Paper "AMERO" will replace the dollar by spring!? - page 77
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
On the subject of the social consumption model
How to spend a million - Professional Reporter
I think it's on topic.I watched it and realised what conclusion NTV was trying to lead me to: Russian rich people are egoists and American rich people are altruists. I.e. aequoricans can and should be rich - they know how to take care of all the poor. Moronism....
to Yurixx
«Да, оно конечно интересно. Только надо тогда конкретизировать и область, и явление, и аспект. Ты ведь, надеюсь, не все законы хотел конкретизировать, и не в одном посте ? :-)»
I entered the discussion in response to the assertion that "nature takes its revenge on man". Somehow it sounded like that, so don't mince words. I once entertained similar research and came to the conclusion that there was no influence. But that was long ago and with numerous computer changes the databases simply died. You can try to answer this one fundamentally, or you can pick anything ... I don't mind :o)
to sab1uk
I don't know, I'm not an economist at all and I risk to be misunderstood. But, ... But if we reason quite simply, it turns out that credit is not so fundamentally bad and in some sense it is the "engine of progress". Let's say someone decided to take something on credit. As soon as a product is produced on credit (real production, logistics, etc.), there is an imbalance, namely a lack of conformity of the money supply to the material values. In order to equalise, "credit money" should be introduced (let me remind you - my reasoning is quite simple). Maybe that is not such a bad thing? What is wrong with it? Nothing, as long as ... at the very beginning of the idea. At least, no scientist would bring to practice their inventions, Ford would not produce cars, etc. etc. (examples abound)
True, an excessively high percentage would also affect the balance sheet and might pull in the "other direction". The reality is that this simple mechanism is literally shrouded in "parasites". When it comes to buying a kettle on credit or a car - not so scary (I mean the parasites), but when it comes to big money, and not just big, but investment (that is really invested in the real "iron") in business. And if there's cheating? That's how it worked, huge amounts of money, multiplied virtually on nothing (while causing enormous harm), with little correspondence to matric values, to put it mildly. I think that's the main reason for this crisis. I think so. You can build another scheme, fairer now - and it's still useless. It won't work. This world is organised differently (but that doesn't mean it can't get better :o)
As for the video - I agree with the author 100%. The USSR had similar tactics in better times. You have to be a total XXXXXXX to naively think that nobody cares about resources in the form of oil, gas, aluminum, wood, nickel .... energy and that the Americans, the British, etc. are ready to pay for it as much as it costs. You just have to look carefully at what is going on around you. Throughout history mankind has been killing each other not for religion but for commodities.
So - all processes are controllable, absolutely all (or rather - there are no uncontrollable processes, really - that's not my expression).
PS: It has turned out absolutely primitively, but so it is in the first approximation :o)
http://scepsis.ru/library/id_738.html
The fact is that the IMF is not at all an international charity which, as IMF officials themselves try to tell us, rushes to the aid of any country in financial difficulty or in need of economic modernisation. The IMF and the World Bank were not created by TNCs for philanthropic purposes, but to impose a TNC strategy on states. It has to be understood that the TNCs themselves are transnational only in name and scope. All these companies have a clear national link: all TNCs have their headquarters in a particular country and all TNCs pay taxes to that country. The so-called anti-globalizationists have found out that over 90% of TNCs are in fact U.S. companies, and their activities enrich the U.S. financial elite. It is these companies that control the actions of the IMF and the World Bank, because these organisations are deeply anti-democratic and decisions are not taken by a majority vote, but by those who have the most money (and the most money in the IMF and the World Bank belongs to US bankers). All IMF and World Bank activities are subject to a package of semi-legal agreements between these organisations and the US Treasury. This package is called the "Washington Consensus" and is designed to increase the influence of U.S. financial capital around the world, destroy Wall Street rivals and accumulate the world's financial reserves in U.S. banks.
sab1uk писал(а) >>
The fact is that the IMF is not an international charity which, as IMF officials themselves are trying to tell us...
http://scepsis.ru/library/id_738.html
Yes, I know that. Everyone knows this, but they cannot influence it.
to Yurixx
I entered the discussion in response to the assertion that "nature takes its revenge on man". Somehow it sounded like that, so don't pick on the words.
Alas, I can't forgive you for that, I'll pick on you. Revenge is something you can do, nature doesn't do that shit. I've corrected you once, but you won't let up. For the last time, there are laws of nature and everything happens by those laws! If you want to call it revenge, call it that, but that's your personal problem.
If you'd rather make your own assertions and then debate them, you don't need me anymore. But if you do it again, I'll shoot you with a bursting bullet. :-Е
.
And "Skepsis" is a great resource, and Alexander Tarasov is a unique person. There are very few of them left. The majority (as always) do not rise above the level of secondary and epigonality. Their maximum quantity is the American songs of liberals, learned by heart, but without any shadow of understanding consequences.
...
It's always like that, they read it inattentively, and start swearing rudely and pummelling them with rifles. And afterwards, having lunch on the boot of a killed comrade-in-arms, they argue about goodness and justice on a universal scale. You must read your posts carefully, and there is some emotional subtext in them. Alas, there is. That is exactly the reason why I got hung up on it. Besides, Yury - I put the word in inverted commas to show my solidarity with the Laws of Being and especially with THOSE WHO enforce those laws of being with roof shears and tearers.
"There are only a few of them left. The bulk (as always) do not rise above the level of secondaryity and epigonality".
Oh, Yuri, I'm afraid it's me you don't need, as I don't understand a fucking thing that's written. I don't even know what the "level of secondary" is, much less "epigone". Yuri put me at ease - tell me it's at least not contagious.
Yes, I know that. Yes, everyone knows that, but there is no way to influence it.
These are the key words of this whole discussion. The USA has the whole world by the balls, some by debt, some by force, some by carrot. It should be understood and act on the basis of this reality - unite with friends, feed the doubters, and mercilessly crush all kinds of filth. In short - the usual dirty politics.
These are the key words of this whole discussion. The United States has the whole world by the balls, some through debt, some by force, some by carrot. This should be understood and act on this reality - unite with friends, feed the doubters, and ruthlessly crush all kinds of petty scum. In short - the usual dirty politics.
And in my opinion the highlighted is just not dirty politics (if we act in an honest, transparent way, of course), but something that should be opposed to dirty politics. The belief that one can only get dirty in politics is created by those who thus justify their self-serving goals.
to Yurixx
We are definitely courteous, cultured and at the same time considerate to our neighbours. All I asked for was reassurance - they ended up putting me to bed when I didn't ask for it and advising me to smile all the time:
That's much nicer than saying "For the last time...". :о)
to FION
exactly this fact makes the sense of debate little clear and not very promising in the practical sense