Hi Christopher,
Christophe wrote:But who's talking to you about lending? I'm talking to you about consuming more and saving less ... The reserve guarantee of 9 to 1 banks can be pushed much higher when they decide and think that the situation justifies it ...so your saver (= all of us?) is just a despicable pawn of their system!
consume a lot, but to buy what? When you have what you need ... eat, drink, heat and shelter, a little gas in the car and basta ...
The saver is not as despised as you might think. When I go to the bank and I withdraw my pay, they make me a dirty mouth ...
Christophe wrote:Uh "mutualized" and available to large-scale companies (= big boxes that don't give a damn about social matters) wouldn't that be a paradoxical "hair"? A large business does not need banks if it is managed soundly !! Mutualization means available to all "mutualizers", right?
shared, that means put in a common pot for a common purpose.
Social point in there, but simply the motivation of the profit-sharing. This is how the “average” lambda man works, who has capital to grow.
There are nevertheless social goals in certain mutualisations: these are health insurance, pensions, unemployment ...
Large companies use credit and debt issuance on the stock market, especially large companies. Because strategically, they constantly need fresh money to grab the markets or buy a competitor in difficulty, and sometimes ... mop up their deficit
.
So credit accelerates the economy. You can judge it good or bad, but it's a fact and the truth is somewhere in between.
A small document on debt issuesThe important projects it would not be in the STATES to manage them and at RATE ZERO simply (by simply balancing the budget)?
This is a question we can ask ourselves. But States generally demonstrate their inability to manage anything outside of their debt, particularly in France.
The dynamism and responsiveness is mainly found in private partners. When it starts to get hot (technical and financial challenge), the state hands over to the private sector.
For example, the Millau viaduct was entirely designed and paid for by the private sector, notably Eiffage for the works, and is now catching up on the revenues from the concession it has been granted.
Small document where the State is foaming on the Millau viaduct ...Honor loans
got the idea wrong: do it and I bet you that in the months that follow you will have a lawsuit at the bottom of the bankers for ... unfair competition!
Well it already exists, 390 responses on google. it is done a lot in SMEs (takeover / acquisition) but people need to know each other thoroughly and have confidence ...
Yes I saw. The guy is a little convulsive for my taste
It seems to me to be a premier agitator. I went to see his site too.
4% for credits ... ok what does that mean for savers? 2%? 3%?
What if we dared to put 0% for savers and 1% for loans? Do not you think that it would "consume better", the only losers would be the banks ... and then, do we owe them something ??
Like I said, the guy who doesn't want to pay a banker doesn't bring his money and he doesn't borrow.
BUT in the modern world, several services are essential: checks, credit cards, secure deposits, access to credit.
A bank has operating costs: computer network, employees, etc.
To say that the saver receives the totality of the profit-sharing paid by the borrower amounts to saying that with the baker, one must pay only the goods and the electricity having produced the bread without paying the service of the baker.
This is what we owe Christophe banks: service.
However, some abuse it, I agree.