The worst of the upcoming financial crisis?

[Lietseu]

Ben, yes sell weapons that benefit the poor ............. rich

[the middle]

"Better to have stocks in stock than stocks."

[Lietseu]

In the current times

When do you put real stock market values?

The work of bees for example, we could save the honeypots to reward them .......

Good evening Lietseu of course

[Lietseu]

"Better to have stocks in stock than stocks."

Very good this one, I will replace it!

And in addition it is so much circumstance, isn't it, Jacques-henry and Charles-Edouard my darlings, how Jacques chou, you lost souuus! Heaven ... I'm calling my banker, I must have some "raaaab", (I get drunk, hou!) How darling ... but you know, the nest egg that dady has put away from the crunchies, for my "face lift" (The facelift said fire your father ...)

Bravo

[Lietseu]

Pinpon, PInpon, PINpon, PINPon, PINPOn, PINPON ....

Ding Dong, good evening gentlemen, old lady? Yes, you will find her upstairs, please, give her a small injection, she has completely melted her fuse


To be continued...

[bham]

... it could start from style:
I do not have any action or sicav or whatever. So out of the question that I pay the speculation of others richer than me ...There are limits to the social!

Well, sorry, I can not stop myself:

Ben the law of the strongest becomes the law of the richest in our system ...
Is nothing shocking (in the logical sense) if?

HM hm
Otherwise I would not be choosy but at this level it is no longer social !

Well seen but there is a nuance between these 2 about my dear Bham ...

Sorry for the late response Christophe; for me it is precisely the law of the + strong / + rich that applies to others through the state decisons whose tax consequences you dispute (and me too) because it is precisely their domination of the financial power that puts the economy in danger.
So in logic, that the law of the richest imposes itself as the norm can be accepted, subject to the respect of the rights of the less rich; but where it becomes shocking, it is what you denounce, that the less rich pay for the speculation of the rich. So in this case, I think there is a contradiction.

If it's just social, whatever the meaning of the help is social no?

The meaning of the social term is very varied http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social but in general, for my part when I speak of social issues, I think more of a measure intended to help disadvantaged people and this is the meaning that we find most often in the media; we will say "doing social" for example. Me Capello, please

To rebound and support your request, I think that money / state aid should be put in relation to saving the banks / the financial system with the settlement of the public debt; the latter being due by the state to the banks, the state coming to the aid of the latter, it would be normal for the public debt to vanish.
Otherwise, the State will borrow from the banks the money needed to restart the banking system, ie that it will lend to Bank B the money it has just borrowed from Bank A, Banks A and B refusing to lend to each other; the banking system once saved by the loans it makes to the state makes the interest payments thereby increasing the debt. Although logically, borrowing interest should be paid by Bank B to Bank A, the State acting only as an intermediary; but then why are we told that we risk paying him our taxes?
In fact I am not sure that the state finds the money in the banks to save the banking system, what I know it is the banks do not want to lend any more money between them, because of a crisis of confidence (who say) and what causes an economic crisis; but the banks will probably not refuse to lend to the state since the state can not go bankrupt. So if we push the reasoning a little bit further, the banks have a good game to provoke this slump to increase the debt of the state; the state takes some of the banking power but also makes it pay the taxpayers; it's not very clear in my head but it smells like a scam.
What do you say?

PS: I want to leave a message on the answering machine of Mermet, and maybe to advertise for the forum (public debt,....)

[the middle]

Without being specialist here is what I have in mind ..

but where it becomes shocking, it is what you denounce, that the less rich pay for the speculation of the rich.

At the beginning of this serious crisis, Angela Merkel did not want to help the banks. She was ashamed to help the rich profiteers who screwed up the mess.
Finally ... she has to help them, if I understand correctly.
Second point, everyone has to repay these aids.
For the rich, no problem.
For others ... it's like that, not the choice.

Third point: recession for two or three years = unemployment, suffering, strikes, demonstrations.
Fourth, governments are talking about the fact that the current financial system is not sustainable; they want to change it? in what?
Finally ... recession = less production, less pollution. No?
For me, this crisis is a trifle compared to another much more serious problem, namely; how to say; "the biological death of the planet by our fault".
I'm not negative, just realistic, and I'm looking at arte, or tv5, instead of pay channels
On these channels, there is no "star academy", or kolanta, debilitating. there is life in real life ...
The last report I saw was in Haity, the poor eat clay cakes mixed with salt. there is nothing else to eat for them ...
You have to know how to say no or learn to say no ...

[toto65]

Hello lejuste

Finally ... recession = less production, less pollution. No?

I agree. In addition if we think that oil will become more rare from 2012, or in 4 years, that the rise of China is based on the growth of Europe and North America, this recession is a soft landing of the economy and a way to tackle the Chinese economy very hard.


Does the recession lead to inflation? How?

[boubka]

a way to tackle the Chinese economy very hard.

Funny way to tackle: scuttle the European boat hoping to drag in its wake the Chinese aircraft carrier.
This giant, which still has significant growth and a huge domestic market, will be able to recover without any problem as europe risks wounding its wounds for many years.

would not it be rather a formidable springboard to crush the western economy?

[boubka]

Finally ... recession = less production, less pollution. No?

not on ... total stop of investments including in ecology,
more tax credit to promote sustainable energy, questioning the purchase price of electricity for wind energy, the return of fossil fuels, freedom of pollution to the company still in the race etc ...

there is a risk that the grenelle of the environment flies in crisis priority of crisis forces

finally I hope to have everything ... but there is risk