Wel vreemd dat de cia sinds 2001 geen schatting meer heeft kunne maken voor hun eigel land.quote:Op dinsdag 4 januari 2005 19:32 schreef gorgg het volgende:
Al kun je het natuurlijk ook op deze manier bekijken.
Juist ja, dit wilde ik ook vragen. Zo'n beetje alle landen hebben schulden, ergens een keer gehoord dat Noorwegen dat niet heeft?, maar waar komt dat geld vandaan?quote:Op maandag 3 januari 2005 15:45 schreef Kaalhei het volgende:
[..]
Waar komt hun rijkdom dan vandaan? Van wie hebben deze overheden dit geld geleend?
Noorwegen heeft olie, daar valt aardig wat mee te financieren. De rest wordt opgekocht door centrale banken, andere banken, private financiers, bedenk maar wat.quote:Op dinsdag 4 januari 2005 19:47 schreef Herkauwer het volgende:
[..]
Juist ja, dit wilde ik ook vragen. Zo'n beetje alle landen hebben schulden, ergens een keer gehoord dat Noorwegen dat niet heeft?, maar waar komt dat geld vandaan?
Het lijkt me niet handing om 5 miljard te lenen bij Duitsland om vervolgens 5 miljard uit te lenen aan Frankrijk
tenzij je natuurlijk meer rente berekent dan dat je betaald![]()
Lol, Europe rises. De Lisbon agenda is idd een succes.quote:Op dinsdag 4 januari 2005 19:58 schreef zakjapannertje het volgende:
de New York Times is ook lekker ah speculeren:
China Expands. Europe Rises. And the United States . .
Hier heb je volgens mij helemaal gelijk in.quote:Op maandag 3 januari 2005 12:55 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:
Het vreemde is dat je nooit van de schulden af zal komen. Als het zo is dat de staat ineens alle staatsschuld af zou betalen (voor een goed deel gekocht door de FED of in het geval van Europa de ECB) dan zullen mensen zelf meer schulden moeten gaan maken. Er zou anders te weinig geld in omloop zijn om de economie draaiende te houden tenzij de FED/ECB anders maar bv. gebouwen gaat opkopen om toch maar voldoende geld in omloop te krijgen; ook niet echt prettig lijkt me.
quote:"This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
- Robert H. Hamphill, Credit Manager, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank
quote:"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it all back again. However, take this great power away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control credit."
- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain
quote:"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
"The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debts."
- Henry Ford
quote:"In a small Swiss city [Basel] sits an international organization so obscure and secretive [that few people know about it]...Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men; the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen."
- Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995
Zie ook deze documentaires over de schuldeneconomie en fractional reserve banking.quote:"The Federal Reserve Bank is pretty secretive about who it's owning banks or shareholders are. It has been determined that the "class A" stock in the Federal Reserve Bank are held by the following 8 institutions: Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Bank of New York, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York, Goldman Sachs Bank of New York. The Remaining Stock is held by the Chemical Trust and the Rockefeller Trust. These stockholders hold Federal Government Obligations which amount to about $6 Trillion Dollars - The entire U.S. National Debt. Their annual profits from interest payments are over $200 Billion dollars per year."
"Bill Gates is not the 'richest man in the world' by a long shot. His 50 billion dollar fortune (give or take) is virtually nothing compared to the wealth and economic power of the House of Rothschild. Baron Jacob Rothschild (who controls the Rothschild banking dynasty) is owed approximately half of the U.S. national debt (which is now some 6 trillion dollars) because the privately-owned Rothschild Bank and its proxies have a 51 percent ownership and controlling interest in the U.S. Federal Reserve System; and this 3 trillion dollar amount obviously does not even include the debt that many other nations ultimately owe to the Rothschild banking network. The interest payments alone provide the Rothschild Bank with 100 billion dollars per year. The reason that the Rothschild dynasty remains generally obscure to the public is because virtually all of their assets are privately-owned and they are very carefully protected from public scrutiny by various ways and means. It has been estimated that the House of Rothschild, directly or indirectly, controls a very substantial portion of the 35 trillion dollars in total overall spending power that exists in the world today."
bij wie hebben al deze landen dan zoveel schuld? alleen bij India en China? dat kan ik me haast niet voorstllquote:Op maandag 3 januari 2005 12:28 schreef Vaan_Banaan het volgende:
[..]
Van http://www.iex.nl/columns/columns_artikel.asp?colid=18272
Kijk en vergelijk
Natuurlijk is het problematisch dat de Amerikaanse staatsschuld per jaar met ruim 400 miljard dollar groeit. Dat is alleen een bedrag en vergeet niet dat de Amerikaanse economie de grootste ter wereld is. Als ik de schuld in een percentage van het bruto nationaal product (bnp) uitdruk, heb ik beter vergelijkingsmateriaal:Japan: 164%, Italië: 117%, België: 101%. EU: 77%. Duitsland: 74%, Frankrijk: 74%, VS: 63%, Nederland: 55%
Nee dus
[hint]De internationale banken[/hint]quote:Op dinsdag 4 januari 2005 20:21 schreef _-_ratjetoe_-_ het volgende:
[..]
bij wie hebben al deze landen dan zoveel schuld? alleen bij India en China? dat kan ik me haast niet voorstll
Hele artikel.quote:What's Behind the Sagging Dollar?
Many Americans are becoming aware of the fact that it is a lot tougher to go to Europe these days. It's not just that Europeans don't like our foreign policy; they don't want our currency either. Only a few years ago you could trade a dollar for one Euro and get some change to boot. Now it takes four dollars to buy only three Euros and lunch at a modest brasserie can produce a heart stopping check once the numbers are converted back from Euros.
But what few Americans understand is why this is happening. Even most elderly Americans have never lived in a world in which the dollar was not king. Living with a vulnerable currency is simply un-American and most of us are clueless as to either the cause of the dollar's weakness or its future prospects.
Since 1971 most major currencies have traded against one another based on supply and demand – much like international markets for wheat or pork bellies. The underlying factor in determining the value of a currency was trade. If the United Kingdom was buying more wine (or whatever else) from France than it was selling in wool sweaters (or whatever else) then the pound would decline against the franc. But if France had a bad year for wine and the balance of trade shifted toward the U.K. the pound would become stronger.
Like most rules in economics, there are exceptions and by far the biggest exception to the rule that the value of a nation's currency is correlated with its trade status has been the dollar. While other currencies fluctuated against each other based on trade and commerce, the dollar assumed a role as the world currency that seemed to exempt it from such fluctuation. Transactions between neighboring countries on continents as far away as Asia or Africa were often denominated in dollars and as the world economy grew the demand for dollars grew, irrespective of the underlying economic realities of U.S. trade balances.
During the same period, the U.S. demand for foreign products grew rapidly while the ability of the U.S. to produce and sell products to the rest of the world did not. If that had happened in most other countries, the value of the nation's currency would have fallen, their products would have become cheaper to the rest of the world and the cost of imports would have risen. As a result the trade deficit would have been reversed and the currency would gradually regain its value. Since the dollar has been used for more than simply financing U.S. commercial transactions, its was not substantially affected by the steadily worsening balance of trade experienced by the U.S.
As the unique capacity of the U.S. economy to absorb huge amounts of imports for an extended period of time became more apparent, some countries, such a Japan, began to develop their whole industrialization strategy around selling to the U.S. market. They could create millions of good paying jobs based on the ability of the American consumer to buy more and more products even though they weren't selling equal amounts of product back to Japan or elsewhere. In order to insure that Japanese products would be attractive to U.S. consumers, the Bank of Japan did everything in its power to keep its currency weak and the U.S. dollar artificially strong so as to lower the price of televisions, automobiles and whatever else the growing Japanese industrial giants wanted to sell on the U.S. market...
Damn ik wist niet dat veel rijke landen zo'n hoge staatsschuld hebben gerelateert aan de BNP.quote:Op maandag 3 januari 2005 12:28 schreef Vaan_Banaan het volgende:
[..]
Van http://www.iex.nl/columns/columns_artikel.asp?colid=18272
Kijk en vergelijk
Natuurlijk is het problematisch dat de Amerikaanse staatsschuld per jaar met ruim 400 miljard dollar groeit. Dat is alleen een bedrag en vergeet niet dat de Amerikaanse economie de grootste ter wereld is. Als ik de schuld in een percentage van het bruto nationaal product (bnp) uitdruk, heb ik beter vergelijkingsmateriaal:Japan: 164%, Italië: 117%, België: 101%. EU: 77%. Duitsland: 74%, Frankrijk: 74%, VS: 63%, Nederland: 55%
Nee dus
Mafkezen idd.quote:Op donderdag 6 januari 2005 00:51 schreef Stratos het volgende:
[..]
Damn ik wist niet dat veel rijke landen zo'n hoge staatsschuld hebben gerelateert aan de BNP.
Keynesquote:
Dunno, hebben ook nog aardig wat schuld: public debt: 57.1% of GDP (2004 est.)quote:Op donderdag 6 januari 2005 01:17 schreef Toffe_Ellende het volgende:
Hoe zit het eigenlijk met Zwitserland. Heeft het bankgeheim nog hier iets mee te maken?
|
|
| Forum Opties | |
|---|---|
| Forumhop: | |
| Hop naar: | |