The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Video So one currency Euro was a bad idea ??

It's not. But then again, poorer US states don't have to borrow from richer US states now do they? Welcome to the fucking Euro, Telstra.

I didn't know until now that poor country pay much higher interest rates than rich country.
I bet most people around the world don't know that, if they do, the people of the country won't allow their government to borrow money. So it is unfair and not paying back is the right thing to do or not paying interest is the right thing to do.
 
You sounds like an expert on this.
Can you tell me why poor country have to pay high interest rates when borrowing
and rich country (OR powerful country like the US) pay very little interest rate ? and is this fair ??

If there is no chance at all that a country will default, borrowers would much rather lend to that country.

A country with a good financial reputation can count on all the lenders fighting to be the lucky one who gets to lend the money. They will definitely get a good deal.

A country with a marginal record will pay a bit more.

So doesn't that mean Greece should be off the hook right now? After all, it paid more up front, due to exactly this possibility. The lenders were happy to take the extra money from Greece, and profit from those loans more than they could profit from loans to Germany. Now that the tables have turned, Greece can claim it already paid the banks for that risk, so they have to live with it.

Except that's not what the risk premium is for. The risk premium does not cover irresponsible choices by the Greek government. It covers situations that are impossible to plan for, and impossible for the Greek economy to avoid, not situations it lands in due to crappy choices.

There is a reason I asked kallipolis if Athens had been hit by an asteroid while I wasn't looking: that risk premium. If Athens was wiped out in a natural disaster, I would not be here complaining about Greece, I'd be demanding the rest of the world help out and guarantee money for the country to rebuild, and I would be telling investors to live with the risk they took. Because that's what they charged extra for.

Here's why: The US is a huge country with a big economy. It took a hit when Hurricane Katrina wiped out New Orleans. But the rest of the country could pretty much carry on like nothing happened. People could still go to work, still pay the bills. One disaster like that did not really change the economic potential or the size of the American economy.

If Hurricane Katrina wiped out Athens, that country is fucked, because that kind of disaster is a big deal in such a small country. The total economic potential, and the size of the Greek economy would shrink, for reasons mostly outside the government's control (They ought to build some tidal surge defences, I suppose, but a hurricane is a hurricane.)

THAT's the reason for that risk premium. THAT's why investors charge more. Because in a small, more fragile economy, it is easier for any sensible borrowing limit to be undermined by something out of the government's control.

But when lenders charge more, that does not give any government the right to borrow irresponsibly, to waste money, to finance corruption, to borrow far beyond the capacity to repay, even when there is no hurricane.

That would be like saying I get a good deal on a car loan so I have to pay it back at 5% interest, but my neighbour has a lower income and less work experience so the bank denies him and he buys the same car on his credit card, paying 22% interest.

He CHOSE to do that. He's paying more than me. That extra money does not buy him the right to skip out on even one payment, even though it's cheaper and easier for me. And he is NOT being exploited. He's the one who handed over his credit card at the dealership, nobody made him do it.

The bank knows he has less income to begin with and if his hot water tank blows, he might have to choose between replacing it and paying his credit card payment. I wouldn't have that problem. That's the risk he was paying extra for. Just because he's paying 22% interest does not mean he can go gambling, take out $20 000 in cash advances on his card, and then say to the bank "well I'm not paying and you can't whine about it because you already got your 22% those times that I did pay."

It doesn't work that way.

And I have to say one more time, a COUNTRY is not like a confused senior who manages okay, and wants to do the right thing, until a telemarketing scammer comes along and tries to sell them a time share.

A COUNTRY is allowed to make its own laws. It is allowed to HIRE as many finance experts as it needs to figure out just how much it can repay. They can get consulting and technical help from the best accountants and actuaries and financial geniuses in the world.

A country like Greece is not some lonely old lady being taken advantage of when she picks up the telephone. And THAT's the pathetic excuse we hear now. Greece was not taken advantage of by the banks. Greece took advantage of the banks, and other European citizens, and it wants to keep doing it. Banks can't compete against a country. A country can make its own laws for fuck's sake. It can tax people if it needs to. No bank can compete against those powers.
 
^ the lenders are villains or loan sharks then.
If they are not villains they are better off not lending any money and just help !!!
 
^ the lenders are villains or loan sharks then.
If they are not villains they are better off not lending any money and just help !!!

A wise lender does not destroy a borrower's economy with excessively, harsh austerity measures that shrink that economy, making repayment of the loans a remote possibility rather than a distinct probability.
 
Kallipolis, you make it seem that the Greek government was the victim in this

The bail outs, bailed out the lending banks, not the Greek Government...whereas, Greece is now saddled with austerity measures that make servicing, and repayment of its debt impossible....the IMF, the United States Treasury, and the Bank of England are inviting the Euro Zones countries to offer debt relief...it's that simple....
 
^ the lenders are villains or loan sharks then.
If they are not villains they are better off not lending any money and just help !!!

I'm sorry, did you read Bankside's post?

Greece has the power to curb its spending instantly--it can throw taxes up to double what they are now and take advantage of its populace. Greece can rewrite its laws. Greece can rebudget. Greece can cut programs.

They have access to money, they just need to actually ACCESS it. They've proven that their version of investing in their own economy is to throw money at what doesn't work and borrow money like it's going out of style. We didn't know they'd be so fantastically blithe the last time they were bailed out. In fact, one would think that after a government comes to other governments with its tail between its legs and begs for help that that government might learn its lesson. One would think. Of course one (read: several) happened to be wrong and Greece is trying the same trick again.

If the kid wants a new iPhone the kid can sell his old one and 6 iPods on Ebay. The solution is not to pass the kid around between family members begging for money. What basically happened with Greece was Grandma caved in last time and now the kid thinks Grandma might splash out again. Grandma curtly replied "Fuck that".

That's not predatory lending. And believe it or not Greece giving Grandma $20 back doesn't cut it. Grandma might've smiled but when Greece came back asking for another iPhone Grandma was not impressed.

- - - Updated - - -

Here Mr bankside,
this expert below said the lenders are villains (or Economic Hit Man):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-spiral-john-perkins/6629622?section=business

Do you ever think for yourself or are all your thoughts repostings from around the internet?
 
The bail outs, bailed out the lending banks, not the Greek Government...whereas, Greece is now saddled with austerity measures that make servicing, and repayment of its debt impossible....the IMF, the United States Treasury, and the Bank of England are inviting the Euro Zones countries to offer debt relief...it's that simple....

Referring to my example, Grandpa telling Grandma she should shell out for the kid's new iPhone with her own money is a bit unfair to Grandma's pocketbook.

If Grandpa (the IMF, US, etc) thinks the kid can have the new iPhone with the promise that he'll "eventually pay it back" then maybe Grandpa should open his wallet for the cause.

Not that I can say I'd recommend it. Real-world Grandpa seems to have cataracts or 'selective vision' about the kid's finances. The kid needs to pay back Grandma for the last iPhone before he can even *think* about asking for another new one.
 
I'm sorry, did you read Bankside's post?

Greece has the power to curb its spending instantly--it can throw taxes up to double what they are now and take advantage of its populace. Greece can rewrite its laws. Greece can rebudget. Greece can cut programs.

They have access to money, they just need to actually ACCESS it. They've proven that their version of investing in their own economy is to throw money at what doesn't work and borrow money like it's going out of style. We didn't know they'd be so fantastically blithe the last time they were bailed out. In fact, one would think that after a government comes to other governments with its tail between its legs and begs for help that that government might learn its lesson. One would think. Of course one (read: several) happened to be wrong and Greece is trying the same trick again.

If the kid wants a new iPhone the kid can sell his old one and 6 iPods on Ebay. The solution is not to pass the kid around between family members begging for money. What basically happened with Greece was Grandma caved in last time and now the kid thinks Grandma might splash out again. Grandma curtly replied "Fuck that".

That's not predatory lending. And believe it or not Greece giving Grandma $20 back doesn't cut it. Grandma might've smiled but when Greece came back asking for another iPhone Grandma was not impressed.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you ever think for yourself or are all your thoughts repostings from around the internet?

bankside DID NOT answer my question about is it fair for poor country to pay much higher interest rate and the rich country to pay almost zero interest ? I thought for myself and said lenders are villains and i was right when i listen to the video after.

So you should answer my question about fairness of paying high interest for the poor and paying zero interest for the rich !!!
 
Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's economics. The party which constitutes the lowest risk will automatically be entrusted the lowest interest rates since those occur over a longer period of time. The lender will likewise put a higher interest rate on the country with the higher risk since the shorter the time involved the smaller the risk. 5% over 30 years costs the lender the same as 15% over 10 years. The inequality is that the lender stands to make more money with the first borrower than the second.

See? The more secure account will make the lender more money while the less secure account is given an interest rate that ensures that the lender will not lose money. They might not make money but that's not the goal of a high-interest loan. The goal of a high-interest loan is to get the money back as soon as possible, as the longer it's delayed in a fickle financial environment (say a country which is severely struggling) the higher the chance that the lender will not get their money back.

The lenders to Greece actually weren't trying to make any money, so it's not predatory. The loans were short-term high-interest loans. Nobody's trying to tank Greece's economy (it certainly needs no help), because that would hurt the lender further. Nobody's trying to pull a fast one with Greece--the risk is too high. Which is why the banks only lent money in the short term at a higher interest rate.

Fairness has nothing to do with it--it's all investment. There's no risk in lending money to the U.S., we have the money and can pay it back and we have a steady and strong, well developed economy. Lending money to a less developed economy during an economic recession (aka 2011 Greece) is a high risk investment and could lose the lender a lot of money.

Think about it--who would you rather loan money to? Your successful older brother who has his own thriving business or your younger brother who just got a DUI and is in debt? If you HAD to loan money to the latter (or you're a nice guy, you're hopeful he'll turn himself around, mom said to, etc) you'd loan him money at a high interest rate so that you got your money back ASAP before he crashes into the side of someone's house. OTOH, lending money to your older brother is safer, and you can trust him to pay you back, so you might as well make some interest on it and lend him money at half the rate you would lend to your younger brother.
 
I'm going to expand that last bit:

Say your younger brother hired an accountant and they worked out that he could pay back x over y time. (Greece has finance ministers and access to the greatest economic thinkers on the planet.. they're a country.. they can afford this shit)

So you lend your younger brother x. Then sometime around halfway through paying you back he says "Nope. I can't do it. I can't afford it." One of two things has likely happened: either he's been spending more money than he and the accountant budgeted for or the accountant gave very poor advice.

With Greece, both happened.

Now let's say your accountant said "The budget seems reasonable and under z terms he could realistically pay you back x dollars in y time". In the back of your head you might be thinking "Yeah right, that lazy asshole couldn't stick to a budget if it was covered in honey", but you decide to make the loan anyway under the terms both of your accountants agreed were fine.

It turns out he couldn't pay back the full amount in time, but he promises he'll keep paying it off as he can. You think "Okay. I made a mistake. I lent him too much money, but he's my brother and he's promised he'll resume payments as soon as possible."

The next month he turns around and asks for more money. What do you do?

Yes I think Greece was lent more than they could handle and Germany was stretching its money too thin but by no means was the transaction predatory.
 
Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's economics. The party which constitutes the lowest risk will automatically be entrusted the lowest interest rates since those occur over a longer period of time. The lender will likewise put a higher interest rate on the country with the higher risk since the shorter the time involved the smaller the risk. 5% over 30 years costs the lender the same as 15% over 10 years. The inequality is that the lender stands to make more money with the first borrower than the second.

See? The more secure account will make the lender more money while the less secure account is given an interest rate that ensures that the lender will not lose money. They might not make money but that's not the goal of a high-interest loan. The goal of a high-interest loan is to get the money back as soon as possible, as the longer it's delayed in a fickle financial environment (say a country which is severely struggling) the higher the chance that the lender will not get their money back.

The lenders to Greece actually weren't trying to make any money, so it's not predatory. The loans were short-term high-interest loans. Nobody's trying to tank Greece's economy (it certainly needs no help), because that would hurt the lender further. Nobody's trying to pull a fast one with Greece--the risk is too high. Which is why the banks only lent money in the short term at a higher interest rate.

Fairness has nothing to do with it--it's all investment. There's no risk in lending money to the U.S., we have the money and can pay it back and we have a steady and strong, well developed economy. Lending money to a less developed economy during an economic recession (aka 2011 Greece) is a high risk investment and could lose the lender a lot of money.

Think about it--who would you rather loan money to? Your successful older brother who has his own thriving business or your younger brother who just got a DUI and is in debt? If you HAD to loan money to the latter (or you're a nice guy, you're hopeful he'll turn himself around, mom said to, etc) you'd loan him money at a high interest rate so that you got your money back ASAP before he crashes into the side of someone's house. OTOH, lending money to your older brother is safer, and you can trust him to pay you back, so you might as well make some interest on it and lend him money at half the rate you would lend to your younger brother.

So i lend to my rich older brother and charge him zero interest rates.
And i lend to my poor younger brother and charge him 50% interest. This is morally stupid !!! :lol:
 
Well, technically you'd lend your younger brother money at 0% as well. (Zero times two is zero and all that). :D Not to mention you're passing a great opportunity to MAKE money from your brother by charging the successful one 0%. Charge him 1% and watch the pot grow over YEARS of interest.

More realistically, if you had to pick between one of them to lend money to, you lend your money (another way to say you're storing your money in someone else's wallet) to the party who's not gonna lose it all.

Morality and banks are rarely mentioned in the same sentence. :)

I did expand my example above in case you missed it.
 
I have experience in lending money to my brothers. ;)
I don't lend money to any brother if he cannot pay back.
Help him abit yes but not lending it.
 
Well, when a country lends money to another country, Obama and Merkel don't walk into a room with Tsipras and open their wallets--they rely on the advice of their finance ministers/secretaries and the finance ministers/secretaries of the borrowing nation. They're the experts.

(When you're handing money to your brother YOU'RE the expert :) )

Countries more-or-less must go off the best information and experts they have available. Gut feelings don't matter--it's too much money to rely on that. So the experts have to advise how much to lend, how much to borrow, how to pay, when to pay, etc. In short, all the particulars. And a bad deal doesn't mean that anyone made a mistake, was being overoptimistic, or being dishonest. All the experts in the world can't fix the future mistakes made by country they're working for.
 
ummm you still have not address the issue about the rich get to pay zero interest
and the poor get to pay high interest rates ;)
 
Well, when a country lends money to another country, Obama and Merkel don't walk into a room with Tsipras and open their wallets--they rely on the advice of their finance ministers/secretaries and the finance ministers/secretaries of the borrowing nation. They're the experts.

(When you're handing money to your brother YOU'RE the expert :) )

Countries more-or-less must go off the best information and experts they have available. Gut feelings don't matter--it's too much money to rely on that. So the experts have to advise how much to lend, how much to borrow, how to pay, when to pay, etc. In short, all the particulars. And a bad deal doesn't mean that anyone made a mistake, was being overoptimistic, or being dishonest. All the experts in the world can't fix the future mistakes made by country they're working for.


If only. Whether we like Varoufakis or not, his become more open about the difficulties dealing with the troika. For starters he claims they offered no economic thought at all, they just looked at him blankly whenever he put forward plans based on economic theory. They offered no argument, just silence and went back to their standard answer of austerity or get out. Its like Dr Schäuble has never even read Keyne's, let alone recent economic theory.
 
If only. Whether we like Varoufakis or not, his become more open about the difficulties dealing with the troika. For starters he claims they offered no economic thought at all, they just looked at him blankly whenever he put forward plans based on economic theory. They offered no argument, just silence and went back to their standard answer of austerity or get out. Its like Dr Schäuble has never even read Keyne's, let alone recent economic theory.

I was more referring to 2011 rather than the current situation. I should've made that clearer. We wouldn't be in this situation if the last 'go round' hadn't gone so poorly, though I do see the last bailout as more-or-less an honest mistake. Once bitten, twice shy.

I don't blame the Germans for their stance. They got bit. Whose fault is was is somewhere in between but closer to the side of Greece. That said they need to be realistic and be open to compromise. It's painful to watch them throw out the same option time after time as if they hadn't heard what the Greeks had to say.
 
I'm curious about a government borrowing money and what if that government is gone.

Example:
Say Sadamm Hussein borrowed 1 Trillion dollars and he used the money for his own personal benefits.
Now, he is gone. Is the whole country responsible for his actions and need to pay back ????
I guess not, and things need to be re-negotiated.
 
Right about now the German's have to decide whether they want their money, or whether they want long term return to normal life in Greece. Pretty much no economist in the world stands with Germany now, you cannot cut your way out of this. You have to stimulate the economy somehow, and this cannot be done through privatisation.
 
Back
Top