Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
But it is very strange the text is written with female and not 'person'
that is true. Perhaps this was how the laws read 20-30 years ago, but one would think that they would have been changed by now to "person" not female.
that is true. Perhaps this was how the laws read 20-30 years ago, but one would think that they would have been changed by now to "person" not female.
Robert Mundell, evil genius of the euro
For the architect of the euro, taking macroeconomics away from elected politicians and forcing deregulation were part of the plan
For the architect of the euro, taking macroeconomics away from elected politicians and forcing deregulation were part of the plan
That article is completely wrong.
Here, just read the first chapter of this paper (1.1 The Achilles Heel of Real Output and Wage Measures on page 29): Do Real-Output and Real-Wage Measures Capture Reality?
When you read it, you will surely understand why the basic thesis that Alberto Bagnai offers is completely ridiculous. Comparing real output and real wages is virtually impossible as the accuracy of such comparison revolves around using the right indexing method for incomparable products and services.
The gap is the difference made by the increasing quality and diversity of products and services and the crisis is the result of low productivity of public sector where there aren't enough mechanisms of positive selection which is particularly a problem where people are lazy and passive.
Here, just read the first chapter of this paper (1.1 The Achilles Heel of Real Output and Wage Measures on page 29): Do Real-Output and Real-Wage Measures Capture Reality?
When you read it, you will surely understand why the basic thesis that Alberto Bagnai offers is completely ridiculous. Comparing real output and real wages is virtually impossible as the accuracy of such comparison revolves around using the right indexing method for incomparable products and services.
The gap is the difference made by the increasing quality and diversity of products and services and the crisis is the result of low productivity of public sector where there aren't enough mechanisms of positive selection which is particularly a problem where people are lazy and passive.
That article is completely wrong.
he's a college teacher. He says the same things as 7/8 nobel prizes..
Why should I listen to you?
your idea of not comparability is old, and it must be simply used with intelligence.
It's not impossible to use it as an indicator of direction, it's only useless to use it as it misures those phenomenon with precision.
Anyway the sense of that article is not touched by that.
the crisis is the result of low productivity of public sector
LOL,
again?
why always claim the failing of public sector when is the PRIVATE SECTOR of an entire continent that is going to fail?
which is particularly a problem where people are lazy and passive
LOL
you still believe that and pretend to teach to noble prizes how to describe the euro-area crisis.
Why when a bank fail is the public sector the responsible?
he's a college teacher. He says the same things as 7/8 nobel prizes..
Why should I listen to you?
your idea of not comparability is old, and it must be simply used with intelligence.
It's not impossible to use it as an indicator of direction, it's only useless to use it as it misures those phenomenon with precision.
Anyway the sense of that article is not touched by that.
the crisis is the result of low productivity of public sector
LOL,
again?
why always claim the failing of public sector when is the PRIVATE SECTOR of an entire continent that is going to fail?
which is particularly a problem where people are lazy and passive
LOL
you still believe that and pretend to teach to noble prizes how to describe the euro-area crisis.
Why when a bank fail is the public sector the responsible?
he's a college teacher. He says the same things as 7/8 nobel prizes..
Why should I listen to you?
Well, that's easy. Because I have valid arguments and he doesn't.
Obama got a Nobel for talking about peace. So? Economists get their Nobel for making nice new economic models. And we all know how useful macroeconomic models are. They are nice tools but people who know how to apply them to the economy are very rare because economics is after all a social science and it's social for a reason. Psychology tells you more about economics than mathematics and so Nobel for economy is more comparable to Nobel for literature and peace than for mathematics or chemistry.
your idea of not comparability is old, and it must be simply used with intelligence.
It's not impossible to use it as an indicator of direction, it's only useless to use it as it misures those phenomenon with precision.
Anyway the sense of that article is not touched by that.
Come on, he built his entire article around this completely invented divergence of real wages and real output growth. Real output growth is much faster because of exponential development of technology in the last half of century. How can you index a value of mobile phones that didn't exist before 1990 or of PCs that didn't exist before 1980? From the point of 1970 these are priceless commodities which are today put to everyday use at an affordable price. How can you even compare such economies? It is simply impossible.
You can't even compare Germany to Italy today because Germany has a much larger share in the most complex modern products (read page 10 of this paper: Unit Labor Costs in the Eurozone). That means that their economy is growing much more based on Company A producing for Company B which produces for Company C and where share of expensive technology used in this process is growing more and more. This alone reduces the wage share in Germany's economy. There is no organised reduction of wages in Germany because they are market driven. That's a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
why always claim the failing of public sector when is the PRIVATE SECTOR of an entire continent that is going to fail?
Private sector can never fail. It can only be killed by the public sector. Nothing public sector produces will be exported and it can only produce as much the private sector is able to finance.
you still believe that and pretend to teach to noble prizes how to describe the euro-area crisis.
Why when a bank fail is the public sector the responsible?
Banks are failing because the market forces are tampered with politically and because of too much public debt vastly financed by the banks. How could banks refuse to finance the government when the government could increase their expenses through taxes at any time? And banks should borrow money wisely.
Why should I listen to you?
Well, that's easy. Because I have valid arguments and he doesn't.
Obama got a Nobel for talking about peace. So? Economists get their Nobel for making nice new economic models. And we all know how useful macroeconomic models are. They are nice tools but people who know how to apply them to the economy are very rare because economics is after all a social science and it's social for a reason. Psychology tells you more about economics than mathematics and so Nobel for economy is more comparable to Nobel for literature and peace than for mathematics or chemistry.
your idea of not comparability is old, and it must be simply used with intelligence.
It's not impossible to use it as an indicator of direction, it's only useless to use it as it misures those phenomenon with precision.
Anyway the sense of that article is not touched by that.
Come on, he built his entire article around this completely invented divergence of real wages and real output growth. Real output growth is much faster because of exponential development of technology in the last half of century. How can you index a value of mobile phones that didn't exist before 1990 or of PCs that didn't exist before 1980? From the point of 1970 these are priceless commodities which are today put to everyday use at an affordable price. How can you even compare such economies? It is simply impossible.
You can't even compare Germany to Italy today because Germany has a much larger share in the most complex modern products (read page 10 of this paper: Unit Labor Costs in the Eurozone). That means that their economy is growing much more based on Company A producing for Company B which produces for Company C and where share of expensive technology used in this process is growing more and more. This alone reduces the wage share in Germany's economy. There is no organised reduction of wages in Germany because they are market driven. That's a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
why always claim the failing of public sector when is the PRIVATE SECTOR of an entire continent that is going to fail?
Private sector can never fail. It can only be killed by the public sector. Nothing public sector produces will be exported and it can only produce as much the private sector is able to finance.
you still believe that and pretend to teach to noble prizes how to describe the euro-area crisis.
Why when a bank fail is the public sector the responsible?
Banks are failing because the market forces are tampered with politically and because of too much public debt vastly financed by the banks. How could banks refuse to finance the government when the government could increase their expenses through taxes at any time? And banks should borrow money wisely.
There is no organised reduction of wages in Germany because they are market driven.
Private sector can never fail. It can only be killed by the public sector.
and lot of other "arguments" you use cannot be commented.
I see only the graphs at page 7 and 9 of YOUR link, that shows exactly what I (and every economist in the world) I'm saying-
labour cost increased in peripherical countries vs labour costs stands in germany.
Anyway, when people claim for "market vs state" talking about euro-zone it's time to quit the discussion. useless to talk with ideology/tv-blinded ones.
Private sector can never fail. It can only be killed by the public sector.
and lot of other "arguments" you use cannot be commented.
I see only the graphs at page 7 and 9 of YOUR link, that shows exactly what I (and every economist in the world) I'm saying-
labour cost increased in peripherical countries vs labour costs stands in germany.
Anyway, when people claim for "market vs state" talking about euro-zone it's time to quit the discussion. useless to talk with ideology/tv-blinded ones.
Banks are failing because the market forces are tampered with politically and because of too much public debt vastly financed by the banks. How could banks refuse to finance the government when the government could increase their expenses through taxes at any time? And banks should borrow money wisely.
an annotation.
those Banks that failed (and were saved in holland germany italy spain ireland etc by public money), failed for PRIVATE failing not for public ones.
an annotation.
those Banks that failed (and were saved in holland germany italy spain ireland etc by public money), failed for PRIVATE failing not for public ones.
I see only the graphs at page 7 and 9 of YOUR link, that shows exactly what I (and every economist in the world) I'm saying-
labour cost increased in peripherical countries vs labour costs stands in germany.
Just looking at graphs with your simplistic view won't get you anywhere. You should read the text around the graphs. E.g. page 3:
"A key issue that seems to have been forgotten by the participants in this debate is
the well-documented lack of empirical relationship between the growth in unit labor costs
and output growth. This is referred to in the literature as Kaldor’s paradox (Kaldor 1978;see chapter 4 of McCombie and Thirlwall [1994] for a discussion). Kaldor found, for the postwar period, that those countries that had experienced the greatest decline in their price competitiveness (i.e., highest increase in unit labor costs) also had the greatest increase in their market share. Hence, the belief that low nominal wage growth vis-à-vis that of productivity will restore competitiveness and eventually lead back to growth is at best too simplistic and does not have strong empirical evidence. Indeed, if the argument about the importance of unit labor costs as a measure of competitiveness were so simple and straightforward, researchers would have long ago found an unambiguous relationship between them and growth rates."
So, the authors explain that these graphs basically do not show the simplistic conclusions that you and "every economist in the world" claims that they are showing.
One example from health industry. You have doctors doing physical therapy and doctors making MR scans. In physical therapy doctors' wages make around 80% of price and in MR scans it's around 20% (MR scanner + materials takes up most of the price). Now imagine 2 countries having the same starting point, e.g. 1 milion EUR in each type of these 2 services and so their wage share is at 50% in each of them.
And then 1st country has 100% growth in physical therapy and 2nd country 100% in MR scans. 1st country will have wage share grow to 60% and the other will have it decrease to 40%. The reason will only be that 1st country is having more work intense structure of the economy while the 2nd economy became more capital intense. So, which of these 2 countries will become more competitive will depend on starting profitability of these 2 services and not the wage share. So, we cannot just use a simplistic view at labor costs because it's just one small aspect of the whole story. Wage share largely depends on the structure of the economy per different types of industries and complexity of the products and services within them. It tells very little about the competitiveness.
(editado)
labour cost increased in peripherical countries vs labour costs stands in germany.
Just looking at graphs with your simplistic view won't get you anywhere. You should read the text around the graphs. E.g. page 3:
"A key issue that seems to have been forgotten by the participants in this debate is
the well-documented lack of empirical relationship between the growth in unit labor costs
and output growth. This is referred to in the literature as Kaldor’s paradox (Kaldor 1978;see chapter 4 of McCombie and Thirlwall [1994] for a discussion). Kaldor found, for the postwar period, that those countries that had experienced the greatest decline in their price competitiveness (i.e., highest increase in unit labor costs) also had the greatest increase in their market share. Hence, the belief that low nominal wage growth vis-à-vis that of productivity will restore competitiveness and eventually lead back to growth is at best too simplistic and does not have strong empirical evidence. Indeed, if the argument about the importance of unit labor costs as a measure of competitiveness were so simple and straightforward, researchers would have long ago found an unambiguous relationship between them and growth rates."
So, the authors explain that these graphs basically do not show the simplistic conclusions that you and "every economist in the world" claims that they are showing.
One example from health industry. You have doctors doing physical therapy and doctors making MR scans. In physical therapy doctors' wages make around 80% of price and in MR scans it's around 20% (MR scanner + materials takes up most of the price). Now imagine 2 countries having the same starting point, e.g. 1 milion EUR in each type of these 2 services and so their wage share is at 50% in each of them.
And then 1st country has 100% growth in physical therapy and 2nd country 100% in MR scans. 1st country will have wage share grow to 60% and the other will have it decrease to 40%. The reason will only be that 1st country is having more work intense structure of the economy while the 2nd economy became more capital intense. So, which of these 2 countries will become more competitive will depend on starting profitability of these 2 services and not the wage share. So, we cannot just use a simplistic view at labor costs because it's just one small aspect of the whole story. Wage share largely depends on the structure of the economy per different types of industries and complexity of the products and services within them. It tells very little about the competitiveness.
(editado)
I can only say you are hiding yourself under a finger.
that example is stupid. Those quote from your link says something obvious, but still the point is there.
anyway, I'll give you something more to read from the same author:
UNHAPPY FAMILIES ARE ALL ALIKE: MINSKYAN CYCLES, KALDORIAN GROWTH, AND THE EUROZONE PERIPHERAL CRISES
that example is stupid. Those quote from your link says something obvious, but still the point is there.
anyway, I'll give you something more to read from the same author:
UNHAPPY FAMILIES ARE ALL ALIKE: MINSKYAN CYCLES, KALDORIAN GROWTH, AND THE EUROZONE PERIPHERAL CRISES
The problem with economists is that even when their ideas are failing, they can always blame them on someone else who didn't keep other things constant. Mr. Bagnai writes great fiction. But even already when you look at his title of his paper, you can see that he's wrong. Tolstoy was right and Bagnai is wrong. Happy families are all alike.
You and Mr. Bagnai think that you can substantially influence the economy with macroeconomic measures. Macroeconomy can only show what's going on and is only a navigation of the economy's "car". Germany is still a good Volkswagen and Italy a crappy Fiat regardless of their politicians and macroeconomists. Here, you take 2 bad engineers and 8 lazy mechanics and a Nobel prize macroeconomist and I will take 2 great engineers and 8 hardworking mechanics and no macroeconomist. Let's see who will have a happy economy. ;)
You call my example stupid because it shows even to the stupid people what conclusion can you make by comparing wage share across time and between countries. You can only learn about how much work intense the economy is. And your Nobel prize Bagnai in these numbers wants to see Germany's foul play and some kind of cunning plan to rule over Europe. Ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is very simple. PIIGS have reached an undeservedly high wage share in their economy and they did it by pumping "drugs" of debt in their economy. The problem is public debt because you cannot cut it easily overnight. Bad private debt is easily taken care of. You go bankrupt. Governments don't go bankrupt and so they just keep asking for more drugs and can even force the "dealers" to give them some more. Now these countries are in a withdrawal crisis and instead of repaying their debt and lowering their undeserved wages and budget deficits, they yell at countries that are not addicts: "But we bought all those products from you! You would earn much less if we weren't that stupid!" And what do you do with addicts? Do you listen do their excuses or do you make them come clean? Spend only what you earn and problem solved.
(editado)
You and Mr. Bagnai think that you can substantially influence the economy with macroeconomic measures. Macroeconomy can only show what's going on and is only a navigation of the economy's "car". Germany is still a good Volkswagen and Italy a crappy Fiat regardless of their politicians and macroeconomists. Here, you take 2 bad engineers and 8 lazy mechanics and a Nobel prize macroeconomist and I will take 2 great engineers and 8 hardworking mechanics and no macroeconomist. Let's see who will have a happy economy. ;)
You call my example stupid because it shows even to the stupid people what conclusion can you make by comparing wage share across time and between countries. You can only learn about how much work intense the economy is. And your Nobel prize Bagnai in these numbers wants to see Germany's foul play and some kind of cunning plan to rule over Europe. Ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is very simple. PIIGS have reached an undeservedly high wage share in their economy and they did it by pumping "drugs" of debt in their economy. The problem is public debt because you cannot cut it easily overnight. Bad private debt is easily taken care of. You go bankrupt. Governments don't go bankrupt and so they just keep asking for more drugs and can even force the "dealers" to give them some more. Now these countries are in a withdrawal crisis and instead of repaying their debt and lowering their undeserved wages and budget deficits, they yell at countries that are not addicts: "But we bought all those products from you! You would earn much less if we weren't that stupid!" And what do you do with addicts? Do you listen do their excuses or do you make them come clean? Spend only what you earn and problem solved.
(editado)
Germany is still a good Volkswagen and Italy a crappy Fiat regardless of their politicians and macroeconomists. Here, you take 2 bad engineers and 8 lazy mechanics and a Nobel prize macroeconomist and I will take 2 great engineers and 8 hardworking mechanics and no macroeconomist. Let's see who will have a happy economy. ;)
LOL.
Still the tale of lazy workers in Italy when all statistic shows better productivity of workers than in germany..
You call my example stupid because it shows even to the stupid people what conclusion can you make by comparing wage share across time and between countries. You can only learn about how much work intense the economy is. And your Nobel prize Bagnai in these numbers wants to see Germany's foul play and some kind of cunning plan to rule over Europe. Ridiculous.
Is not stupid, It's FALSE!
The fact of the matter is very simple. PIIGS have reached an undeservedly high wage share in their economy and they did it by pumping "drugs" of debt in their economy.
LOL, the tale of the evil debtor... that repay every cent!!!
The problem is public debt because you cannot cut it easily overnight. Bad private debt is easily taken care of.
Again PUBLIC debt? OPrivate debt EASILY taken care (do you remember subprime crisis in USA?)
Nobody believe it..
Read ECB report if you prefer them to Bagnai:
ECB: Speech by Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB, at the Bank of Greece conference on “The crisis in the euro area”
Governments don't go bankrupt and so they just keep asking for more drugs and can even force the "dealers" to give them some more. Now these countries are in a withdrawal crisis and instead of repaying their debt and lowering their undeserved wages and budget deficits, they yell at countries that are not addicts: "But we bought all those products from you! You would earn much less if we weren't that stupid!" And what do you do with addicts? Do you listen do their excuses or do you make them come clean?
The public debt doens't fit this discussion at all.
Those undeserved wages were all perfeclty sustainable before euro (with currency floating that reequilibrate that system without mass inoccupation..)
Spend only what you earn and problem solved.
my little kid,
italy were the 7th industrialized country of the world BEFORE entering the euro (looking at GSP better than Brasil, India,Uk, Australia, canada and so..), with positive income balance and 50 years of growing after WW2.
you can't teach us how to play in markets and how to regulate ourself.
But more important, try to believe that the story of lazyness and debt some tv told you is false. They are cheating to you. You'll realize it too late.
LOL.
Still the tale of lazy workers in Italy when all statistic shows better productivity of workers than in germany..
You call my example stupid because it shows even to the stupid people what conclusion can you make by comparing wage share across time and between countries. You can only learn about how much work intense the economy is. And your Nobel prize Bagnai in these numbers wants to see Germany's foul play and some kind of cunning plan to rule over Europe. Ridiculous.
Is not stupid, It's FALSE!
The fact of the matter is very simple. PIIGS have reached an undeservedly high wage share in their economy and they did it by pumping "drugs" of debt in their economy.
LOL, the tale of the evil debtor... that repay every cent!!!
The problem is public debt because you cannot cut it easily overnight. Bad private debt is easily taken care of.
Again PUBLIC debt? OPrivate debt EASILY taken care (do you remember subprime crisis in USA?)
Nobody believe it..
Read ECB report if you prefer them to Bagnai:
ECB: Speech by Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB, at the Bank of Greece conference on “The crisis in the euro area”
Governments don't go bankrupt and so they just keep asking for more drugs and can even force the "dealers" to give them some more. Now these countries are in a withdrawal crisis and instead of repaying their debt and lowering their undeserved wages and budget deficits, they yell at countries that are not addicts: "But we bought all those products from you! You would earn much less if we weren't that stupid!" And what do you do with addicts? Do you listen do their excuses or do you make them come clean?
The public debt doens't fit this discussion at all.
Those undeserved wages were all perfeclty sustainable before euro (with currency floating that reequilibrate that system without mass inoccupation..)
Spend only what you earn and problem solved.
my little kid,
italy were the 7th industrialized country of the world BEFORE entering the euro (looking at GSP better than Brasil, India,Uk, Australia, canada and so..), with positive income balance and 50 years of growing after WW2.
you can't teach us how to play in markets and how to regulate ourself.
But more important, try to believe that the story of lazyness and debt some tv told you is false. They are cheating to you. You'll realize it too late.
Still the tale of lazy workers in Italy when all statistic shows better productivity of workers than in germany..
All? Link 1 for start.
Is not stupid, It's FALSE!
Make up your mind. Stupid and false are not synonyms. Bagnai's articles are not stupid. They are only false. In any case, explain what is false in it. It's very simple and it exactly shows what's the problem with analysing wage share in the context that Bagnai and you are trying. Wage share does not show whether workers earn more or less than before and compared to other countries. It would show it if everything else is kept constant (same services on the same technology level and with same share). But these things never remain constant and especially in technologically highly developed countries and in last half of decade. My health example clearly shows that. If some country has better physicians and the other has better radiologists, their wage share is very different simply because of the difference in work and capital intensity of these services. Ergo, they are incomparable.
the tale of the evil debtor... that repay every cent!!!
You forgive your debtors? Or you are never a creditor but only debtor?
They don't repay every cent but they also can't demand that they don't repay. They have to reach an agreement with creditors.
do you remember subprime crisis in USA?
These investors should have went bankrupt. It was a big mistake to save them. It only stimulated more reckless borrowing. Anyway, this is the case of poor regulation which is again problem of the public sector. This only shows that this expensive public sector is not even doing its core business that it is suposed to do: REGULATION.
ECB: Speech by Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB, at the Bank of Greece conference on “The crisis in the euro area”
So, you agree with the conclusion of the article? It tells exactly what is needed:
"Having been thoroughly stress-tested over the last three years, everyone now have a much clearer idea of what rules and institutions are essential for monetary union to function effectively. In the view of the Four Presidents, a stable EMU needs to be built on four pillars: financial union, fiscal union, economic union and political union.
The most important concept underlying this vision is that, to maximise its benefits, the single currency needs strong common institutions. Strong institutions to supervise and stabilise the single financial market. Strong institutions to guide fiscal policies. Strong institutions to coordinate economic policy, guarantee competitiveness and encourage sustainable growth. And strong institutions to engage citizens more closely in the European project."
italy were the 7th industrialized country of the world BEFORE entering the euro (looking at GSP better than Brasil, India,Uk, Australia, canada and so..), with positive income balance and 50 years of growing after WW2.
you can't teach us how to play in markets and how to regulate ourself.
And Bernie Madoff was a distinguished and successful investor for 2 decades. With great growth as well. We have a saying in Croatia: "Who flies high, falls low." ;)
All? Link 1 for start.
Is not stupid, It's FALSE!
Make up your mind. Stupid and false are not synonyms. Bagnai's articles are not stupid. They are only false. In any case, explain what is false in it. It's very simple and it exactly shows what's the problem with analysing wage share in the context that Bagnai and you are trying. Wage share does not show whether workers earn more or less than before and compared to other countries. It would show it if everything else is kept constant (same services on the same technology level and with same share). But these things never remain constant and especially in technologically highly developed countries and in last half of decade. My health example clearly shows that. If some country has better physicians and the other has better radiologists, their wage share is very different simply because of the difference in work and capital intensity of these services. Ergo, they are incomparable.
the tale of the evil debtor... that repay every cent!!!
You forgive your debtors? Or you are never a creditor but only debtor?
They don't repay every cent but they also can't demand that they don't repay. They have to reach an agreement with creditors.
do you remember subprime crisis in USA?
These investors should have went bankrupt. It was a big mistake to save them. It only stimulated more reckless borrowing. Anyway, this is the case of poor regulation which is again problem of the public sector. This only shows that this expensive public sector is not even doing its core business that it is suposed to do: REGULATION.
ECB: Speech by Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB, at the Bank of Greece conference on “The crisis in the euro area”
So, you agree with the conclusion of the article? It tells exactly what is needed:
"Having been thoroughly stress-tested over the last three years, everyone now have a much clearer idea of what rules and institutions are essential for monetary union to function effectively. In the view of the Four Presidents, a stable EMU needs to be built on four pillars: financial union, fiscal union, economic union and political union.
The most important concept underlying this vision is that, to maximise its benefits, the single currency needs strong common institutions. Strong institutions to supervise and stabilise the single financial market. Strong institutions to guide fiscal policies. Strong institutions to coordinate economic policy, guarantee competitiveness and encourage sustainable growth. And strong institutions to engage citizens more closely in the European project."
italy were the 7th industrialized country of the world BEFORE entering the euro (looking at GSP better than Brasil, India,Uk, Australia, canada and so..), with positive income balance and 50 years of growing after WW2.
you can't teach us how to play in markets and how to regulate ourself.
And Bernie Madoff was a distinguished and successful investor for 2 decades. With great growth as well. We have a saying in Croatia: "Who flies high, falls low." ;)
All? Link 1 for start.
world bank is enough?
Make up your mind. Stupid and false are not synonyms.
read again, that's wht I wrote of YOUR speech.
You forgive your debtors? Or you are never a creditor but only debtor?
They don't repay every cent but they also can't demand that they don't repay. They have to reach an agreement with creditors.
the debtor THAT repays everything is a good one or not?
So why to blame him?
These investors should have went bankrupt.
Lol, you know nothing..
So, you agree with the conclusion of the article?
No I only show you HE AGREES with me (and everyone else except you) about the crisis causation.
And Bernie Madoff was a distinguished and successful investor for 2 decades. With great growth as well. We have a saying in Croatia: "Who flies high, falls low." ;)
I'm wasting time with you..
world bank is enough?
Make up your mind. Stupid and false are not synonyms.
read again, that's wht I wrote of YOUR speech.
You forgive your debtors? Or you are never a creditor but only debtor?
They don't repay every cent but they also can't demand that they don't repay. They have to reach an agreement with creditors.
the debtor THAT repays everything is a good one or not?
So why to blame him?
These investors should have went bankrupt.
Lol, you know nothing..
So, you agree with the conclusion of the article?
No I only show you HE AGREES with me (and everyone else except you) about the crisis causation.
And Bernie Madoff was a distinguished and successful investor for 2 decades. With great growth as well. We have a saying in Croatia: "Who flies high, falls low." ;)
I'm wasting time with you..
world bank is enough?
That's a wrong indicator because person employed is not a parameter precise enough for measuring productivity. Persons can put in different levels of work in creation of output. To compare the actual productivity of workers when they actually do work, we need GDP per hours worked. Any questions?
read again, that's wht I wrote of YOUR speech.
You are the one who should read again. You first wrote that my example is stupid. Then you wrote that it is false. That's why I told you to make up your mind because stupid and false are not synonyms. Then I also gave you an example how Bagnai's thesis are not stupid but false.
So, could you please finally explain what is wrong with my very simple and true example? My bet is that you won't because there is nothing wrong in it. Otherwise you would already point at this imagined mistake.
the debtor THAT repays everything is a good one or not?
So why to blame him?
???
Lol, you know nothing..
Well, unlike you, I know how to discuss without insults and I answer questions and explain whytheses are wrong. Maybe you know how to do that but don't want to reply which is much worse than knowing nothing.
No I only show you HE AGREES with me (and everyone else except you) about the crisis causation.
Crises in private sectors get resolved. Bad debtors go bankrupt and new ones take their business. Bad public debt just creates endless agony. Subprime crisis is over. And this one will be when countries stop spending undeserved money because they exhausted their credit capacity.
I'm wasting time with you..
I am not your problem. You are wasting time in general.
That's a wrong indicator because person employed is not a parameter precise enough for measuring productivity. Persons can put in different levels of work in creation of output. To compare the actual productivity of workers when they actually do work, we need GDP per hours worked. Any questions?
read again, that's wht I wrote of YOUR speech.
You are the one who should read again. You first wrote that my example is stupid. Then you wrote that it is false. That's why I told you to make up your mind because stupid and false are not synonyms. Then I also gave you an example how Bagnai's thesis are not stupid but false.
So, could you please finally explain what is wrong with my very simple and true example? My bet is that you won't because there is nothing wrong in it. Otherwise you would already point at this imagined mistake.
the debtor THAT repays everything is a good one or not?
So why to blame him?
???
Lol, you know nothing..
Well, unlike you, I know how to discuss without insults and I answer questions and explain whytheses are wrong. Maybe you know how to do that but don't want to reply which is much worse than knowing nothing.
No I only show you HE AGREES with me (and everyone else except you) about the crisis causation.
Crises in private sectors get resolved. Bad debtors go bankrupt and new ones take their business. Bad public debt just creates endless agony. Subprime crisis is over. And this one will be when countries stop spending undeserved money because they exhausted their credit capacity.
I'm wasting time with you..
I am not your problem. You are wasting time in general.