May 1, 2012
Feb 24, 2012
Feb 20, 2012
Maybe the amount of money that are required for save Greece is (yet) less than amount of money that will be required by too-big-to-fail banks in the case of Greek default.
What is the worst case scenario in the case of default? The Greek default is postponed only because this year many Euro-states will have elections? And many other questions are on the Internet. They have two aims: firstly, to test some scenarios and their possible outcomes on the public opinion. Secondly, to test few levels of social indicators like the current state of public perceptions about political decisions, like the level of public awarness of a possible economic impact of various decisions, and so on.
My opinion is that things are more controlled than they seem to be. If the Greek behaviour will be changed by some austerity measures, there will be some hopes to keep Greece in the EU. However, the current facts haven't a positiv impact on international public opinion and it's a matter of time until Greece will be get out from the EU.
And this is the worst case scenario for the Greek people on the short and medium term. A return to the Drahma could represent a big inflation and a lower standard of living for few years, maybe a decade. In the long term view, all depends on international economic climate.
Jan 20, 2012
Jan 7, 2012
Dec 27, 2011
Today I saw a good film, named Inside Job. It is a documentary film and it describes some evidences about the last economic phenomenons - known like a financial crisis - and there is a large point of view about these phenomenons.
I’m agreed with the facts, i.e. I think these were the events, but I strongly disagree with the author’s view. Let me explain why.
My principles are:
Firstly, in this world any gain has a range of risks. Gain without risks doesn’t exist. Even the state bonds have a risk attached, those of the state bankruptcy. More risks, more gains.
Secondly, if I’m not interested in having a better life, then nobody could oblige me to have a better life.
I already demonstrated why the political decisions are not in favor of the majority of the people and this is the steady state of the current society.
The main dilemma is: should or not states regulate all financial transactions? Is the deregulation a source of hazard in the free market? Could it generate a lot of corruption? Were states wrong in their actions during the last decade?
I have one answer for all these questions: NO.
For example, if I bought a good/ service and I did not care about the attached risks or I did not care about the quality or another features, then I will have big chances to lose my money. After the risks have materialised and I’ve lost my money, to claim that states were wrong because I was very stupid in my decisions it is a very communist mindset. In fact, all consequences of my decisions belong to me, not to the state. It is very simple, it is like the gravity, if you like.
Was something wrong in selling of all those called derivatives? NO. I think if somebody proposes me to buy a piece of paper for $1,000 because it has a very nice form and my neighbour has already bought one, so there is a market for pieces of paper, it all depends on my decision. Therefore, all consequences belong to me, even if I gain a lot of money or I lose it.
In the current global world, the results of the decisions taken by individuals have given legitimacy for using the public money for saving too-big-to-fail banks.
However, the financial crisis was a very normal consequence of decisions of the majority and, as you see, the majority has taken all the consequences and paid for them.
What will be in the future?
The majority doesn’t have a real view of what was happened, and for the short term socialists will gain more political capital. In the long term, new leaders of the world will become only those smart guys who have a lot of money. And this is very normal and very fair.