Forum Klix.ba

dystopia wrote: ↑30/08/2021 13:52 Nisam sigurna je li dovoljno zanimljivo pitanje ali koja je razlika izmedju fiksne i efektivne kamatne stope?

foxlife wrote: ↑30/08/2021 19:32
ukratko slikovit primjer
da su oni u hypo svicarce uzeli u fiksnoj stopi ne bi im se nikad desilo ono sto im se desilo
uzeli 100000 vracaju 180000 npr
kad se desilo sto se desilo morali su vratiti 250000 npr
fiksna bi bila 180000 i gotovo
a da im se desilo da moraju vratiti 140000 jer je franak pao onda bi se smijali drugima i glumili znalce

zrakomlat wrote: ↑30/08/2021 19:35

foxlife wrote: ↑30/08/2021 19:32
ukratko slikovit primjer
da su oni u hypo svicarce uzeli u fiksnoj stopi ne bi im se nikad desilo ono sto im se desilo
uzeli 100000 vracaju 180000 npr
kad se desilo sto se desilo morali su vratiti 250000 npr
fiksna bi bila 180000 i gotovo
a da im se desilo da moraju vratiti 140000 jer je franak pao onda bi se smijali drugima i glumili znalce

foxlife wrote: ↑30/08/2021 19:43

zrakomlat wrote: ↑30/08/2021 19:35

smijali su se na pocetku kad su uzimali u francima
recimo euro i marka kredit morao si vratiti 200000 a oni 180000
ja licno znam kad je jedan poznanik maltene ponizavao lika koji je uzeo u lupam unicredit banci isti iznos a morao 20000 npr vise vratiti
kad se desilo ovo sa svicarcima silom prilika zatekao sam se u drustvu iste dvojice

kako je lijepo bilo gledati dok ga ovaj jebe na suho a onaj place jer mora vratiti 250000

zrakomlat wrote: ↑31/08/2021 22:59

foxlife wrote: ↑30/08/2021 19:43

smijali su se na pocetku kad su uzimali u francima
recimo euro i marka kredit morao si vratiti 200000 a oni 180000
ja licno znam kad je jedan poznanik maltene ponizavao lika koji je uzeo u lupam unicredit banci isti iznos a morao 20000 npr vise vratiti
kad se desilo ovo sa svicarcima silom prilika zatekao sam se u drustvu iste dvojice

kako je lijepo bilo gledati dok ga ovaj jebe na suho a onaj place jer mora vratiti 250000

Znam, poznajem neke što su se zajebali sa švicarcem. Mislim, žao mi ljudi al jbg, slažem se, sami su krivi. Dio njih sigurno nije dovoljno finansijski pismen niti su se potrudili da se posavjetuju s nekim ko bolje zna o tome nego se zaletili na nisku kamatu i priču bankara, a svakako da je tu bilo i, što kažeš, "znalaca".

Biden Should Ignore the Debt Limit and Mint a $1 Trillion Coin

Well, there’s a strange provision in U.S. law that empowers the Treasury secretary to mint and issue platinum coins in any quantity and denomination she chooses. Presumably the purpose of this provision was to allow the creation of coins celebrating people or events. But the language doesn’t say that. So on the face of it, Janet Yellen could mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion — no, it needn’t include $1 trillion worth of platinum — deposit it at the Federal Reserve and draw on that account to keep paying the government’s bills without borrowing.

foxlife wrote: ↑31/08/2021 23:08

zrakomlat wrote: ↑31/08/2021 22:59
Znam, poznajem neke što su se zajebali sa švicarcem. Mislim, žao mi ljudi al jbg, slažem se, sami su krivi. Dio njih sigurno nije dovoljno finansijski pismen niti su se potrudili da se posavjetuju s nekim ko bolje zna o tome nego se zaletili na nisku kamatu i priču bankara, a svakako da je tu bilo i, što kažeš, "znalaca".

pa koliko nas uopste procita onaj ugovor kad uzme kredit
ja kad uzmem bar procitam da znam sta pise ne moram se razumjeti u to doslovno
ako mi nesto nije jasno pitam onu sluzbenicu sta ovo znaci
jednom sam uzeo kredit i pise saglasni ste da vase podatke mozemo predati trecim licima (uglavnom nesto u tom fazonu vjerovatno prodaja marketinskim kucama i sl)
rekoh sta je ovo ne zelim da ovo imam u ugovoru
i izbrisali su tu i bez toga su mi dali kredit na godinu
mislim to je bezveze sitnica koju bi svako razumio i na koju bi pretpostavljam reagovao
a da uzimam neki veliki kredit tipa stambeni sigurno bi se posavjetovao sa nekim ko radi u banci da mi bar osnovno objasni

toska wrote: ↑02/10/2021 01:31

foxlife wrote: ↑31/08/2021 23:08

pa koliko nas uopste procita onaj ugovor kad uzme kredit
ja kad uzmem bar procitam da znam sta pise ne moram se razumjeti u to doslovno
ako mi nesto nije jasno pitam onu sluzbenicu sta ovo znaci
jednom sam uzeo kredit i pise saglasni ste da vase podatke mozemo predati trecim licima (uglavnom nesto u tom fazonu vjerovatno prodaja marketinskim kucama i sl)
rekoh sta je ovo ne zelim da ovo imam u ugovoru
i izbrisali su tu i bez toga su mi dali kredit na godinu
mislim to je bezveze sitnica koju bi svako razumio i na koju bi pretpostavljam reagovao
a da uzimam neki veliki kredit tipa stambeni sigurno bi se posavjetovao sa nekim ko radi u banci da mi bar osnovno objasni

koliko je finasijski pismenih ljudi koji poznaju način kretanja valutnog kursa ?
švicarski franak raste sa krizom, kao 2008 i dalje, a pada u dobrim vremenima, to sada svi znamo, ali kasno za neke.
bezveze je okriviti ljude za neznanje kada ni vrhunski bankari ne mogu predvidjeti kurs niti 1 dan unaprijed.

Biden Should Ignore the Debt Limit and Mint a $1 Trillion Coin

Well, there’s a strange provision in U.S. law that empowers the Treasury secretary to mint and issue platinum coins in any quantity and denomination she chooses. Presumably the purpose of this provision was to allow the creation of coins celebrating people or events. But the language doesn’t say that. So on the face of it, Janet Yellen could mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion — no, it needn’t include $1 trillion worth of platinum — deposit it at the Federal Reserve and draw on that account to keep paying the government’s bills without borrowing.

A monetary system simply cannot work if people do not collectively take a leap of faith. We accept currency or precious metals — which have no inherent use-value for everyday purposes — because we think that other people will accept them in turn. This group delusion allows us to say that money is money. If the delusion starts to fall apart, then there are very real, very negative effects.

One argument, highlighted the other day by my Times colleague Peter Coy, is the claim that fiat money — money not backed by gold or some other asset — is basically a con game and that minting the coin would give away the con. That is, according to this argument, money has value only because people expect other people to accept its value, and tricky financial maneuvering might break the spell.

But as many people have pointed out, fiat money isn’t valuable just because of self-fulfilling expectations; it’s also what we use to pay taxes, which gives it a substantial anchor to reality.

If you want to see assets that have value mainly because everyone expects everyone else to consider them valuable, the best historical example is … gold. Its price is far higher than one could justify by its nonmonetary uses, but people still consider it valuable because of its traditional monetary role — a role it no longer plays.

sherbett wrote: ↑10/10/2021 17:00 Jel moze malo o onnflaciji koja ceka RH i sta to konkretno za nas znaci?

How can the impact of economic policies be measured? One solution is to look for what’s called a “natural experiment,” or a place where a policy’s design — or possibly even nature itself — has created an implicit comparison between affected and unaffected groups.

For their efforts to refine the art of the natural experiment, David Card, Joshua D. Angrist and Guido W. Imbens were awarded this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Some of Card's work — which he undertook with the late Alan Krueger — led to a deeper understanding the impact of minimum-wage laws. Conventional economic wisdom suggested that raising the minimum wage could cause employment to fall, since it would both raise the cost of hiring workers and increase workers’ competition for jobs. But it was hard to know whether that theory would hold up in practice — and if so, how big the effect would be.

Card and Krueger found a natural experiment thanks to the line separating New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Workers on either side of the border aren’t that different from each other, except that those on the New Jersey side received a minimum wage increase.

Surprisingly, Card and Krueger found no sign that employment in New Jersey decreased relative to Pennsylvania. If anything, it grew. Their scholarship forced a fundamental rethinking of the impact of minimum wage policies, and kicked off a boom in research in labor economics that continues to this day. The work has reshaped policy, bolstering the argument that raising the minimum wage won’t hurt employment.

Angrist, also working with Krueger, used a version of these methods to assess the impact of education on earnings. The two observed that laws mandating compulsory school attendance created a small disparity in the amount of time people who were in the same class year had to stay in school. Those born earlier in the year reached the age at which they could drop out before students born later in the year, which meant that on average those born earlier received a little bit less schooling.

Since a person’s birthday typically isn’t related to his or her earnings, the birthday-driven difference in educational attainment was random relative to earnings. Angrist and Krueger’s analysis based on this insight led to an estimate of the returns of an additional year of schooling: a roughly 9% increase in pay for students who stayed in school.

Looking for implicit randomization that separates otherwise similar groups is incredibly powerful, but it is also limited by human behavior.

People don’t always react to a policy change in the same way. To explain this, the Nobel committee used the example of a policy where employees of a company are given free bicycles. The policy will cause some employees to start biking — and they might see health benefits. But there are other employees who were already biking, and others who won’t take up biking at all — and naturally, we don’t expect to see any change in these employees’ health outcomes. But then how can we learn about the health effects of the policy?

Imbens and Angrist identified a simple and intuitive statistical framework that makes it possible to estimate causal effects in these sorts of settings. They also clarified how we think about the effects themselves, showing that what we’re measuring is the impact of the policy on those who adjust their behavior as a result of the policy change — in this case, those who take up biking.

The Nobel laureates and their collaborators applied these methods to greatly expand the application of natural experiments in economics. In doing so, they ushered in a new era of empirical economics. And they continue to push the frontiers to this day: Card’s recent work has examined youth labor markets and the sources of earnings inequality. Angrist has researched the effect of Uber on the labor market. Imbens, in joint work with Susan Athey, has fundamentally reshaped our understanding of the relationship between econometrics and machine learning. Moreover, all three of the laureates are renowned advisers and teachers, 1 and have been tremendous servants to the profession.

Taken together, this makes the trio well worthy of the Nobel — you might even call them “natural” candidates.