Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
I wonder what would happen if USA deaults O.o
Maybe, homefront? but with chinese instead of koreans? |
it will
USA is in the same situation as EU
but as US Dollar is world's reserve currency.it will take a bit longer
why will homefront happen?that is just propaganda
the world wants USA to default as that will bring back the GOLD standard eventually and stop ANGLO-AMERICAN Hedgemony
| Kasz216 said: Not quite... What happened with the loans worked kinda like this.
Say I agreed to lend Ascii 100 dollars, with the agreement that he pays me 10 dollars a month for 24 months, netting me 240 dollars at the end of 12 months. However, i'm not 100% sure he'll pay me back the 100 bucks. So I offer you $1 a month, so that if he fails at any time during the loan (which is unlikely, but possible) You will pay me 50% of what he lost. Meaning I now make a $10 profit but have much less risk. While your making a quick $10 while shouldering only half the burden on a loan that's probably going to be paid back immdeiatly anyway. Essentially a giant web of that, led to a bunch of people who shouldn't have had loans in the first place defaulting, destablizing the system, causing these guys to raise their intrest rates to avoid folding (instead of 120 i now want 130, since there was a provision in the deal allowing this.) causing more people to fail their morgages.... leading to the more people needing to make up more of the losses... well you get the picture.
|
I am having trouble understanding your train of thought.
With your example, you said Ascii would be lent $100 by you and he would have to pay $10 per month for 24 months or $240 for the two years.
After that, you lost me. Where do I come into this and why are you paying me $1 a month? Why would I end up paying you 50% of what Ascii lost/didn't pay you?
I appreciate the response, Kasz! This is a good discussion, I think!
The BuShA owns all!
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
I wonder what would happen if USA deaults O.o Maybe, homefront? but with chinese instead of koreans? |
When Homefront was being worked on, China was originally discussed as the enemy, but then it was decided that China was to dependent on the U.S economy to make it so.
If the USA defaults, it is best to not think about it. It will be bad things, real bad things. I can't even begin to speculate on this, outside of saying it is not good.
Vertigo-X said:
With your example, you said Ascii would be lent $100 by you and he would have to pay $10 per month for 24 months or $240 for the two years.
After that, you lost me. Where do I come into this and why are you paying me $1 a month? Why would I end up paying you 50% of what Ascii lost/didn't pay you?
I appreciate the response, Kasz! This is a good discussion, I think! |
I'll fill in for Kasz.
You are essentially an insurer, Kasz is paying you a dollar a month for insurance. If his loan fails, you have to pay up half of what's owed. This benefits Kasz, because even if the loan does fail, he will still get atleast half of his money back. If the loan doesn't fail, you will benefit, as you would have profited from the dollar a month.
The more likely the loan is to fail, the more Kasz would have to pay you, as you have a greater risk, and the potential dollar a month wouldn't be worth the risk to you (also, the riskier the loan, the more Kasz will worry, so he is willing to pay more for insurance, which is actually far more important in the final price of insurance - how much you think Kasz is willing to pay).
KillerMan said:
|
Exactly. Responsibility is independent of your ideological disposition or what you intend to do with your government, proving that the people complaining about socialism merely have an agenda against helping people
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
Every body in the world donate 1% of their income to europe!
Mr Khan said:
Exactly. Responsibility is independent of your ideological disposition or what you intend to do with your government, proving that the people complaining about socialism merely have an agenda against helping people |
Only in a carte blanche approach.
It's also worth noting that the majority of cases where "Socialism Works" they actually tend to be more rightwing and libretarian then even the USA.
The few that seem to do better then the US in general seem to be Denmark, Australia and New Zealand, which all usually end up ahead of the US in that Heritage Foundation Economic freedoms index. (Countires that, if given the oppurtunity some of our most conservative anti socialsit economists would jump at the oppurtunity, healthcare, high taxes and all.)
It seems more like you can afford a lot of socialism if your pretty liberal and sensible in the other aspects of your economy....
Now asking the US government to implement a giant socialist system...
I wouldn't trust the US government to feed my gold fish when I go on vacation.
Now New Zealand, they can have comprable tax rates to us and somehow do tons more then we ever could.
(Also I wouldn't rule out the small size of the countries that work.)
KillerMan said:
|
This. Education is always good. Education pulled Ireland and Portugal out of poverty, and should they even default, they'd remain still richer than before, because nobody can steal you the education you received.
| SamuelRSmith said:
You are essentially an insurer, Kasz is paying you a dollar a month for insurance. If his loan fails, you have to pay up half of what's owed. This benefits Kasz, because even if the loan does fail, he will still get atleast half of his money back. If the loan doesn't fail, you will benefit, as you would have profited from the dollar a month. The more likely the loan is to fail, the more Kasz would have to pay you, as you have a greater risk, and the potential dollar a month wouldn't be worth the risk to you (also, the riskier the loan, the more Kasz will worry, so he is willing to pay more for insurance, which is actually far more important in the final price of insurance - how much you think Kasz is willing to pay). |
Ah, that makes sense. The snowballing effect of failed loans in Europe definitely affects the others around the world who hold the loans, then.
Thinking about the core of it, the concept of the loan is meant to yield a larger amount of money than what was invested. This would mean the lendee needs to gain money from actual product value (either directly or indirectly; ex. selling goods) greater than or equal to the total loan (with interest) to be at parity or profitable.
That doesn't seem sustainable on a large scale at all, let alone with all of the complexities involved with loan insurance and many webs of this going on around the world.
The BuShA owns all!
Mr Khan said:
Exactly. Responsibility is independent of your ideological disposition or what you intend to do with your government, proving that the people complaining about socialism merely have an agenda against helping people |
With the government spending in the USA at (roughly) 40% of GDP, and being equal to or higher than many of these "socialist" countries, I have to wonder why so many people resist cutting government spending to a level where it is in-line with spending in other (better run) countries for similar services offered.
Beyond that, being that since the war on poverty began in the 1960s the poor have steadily gotten worse as social spending increased, what makes you believe that social spending has anything to do with helping people?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
