| |
[Nov. 20th, 2010|05:25 pm] |
Aizņēmums līdz 2011:
no SVF 1,1 milj.
no EK 2,7 milj
no PB 0,3 milj.
Atmaksāsim šādi: 2012 - 2015 -> SVF 1 milj (nav informācijas par to 0,1 milj.) + procenti
2014 - 2019 -> EK "1milj. (pirmā daļa ) 2014 gadā 1.2 milj. (otrā daļa) 2015 gadā , 0.5 milj. (trešā daļa) 2019 gadā + procenti (3.125% - 3.375%)
Kur šī aizdota nauda ir gājusi?
Līdz 28. 02. 2010 tikai 1,79 milj. lati tika tērēti:
Financing State budget 23% (0,41 milj.)
Parex 22% (0,39 milj)
Repayment of State Debt 55% (0,98 milj)
Pārēja summa varbūt ir domāta šiem iemesliem (no Finanšu Ministrijas veblapas - nevarēju atrast šo informāciju Latviešu valodā):
"Resources planned to guarantee stability of the finance sector form a
kind of “safety reserve” which will be available if measures will be
performed to re-structure the finance sector. For the Latvian finance
sector it is important to regain the confidence, therefore the goal of
“safety reserve” made of international loan resources is to help the
finance system to regain this confidence both in domestic and external
market. "
Tātad - bankām.
Jautājums sev un varbūt arī Jums ir par valsts parādiem - kādi bija iemesli aizņemties (runa ir par State Debt, kas jau eksisteeja pirms SVF et al paraadijas), un precīzāk, uz kurieni šī nauda aizgāja. Svarīgs jautājums, ja ņemsim vērā, ka mums tā ir jāatmaksā.
Jautājums ir arī par turpmāko aizņemšanos - arī no FM:
"It is necessary to continue borrowings in financial markets because of the following reasons:
-
to put an emphasis on positive information about the perspective of
Latvian economic revival as soon as possible, because the ability of the
government to borrow regularly in financial markets is a very
significant signal for rating agencies and investors. It, in turn, will
facilitate notably possibilities of Latvian entrepreneurs to cooperate
with foreign partners thus promoting attraction of potential investments
and amounts of exports..."
Tātad aizņemsimies vairāk, lai rādītu labu "signal"?
|
|
|
| Comments: |
![[User Picture]](http://klab.lv/userpic/96014/13883) | | From: | ![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif) silvija |
|---|
| Date: | November 20th, 2010 - 09:21 pm |
|---|
| | I borrow therefore I am. | (Link) |
|
thank you for keeping awake.
![[User Picture]](http://klab.lv/userpic/156433/18428) | | From: | brookings |
|---|
| Date: | November 20th, 2010 - 09:36 pm |
|---|
| | Re: I borrow therefore I am. | (Link) |
|
It's a hobby.
I am interested just how false the information we are receiving is. I have a suspicion that previous borrowing was going to private financial institutions with the state acting as a guarantee.
The EC and IMF loan seems to be a means of guaranteeing these debt payments are repaid, despite the State not having the means to do this - especially with the Parex bailout.
The aim is to load the state with debt and thereby obtain tax revenue.
It is also interesting how relatively little has gone to cover the budget deficit, yet how much is being asked of the state (us) with regard to cuts and tax increases.
Something stinks, but it is important to get to the details.
| | From: | silvija |
|---|
| Date: | November 20th, 2010 - 10:18 pm |
|---|
| | I'''m just trying to B able to follow. | (Link) |
|
"The aim is to load the state with debt and thereby obtain tax revenue" - meaning to have a 'good' (or call it official) reason to push taxes up as dramatically as now, with 22% VAT to mājsaimniecības' electricity and the like?
| | From: | brookings |
|---|
| Date: | November 20th, 2010 - 10:27 pm |
|---|
| | Re: I'''m just trying to B able to follow. | (Link) |
|
I think so: the aim for lenders is to find a way to obtain a source of money through creating debt. The only source of debt repayment (other than more loans) is tax revenue. That's why taxation is going up - especially on non-elastic goods like electricity (non-elastic = necessities).
It is a clear indication of their lack of humanity,
| | Re: I'''m just trying to B able to follow. | (Link) |
|
so basically there was no real money, they just created a debt and now we gotta pay. right?
but then again, the amount is peanuts on a global scale. why would they do this?
| | From: | brookings |
|---|
| Date: | November 20th, 2010 - 11:40 pm |
|---|
| | Re: I'''m just trying to B able to follow. | (Link) |
|
It seems that way to me. Most debt is created out of nothing by central banks, and for that matter, most mortgage debt is also created out of nothing by private banks.
Regarding this debt, I think there are two very important questions:
1) Why was the previous debt taken on - the pre-crisis debt, I mean. From the brief research I have done on the Bank of Latvia's site, some of it (and this is going back to '93) went to private financial institutions.
2) Where exactly is the IMF/EC loan going? It seems comparatively little is going to cover the budget deficit. You can see already that most of it has gone to servicing already existing debt repayments.
Why would they do it?
An easy source of income, and as the state won't be able to pay back the full amount of debt, we will have further loans with the same kind of structural adjustment packages and loss of sovereignty. In other words - control.
Manuprāt tas bija skaidrs pat tad, kad tas notika.
Mani traucē tas, ka latviešiem (es atvainojos par vispārinājumu) joprojam liekas ka viņi paši ir vainīgi. No datiem izskatās, ka tikai 10% no aizdota nauda ir gajusi, lai segtu budžetu. Tas nozimē, ka mēs tagad, nodokļu maksātāji, lielākoties atbalstam financiālu sektoru.
cik es varu saprast, Parex tīri tehniski varēja neglābt. būtu bankrotējusi, un apmēram tā pati nauda aizietu mazajiem noguldītājiem. bet nevarēja neglābt tāpēc, ka tur iekšā bija Krievijas nauda. | |
