Jump to content

SUBIECTE NOI
« 1 / 5 »
RSS
Info Coronavirus/Vaccinare vs Fake News

Ce banci folositi in UK?

Nati Badea, nepotism la privat

5 GHz merge cu intermitențe
 Depistat pozitiv COVID-19

Dilemele moderne ale femeilor...

Camera supraveghere video PNI Hou...

Adio plafonare tarife energie!
 Alegere Electrician Autorizat ANR...

Halele Obor, inchise. Cand se vor...

Izolatie acoperis prin exterior

Casa alba lunguiata - P+1, struct...
 Ciudatenie STB

Camera Supraveghere Auto cu detec...

Screen Mirroring pe TV Philips mo...

Scut metalic sub motor - recomand...
 

Cămătăria - legală sau nu

- - - - -
  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
209 replies to this topic

Poll: Cămătăria - legală sau nu (130 member(s) have cast votes)

Cămătăria - legală sau nu

  1. Cămătăria este imorala, dobănda ar trebui sa fie 0 (20 votes [15.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.38%

  2. Cămătăria este imorala, dobănda ar trebui sa fie maxim 5% (14 votes [10.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.77%

  3. Cămătăria este (insert coin here), dobănda ar trebui sa fie intre 5 si 25% (6 votes [4.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.62%

  4. Cămătăria este legala doar la banci, dobănda ar trebui sa fie stabilita prin lege (33 votes [25.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.38%

  5. Cămătăria este perfect legală, detinatorii de capital sunt liberi să ceară cât vor (57 votes [43.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.85%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#19
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009

View PostAnjin`, on Apr 5 2009, 19:23, said:

Da nu e acelasi lucru camatar cu banca asa ca nu stiu de ce ar trebui sa fie legala camatoria.
totul a pornit de la notiunea folosita de de beers initial: usury.
Usury inseamna perceperea unei dobanzi  cand are loc un imprumut de bani. Asta o fac bancile, asta o fac camatarii.

In ultimul timp se foloseste notiunea de usury in sensul de percepere exagerat de mare a  unei dobanzi. De obicei se asociaza cu aceasta practica camatarii. In realitate bancile o fac la fel. Sistemul de carti de credit este un astfel de sistem care toaca economiile oamenilor. Pur si simplu, cartile de credit, care percep dobanzi intre 13%-25% distrug populatia, distrug economia, in schimb creeaza profituri exorbitante bancilor. Ceea ce demonstreaza ca dobanzile peste un anumit nivel nu sunt sanatoase pentru bunastarea generala a unei populatii, pentru binele unei economii.

#20
rsumy

rsumy

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 3,318
  • Înscris: 24.10.2006
Să definim niște "termeni"...

Bancă: o gașcă de cămătari, înregistrați legal, care plătesc taxe și impozite la Stat, "adăpostiți", de regulă, într-un Sediu opulent... :) .
Cămătari: o gașcă de oameni, de regulă făcând parte din lumea Interlopă, fără Sediu... :) .

Diferențele dintre ei nu sunt chiar atât de mari... :D .

rsumy

Edited by rsumy, 05 April 2009 - 18:45.


#21
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006

Quote

care percep dobanzi intre 13%-25% distrug populatia, distrug economia, in schimb creeaza profituri exorbitante bancilor.

Quote

It seems that every generation has its Shylock—a despised financier blamed for the economic problems of his day. A couple of decades ago it was Michael Milken and his “junk” bonds. Today it is the mortgage bankers who, over the past few years, lent billions of dollars to home buyers—hundreds of thousands of whom are now delinquent or in default on their loans. This “sub-prime mortgage crisis” is negatively affecting the broader financial markets and the economy as a whole. The villains, we are told, are not the borrowers—who took out loans they could not afford to pay back—but the moneylenders—who either deceived the borrowers or should have known better than to make the loans in the first place. And, we are told, the way to prevent such problems in the future is to clamp down on moneylenders and their industries; thus, investigations, criminal prosecutions, and heavier regulations on bankers are in order.

Of course, government policy for decades has been to encourage lenders to provide mortgage loans to lower-income families, and when mortgage brokers have refused to make such loans, they have been accused of “discrimination.” But now that many borrowers are in a bind, politicians are seeking to lash and leash the lenders.

This treatment of moneylenders is unjust but not new. For millennia they have been the primary scapegoats for practically every economic problem. They have been derided by philosophers and condemned to hell by religious authorities; their property has been confiscated to compensate their “victims”; they have been humiliated, framed, jailed, and butchered. From Jewish pogroms where the main purpose was to destroy the records of debt, to the vilification of the House of Rothschild, to the jailing of American financiers—moneylenders have been targets of philosophers, theologians, journalists, economists, playwrights, legislators, and the masses.


Major thinkers throughout history—Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes, to name just a few—considered moneylending, at least under certain conditions, to be a major vice. Dante, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, and modern and popular novelists depict moneylenders as villains. Today, anti-globalization demonstrators carry signs that read “abolish usury” or “abolish interest.” Although these protestors are typically leftists—opponents of capitalism and anything associated with it—their contempt for moneylending is shared by others, including radical Christians and Muslims who regard charging interest on loans as a violation of God’s law and thus as immoral.


Moneylending has been and is condemned by practically everyone. But what exactly is being condemned here? What is moneylending or usury? And what are its consequences?


Usury enables levels of life-serving commerce and industry that otherwise would be impossible. Consider a few historical examples. Moneylenders funded grain shipments in ancient Athens and the first trade between the Christians in Europe and the Saracens of the East. They backed the new merchants of Italy and, later, of Holland and England. They supported Spain’s exploration of the New World, and funded gold and silver mining operations. They made possible the successful colonization of America. They fueled the Industrial Revolution, supplying the necessary capital to the new entrepreneurs in England, the United States, and Europe. And, in the late 20th century, moneylenders provided billions of dollars to finance the computer, telecommunications, and biotechnology industries.

By taking risks and investing their capital in what they thought would make them the most money, moneylenders and other financiers made possible whole industries—such as those of steel, railroads, automobiles, air travel, air conditioning, and medical devices. Without capital, often provided through usury, such life-enhancing industries would not exist—and homeownership would be impossible to all but the wealthiest people.

Moneylending is the lifeblood of industrial-technological society. When the practice and its practitioners are condemned, they are condemned for furthering and enhancing man’s life on earth.


Given moneylenders’ enormous contribution to human well-being, why have they been so loathed throughout history, and why do they continue to be distrusted and mistreated today? What explains the universal hostility toward one of humanity’s greatest benefactors? And what is required to replace this hostility with the gratitude that is the moneylenders’ moral due?


As we have seen, hostility toward usury stems from two interrelated sources: certain economic views and certain ethical views. Economically, from the beginning of Western thought, usury was regarded as unproductive—as the taking of something for nothing. Ethically, the practice was condemned as immoral—as unjust, exploitative, against biblical law, selfish. The history of usury is a history of confusions, discoveries, and evasions concerning the economic and moral status of the practice. Until usury is recognized as both economically productive and ethically praiseworthy—as both practical and moral—moneylenders will continue to be condemned as villains rather than heralded as the heroes they in fact are.


___
Yaron Brook: “Money-Lending: Its History and Philosophy,” lecture delivered at Second Renaissance Conferences, Anaheim, California, July 2001.

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 18:42.


#22
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009
bai de bree. INvata sa folosesti reply si sa nu mai dai carnati de citate. Este nepoliticos ceea ce faci.

#23
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
Scuze, mai am unul singur si dupa asta putem discuta:

(citatele erau necesare discutiei, altfel probabil ne-am fi invartit in cerc exact ca filozofii ultimilor 2000 de ani)

Quote

It is time to set the record straight.

Although serious economists today uniformly recognize the economic benefits of charging interest or usury on loans, they rarely, if ever, attempt a philosophical or moral defense of this position. Today's economists either reject philosophy completely or adopt the moral-practical split, accepting the notion that although usury is practical, it is either immoral or, at best, amoral.

Modern philosophers, for the most part, have no interest in the topic at all, partly because it requires them to deal with reality, and partly because they believe self-interest, capitalism, and everything they entail, to be evil. Today's philosophers, almost to a man, accept self-sacrifice as the standard of morality and physical labor as the source of wealth. Thus, to the extent that they refer to moneylending at all, they consider it unquestionably unjust, and positions to the contrary unworthy of debate.

Whereas Aristotle united productiveness with morality and thereby condemned usury as immoral based on his mistaken belief that the practice is unproductive and whereas everyone since Aristotle (including contemporary economists and philosophers) has severed productiveness from morality and condemned usury on biblical or altruistic grounds as immoral (or at best amoral)?what is needed is a view that again unifies productiveness and morality, but that also sees usury as productive, and morality as the means to practical success on earth. What is needed is the economic knowledge of the last millennium combined with a new moral theory one that upholds the morality of self-interest and thus the virtue of personal profit.

Let us first condense the key economic points; then we will turn to a brief indication of the morality of self-interest.

The crucial economic knowledge necessary to a proper defense of usury includes an understanding of why lenders charge interest on money?and why they would do so even in a risk-free, noninflationary environment. Lenders charge interest because their money has alternative uses?uses they temporarily forego by lending the money to borrowers. When a lender lends money, he is thereby unable to use that money toward some benefit or profit for himself. Had he not lent it, he could have spent it on consumer goods that he would have enjoyed, or he could have invested it in alternative moneymaking ventures. And the longer the term of the loan, the longer the lender must postpone his alternative use of the money. Thus interest is charged because the lender views the loan as a better, more profitable use of his money over the period of the loan than any of his alternative uses of the same funds over the same time; he estimates that, given the interest charged, the benefit to him is greater from making the loan than from any other use of his capital.

A lender tries to calculate in advance the likelihood or unlikelihood that he will be repaid all his capital plus the interest. The less convinced he is that a loan will be repaid, the higher the interest rate he will charge. Higher rates enable lenders to profit for their willingness to take greater risks. The practice of charging interest is therefore an expression of the human ability to project the future, to plan, to analyze, to calculate risk, and to act in the face of uncertainty. In a word, it is an expression of man's ability to reason. The better a lender's thinking, the more money he will make.


Another economic principle that is essential to a proper defense of usury is recognition of the fact that moneylending is productive. This fact was made increasingly clear over the centuries, and today it is incontrovertible. By choosing to whom he will lend money, the moneylender determines which projects he will help bring into existence and which individuals he will provide with opportunities to improve the quality of their lives and his. Thus, lenders make themselves money by rewarding people for the virtues of innovation, productiveness, personal responsibility, and entrepreneurial talent; and they withhold their sanction, thus minimizing their losses, from people who exhibit signs of stagnation, laziness, irresponsibility, and inefficiency. The lender, in seeking profit, does not consider the well-being of society or of the borrower. Rather, he assesses his alternatives, evaluates the risk, and seeks the greatest return on his investment.

And, of course, lent money is not "barren"; it is fruitful: (asta fiind si motivul tiparirii banilor din nimic!!) It enables borrowers to improve their lives or produce new goods or services. Nor is moneylending a zero-sum game: Both the borrower and the lender benefit from the exchange (as ultimately does everyone involved in the economy). The lender makes a profit, and the borrower gets to use capital whether for consumption or investment purposes that he otherwise would not be able to use.


An understanding of these and other economic principles is necessary to defend the practice of usury. But such an understanding is not sufficient to defend the practice. From the brief history we have recounted, it is evident that all commentators on usury from the beginning of time have known that those who charge interest are self-interested, that the very nature of their activity is motivated by personal profit. Thus, in order to defend moneylenders, their institutions, and the kind of world they make possible, one must be armed with a moral code that recognizes rational self-interest and therefore the pursuit of profit as moral, and that consequently regards productivity as a virtue and upholds man?s right to his property and to his time.

There is such a morality: It is Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics, or rational egoism, and it is the missing link in the defense of usury (and capitalism in general).

According to rational egoism, man?s life?the life of each individual man?is the standard of moral value, and his reasoning mind is his basic means of living. Being moral, on this view, consists in thinking and producing the values on which one's life and happiness depend while leaving others free to think and act on their own judgment for their own sake. The Objectivist ethics holds that people should act rationally, in their own long-term best interest; that each person is the proper beneficiary of his own actions; that each person has a moral right to keep, use, and dispose of the product of his efforts; and that each individual is capable of thinking for himself, of producing values, and of deciding whether, with whom, and on what terms he will trade. It is a morality of self-interest, individual rights, and personal responsibility. And it is grounded in the fundamental fact of human nature: the fact that man's basic means of living is his ability to reason.

Ayn Rand identified the principle that the greatest productive, life-serving power on earth is not human muscle but the human mind. Consequently, she regarded profit-seeking the use of the mind to identify, produce, and trade life-serving values?as the essence of being moral.

Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics is essential to the defense of moneylending. It provides the moral foundation without which economic arguments in defense of usury cannot prevail. It demonstrates why moneylending is supremely moral.

The Objectivist ethics frees moneylenders from the shackles of Dante?s inferno, enables them to brush off Shakespeare?s ridicule, and empowers them to take an irrefutable moral stand against persecution and regulation by the state. The day that this moral code becomes widely embraced will be the day that moneylenders and every other producer of value will be completely free to charge whatever rates their customers will pay and to reap the rewards righteously and proudly.

If this moral ideal were made a political reality, then, for the first time in history, moneylenders, bankers, and their institutions would be legally permitted and morally encouraged to work to their fullest potential, making profits by providing the lifeblood of capital to our economy. Given what these heroes have achieved while scorned and shackled, it is hard to imagine what their productive achievements would be if they were revered and freed.

__________
Wall Street Journal, August 2, 2007, p. A4.
von Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, book II.
?In Defense of Financial Markets,? -Ayn Rand Bookstore.
Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (New York: Dutton, 1991); and Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Random House, 1957)
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: New American Library 1966)
.

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 18:52.


#24
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009

Quote

It seems that every generation has its Shylock—a despised financier blamed for the economic problems of his day. A couple of decades ago it was Michael Milken and his “junk” bonds. Today it is the mortgage bankers who ... blablablabla....

In realitate astazi este condamnat Madoff, un alt coetnic al lui Milken. CAre Milken a avut nenumerati discipoli, care dupa terminarea comunismului au aterizat in tarile comuniste, unde au transformat industriile comuniste in fier vechi, achizitionat de un alt coetnic, Marc Rich, si vandute pe piata mondiala a fierului. Totodata, cladirile si terenurile interprinderilor comuniste au fost transformate in afaceri imobiliare care in final au dus la marea criza.

In momentul in care Madoff incepea afacerea lui, schema piramidala, in Rom^nia debutau schemele piramidale. Coincidenta? S-a uitat cineva in spatele schemelor piramidale rom^nesti cine de fapt se ascundeau?

samd.

Edited by schiaub, 05 April 2009 - 18:53.


#25
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
Capitalistii au fost intotdeauna condamnati pentru ca au fost ... "mult prea buni pentru timpul lor".

Pe de alta parte el a stiut tot timpul in ce se baga asa ca nu e de compatimit. Cred ca mai bine am duce discutia in "ce s-ar intampla daca ar exista 1000 de Madoff", daca fiecare din noi am avea dreptul sa facem astfel de inginerii financiare fara nici o problema de etica sau morala (vezi Codul Penal, Articolul 450, punctul 2, litera a).


Daca orice detinator de capital ar avea la dispozitie instrumentul "camatariei", daca piata ar fi cu adevarat libera incat sa existe o concurenta reala (in acelasi timp cu niste legi privind executarea silita care sa fie eficiente, sa nu tergiverseze la infinit), cred ca indivizi ca Madoff sau chiar Nutu Camataru ar avea o viata foarte grea.


Orice Gutenberg sau Cristofor Columb ar fi gasit finantare mult mai usor..

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 19:05.


#26
Mig VWFan

Mig VWFan

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 5,336
  • Înscris: 01.12.2005
Cam cat de retardat trebuie sa fii ca sa imprumuti o suma mare de bani de la niste tigani burtosi intr-o parcare, sa le dai si actele casei , apoi sa te tavalesti pe jos de indignare ca ai devenit "victima".
Camatarii sunt un rau necesar, mai curata societatea de cretini.
Daca Banca internationala a religiilor  ;)  a fost o mare teapa, la ce va asteptati de la niste tigani rasi in cap ?

Edited by Mig VWFan, 05 April 2009 - 19:08.


#27
Anjin`

Anjin`

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Înscris: 10.05.2005
Eu cred ca este vorba de o confuzie, una e camata si alta e imprumutul cu dobanda civilizat si normal, din care castiga amandoi participatii la schimb.Chiar e asa usor de confundat imprumutul la banca cu 13% cu dublarea datoriei intro luna sau mai putin + datorii care cresc rapid dupa?

Camata in sine cred ca se bazeaza pe faptul ca ei sunt capabili sa mearga ai departe ca o banca, si anume sa iti taie degetul. Chiar daca intre camatari preturile sunt aceleasi, motivul pntru care poti lua imprumut sunt difeite, garantezi cu fiinta ta si e cam mult. Daca nu ar fi asta s-ar purta exact ca bancile,ce e altceva.



@de beers
Da sa iti asiguri monopolul pe o anumita piata este moral?
Presupun ca nu e , ca scopul e tocmai sa eviti competitia si evolutia spre mai bine, mai ales cand piata in cauza nu e una vitala(cum ar fi diamantele )

Edited by Anjin`, 05 April 2009 - 19:08.


#28
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
Revin cu intrebarea initiala:

Cat ar trebui sa fie dobanda, cat e "Moral"?


Daca cineva cere 120% pe luna (si nu PE ZI cum au cerut bancile in octombrie), atunci el devine automat.. "tigan burtos"?


___


Anjin, Antonio chiar a garantat cu trupul lui, vezi citatul din Shakespeare de mai sus. Diavolul sta in detalii, vezi tehnicalitatile si clauzele din contractele de creditare..

Quote

Shylock tells Antonio to prepare, and at that very moment Portia points out a flaw in the contract. The bond only allows Shylock to remove the flesh, not blood, of Antonio. If Shylock were to shed any drop of Antonio's blood in doing so, his "lands and goods" will be forfeited under Venetian laws.

(oarecum offtopic: monopolul este bun pentru economie, vezi aici. E o discutie foarte lunga insa paradoxal pentru un ultraliberal ca mine, Greenspan avea dreptate.)

Edited by De Beers, 05 April 2009 - 19:17.


#29
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 20:09, said:

Revin cu intrebarea initiala:

Cat ar trebui sa fie dobanda, cat e "Moral"?
problema nu este "cat de moral" este sa ceri dobanda sau cat de mare este ea.
Problema este alta: cat de mare poate fi dobanda ca sa nu ruineze populatia si sa creeze o criza economica.

Ma doare in spitz de moralitate. E vorba de pragmatism.
Majoritatea matematicianilor care au creat modele matematice, au demonstrat ca o dobanda de peste 9% va duce intotdeauna la crize economice.

Edited by schiaub, 05 April 2009 - 19:16.


#30
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
Daca esti pragmatic atunci poate ar trebui sa citesti ce ziceam de Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics, putin mai sus.

Quote

It is a morality of self-interest, individual rights, and personal responsibility. And it is grounded in the fundamental fact of human nature: the fact that man's basic means of living is his ability to reason.

Ayn Rand identified the principle that the greatest productive, life-serving power on earth is not human muscle but the human mind. Consequently, she regarded profit-seeking the use of the mind to identify, produce, and trade life-serving values as the essence of being moral.


Nu uita ca exact astfel de "camatari" au dus omenirea inainte, ei sunt cei care au facut selectia intre "ce este de viitor si ce nu". Capacitatea lor de a intelege fenomenele economice, de a SELECTA afacerile ce merita finantate, acesta a fost motorul civilizatiei pana acum. Nu va intrebati de ce "fiecare spalatoreasa are piscina", "carte de credit", de ce omenirea a ajuns la 7 miliarde de oameni? Fara ei probabil inca eram in evul mediu..

#31
rsumy

rsumy

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 3,318
  • Înscris: 24.10.2006

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 20:09, said:

Revin cu intrebarea initiala:

Cat ar trebui sa fie dobanda, cat e "Moral"?
[...]
Moral dobânda ar trebui să fie = Inflație + "un pic"... :) .
"Un pic" ăsta e problema...ar trebui "legiferat" ???  :) .

PS. Inflația contează mult. Prin 1993, pe vremea Guvernului Văcăroiu, țin minte că ajunsese pe la 300%...
Am pățit-o pe pielea mea. :) .

rsumy

Edited by rsumy, 05 April 2009 - 19:40.


#32
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 20:24, said:

Daca esti pragmatic atunci poate ar trebui sa citesti ce ziceam de Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics, putin mai sus.

citeste ce am spus eu: dobanda este ok atata timp cat se margineste la un maximum de 9%.

Ceea ce afirmi tu despre evolutia omenirii datorita dobanzii este relativ. In definitiv marile involutii ale omenirii, marile distrugeri, holocausturi, au avut loc exact datorita lacomiei, datorita faptului ca unii n-au avut limite. Nu uita, in Rusia pogromurile au avut loc exact in aceleasi conditii in care astazi au loc aceste cicluri economice, denumite crizele capitalismului. Cand familia Goldstein punea mana pe monopolul zaharului in Ucraina si dictau preturi enorme la produse din zahar, ruinand populatia, aceasta se rascula, punand foc la case, etc. Citeste-l pe Soljenitsin, 200 de ani impreuna.

Stii cum arata SUA dupa anii '70? In marile orase, inner cities, erau la pamant. Atunci a inceput exodul spre suburbs. Downtown-urile nu numai ca au fost arse in razmeritele din 1968, dar nu s-au mai alocat bani, au fost abandonate. Din cand in cand apar scene in filmele americane din acei ani care-ti redau o lume de decadere si prabusire. Apare si filmele alea scifi cu o populatie ce supravietuieste in adancuri, iar orasele sunt distruse. Cam asta era spectacolul in anii '70.


View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 20:24, said:

Nu uita ca exact astfel de "camatari" au dus omenirea inainte
nu e adevarat. Ei au reusit sa provoace haos intotdeauna. Dupa care s-a instaurat o stare de razboi. Razboiul a dus omenirea inainte. Marile imperii nu s-au creat prin imprumuturi ci prin jaf.

#33
De Beers

De Beers

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 705
  • Înscris: 02.03.2006
Tu te contrazici singur: spui ca marile imperii au fost facute prin jaf insa ii condamni pe "evreii" care mareau nejustificat dobanda.

Pe de alta parte, cine stabileste ce trebuie sa fac eu cu banii mei? Statul? Un matematician care spune ca mai mult de 9% e "periculos"? (desi inflatia poate fi de 20% - si fii atent, nu ascunsa in diferitele moduri de calcul ca acum).

Te rog nu compara Rusia (care e cu 200 de ani in urma si acum) cu alte tari ce chiar au lasat ceva in istoria omenirii. E aproape o jignire ce faci tu.

#34
doktorofsat

doktorofsat

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Banned
  • Posts: 3,901
  • Înscris: 04.04.2008
Marile imperii nu s-au creat prin imprumuturi ci prin jaf

ia ganditi-va numa' la marile colonii pe care le-au avut tarile occidentale acum 70-80anisi care le mai au si acum :rolleyes:

View PostDe Beers, on Apr 5 2009, 20:46, said:

Tu te contrazici singur: spui ca marile imperii au fost facute prin jaf insa ii condamni pe "evreii" care mareau nejustificat dobanda.

Pe de alta parte, cine stabileste ce trebuie sa fac eu cu banii mei? Statul? Un matematician care spune ca mai mult de 9% e "periculos"? (desi inflatia poate fi de 20% - si fii atent, nu ascunsa in diferitele moduri de calcul ca acum).

Te rog nu compara Rusia (care e cu 200 de ani in urma si acum) cu alte tari ce chiar au lasat ceva in istoria omenirii. E aproape o jignire ce faci tu.


Rusia in urma!!nu stii ce vorbesti nene!!

evreii au scris in careva testament nu stiu care iegzakt ca ei sunt singurii care au drept sa ia dobanda pe banii datic imprumutul  :D oricum cei mai mari hoti din toate timpurile!

#35
rsumy

rsumy

    Senior Member

  • Grup: Senior Members
  • Posts: 3,318
  • Înscris: 24.10.2006

View Postschiaub, on Apr 5 2009, 20:35, said:

citeste ce am spus eu: dobanda este ok atata timp cat se margineste la un maximum de 9%.
[...]
Nu cred...dacă Inflația e de 2 cifre? 10%...15%... :) .

rsumy

#36
schiaub

schiaub

    Member

  • Grup: Members
  • Posts: 651
  • Înscris: 18.02.2009

View Postrsumy, on Apr 5 2009, 20:57, said:

Nu cred...dacă Inflația e de 2 cifre? 10%...15%... :) .

rsumy
inversezi cauza cu efectul. :lol: :ciocan:

Anunturi

Chirurgia cranio-cerebrală minim invazivă Chirurgia cranio-cerebrală minim invazivă

Tehnicile minim invazive impun utilizarea unei tehnologii ultramoderne.

Endoscoapele operatorii de diverse tipuri, microscopul operator dedicat, neuronavigația, neuroelectrofiziologia, tehnicile avansate de anestezie, chirurgia cu pacientul treaz reprezintă armamentarium fără de care neurochirurgia prin "gaura cheii" nu ar fi posibilă. Folosind tehnicile de mai sus, tratăm un spectru larg de patologii cranio-cerebrale.

www.neurohope.ro

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Forumul Softpedia foloseste "cookies" pentru a imbunatati experienta utilizatorilor Accept
Pentru detalii si optiuni legate de cookies si datele personale, consultati Politica de utilizare cookies si Politica de confidentialitate