Banks must guarantee savings in their bank accounts under certain limits. In some EU countries this amount is like 100,000 EUR per account. So if you have say, $1 million, and spread it 100K/bank, you'll be fine. Even if you have it all in one account, you'll still get 100K EUR or the equivalent.if the banks fail, say tomorrow, your savings are gone, your business is going down as people will have no money to buy your stuff and you will starve unless you have enough money stashed away under your mattress. — CuddlyHedgehog
And not only industries but ordinary people. Why people in the Third World countries remain poor is because they cannot get a loan to buy their own home and hence have to live on a rent. Hence they don't have the ability to gain wealth. Getting a loan for a home with low interest and for a longer time is something that a functioning banking sector can provide. Having real estate has been one of the most simple ways how people in the West have become more wealthier. With that wealth they then become consumers, which then creates a market and hence creates growth.Banking is not productive - bankers don't produce anything or add any value. Ideally, banking should facilitate the development of industries by providing access to capital. — Agustino
And when do they become producers? Never?With that wealth they then become consumers, which then creates a market and hence creates growth. — ssu
LOL! Banking in Third World countries is the problem, not the solution. They even take charges for taking money out of the ATM :lol: - in fact, the poorer the country is, the more these thieves will try to rob them. There will be a crisis in some 5-10 years in Eastern European countries - lots of young people are taking huge loans from banks to buy property, loans that they will never be able to pay back because rates will keep going up, while salaries are still very low. The bank will get the property and some of the interest too! I pity a lot of young people who have taken 30 year-long mortgages from the bank to buy property - they really have no clue what they're getting themselves into.Why people in the Third World countries remain poor is because they cannot get a loan to buy their own home and hence have to live on a rent. — ssu
Why do you think so? Owning real estate is not a way to become wealthier - unless you rent it out. Owning real estate is otherwise an expense. Whether you pay rent or you pay the bank monthly payments on your mortgage - same thing, except that paying the bank has the potential to suddenly increase your interest rates. Bankers aren't dumb - especially in third-world countries they've rigged the system and are MORE oppressive than in the Western world, and MORE entitled. A cohort of banks dominate the banking system in third world countries and collude with each other to set the terms. There is no competition, who are you kidding? Or if there is competition, there is within certain bounds, that they themselves set.Having real estate has been one of the most simple ways how people in the West have become more wealthier. — ssu
There should be no competition - banking shouldn't be solely for profit.What a nationalized or government controlled banking sector does it that hinders the competition between banks and the end result is that less people can get loans. Simple as that. — ssu
Less people get loans as things are now - or if they get them, they get them as terrible deals, that aren't even worth getting. In countries where the average wage is $300-600/month, you have banking directors making $10,000+/month. Why? What service is the bank director doing that he deserves that kind of payment relative to others? And not just the bank director, but everyone under him. They are all thieves, from the highest ranks to the lowest. It is utterly ridiculous that anyone believes banks are good, or multinational corporations are good, etc. - these are just a class of people who are profiting from this theft of national property and the abuse of entire nations and their fellow citizens by rackateering money-changers.end result is that less people can get loans. — ssu
No,You get very reckless banks precisely because the social classes I was talking about have already formed. They insulate themselves from the risks, while accumulating more and more rewards. — Agustino
No, these aren't "the rich". These are "the thieves" - they don't deserve that wealth. There is nothing wrong with Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, etc. having a fortune of $100+ billion. But there is something wrong with retards who have never taken any real risk in their lives, holding a prestigious piece of paper and nothing else apart from maybe family connections, to earn that kind of money while doing effectively nothing. That is a disgrace.That's just provoking hatred against "the rich". — ssu
Riiiight - screw everyone else, do not be worried, you won't go to jail, and you will keep your big mansion too - you'll just give up your job. That sounds like a terrible deal for the government.even if not many people went to jail, the owners of the banks lost money and the banking sector was totally reformed (only a few smaller banks continued with the big banks being merged/broken up). — ssu
The government doesn't do it's job because it too is formed of a class of leeches, very similar to the bankers, who make a lot of money while doing nothing and taking no risks.It's simply about the government doing it's job or not and having the balls to have very rich people loose their money. — ssu
Are you reading what I write?LOL! Banking in Third World countries is the problem, not the solution. They even take charges for taking money out of the ATM :lol: - in fact, the poorer the country is, the more these thieves will try to rob them. There will be a crisis in some 5-10 years in Eastern European countries - lots of young people are taking huge loans from banks to buy property, loans that they will never be able to pay back because rates will keep going up, while salaries are still very low. The bank will get the property and some of the interest too! I pity a lot of young people who have taken 30 year-long mortgages from the bank to buy property - they really have no clue what they're getting themselves into. — Agustino
When there is no competition, there is also no incentive to give loans for new customers. The banker just give the loans his or her quota defines. I've seen it earlier in my country, works very lousily and keeps people living in far smaller apartments than today.There should be no competition - banking shouldn't be solely for profit. — Agustino
And you suggest that (better) banking is the solution? Nope.Are you reading what I write? — ssu
A loss in accounting terms maybe. Based on money they could have gotten. No loss in real terms. Remember -> loss = final capital < inflation*initial capital (+ whatever small minute amount would go towards paying whatever employees were involved in the process). Those are the real terms - I'm not talking about "fictive" on-paper accounting losses relative to what they could have made.If a housing bubble bursts, the banks will make a loss with the housing when the debt is larger than the selling price of the house. — ssu
+ the interest rate.the person owning the house can simply sell the house for profit and pay the loan back. — ssu
We have one military, that's not a problem. We have one ministry of government building roads - not a problem, etc.If you would look at ANY goddam market sector and take out the competition aspect: have just ONE supermarket chain, guess how much everything would cost with lousy the service would be? Hence for there to be competition is crucial. The government has only to watch that no bank becomes too reckless. — ssu
Nope. The profit-motive isn't good in all circumstances and industries. I agree entrepreneurship should be for-profit - entrepreneurship doesn't include banking though, which is monopolistic and heavily in bed with the state everywhere anyhows. Let's nationalise them and eliminate the profit-motive from banking, that will stop the accumulation of capital to banks.And solely? Well, the reason for many services and production of goods to have profit is the objective. Of course a lot of people are genuinely happy when their customers are happy. That doesn't make the profit agenda any less important. — ssu
Ok, this is just humbug.A loss in accounting terms maybe. Based on money they could have gotten. No loss in real terms.Remember -> loss = final capital < inflation*initial capital (+ whatever small minute amount would go towards paying whatever employees were involved in the process). Those are the real terms - I'm not talking about "fictive" on-paper accounting losses relative to what they could have made. — Agustino
Sure, in very unlikely circumstances.In real life banks can go insolvent through bad debt — ssu
Not humbug. The bank's making an investment. The only thing they need to cover is to make sure that their capital grows faster than inflation. Simple.Ok, this is just humbug. — ssu
Lawyers and doctors need to have their salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels, which can still be quite high - say $150K in US. — Agustino
No. Read what I wrote. "ABOVE CERTAIN LEVELS". $150K is taxed normally, above that taxed at 90%.What, a person making $150K ought to be taxed 90%? So their take home pay is $15K? — Metaphysician Undercover
Nope. *facepalm*Right, so income of $150,001 leaves one with about $15,000 in take home pay. — Metaphysician Undercover
salaries taxed at 90% — Agustino
salaries taxed at 90% above certain levels — Agustino
It's self-evident. For two reasons, one pragmatic and one grammatical. Pragmatically, I'm not a retard, and I would not suggest that someone like a lawyer live off 15K a year, obviously. Grammatically, I said the tax is applied to the salary above certain levels. If your total salary is 160K, what's the salary above the 150K level?"part" of the salary ought to be taxed at 90%. — Metaphysician Undercover
Grammatically, I said the tax is applied to the salary above certain levels. — Agustino
Pragmatically, I'm not a retard, — Agustino
The modifier "above certain levels" is right there in front of you. — Baden
It's a prepositional phrase acting as an adverbial modifying the verb "taxed" in conjunction with the other prepositional phrase "at 90%" pointing to the fact that there are two important qualifiers on the action of taxing; firstly, that it be at a rate of 90%; and secondly, that it apply above a certain level. — Baden
:kiss: lovely boy.You mostly demonstrate otherwise . Why would I expect this to be an exception? — Metaphysician Undercover
Jesus is God, and as God has killed so many people I don't see why Jesus would not.
"Ok, the rich people are given a choice, but if they choose wrongly their reward is death,
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.