On June 30 2011 02:08 accela wrote: when you want to say something you better say the whole story and without wrong assumptions.
Greek government back to 2001-2 with the help by Goldman Sachs through currency swaps tried to keep deficit below 3% that eurozone "requires" Some points: a) Eurostat knew about this b) they were OK with it back then and c) other european countries did the same thing.
And that counters my point how? At the end of the day the greek government knew dam well what they were doing. Why else would some of the other members be so pissed off at them?
On June 30 2011 02:08 accela wrote: when you want to say something you better say the whole story and without wrong assumptions.
Greek government back to 2001-2 with the help by Goldman Sachs through currency swaps tried to keep deficit below 3% that eurozone "requires" Some points: a) Eurostat knew about this b) they were OK with it back then and c) other european countries did the same thing.
And that counters my point how? At the end of the day the greek government knew dam well what they were doing. Why else would some of the other members be so pissed off at them?
Also official Europe knew damn well what they were doing knowing our debt and deficit, giving us loans and selling us overpriced products including weapons.
On June 30 2011 02:08 accela wrote: when you want to say something you better say the whole story and without wrong assumptions.
Greek government back to 2001-2 with the help by Goldman Sachs through currency swaps tried to keep deficit below 3% that eurozone "requires" Some points: a) Eurostat knew about this b) they were OK with it back then and c) other european countries did the same thing.
And that counters my point how? At the end of the day the greek government knew dam well what they were doing. Why else would some of the other members be so pissed off at them?
Also official Europe knew damn well what they were doing knowing our debt and deficit, giving us loans and selling us overpriced products including weapons.
selling you OVERPRICED goods? how are they overpriced? you have to pay the market price like everybody else. And eurostat wasn't aware of the extend of "creative bookkeeping" the greeks had done. Why else would the conservative government begrudgingly admit to it in 2004?
On June 30 2011 02:08 accela wrote: when you want to say something you better say the whole story and without wrong assumptions.
Greek government back to 2001-2 with the help by Goldman Sachs through currency swaps tried to keep deficit below 3% that eurozone "requires" Some points: a) Eurostat knew about this b) they were OK with it back then and c) other european countries did the same thing.
And that counters my point how? At the end of the day the greek government knew dam well what they were doing. Why else would some of the other members be so pissed off at them?
Also official Europe knew damn well what they were doing knowing our debt and deficit, giving us loans and selling us overpriced products including weapons.
Yes I am absolutely certain everyone knew about it and just let this crisis happen. Have you been reading the financial news at all? Do you only care about what happens in Greece? Everyone is getting fked over this entire mess.
Banks and the Greece government aren't dumbasses. If Banks knew then they were either confident in recovering that money or they didn't and just lent it out assuming they would somehow get it back. Greece austerity measures is the price you pay for having all the government benefits over the years. Banks do credit checks and don't lend out money without having a plan for getting that money back. Either way the Greek government knew what it was doing and the Greek citizens did not give a dam, No matter which way you look at it most of the fault lies with Greece.
On June 30 2011 02:08 accela wrote: when you want to say something you better say the whole story and without wrong assumptions.
Greek government back to 2001-2 with the help by Goldman Sachs through currency swaps tried to keep deficit below 3% that eurozone "requires" Some points: a) Eurostat knew about this b) they were OK with it back then and c) other european countries did the same thing.
And that counters my point how? At the end of the day the greek government knew dam well what they were doing. Why else would some of the other members be so pissed off at them?
Also official Europe knew damn well what they were doing knowing our debt and deficit, giving us loans and selling us overpriced products including weapons.
Did the EU put a gun to your head, and force you to buy... Overpriced weapons?
Have you guys considered shopping around? Or perhaps, started on your own industry? Or contemplated not buying as many as you did?
In recent days, Italy has become Europe’s next weak link after Greece, Ireland and Portugal and Spain, harmed in particular by a power struggle between Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his finance minister, Giulio Tremonti. The dispute threatens to turn the euro zone’s third-largest economy, after Germany and France, into one of its biggest liabilities.
On Monday, the Italian government struggled to rein in the tensions, as fears rose that political paralysis could make it harder for Italy to embrace the austerity demanded by outsiders to reduce one of the highest debt levels in the world. European policy makers also sought to figure out how they would put out a bigger fire if Italy were to succumb.
Those jitters hit stock markets on Monday not just in Italy, where the major index fell nearly 4 percent, but across much of Europe as well, with the markets in France and Germany off more than 2 percent each. The United States was affected, too, with the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index down about 1.8 percent in midafternoon trading on European debt fears and worries about the showdown in Washington over raising the U.S. debt limit.
June 29 (Bloomberg) -- The International Monetary Fund said today global markets will suffer if the U.S. Congress fails to approve an increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling and cautioned about the risk of a downgrade in the country’s credit rating.
All in all, it's totally shit all these south european countries and ireland seem to be going down economically...
On July 01 2011 10:55 TrainSamurai wrote: Yes I am absolutely certain everyone knew about it and just let this crisis happen. Have you been reading the financial news at all? Do you only care about what happens in Greece? Everyone is getting fked over this entire mess.
tbh, it's not the Greeks fking us, it's ourselves killing the system. Is there any European country without debt? How can we pump endless amount of money into states that will -never- be able to pay it back?
European leaders are just afraid to have anything changed. If itt's not self-delusion, I don't want to know what they got in stock for us -.-
On July 01 2011 10:55 TrainSamurai wrote: Yes I am absolutely certain everyone knew about it and just let this crisis happen. Have you been reading the financial news at all? Do you only care about what happens in Greece? Everyone is getting fked over this entire mess.
tbh, it's not the Greeks fking us, it's ourselves killing the system. Is there any European country without debt? How can we pump endless amount of money into states that will -never- be able to pay it back?
European leaders are just afraid to have anything changed. If itt's not self-delusion, I don't want to know what they got in stock for us -.-
no it is the money system killing us.
when u ask yourself why there is so much debt. you just have to know two things.
1. most of our money is debt created by commercial banks. 2. look at how much money there is flowing all over the world.
people wanna get rich and have much money means in our system many fucking people have to go into dept because thats how we make money.
Our moneysystem is like a drug. We take it and it feels fucking good, we have as much money as we can lend and spend it on all the nice stuff that surrounds us. But is just feels good until we feel the burden of our dept and have to pay it back. That feels bad and we take another hit of that great deptmoney pumping up our economys. (boom and bust dominates our economy like nothing else and thats why) Like a drugaddict we can go on like that until our economy (body in the drug analogy) is able to finance all that debt (growth in the same pace is essential). The banks in that analogy are our dealers (with tremendous controle over us as a result) and that also explains why they are the first concern for people wanting to save the system and doing great again. Without dealers no drugs -> cold detoxification. What we see now is just an ever returning scenario that has its roots in what our money is.
money should be made by goverment, interest free. without any dept involved.
Goes to show how much you know about currency when you start off by bashing the monetary system whilst concluding that it should have its value derived by governments. For your information, that IS how most currencies operate nowadays - the only inherent value of the coins and paper you hold is as legal tender, there's no convertibility. If there's no interest, there's no point in saving which would generate a very inefficient allocation of resources, i.e. good luck building anything bigger than a condo.
I wish people would at least read up a bit before commenting on serious issues with baseless rhetoric, asinine assumptions and downright demagogy.
On July 12 2011 06:18 vlf wrote: Goes to show how much you know about currency when you start off by bashing the monetary system whilst concluding that it should have its value derived by governments. For your information, that IS how most currencies operate nowadays - the only inherent value of the coins and paper you hold is as legal tender, there's no convertibility. If there's no interest, there's no point in saving which would generate a very inefficient allocation of resources, i.e. good luck building anything bigger than a condo.
I wish people would at least read up a bit before commenting on serious issues with baseless rhetoric, asinine assumptions and downright demagogy.
i am not speaking of value. The value of the money is our economy as a whole and the trust of markets that it can generate profits to pay debt. goverment is just a player in that it makes important decisions.
commercial banks (create most of our money) and central banks are not the goverment. The FED in the US is a private corporation. Goverment allows the bank to create money, thats all they do.
why the fuck would the goverment need to lend money if they could create it ?
In economics, money creation is the process by which the money supply of a country or a monetary zone (such as the Eurozone) is expanded. There are two principal stages of money creation. First, the central bank can introduce or issue new money into the economy (termed 'expansionary monetary policy'). A central bank usually injects new money into the economy by purchasing financial assets. Second, the new money introduced by the central bank is multiplied by commercial banks through fractional reserve banking, expanding the amount of broad money (i.e. cash plus demand deposits) in the economy by making loans.
Are you even serious? Commercial banks borrow money from Central Banks. Money isn't issued out of thin air by private banking institutions. Commercial banks also receive deposits and are obligated to retain a very low percentage as liquidity while lending the rest which does create a sort of money multiplier - NOT the same as being an issuer or "creator" of money, if deposits stop their only source of conventional funding is the CB.
They would lend money if they had excess cash and if there was demand for loans. Wht does that have to do with anything? Money is regulated by the government as being legal tender with no intrinsic value which is why a state issuing cash would only generate rampant inflation and currency devaluation.
On July 12 2011 06:26 vlf wrote: Are you even serious? Commercial banks borrow money from Central Banks. Money isn't issued out of thin air by private banking institutions. Commercial banks also receive deposits and are obligated to retain a very low percentage as liquidity while lending the rest which does create a sort of money multiplier - NOT the same as being an issuer or "creator" of money, if deposits stop their only source of conventional funding is the CB.
They would lend money if they had excess cash and if there was demand for loans. Wht does that have to do with anything? Money is regulated by the government as being legal tender with no intrinsic value which is why a state issuing cash would only generate rampant inflation and currency devaluation.
Money is regulated by the central bank and by multiplying money there is nothing created ??? cmon ...
You can blame the banks all you want but in the end it's people and the governments who go to them for loans. The reason all these countries have such huge debts is not some conspiracy of the banks but a result of years and years of spending more than the country has available.
On July 12 2011 06:42 Logros wrote: You can blame the banks all you want but in the end it's people and the governments who go to them for loans. The reason all these countries have such huge debts is not some conspiracy of the banks but a result of years and years of spending more than the country has available.
The Banks just do their part ... im not talking of any conspiracy, but the moneysystem that just grew in the last 300 years brought us some incredible success... but it has a flaw that i think needs to be adressed. Just to simply understand why this stuff is happening.
It's not created in the sense that it cannot be issued at will, as I explained, there need to be deposits or there's no monetary multiplier. I'm pretty sure you understand the distinction between addition and multiplication, the same principle applies - zero input, output from multiplication is null, while printing money functions as addiction, increments to the monetary base which do not fall under the jurisdiction of Commercial Banks, under normal circumstances.
I know what you're trying to say and it simply doesn't work, not even as a purely metaphysical concept. What you're proposing is a HUGE liquidity constraint on funds which aren't being utilized, the outcome of which would be a huge economic slump followed by recession, please do remember that what propelled the 2008 crisis was, precisely, a credit crunch. Lending/borrowing and subsequently interest, which is nothing more than an opportunity cost, are extremely important. Central banks are often independent institutions so that they can actually do their job, without being impeded by subversive political schemes.
Central banks create the first bit of the money by buying assets, printing money and Commercial banks multiply it then by lending it, the borrowers spend it and whoever recieves it is likely to deposit it somewhere in a bank and this bank makes a little bit smaller loan with that deposit... and so on. Varying on regulations you have always the same result, money created by cental banks and multiplied by commercial banks by giving loans. Funny fact is the result that if we would pay back all our depts there would be no money anymore.
and im not offering any solution for current problems. I think that there will sooner or later be a crash that we can't borrow and grow us out of.
For the last time, there's a difference. I have a problem with what you call "creating money" as you're applying the definition erroneously. You're using broadness and ambiguity to reiterate baseless anti-banking propaganda.
Nevermind, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've already explained how the system works, I do NOT need YOU to enlighten me on this issue. You're repeating certain things I said without understanding the simple differences and fine intricacies of the system, do you even realize this? What you're doing is parroting information without actually understanding the ramifications of the whole system, what they entail and just how sensitive they are.
I'm not about to try and teach market economics to someone who believes interest rates should be abolished and doesn't understand the basic principles of fiat currency. Even the questions you posed oozed unfamiliarity with the topic, yet you still try to lecture me on the subject. Sigh.
nevermind .. going to sleep now.. you could whatch the link i posted before and tell me what is wrong at their assumption.
As you are correct that im not too deep into the issue but realized some frightening stuff in that and other documentations. Would appreciate a flaw in their logic by someone who knows more than me.
Gaga stop trolling the thread, ffs. For someone who is from a country (supposedly) with probably the best central bank in the world (since they learned from their mistakes of hyperinflation) I find your posts almost insulting. Listen to vlf pls.
EPT
