drusku dīvaina 2. rindkopa.

jo, parasti jau banka dod to naudu, ko tu aizņemies, tam, kurš pārdod īpašumu.
un viņš tad var darīt ar to naudu, ko grib -- kaut vai izņemt skaidrā naudā visu.

tā ka diez vai ir loģiski teikt, ka banka vienkārši to naudu rada.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Nezinu - tas pirmais solis (ok relatīvi pirmais - būtiska pretruna, laikam:)) dot to naudu, kas viņām (bankām) istenība nav (ņemsim verā, ka viņas jau ir briesmīgi overleveraged un/vai ir parāds ECB), nozīmē, ka no nekurienes viņas saņems to procēntu.

Procents, kas tad kaut kādā ziņā eksistē.

Nezinu vai tas ir ļoti nozīmigi, ko tie, kas pārdod to īpašumu dara. Man liekas tas ir atkarīgs no N.I tirgu stavokļa (kas arī ir atkarīgs no fakta, ka ši nauda nāk no nekurienes).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Sveiks! Te ir daudz sakarīgāk atbilde uz tavu jautājumu/iebildumu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp7tiySCyb4&feature=related

Atradu vakāra vakarā - diezgan interesants paskaidrojums manuprāt.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Jā, paldies!

Tiešām paliek skaidrāks.

Principā jau tai naudas taisīšanai būtu jābūt balansētai ar reālo naudu, ko iespējams izmaksāt, ja visi bankas klienti vienlaicīgi gribētu savus kontus slēgt. Acīmredzot tas tā nav, un problēma šķiet tajā, ka tas procents, ko banka uzdrīkstas taisīt "no zila gaisa" ir stipri par lielu.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Pat 'stipri par lielu' man liekas ir maigi teikts - īt īpaši, kad ņemsim verā to, ka bankas saņems ipašumu + starpību (negative equity) gadijumā klients nevares atmaksāt šo 'kreditu.
Mani tagad vairāk interese central banku lomu - privatas bankas, kam ir tiesības 'taisīt' (nu.. issue) naudu no nekurienes un pēc tam prasīt procentus. Skatos 'The money masters'- ieteiktu... Nemsim verā the nature of Latvijas parāds, ši ir ļoti aktual temats.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Vienīgais, no kā es baidos, klausīdamies un skatīdamies šādas lietas ir tas, ka I am being told thing X, which seems entirely wrong. However, since I have no knowledge/learning at all of the field, it is easy to steer my conclusions, unless I actively seek opposite arguments and try to judge them.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Understood - I have a similar concern. However, I was shocked by my ignorance of the fact that most central banks are private affairs with an effective monopoly on the issuance of money (which through the manipulation of bonds and fractional banking they seem to conjure from nowhere) - it is worth, therefore, delving deeper (with a little scepticism for oxygen). Luckily, I suppose, I have a small array of acquaintances who are paid-up (literally paid-up) advocates of neo-classical economic theory. It helps to cross swords, if only to see where we both stand (which may of course have no bearing on the actual truth).

For my part, I have come at this both intentionally and accidentally - intentionally as a debt-slave in the making, and accidentally, through, for example, reading about Locke's philosophy; and his involvement with House of Orange, the City of London, the Glorious Revolution, and the Bank of England.

Actually, it is also emotional - I went to a school founded by the Fishmongers of the City of London, and always felt I was being brought up in an environment with a real political bias. I suppose I have been reacting against it ever since. That probably reads as quite pompous, but it is true.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

On the other hand — it is not that bad that fishmongers do fund a school or two, rather than just buying the next set of fairy castles.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Sen gribeeju vaicāt tev: kāpēc šis (šādas lietas) thing X "seems entirely wrong"?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nu, vienkārši ir dažas lietas, kuras tu klausies un domā: "hmmm, diez nu vai tā tiešām ir!"

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

mani interesē kāpēc (ok in English: I think discussion of the frame within which these issues are discussed have been set by mainstream economists who are acting as lawyers as opposed to academics. There is also among these people a heavy importance in appearing rational and objective, which gives their utterances an undeserved weight among those who (like yourself, it seems to me) value rational thought. I think this is interesting.

OK, about the lawyer vs academic point. Read Vjačeslavs Dombrovskis or Morten Hansen's blogs, and you will see almost solely a criticism of the Latvian government(s), and hardly anything on the actions of the financial sector (Dombrovsksis may have offered a couple of sentences on it in one blog). These commentators, however, are valued as independent analysts and commentators.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I think what you say is quite true.

Economics is definitely the sphere where I just have to raise my hands and say: guys, I sure hope YOU know what you are talking about, because I certainly don't.

And it is certainly true that I have an irrational liking for rationally put thought. Maybe it is not that irrational though, since, if something is put rationally, I think I have a greater ability to have a stab at its validity.

I mean -- whoever is economist, if he says: I think A,B,C, because X,Y,Z, then there will be at least a meager chance I have some ability of evaluating X,Y or at least Z myself.

However, I actually do not have the ability (or even time) to investigate Z alone, not to speak of X and Y! Nevertheless, he sort of earns a nod from me. Ridiculous, when you think of it. :)

Of Dombrovskis et Hansen -- I've never looked at it from this perspective (neither do I follow their blogs though, just read the 1 or 2 articles, which appeared at height of uncertainty) -- so that's a very interesting point to me as well, thanks a lot.

P.S. I am not so sure about Hansen though -- wasn't he the one who was kind of warning Latvians back in 2006 (or maybe even 2005) about the housing bubble? I definitely read an SSE professor attacking it back then, in Diena, but was it Hansen or some other fellow with a similar kind of name?

(Reply to this) (Parent)