De kredietcrisis - Pagina 11

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:13

Citaat:

Economie ten dienste van de mensen,niet de mensen ten dienste van de economie.Want in ons huidig bestel profiteert een te kleine minderheid van de positieve effecten.90% van de assets is in handen van 10% van de bevolking...Dat zegt genoeg.

Inderdaad, en toch zijn er bij die zeggen iets van economie te begrijpen. Lijkt eerder alsof we er helemaal niets van begrepen hebben.

Sickboy · 4 april 2008, 20:14

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AdrianHealey

Lol. Dat is zelfs niet waar?

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. Extensive statistics, many indicating the growing world disparity, are included in the available report, press releases, Excel tables and Powerpoint slides.[5] Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.[6] Despite this, the distribution has been changing quite rapidly in the direction of greater concentration of wealth.

En nu gij...

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:15

Citaat:

Wat is dat: 'een relatieve kapitaalsinjectie'?

Het effect dat ontstaat door wereldwijd alle prijzen te delen door de factor 10.

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:16

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door nun

Is dat ook niet een stelling van het libertalisme? Een niet-rationale persoon, kan de juiste beslissingen niet voor zichzelf nemen? Bij inflatie verwachtingen lijkt mij dit toch te kloppen.

Hoe bedoel je?

Citaat:

Stel dat je op lange termijn kan verwachten dat de inflatie 2% is. Dan eis je toch 2% loonstijging op het moment dat de inflatie zich voordoet en niet erna. Nu zoals je zegt zal de inflatie zelden 2% zijn. De ene keer zorgt de stochastische schok ervoor dat inflatie <2%, de andere keer is inflatie >2%. Dit zorgt ervoor dat iedereen gemiddelde evenveel wint als verliest en in totaal break even is.

Je 'stel' is a heel dubieus. Hoe kan ik in hemelsnaam weten wat de centrale bank allemaal gaat uitsteken? Verder ga je ervanuit dat ik mij behoor te informeren om te zorgen dat ik niet bestolen wordt!
Het is alsof een dief me een kaartje stuurt: 'ik beroof je dan'. Als ik dat kaartje toevallig niet vind of negeer, dan is het allemaal oke om mij te beroven. Dat lijkt me wel een rare gedachtegang.

Verder. Er is niet, nooit, jamais, zoiets als 'nu' is er 2% inflatie. Inflatie is geen fenomeen van vandaag op morgen, inflatie (of beter: geldcreatie) is een constant gegeven. De moment dat ik een loonsverhoging heb, is de geldcreatie alweer bezig en een moment daarna is mijn loon (en spaargeld) alweer in waarde gedaald. Ook hier: je werkt met een agreggaat, maar dat verbergt de realiteit.

Verder; vind je het zelf niet onrealistisch dat je hier een verhaal vertelt dat het 'allemaal wel break-even' zal draaien? Ik in ieder geval wel.

Enneuh, ik heb nog steeds niets gezien van de 'positieve' gevolgen van inflatie. Ik heb enkel pogingen gezien om te proberen te verbergen dat inflatie netto-transfers inhoudt van de ene naar de andere burger. Komaan, vind je het nu zelf realistisch? Dat break-even-verhaaltje?

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:17

Citaat:

Och jong. Stop uw zever van "relatieve kapitaalsinjectie". Het enige wat ge bepleit is een hyperinflatie

Hyperinflatie ontstaat door fragmentatie, dit is niet het geval in een mondiale economie. Een relatieve kapitaalsinjectie geeft je de nodige ruimte om de balans te herstellen en dat wereldwijd. Of begrijp je niets van economie misschien, dat is een balansspel.

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:18

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sickboy

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth. Extensive statistics, many indicating the growing world disparity, are included in the available report, press releases, Excel tables and Powerpoint slides.[5] Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.[6] Despite this, the distribution has been changing quite rapidly in the direction of greater concentration of wealth.

En nu gij...

Tjah, wie gaat er Sickboy wijzen op het feit dat 90% geen 85% is?
Verder is het wel veel zeggend dat ze het hebben over assets.

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:19

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door MIS

Hyperinflatie ontstaat door fragmentatie, dit is niet het geval in een mondiale economie. Een relatieve kapitaalsinjectie geeft je de nodige ruimte om de balans te herstellen en dat wereldwijd. Of begrijp je niets van economie misschien, dat is een balansspel.

Hyperinflatie ontstaat niet door fragmentatie, maar door geldcreatie. Jij pleit voor geldcreatie.

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:21

Citaat:

Hyperinflatie ontstaat niet door fragmentatie, maar door geldcreatie. Jij pleit voor geldcreatie

Ik pleit helemaal niet voor geldcreatie. Heb je nu nog steeds niet begrepen waar het over gaat, hoeveel keer moet ik dat dan herhalen, beste Adrian ?

Sickboy · 4 april 2008, 20:21

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AdrianHealey

Tjah, wie gaat er Sickboy wijzen op het feit dat 90% geen 85% is?
Verder is het wel veel zeggend dat ze het hebben over assets.

Studie is van 2000 en we zijn niet in de goeie richting opgeschoven.

En wat is het verschil tussen 85% en 90%?Enkel maar wat rook spuwen om je ongelijk niet te moeten toegeven.

Als jij een studie kan aanhalen die de tegengestelde cijfers geeft,wil ik ze gerust bekijken.Indien niet,bevestig dan gewoon de cijfers en geef toe dat je opmerking niet correct was.

En assets is hier gebruikt in de zin van eigendom...

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:24

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sickboy

Studie is van 2000 en we zijn niet in de goeie richting opgeschoven.

Bron?

Citaat:

En wat is het verschil tussen 85% en 90%?Enkel maar wat rook spuwen om je ongelijk niet te moeten toegeven.

Toch zeker 5%, niet?

Citaat:

Als jij een studie kan aanhalen die de tegengestelde cijfers geeft,wil ik ze gerust bekijken.Indien niet,bevestig dan gewoon de cijfers en geef toe dat je opmerking niet correct was.

Het lijkt me sterk dat ik een studie heb die het tegenovergestelde bewijst? Immers, het is nogal wiedus dat een klein percentage van de bevolking een groot deel van de welvaart heeft.

Stel dat iedereen evenveel verdient en iedereen 84 jaar oud wordt. Stel vervolgens dat iedereen elke maand 10% van zijn geld opzij legt.
Dan heeft de oudste 10% van de bevolking 84% van de welvaart. (Of zoiets; was ooit een artikel in The Economist.)

Citaat:

En assets is hier gebruikt in de zin van eigendom...

Point intended.

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:24

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door MIS

Ik pleit helemaal niet voor geldcreatie.

Jawel, dat doe je wel.

Weete, typ geheel je plan hier nog maar eens, zonder die dialoogvorm. Dan zal ik je erop wijzen waar de geldcreatie plaatsvindt.

Hup, hup, doe maar.

Sickboy · 4 april 2008, 20:29

Allé,hier nog wa cijferkes...

* The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people.

* The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.
* While global GNP grew 40 percent between 1970 and 1985 (suggesting widening prosperity), the number of poor grew by 17 percent.
* Although 200 million people saw their incomes fall between 1965 and 1980, more than 1 billion people experienced a drop from 1980 to 1993.
* In sub-Saharan Africa, twenty nations remain below their per capita incomes of two decades ago while among Latin American and Caribbean countries, eighteen are below their per capita incomes of ten years ago.
* UNDP reported in 1996 that 100 countries were worse off than 15 years ago.
* Three decades ago, the people in well-to-do countries were 30 times better off than those in countries where the poorest 20 percent of the world's people live. By 1998, this gap had widened to 82 times (up from 61 times since 1996).
* In 1998, that 20 percent of the world's people living in the highest-income countries accounted for 86 percent of total private consumption expenditures while the poorest 20 percent accounted for only 1.3 percent. That's down from 2.3 percent three decades ago.
* At present, 3 billion people live on less than $2 per day while 1.3 billion get by on less than $1 per day. Seventy percent of those living on less than $1 per day are women. With global population expanding 80 million per year, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn cautions that, unless we address "the challenge of inclusion," 30 years hence we will have 5 billion people living on less than $2 per day.
* Two billion people worldwide now suffer from anemia, including 55 million in industrial countries. Given current trends in population growth and prosperity-hoarding, three decades from now we could have a world in which 3.7 billion people are anemic.
* These related phenomena led UN development experts to observe that the world is heading toward "grotesque inequalities," concluding: "Development that perpetuates today's inequalities is neither sustainable nor worth sustaining."
* UNDP calculates that an annual 4 percent levy on the world's 225 most well-to-do people (average 1998 wealth: $4.5 billion) would suffice to provide the following essentials for all those in developing countries: adequate food, safe water and sanitation, basic education, basic health care and reproductive health care. At present, 160 of those individuals live in OECD countries; 60 reside in the United States.
* As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent.
* From 1983-1995 only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while only the top 20 percent experienced an increase in their income.
* Wealth projections through 1997 suggest that 86 percent of stock market gains between 1989 and 1997 went to the top ten percent of households while 42 percent went to the most well-to-do one percent.
* Stock market participation is broad but remarkably shallow. Though more American adults own stocks and stock mutual funds than at any time in history, 71 percent of households own no shares at all or hold less than $2,000, including mutual funds and popular 401(k) plans.
* Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent.
* The modest net worth of white families is 8 times that of African-Americans and 12 times that of Hispanics. The median financial wealth of African-Americans (net worth less home equity) is $200 (one percent of the $18,000 for whites) while that of Hispanics is zero.
* Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth (an average -$5,600, down from -$3,000 in 1983).
* By 1995, the middle quintile of income-earners had only enough savings to maintain their current standard of living for 1.2 months (i.e., if they lost their jobs). That's down from 3.6 months in 1989.
* Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997.
* In 1997, 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy. That works out to roughly 7,000 bankruptcies per hour, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
* Though average household income rose 10 percent between 1979 and 1994, 97 percent of that gain was claimed by the most well-to-do 20 percent.
* In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that perioo. Had pay kept pace with productivity, the average hourly wage would now be $18.10, rather than $12.77. That translates into a difference in annual pay of $11,000 for a full-time, year-round worker.
* Between 1970 and 1990, the typical American worked an additional 163 hours per year. That's equivalent to adding an additional month of work per year - for the same or less pay.
* In 1996, the Census Bureau reported record-level inequality, with the top fifth of U.S. households claiming 48.2 percent of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent.
* In 1973, the income of the top 20 percent of American families was 7.5 times that of the bottom 20 percent. By 1996, it was 13 times.
* Business Week reports that in 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1.
* In 1982, inclusion on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans required personal wealth of $91million. The list then included 13 billionaires. By 1998, $500 million was required and the list included 189 billionaires. Note, however, that Forbes 1998 figures were based on a September 1, 1998 Dow-Jones Industrial Average of 7827. The Dow topped 10,000 in early 1999.
* The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 was $738 billion on September 1, 1998. That's up from $624 billion in 1997. That's an average one-year increase of $285 million per person. That works out to $780,000 per day or $32,500 per hour ($541 per second).
* Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.
* Spending on luxury goods grew by 21 percent from 1995 to 1996 while overall merchandise sales grew only 5 percent.

Nog altijd overtuigd van "Het Grote Gelijk"?

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:31

Citaat:

Jawel, dat doe je wel.

Tja, en dan zeggen dat je iets van economie begrepen hebt.

Citaat:

Weet je, typ geheel je plan hier nog maar eens, zonder die dialoogvorm. Dan zal ik je erop wijzen waar de geldcreatie plaatsvindt.

Nog eens ? Waarom antwoord je niet op vragen rondom dat menselijk groeipotentieel, heb je dat stuk gemist toen je economie studeerde misschien ?

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:33

Citaat:

Nog altijd overtuigd van "Het Grote Gelijk"?

Krijg stilaan (maar wel steeds meer) de indruk dat Adrian een beetje blind is. Jammer genoeg ziet hij dat zelf niet, net omwille daarvan.

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:36

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door MIS

Tja, en dan zeggen dat je iets van economie begrepen hebt. Nog eens ? Waarom antwoord je niet op vragen rondom dat menselijk groeipotentieel, heb je dat stuk gemist toen je economie studeerde misschien ?

Dus, je kan het niet? Wnat je weet dat het zal uitdraaien op geldcreatie. Mooi zo.

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:36

Citaat:

Hup hup, doe maar

Snel even gedaan Adrian, hup hup even lezen dan.

http://www.chaospunt.org/pages/Site-map.html

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:36

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sickboy

Allé,hier nog wa cijferkes..
Nog altijd overtuigd van "Het Grote Gelijk"?

Wat probeer je daarmee te bewijzen?

Sickboy · 4 april 2008, 20:45

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door AdrianHealey

Wat probeer je daarmee te bewijzen?

Tja,jij zei dat mijn punt niet klopte,dat de cijfers niet klopten.Dan kan je geen cijfers geven die het tegendeel aantonen...Dus,om tegen te gaan dat je me leugenaar noemt geef ik je méér cijfers...wat wil je dan nog meer?

Ja Adje,je hebt gelijk Adje,waar moet ik likken Adje???

MIS · 4 april 2008, 20:45

Citaat:

Wat probeer je daarmee te bewijzen?

Ik zou gewoon blijven slapen. Heb je nu zelf niet door hoe dom je overkomt ? Het is zelfs om medelijden mee te krijgen.

AdrianHealey · 4 april 2008, 20:46

Citaat:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sickboy

Tja,jij zei dat mijn punt niet klopte,dat de cijfers niet klopten.Dan kan je geen cijfers geven die het tegendeel aantonen...Dus,om tegen te gaan dat je me leugenaar noemt geef ik je méér cijfers...wat wil je dan nog meer?

Ja Adje,je hebt gelijk Adje,waar moet ik likken Adje???

Waar héb jij het toch over?

4 april 2008, 20:29	#212
Sickboy Lokaal Raadslid Geregistreerd: 28 oktober 2007 Locatie: Land van Waas Berichten: 330	Allé,hier nog wa cijferkes... * The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people. * The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries. * While global GNP grew 40 percent between 1970 and 1985 (suggesting widening prosperity), the number of poor grew by 17 percent. * Although 200 million people saw their incomes fall between 1965 and 1980, more than 1 billion people experienced a drop from 1980 to 1993. * In sub-Saharan Africa, twenty nations remain below their per capita incomes of two decades ago while among Latin American and Caribbean countries, eighteen are below their per capita incomes of ten years ago. * UNDP reported in 1996 that 100 countries were worse off than 15 years ago. * Three decades ago, the people in well-to-do countries were 30 times better off than those in countries where the poorest 20 percent of the world's people live. By 1998, this gap had widened to 82 times (up from 61 times since 1996). * In 1998, that 20 percent of the world's people living in the highest-income countries accounted for 86 percent of total private consumption expenditures while the poorest 20 percent accounted for only 1.3 percent. That's down from 2.3 percent three decades ago. * At present, 3 billion people live on less than $2 per day while 1.3 billion get by on less than $1 per day. Seventy percent of those living on less than $1 per day are women. With global population expanding 80 million per year, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn cautions that, unless we address "the challenge of inclusion," 30 years hence we will have 5 billion people living on less than $2 per day. * Two billion people worldwide now suffer from anemia, including 55 million in industrial countries. Given current trends in population growth and prosperity-hoarding, three decades from now we could have a world in which 3.7 billion people are anemic. * These related phenomena led UN development experts to observe that the world is heading toward "grotesque inequalities," concluding: "Development that perpetuates today's inequalities is neither sustainable nor worth sustaining." * UNDP calculates that an annual 4 percent levy on the world's 225 most well-to-do people (average 1998 wealth: $4.5 billion) would suffice to provide the following essentials for all those in developing countries: adequate food, safe water and sanitation, basic education, basic health care and reproductive health care. At present, 160 of those individuals live in OECD countries; 60 reside in the United States. * As of 1995 (the latest figures available), Federal Reserve research found that the wealth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that of the bottom 95 percent. Three years earlier, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finance found that the top one percent had wealth greater than the bottom 90 percent. * From 1983-1995 only the top five percent of households saw an increase in their net worth while only the top 20 percent experienced an increase in their income. * Wealth projections through 1997 suggest that 86 percent of stock market gains between 1989 and 1997 went to the top ten percent of households while 42 percent went to the most well-to-do one percent. * Stock market participation is broad but remarkably shallow. Though more American adults own stocks and stock mutual funds than at any time in history, 71 percent of households own no shares at all or hold less than $2,000, including mutual funds and popular 401(k) plans. * Adjusting for inflation, the net worth of the median American household fell 10 percent between 1989 and 1997, declining from $54,600 to $49,900. The net worth of the top one percent is now 2.4 times the combined wealth of the poorest 80 percent. * The modest net worth of white families is 8 times that of African-Americans and 12 times that of Hispanics. The median financial wealth of African-Americans (net worth less home equity) is $200 (one percent of the $18,000 for whites) while that of Hispanics is zero. * Between 1983 and 1995, the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent of their net worth. The middle fifth lost 11 percent. By 1995, 18.5 percent of households had zero or negative net worth (an average -$5,600, down from -$3,000 in 1983). * By 1995, the middle quintile of income-earners had only enough savings to maintain their current standard of living for 1.2 months (i.e., if they lost their jobs). That's down from 3.6 months in 1989. * Household debt as a percentage of personal income rose from 58 percent in 1973 to an estimated 85 percent in 1997. * In 1997, 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy. That works out to roughly 7,000 bankruptcies per hour, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. * Though average household income rose 10 percent between 1979 and 1994, 97 percent of that gain was claimed by the most well-to-do 20 percent. * In 1998, weekly wages were 12 percent lower than in 1973 on an inflation-adjusted basis. Productivity rose 33 percent over that perioo. Had pay kept pace with productivity, the average hourly wage would now be $18.10, rather than $12.77. That translates into a difference in annual pay of $11,000 for a full-time, year-round worker. * Between 1970 and 1990, the typical American worked an additional 163 hours per year. That's equivalent to adding an additional month of work per year - for the same or less pay. * In 1996, the Census Bureau reported record-level inequality, with the top fifth of U.S. households claiming 48.2 percent of national income while the bottom fifth gets by on 3.6 percent. * In 1973, the income of the top 20 percent of American families was 7.5 times that of the bottom 20 percent. By 1996, it was 13 times. * Business Week reports that in 1999 top executives earned 419 times the average wage of a blue-collar worker, up from 326:1 in 1998. In 1980, the ratio was 42:1. * In 1982, inclusion on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans required personal wealth of $91million. The list then included 13 billionaires. By 1998, $500 million was required and the list included 189 billionaires. Note, however, that Forbes 1998 figures were based on a September 1, 1998 Dow-Jones Industrial Average of 7827. The Dow topped 10,000 in early 1999. * The combined net worth of the Forbes 400 was $738 billion on September 1, 1998. That's up from $624 billion in 1997. That's an average one-year increase of $285 million per person. That works out to $780,000 per day or $32,500 per hour ($541 per second). * Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined. * Spending on luxury goods grew by 21 percent from 1995 to 1996 while overall merchandise sales grew only 5 percent. Nog altijd overtuigd van "Het Grote Gelijk"? __________________ "They've got us surrounded again...The poor bastards" Laatst gewijzigd door Sickboy : 4 april 2008 om 20:30.