Spiritual Forum

Replies

• 

  jose' June 21, 2016 at 10:53am

  

  http://www.ariannaeditrice.it/articolo.php?id_articolo=32047

  ======================================================================

  =====================================================================================

  EUR: lies Prodi, Amato and Ciampi have short legs Uriel - 28/04/2010 Source: wolfstep For years those who were eurosceptic and 'heard say that if we were not entered in the' Euro then we would have definitely gone in Default. And, just to be entered, not only did not go into default, but eventually the very fact of the eurozone would have made us as "parachutes" in the event of crack. It happened just that the trio Prodi, Amato, Ciampi ran so 'bad public finances to bring the deficit to unprecedented levels (even today) and to risk really is the default. Our heroes decided then that to save the country was necessary to join the eurozone. It was balls, told by pallisti who had brought disaster on public finances, and now having short legs will show for this' were: balls. It 's never been any scientific literature to demonstrate how to bind to a strong currency would protect from default budgets of the state. The Argentine case, however, seemed to suggest otherwise, in the sense that the dollarization of the economy made more 'hard crack of the effects. This objection was every time canceled by the usual mainstream obscene choir "europe saves us, makes us stable europe, europe there stretches the bird". No, not how it works'. The Europe and 'only attempt of the Germans and the French to create a protected market, using the tools of quotas and prohibitions to kill the economies of all other countries. Thing 'was made with Italy, if we think steel, sugars, milk, in everything. But, they said, these small disadvantages would be recovered in terms of unprecedented unification advantages, namely established in 'currency and security. BALLS. And like all the lies, in no time they have surfaced. The greek default per se 'does not involve huge sums. If you think that the municipality of Rome has about 9 billion euro debt, which to milan has about the same number, you realize that 30 billion (maybe 40) of the greek debt is not really such a 'great drama as you would have us believe. Especially if we compare it to the Italian public debt: if the famous European stabilizing power can not hold off a little debt to board the subway, let alone that it has stabilized the Italian debt, which is '' quite a bit 'more' big. Anything. If we did not go into default, we owe to the fact that the governments who followed Prodi, Amato and Ciampi were quality 'higher. Certainly it not 'has been a euro area unable to stabilize Greece to stabilize us. That 's the first Prodi scam, Amato, Ciampi. Have done for the 'European Union for a body stabilizer, the evidence shows, NOT'. The GDP of the euro area 'of about 18 trillion dollars. The greek floor 'of 30-40 billion. Less than some American local government deficits. Still, the EU has failed completely: no stabilizing action is known, except to the extent that the EU promises to release the money. But that does not mean anything in the greek default we would call well more '. Cosi ', here is come to nothing the first between the EU arms: that entering the EU would have enjoyed an "umbrella", a "guarantee" that can be trusted. Not 'so'. But we go further, 'cause now the Greeks will find themselves undergoing the DAMAGE due to the entry into the euro. What do I mean? I mean that if Greece were a normal country, he could do as Dubai. Ie 'renegotiate their debt, simply saying "Gentlemen, if you let the good will return the 10% of what you paid. Since we already have' gained a lot, you shut up and not peeved." After that ', devaluing the currency, hyperinflation could practice a policy that would give breathing space to local businesses, and svilisse debts until they become the entities' ridiculous. But you can not ', because' accepting the euro and 'committed the error of SAME' Argentina. Bind to a strong currency, that 'it is not advisable just to countries with a strong debt: it showed the' Argentina with dollarization. When the government and 'found yourself having to devalue the currency, it had to create a new currency. Nothing strange, so far: many countries have done so, including France. But being the old currency linked to the dollar, and 'successful people will be plunged into the banks to withdraw banknotes to be kept under the bed. Result: chaos. Banks closed, and so on. Exactly the same would happen to Greece, if he tried to leave the euro. Immediately people will rush to the bank to withdraw all the cash you can, to keep under the bed. Since 'the banks do not have all that cash, inevitably they would close the doors. It would be paralysis. This e 'had its accession to the euro: the specter of' Argentina hovers on the euro countries 'cause they are in trouble', but because it 'just because' and ONLY because 'came in' Euro. Like the Argentinean, they have made the mistake to bind to a more 'hard currency. As Argentina's, they are now in the position of having to close the banks in case of devaluation. Moral of the story: Get into the 'Euro not' a choice wise, it was not then, and lies Prodi, Amato and Ciampi show short legs now. I would like to hear, now, the Cazzari that told us that the 'Euro could stabilize the confidence in' Italy, when he can not do something for Greece. There 'then how to leave the euro? You ', for small countries there'. It is to introduce the dual circulation of money, but make sure that the emitting banks, liquidity ', only the new currency, say the new drachma for Greece (or the new lira for Italy). At the same time, as they retired the debt is issued in euro debt into new drachmas. At one point, when the mass in euro (including debt and money in circulation) and 'become very low, you can' decouple the economy. I do not see many other ways out, and it 'one that would follow if I wanted to bring out the' Italy from the Euro, which would be very wise to start doing: the benefits of the 'Euro as you see are null. The costs are far from zero. But what matters most 'and' that we'll first have to start with a "cultural care", ie 'colo put people in front of the pure truth': the European Union does not have saved Italy from default, because ' the proof of facts would not be able to save reality 'debt much, much, much more' small. The Amato lie, Ciampi, Prodi, and 'was now exposed. And it 'before the eyes of all: no country and' safe from default because 'is in' Euro. And no country would suffer unless a default because of the euro, on the contrary: the consequences have been amplified, as in Argentina, just 'cause we linked to another currency. This should make it clear to italy and Italians a simple thing: Exit the Euro you can 'and you have to. The euro not only do not stabilize, not only does not help us, not only costs, not only kills our exports, but in case of problems turn a manageable problem with traditional methods (devaluation, hyperinflation) in an Argentine disaster. Before we go, then, the better '. Uriel * Note: If the pound, before the entry into the ERM, that is 1: 1000 on the mark, and then is quoted at 1936.27, I expect that the mark is quoted with 'Euro to 1.93 Euros for brands. And so on. If you quoti 1936.27 lire to the euro and the German mark to 1.95583, you're setting a gearbox 1 marco = 990 lire. But the changes were not so ': 31/12/1996 982.71 31/12/1997 981.69 31/12/1998 990.00 31/12/1999 989.99 31/12/2000 989.99 And the Germans have guadagnicchiato, 'cause in 1996, the exchange rate was lower. Only in the years before he had come to a thousand pounds. But as the same Amato had to admit in his statement, "Hence their starting position of a lyre-marco exchange for 950 pounds, because it stated that the Italian economy is too strong, has a competitiveness that is denounced dall'avanzo its balance of current payments; in fact they believe a market exchange rate at 1,000 lire against the German mark was due to the fact that in recent months the Bank of Italy had, rightly, worked many currency purchases to replenish the reserves. of course I controargomentato, but I'm here to repeat what I said on that occasion for brevity. However, the negotiation, as you know, ended with an exchange rate arrangement to 990 pounds for a mark, very close to the Italian proposal. " Apart from this small detail, I do this one thing: this happens in 1996. And in 1996, Amato instead of 'proposing a minor change, proposed a MAJOR addirittira change. http: //www.tesoro.it/documenti/documento.asp? id ... For instance, if you had 1,500 lire per euro, it would set a ratio lira / euro of 1: 750, approx. Ie ', to lower the exchange rate must not propose major a change, but a minor change. And viceversa. Amato I try 'to treat a higher gear to facilitate the Germans in purchases in Italy. The problem 'that I do not consider' so that 'doing was devaluing the lira against the euro, making us much more' expensive purchases outside the euro area. ....... Every time I talk about from 'Euro exit, there's the usual to say that emerged there would be a difficulty' in buying raw materials quoted in dollars. This is 'another lie that always comes from the trio Prodi, Amato, Ciampi, namely that according to which the euro would be a more' strong lira currency. Maintain this appearance and 'easy to figure high 1936.27. But no, the question arises: with a euro we can buy more 'or less than with 1,936.27 lire? Let's see what happened, numbers in hand. At one point, after practicing a write-down, the lira falls within the EMS. From then on, he began what would become in practice the dollar / euro. Since that time, the Lira / Dollar is worsening. 1986 (December 31 minimo1351) 1490 1987 (31 December 1169 minimum) 1296 1988 (yearly average) 1301 1989 (yearly average) 1372 1990 (Iraq-Kuwait shock)) 1198 1991 (yearly average) 1240 1992 (yearly average) 1228 1993 (yearly average) 1571 1994 (yearly average) 1611 1995 (yearly average) 1629 1996 (Italy EMS return) 1533 1997 (yearly average) 1702 1998 (yearly average) 1736 1999 (yearly average) 1840 2000 (yearly average) 2100 2001 (yearly average) 2196 So, now I want to know from phony lords who continue to straparlare the euro zone as a "strong" area, how you would earn on the international foreign exchange and purchases. What I see from these numbers, and 'who gets back in the EMS the lira has lost 30-odd% of their purchasing power over commodities, such as oil and more, that everything' that is paid in DOLLARS. That 's the first lie of the trio Prodi, Amato, Ciampi: the eurozone, through his alleged "power", it would benefit us in the purchase of goods in dollars. BALLS. While maintaining the conditions of the EMS, the lira against the dollar LOST. If someone that is' is an illusion that using the euro can buy more 'oil or more' things listed in dollars, think bad. Using a euro, you buy LESS oil than before compravate with 1936.27 lire. Now let's review the situation: When the 'Italy enters the sme with 1500 pounds will buy a dollar. When the euro is distributed to banks and post offices, that is between 0.8 and 0.9, that 'between 2300 and 2400 pounds. I still say that we have gained? Obviously the phony will tell us that this was impacted by the write-down policies and American evaluation. That and 'FALSE. The "strong dollar policy" begins, by the United States, March 13, 1979, and ends in September 1985, with the Plaza Accord. Since that time, the dollar and 'ALWAYS depreciated. ALWAYS. Or rather, he always lost purchasing power than oil. The only area in which you and 'appreciated and' the euro. But be careful, 'cause now the phony will tell you that' but after 2001, the euro surpassed the dollar ". Balls. And 'the dollar that has' devalued, causing increases monstrous ovunque.Con a euro today, buy MUCH LESS oil than before to get in, we bought in pounds. However, they tell me, the euro surpassed the dollar. Not exactly: and 'the dollar collapsed. Strictly speaking, the euro overtaking the dollar begins exactly Dec. 6, 2002, when he goes to 1.0119 after the resignation of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey. Since that time, the value of the dollar in terms of purchasing power ends up in the heels. The fact that the euro will grow from that moment on the dollar modestly NOT change one iota the fact that oil is more 'than tripled against the dollar. Moral of the story: like it or not the phony, if we talk about the dollar market, the euro and 'more' WEAK the lira, to the extent that by 1936 they bought lire more 'oil than a euro, for one year only the entry into force of the euro treaty. The euro treaty goes into force on January 1 1999. The dollar is worth 1,800 lire. With 1,936 lire you buy a $ 1.07 oil. The euro began to be distributed on September 1, 2001. When this happens, with 1,936 lire buy oil for $ 0.8. We have gained in imports? I would not think. After that 'the situation and' ONLY worse, 'cause the euro rising against the dollar was accompanied by a collapse of the dollar on oil. We look at the trend in the lira-euro relationship, considering the fixed exchange rate to 1936.27: 2002 (yearly average) 1950 2003 (yearly average) 1611 2004 (yearly average) 1456 2005 (yearly average) 1648 2006 (yearly average) 1481 2007 (yearly average) 1318 You say: beautiful: so now we are strong on the dollar. Really? It 's not right. After the Plaza Accord, the dollar and 'greatly depreciated, but not in the same way to all. Here is a summary chart (thanks to oil blog): Now tell me: the gearbox oil / dollar and 'varied as the dollar / euro? In 2002 we are at 1950 lire to the dollar. The dollar falls between 20 and 30 per barrel / barrel. In 2003 we are at 1600 lire to the dollar. The dollar falls by 30 to 38 US dollars / barrel. In practice, it changes nothing. In 2004 we are to 1456 lire to the dollar. The dollar falls by 30 to 50 dollars / barile.L'euro and 'WEAK. In 2005 we are to 1648 lire to the dollar. The dollar falls 40 to $ 60 / barile.L'euro and 'WEAK. In 2006 we are at 1481 lire to the dollar. The dollar falls 60 to $ 80 / barile.L'euro and 'WEAK. To be able to say that the euro avvantaggi us in the purchase of oil, things would have gone differently VERY. In 2002, to have this advantage we should have been at $ 1.5 per euro. In 2003, to have this advantage we should have been at $ 1.8 per euro. In 2004, to have this advantage we should have been at $ 2.5 per euro. In 2005, to have this advantage we should have a 3 dollars per euro. In 2006, to have this advantage we should have been at $ 3.4 per euro. I'm afraid to say that the euro has given us some advantage in oil imports is equivalent to saying that. And no, and 'the dollar and' devalued, more 'that the increased oil. In the same period, 2002-2006, the pound rose from a little more 'than $ 1.2 to two dollars and change. Far more 'than we have earned the euro. strong currency? Somebody will say 'that oil would have increased anyway. Possible. In this case, inflation would grow, eating up the debts. Which, thanks to the wonderful ECB policies, not 'occurred. Result: horned and clubs. But there is' worse. 'Cause if on the one hand with the euro we have become more' WEAK in imports, (and no more 'strong as we tell the phony), on the other hand did not help us in exports. And why'? First of all, a big chunk of our exports go to European countries. With a fixed exchange rate, this depreciation of the lira when we buy raw materials, there is no corresponding depreciation when we sell. On the contrary: if the euro and 'more' weak buying 'cause his appreciation dollar corresponds to a far more' great weakening of the dollar, on the other hand, the exchange rate with the rest of the continent will not move one iota. The benefits of devaluation are usually weighed so: you should sell, you should not buy. The advantages of the revaluation are: should buy, but not sell. Put the lyre in 'Euro joined the disadvantages of the devaluation (buy' more 'DIFFICULT), with those of the revaluation: even sell' more 'difficult. All this and 'due to the behavior of the dollar is NOT linear. The dollar has lost enormously on oil and raw materials, but lost LITTLE against the euro. If the cost of raw materials in dollars and 'more' than doubled, the euro surpassed the dollar to a fraction of a united '. Cosi ', the result is' that the euro is hard to sell to those who pay in dollars. On the other hand, this advantage does NOT recover by buying in euro, as the dollar has lost a lot more 'to the oil towards the euro. The Euro is giving us all the disadvantages of a weak currency against the dollar in buying, and all the disadvantages of a strong currency on the dollar in the sales phase. When we go to buy oil, we make two changes: euro -> US dollars -> oil. When we sell, we make a change: euro -> dollar. You understand quickly where is the catch, or in the dollar / oil, which has devoured three times the euro exchange rate benefits -> dollar. Why 'does this happen? And 'because of the perverse mechanism of dollars management. The Change Offices (which depend on central banks) of exporting countries to the US collect the dollars that bill their multinationals (in the US sell the goods against local currency, dollars) and put them in the reserves (foreign currency) of the Central Bank ; the central bank does not ask to change the dollars into the national currency, but puts them in circulation to buy oil; the oil-producing countries are not asking for the Fed to change the petrodollars in local currency of the Arab countries, but they keep the oil money in current accounts denominated in dollars and largely invested in Treasury bonds and US equities. Basically dollars issued do not show the change affecting the value of the dollar over other currencies. On the other hand they are invested in long-term bonds or shares that are not traded at high frequency, for which those dollars are not even the money supply that would produce inflation returning to America. Moral of the story: the dollar remains relatively stable exchange rate monetary, but it becomes more and more catastrophically 'weaker than the value of the goods: lose, that', purchasing power, but does not lose in the exchange. So if the euro gains 30% on the dollar, oil earns 300% on the dollar. And the strengthening of the exchange rate does not help anyone. It would be different if we had kept the lyre? It ', enormously. Without a fixed exchange rate with the other EU countries, we could remain competitive in European markets WITHOUT reduce labor costs, that 'without the need of insecurity: the cost of the transformation could be absorbed by an adequate gradual devaluation policy Second, all' rising oil prices and goods it could take the opportunity to react to practice a hyperinflationary policy and reduce debt. But the point is not 'this: the point and' that the alleged advantages in oil using the euro are real fake. Now that the euro is worth a dollar and broken, since 'a euro is worth 1936.27 lire, we went down to the fact at 1996 values ​​Values ​​that the lira had been able to earn on her own, and to make matters worse in a period where the American doctrine was that the strong dollar. After that 'begins the doctrine of the weak dollar, but for the EMS currencies and the dollar grows enough. Where the fuck 'this "strong currency"? Where 'strong euro area? It 'a fake that entering the ERM Italy has gained in purchases of raw materials. And and 'a fake that with the euro we can buy more' oil first. Ed and 'obviously false that the euro will be more' competitive European markets. Not 'what' happened, not 'never happened, and not' never seen such an advantage. If you want to know why 'you have made those arrangements, ask Prodi. I, personally, should accuse him of treason and sbatterei in prison for accepting something.--

  
• This reply was deleted.
  • 

    jose' June 20, 2016 at 9:51pm

    hello SKY, I HOPE THAT THE REFERENDUM IS VERY HONEST - THEN WE WILL SEE THE FATHER'S NAME IS MY HELP - greetings and kisses hello
• 

  jose' June 20, 2016 at 8:58pm

  

  and the problem and 'check that there are no manipulation of the votes as in Scotland and as in Austria, the people are suffering and it was better when there was no Europe, now we are hungry for all - unfortunately we are going from the worst and the most 'ignorant -

  
  • 

    Drekx Omega > jose' June 20, 2016 at 9:07pm

    Yes indeed...A 4th Reich...Actually the EU is a NAZI PROJECT invented in 1942, originally called; Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft.......

    So I agree...The CIA and Bilderberg club helped to form the EEC, then later, the EU...But the original idea was a NAZI IDEA...and we see the results now..Treaty of Rome.......??? YEH...!!!

    Well, like the torch ceremony at the Olympic Games...A Nazi idea from 1936....They made things happen...Maybe Frenchmen and Austrians had written books about a European ideal , way back in 1921, but the Nazis manifest that dream to reality, which is one skill they had to excess...Making nightmares real...

    

    
• 

  Drekx Omega June 20, 2016 at 6:58pm

  Thanks...I just hope the British people do not fall for the IN propaganda...BREXIT IT SHOULD BE...IT MUST BE...June 23rd....If they don't vote Brexit..................I will Drekxit.....I will vote to leave, so will hold my head high, whatever happens...