Exhibits: the hold up of banks and the crisis

[Targol]

Well, we will continue a bit in the HS then ...

She too has given up on the idea of ​​"monetizing" her doctorate since ... the day she realized that she could never teach in college (the only possible outlet given her specialization in legal history).

If it uses its capacities in the association, this is not really remunerative for the moment (other than in social and interior wealth, of course !!!).

[Christophe]

If it uses its capacities in the association, this is not really remunerative for the moment (other than in social and interior wealth, of course !!!).

It is therefore ... very useful !!

[Christine]

And maybe one day you will be able to pool your qualities to make room for yourself (too bad for too narrow-minded employers!) ... well, that reminds me of something ...

[stich1200]

http://www.vimeo.com/1711304

[I Citro]

http://ww50w.vimeo.com/1711304

Welcome to the forum stich1200.
We know this story, but the worst is yet to come ...
Den new scandals are ready to burst like the gold scams whose speculation has generated new scams, the banks have sold much more gold than they actually owned. It is therefore estimated that the virtual gold sold by the banks is 50%, which risks making a big splash if customers ask to bring their ingot home ...
Worse, the central banks are selling FALSIFIE gold but with a Guarantee certificate !!!
These ingots are made of Tungsten (density close to gold) and covered with real plating ...
Their provenance. USA and England ... but the injured buyers will circulate it like a hot potato ...

Another concern is the real value of the Dollar, which many experts estimate to be one tenth of its official value ... You should know that foreign holders of American treasury bills (Les T Bonds) have been massively getting rid of them for months. To prevent their value from collapsing, the federal reserve LES RACHETE and turns the printing press at full speed ... (FYI, the US government is now keeping the money supply index secret, forcing economists to extrapolate this indicator).

Finally, other analysts also evoke the breakup of the Euro, and if the euro breaks up into a "Northern Euro" and a "Southern Euro" (one of the hypotheses), it is suggested that the Germans do not want not have the same Euro as France ...

By the way why the big bosses (EDF, the big media, our President ...) are increasing their remuneration according to 3-figure coefs ... Would they have information on the sudden devaluation that awaits us.

[bham]

Hi Citro, do you mean that it is better to live on credit rather than having money on hand that will soon no longer be worth a tripod?

[yannko]

Hello bham, citro,

I do not think that citro meant that it is better to live on credit, because in this case we feed the machine of the banks.
Personally, I find that savings are strictly useless, because the money you put in a savings account sees its value "decrease", because often the savings interest rate is much lower than inflation. So sleeping money is constantly losing value in this system. But it is always better to put the money in a savings account, rather than in a checking account, even when using it regularly, that I admit (one "loses" a little less).

It's just that we are completely forced to open a bank account for the most basic things in life (work, various payments, credibility with services, etc.). If we don't have an account, we pass for a madman or a con ...

However, in no case do I want to make a loan to buy a high value property, because in this case I create debt, and I feed the business of banks .

So I am in a paradox and facing the wall to make my decisions. What makes that, in the current state of things, I do not wish to buy anything, that I cannot afford cash (house, car, etc ...). I'm trying to shoot like this, we'll see in the future ...

[bham]

Hello bham, citro,

I do not think that citro meant that it is better to live on credit, because in this case we feed the machine of the banks.
Personally, I find that savings are strictly useless, because the money you put in a savings account sees its value "decrease", because often the savings interest rate is much lower than inflation. So sleeping money is constantly losing value in this system. But it is always better to put the money in a savings account, rather than in a checking account, even when using it regularly, that I admit (one "loses" a little less).


So i'm in a paradox and face the wall to make my decisions. What makes that, in the current state of things, I do not wish to buy anything, that I cannot afford cash (house, car, etc ...). I'm trying to shoot like this, we'll see in the future ...

Hello Yannko.
The paradox is also that having money in an account also allows the bank to earn money, more or less than if you borrow, I can not say but in both cases, the bank is a winner.

[nlc]

Hello bham, citro,
It's just that we are completely forced to open a bank account for the most basic things in life (work, various payments, credibility with services, etc.). If we don't have an account, we pass for a madman or a con ...

Already that I pass for a madman because I have no credit card ....

However, in no case do I want to make a loan to buy a high value property, because in this case I create debt, and I feed the business of banks .

Yes you're right, but ultimately the company (and the sane "growth" that goes with it) ONLY works because there are credits. If everyone waits until they have the cash to buy something, the economy does not turn because "the money" does not flow.

So I am in a paradox and facing the wall to make my decisions. What makes that, in the current state of things, I do not wish to buy anything, that I cannot afford cash (house, car, etc ...). I'm trying to shoot like this, we'll see in the future ...

Until recently, I thought exactly like you. It was out of the question for me to lend. Well my uncle who is a heritage adviser explained to me that on the contrary it is more interesting to buy on credit. Because it allows you to enjoy a good that you could not afford otherwise.

The best example is the house (a loan for a car is stupid, you have to buy occaze!): If you are a tenant it is as if you were throwing your rent out the window, and next to you You are also obliged to put money aside to buy you hide your property in .... a very long time!

Concrete example, my house, which I bought € 150.000 + € 16.000 in notary fees, ie € 166.000 in total. We put a good part of our savings in the contribution, I put € 30.000 in cash and my wife € 20.000. So we borrowed € 116.000, and we took over 20 years so as not to have too much monthly repayment.

So we have to reimburse very exactly € 820 for 20 years. In the end we will have paid 820 * 12 * 20 or € 196.800 for 116.000th borrowed (the loan therefore costs us € 80.800!), And the house will have actually cost us € 196.800 + the contribution or € 246.800.

It sounds expensive, but I'm in My house, and right now !

Before we were renting, we paid € 650 per month, and in addition not being at home, it was smaller and I didn't have a garage (not practical for tinkering ...)!

Admitting that we stay in rental and that we put aside each month the difference between the € 650 of rent and the € 820 of loan repayment, that's € 170, let's say we put € 200 aside each month. We will be able to buy cash for our house at 166.000 € in 830 months, or in around 69 years

To buy it faster, there are not 36 solutions, you have to put a lot more aside each month, and therefore you end up with much less cash available at the end of the month ...

But don't forget also that during the time you set aside, not only is your rent going up, but there is also a chance that the money you put away will lose its value, that the price of the house you go buy increases, or even both!

I struggled to pass the course, but ultimately it is obvious, you have to buy your hut on credit. And besides now I really regret not having passed the course earlier!

And it goes even further, my uncle explains to me (but it is true that it is hard to assimilate !!) that it is better to take a credit over the longest possible period, even if it increases the cost of this one! Because it makes a lower monthly reimbursement (equivalent or barely above rent !!) and therefore more cash at the end of the month, which we can obviously save if we don't use it. ..

And when your house is paid for after 20 years, it belongs to you. After 20 years of rental, not only are you still not in your house (so it is not likely to belong to you!), But in addition you are not yet ready to buy it, unless you have bled white during these 20 years to put aside enough money to buy it cash!

Otherwise we could have decided to stay in rental for life to "save" the 80.800 € of the cost of the loan.
So staying at 650 € rent per month would make us 820-650 = 170 € more cash each month, which we would have put aside. In 50 years, for example, the prize pool would be € 102.000. It sounds interesting but besides that we will have given € 650 for 50 years, or € 390.000 in rent !!

[nlc]

The paradox is also that having money in an account also allows the bank to earn money, more or less than if you borrow, I can not say but in both cases, the bank is a winner.

Yes, the bank wins in both cases, so you might as well try to be too. And in the case of the purchase of an expensive good, there is no photo, it must be done on credit!