by direct investments by the government (the government becomes an investor in or shareholder of the financial institution), but also by guaranteeing the clients of those financial institutions that they will have their money back if the financial institution fails (for instance, in Belgium, all saving accounts under 100,000 € were guaranteed). Because of these guarantees, banks could take huge risks (benefits were privatized, losses got socialized). So it was actually the government who - unwillingly - stimulated the banks to take bigger risks.
(editado)
Free trade, because it threats every domestic economy, that opens his borders. Would you buy a domestic expensive product, if you can have something cheaper and of equal quality from abroad?
Multinational corporation would probably leave too, if it's cheaper for them abroad, and they can still sell in the country they just left (= less employment in that country).
Protectionism is better. You don't close your borders completly, but just enough to protect and help develop the domestic economy.
Speculation because it creates absolutly no value at all and it has an influence on the quoted corporations.
Stock exchange is actually nonsense. I learned in school, that stock exchange reflects the health of one country's economy. But I never believed that. I couldn't see the logic of such a statement. It rather reflects the confidence of the traders (professional or amateur) in the economy and the different quoted corporations/brands.
Traders can be manipulated easily, and can make a crisis much worse than it would be without stack exchange (just look at the crisis in 1929, it was just an overproduction crisis, but it became a global economical crisis).
Some banks were responsible for the crisis in 2008 (I know about Goldman Sachs and Lehmann Brothers, but don't know if others didn't join them), because they misjudge the risk.
As you said, the political world and the financial world are too close. I would go even further: the financial world is controlling the political world in many places in the world (for example in USA). How could politicians afford their election campaign (hundreds of million dollar in the US for the presidential elections).
I don't wonder why some governments are guaranteeing some of their sponsors (f.ex. financial institutions, who have money or, for some, can create money).
Iceland has shown, that it's possible to stand up after a crisis. They (people of iceland) refused to pay for the debt of their banks by referendum (which is legal), and Iceland's economic situation is now better than many others in UE.
Multinational corporation would probably leave too, if it's cheaper for them abroad, and they can still sell in the country they just left (= less employment in that country).
Protectionism is better. You don't close your borders completly, but just enough to protect and help develop the domestic economy.
Speculation because it creates absolutly no value at all and it has an influence on the quoted corporations.
Stock exchange is actually nonsense. I learned in school, that stock exchange reflects the health of one country's economy. But I never believed that. I couldn't see the logic of such a statement. It rather reflects the confidence of the traders (professional or amateur) in the economy and the different quoted corporations/brands.
Traders can be manipulated easily, and can make a crisis much worse than it would be without stack exchange (just look at the crisis in 1929, it was just an overproduction crisis, but it became a global economical crisis).
Some banks were responsible for the crisis in 2008 (I know about Goldman Sachs and Lehmann Brothers, but don't know if others didn't join them), because they misjudge the risk.
As you said, the political world and the financial world are too close. I would go even further: the financial world is controlling the political world in many places in the world (for example in USA). How could politicians afford their election campaign (hundreds of million dollar in the US for the presidential elections).
I don't wonder why some governments are guaranteeing some of their sponsors (f.ex. financial institutions, who have money or, for some, can create money).
Iceland has shown, that it's possible to stand up after a crisis. They (people of iceland) refused to pay for the debt of their banks by referendum (which is legal), and Iceland's economic situation is now better than many others in UE.
Free trade, because it threats every domestic economy, that opens his borders. [...] Protectionism is better. You don't close your borders completly, but just enough to protect and help develop the domestic economy.
In the long run, protectionism isn't beneficiary for anybody. Of course companies will offshore to cheaper markets to produce, like China and Taiwan. And yes, on the short run, this creates unemployment in the home country. Those home countries (like Belgium, Switzerland, ...) just have to accept that we are no longer a production economy. Just like we made the shift towards such a production economy, we must now shift once again. Free trade creates wealth for all participating nations. Thát is a fact. I don't know what your education is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't an economic one.
Speculation because it creates absolutly no value at all and it has an influence on the quoted corporations.
Stock exchange is actually nonsense.
So to be allowed, something must create value?
And yes, the stock exchange does reflect the (short run) economic situation in a country. You see it all the time. When the economy is booming, the stock exchange index keeps rising. When in a crisis, indexes go down. That's pretty normal.
As you said, the political world and the financial world are too close. I would go even further: the financial world is controlling the political world in many places in the world (for example in USA). How could politicians afford their election campaign (hundreds of million dollar in the US for the presidential elections).
And how do you think that would be solved if you make even more laws that interfere with the financial world? You give them (financial world) even more incentives to be close with the politicians and to lobby for their interests. The government must get out of the financial world, and let companies go broke. Being able to go broke is fundamental in the capitalist process.
I don't wonder why some governments are guaranteeing some of their sponsors (f.ex. financial institutions, who have money or, for some, can create money).
The guarantee was for 'ordinary citizens', like you and me.
Iceland has shown, that it's possible to stand up after a crisis. They (people of iceland) refused to pay for the debt of their banks by referendum (which is legal), and Iceland's economic situation is now better than many others in UE.
Yep, I agree. Iceland is a very good example.
By the way, are you French-speaking? Because you use UE instead of EU :p
In the long run, protectionism isn't beneficiary for anybody. Of course companies will offshore to cheaper markets to produce, like China and Taiwan. And yes, on the short run, this creates unemployment in the home country. Those home countries (like Belgium, Switzerland, ...) just have to accept that we are no longer a production economy. Just like we made the shift towards such a production economy, we must now shift once again. Free trade creates wealth for all participating nations. Thát is a fact. I don't know what your education is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't an economic one.
Speculation because it creates absolutly no value at all and it has an influence on the quoted corporations.
Stock exchange is actually nonsense.
So to be allowed, something must create value?
And yes, the stock exchange does reflect the (short run) economic situation in a country. You see it all the time. When the economy is booming, the stock exchange index keeps rising. When in a crisis, indexes go down. That's pretty normal.
As you said, the political world and the financial world are too close. I would go even further: the financial world is controlling the political world in many places in the world (for example in USA). How could politicians afford their election campaign (hundreds of million dollar in the US for the presidential elections).
And how do you think that would be solved if you make even more laws that interfere with the financial world? You give them (financial world) even more incentives to be close with the politicians and to lobby for their interests. The government must get out of the financial world, and let companies go broke. Being able to go broke is fundamental in the capitalist process.
I don't wonder why some governments are guaranteeing some of their sponsors (f.ex. financial institutions, who have money or, for some, can create money).
The guarantee was for 'ordinary citizens', like you and me.
Iceland has shown, that it's possible to stand up after a crisis. They (people of iceland) refused to pay for the debt of their banks by referendum (which is legal), and Iceland's economic situation is now better than many others in UE.
Yep, I agree. Iceland is a very good example.
By the way, are you French-speaking? Because you use UE instead of EU :p
In the long run, protectionism isn't beneficiary for anybody. Of course companies will offshore to cheaper markets to produce, like China and Taiwan. And yes, on the short run, this creates unemployment in the home country. Those home countries (like Belgium, Switzerland, ...) just have to accept that we are no longer a production economy. Just like we made the shift towards such a production economy, we must now shift once again.
yes , shift to poverty!
Free trade creates wealth for all participating nations.
this is false.
The more a nation is free tha more poor people there are in.
yes , shift to poverty!
Free trade creates wealth for all participating nations.
this is false.
The more a nation is free tha more poor people there are in.
The more a nation is free tha more poor people there are in.
That's it. Your ideas are too dumb to discuss them.
That's it. Your ideas are too dumb to discuss them.
So to be allowed, something must create value?
That's not what I mean, I just point out, that stock exchange offer no economical benefit, if you take out the economic health reflection. What's left is the risk of economical chaos.
Indexes can be manipulated. I don't exactly know, how these indexes (NASDAQ, CAC40, SMI, etc) are calculated, but what I know is that some representative stocks are considered.
If you change the combination of representative stocks, you change the index-rate.
For example, PSA (corporation who owns Peugeot, Citroen, and some other brands) is no more used to calculate the CAC40 index (after PSA had big problems of management, falling sells, loss of jobs).
Tell me why I should trust any of these indexes, if they are so easy to manipulate?
The guarantee was for 'ordinary citizens', like you and me.
Ergo for the financial institution aswell (what I'm pointing out).
In the long run, protectionism isn't beneficiary for anybody. Of course companies will offshore to cheaper markets to produce, like China and Taiwan. And yes, on the short run, this creates unemployment in the home country. Those home countries (like Belgium, Switzerland, ...) just have to accept that we are no longer a production economy. Just like we made the shift towards such a production economy, we must now shift once again. Free trade creates wealth for all participating nations. Thát is a fact. I don't know what your education is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't an economic one.
The fact is, that countries like Spain, Greece and France have great employment problems, because the industry/manufactures are moving abroad. Who will employ those newly unemployed people?
Well for France, you have to add the unlogical immigration policy (unchanged, even though there are no free jobs in France, how stupid is that).
I don't think, an economical study is necessary to understand the world. Is the study still independent, or are students being formated. It's difficult to say how big the influence of the financial world is on the education.
Finally you have to use common sense, remember that the step from theory to practical use is big, and try to analyze the situation from a neutral point of view.
What I see, is that the European Union isn't working well. The UE is pleading for free trade.
Switzerland is working pretty well, despite its economical protectionism.
That can and will change, if the situation gets worse in the surrounding countries. I really hope France, Italy, Spain, Greece will find a way out of the crisis. Imho this way leads out of the EU.
By the way, are you French-speaking? Because you use UE instead of EU :p
French and German fluently. ;)
Mistyped, sorry about that. :P
That's not what I mean, I just point out, that stock exchange offer no economical benefit, if you take out the economic health reflection. What's left is the risk of economical chaos.
Indexes can be manipulated. I don't exactly know, how these indexes (NASDAQ, CAC40, SMI, etc) are calculated, but what I know is that some representative stocks are considered.
If you change the combination of representative stocks, you change the index-rate.
For example, PSA (corporation who owns Peugeot, Citroen, and some other brands) is no more used to calculate the CAC40 index (after PSA had big problems of management, falling sells, loss of jobs).
Tell me why I should trust any of these indexes, if they are so easy to manipulate?
The guarantee was for 'ordinary citizens', like you and me.
Ergo for the financial institution aswell (what I'm pointing out).
In the long run, protectionism isn't beneficiary for anybody. Of course companies will offshore to cheaper markets to produce, like China and Taiwan. And yes, on the short run, this creates unemployment in the home country. Those home countries (like Belgium, Switzerland, ...) just have to accept that we are no longer a production economy. Just like we made the shift towards such a production economy, we must now shift once again. Free trade creates wealth for all participating nations. Thát is a fact. I don't know what your education is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't an economic one.
The fact is, that countries like Spain, Greece and France have great employment problems, because the industry/manufactures are moving abroad. Who will employ those newly unemployed people?
Well for France, you have to add the unlogical immigration policy (unchanged, even though there are no free jobs in France, how stupid is that).
I don't think, an economical study is necessary to understand the world. Is the study still independent, or are students being formated. It's difficult to say how big the influence of the financial world is on the education.
Finally you have to use common sense, remember that the step from theory to practical use is big, and try to analyze the situation from a neutral point of view.
What I see, is that the European Union isn't working well. The UE is pleading for free trade.
Switzerland is working pretty well, despite its economical protectionism.
That can and will change, if the situation gets worse in the surrounding countries. I really hope France, Italy, Spain, Greece will find a way out of the crisis. Imho this way leads out of the EU.
By the way, are you French-speaking? Because you use UE instead of EU :p
French and German fluently. ;)
Mistyped, sorry about that. :P
yes , shift to poverty!
For sure, that's why I'm poor, and have no job! (lookout, HUGE sarcasm)
For sure, that's why I'm poor, and have no job! (lookout, HUGE sarcasm)
problem of free trade:
in china, a worker earns about 100 euros ( as a friend with a company who buys stuff to china told me, it should be around thios 100 oucks), in here around 1000 same work, so the output in china is waaay much cheaper than here, even invluding the transport cost, so no one will buy the thing made here but in china, so more fabrics closed, more nemployment
solution? dont let free trade with countries whom workers are wroking on a semi slavery system, because this is unfair competition
in china, a worker earns about 100 euros ( as a friend with a company who buys stuff to china told me, it should be around thios 100 oucks), in here around 1000 same work, so the output in china is waaay much cheaper than here, even invluding the transport cost, so no one will buy the thing made here but in china, so more fabrics closed, more nemployment
solution? dont let free trade with countries whom workers are wroking on a semi slavery system, because this is unfair competition
The solution you suggest and free trade are in contradiction. You're suggesting a form of protectionism... :P