Floplo

the outcome didn't matter, but Germany did retaliate by winning in the final game of the old Wembley stadium.... and neither qualified for the quarter finale....

The table uses total GDP, the sum of all economic activity in a country. Now if individual Germans and British produce exactly the same, Germany's GDP would be higher simply because there are more Germans. Demographic trends are such that German population will shrink faster than the British one, which means that if you sum up the contribution of all Germans respective all Brits (i.e. calculate GDP) in 2030 the expected total sum for Germany will be much closer to the British number. in short, total GDP numbers are very dependent on the size of the population. If you really want to compare how well Brits and Germans do economically you should look at GDP per capita instead.

and even 1966 required help by the Russians.... Without reading the whole report, first much of catch-up has nothing to do with Britain doing better than Germany but simple demographics (i.e. the gap between the plain number of people in Germany respective the UK will be smaller). And what makes me extremely suspicious is that France just dropped from the table... and yes France has problems but for the UK to open that kind of a gap implies a massive growth advantage (which I honestly don't see) or for the Euro to massively depreciate (which it hasn't done during the crises, so why should it do in the next few years...). Please file this under 'Consulting firm puts out outrageous claims, so it gets free exposure in newspapers to attract new clients...'

Thanks for the help.

Hi, has anyone experience with a police check from the United States ? Is the FBI Criminal history summary enough or is a state-level letter of good conduct needed/sufficient as well for a 187 visa application? And does anyone know how to get your fingerprints taken in Australia (on a US fingerprint form) ? thanks

Given international IP laws, Murdoch probably loves if you adopt better broadband, since then he can charge you twice (on TV and Internet) for the same stuff...

Actually 'get INTO Melbourne' seems to be a better approach...:biggrin:

Not yet in Oz, but will keep invalidity insurance (or whatever you call the one that pays in case I can't work anymore..) and liability insurance (coverage in case I accidently burn down your house or so...) when I get there.

I sent a large cube on its way 10 days ago... I used Seven seas insurance. If i understood it correctly, it's only total loss (i.e. it doesn't cover damage to only a few items, only the complete loss of the cube like the ship sinking or so...) and it's a fixed value (depending on cube size ), so the premium paid is the same regardless of content, and the potential compensation is a pre-determined lump sum. This also implies that they don't require any info about the content for insurance purposes. They offer additional insurance if you think that the lumpsum is too low (which requires value estimates), but didn't use it so can't help you there

Ok, people fill books discussing these things, but just a few small thoughts why I think that your examples don't show that private banking is bad - Banks don't have unlimited ressources, they can only loan out so much (and if they have less capital available, they can loan out less) - Banks (and firms) don't know exactly what will happen in the future, but they have to change their actions if they change their expectations (i.e. if they think China will import less coal in the next ten years, then they as a consequence think the coal price will fall and projects will become unprofitable). Yes they don't know precisely what will happen in ten years, but you don't put billions into the ground without at least some predictions. - Banks may have to change the riskiness of their investments. So if they reduce the riskiness of their investments (can happen for various reasons like regulations, some investments that didn't work out, changes in their own funding sources) then some projects might not get funded because they now appear to be too much risk (and nothing about the project has to have changed for that to happen) - RBA interest rates are an indication how expensive it is for banks to lend money from the central bank. These funds are not the only funding source for banks (bank deposits for example are a major source), in some cases they may even be small, so unless there is also a change in their other sources they can't really pass something on As a first approximation it is assumed that it is in the public interest that capital is allocated where it is most profitable (contingent on some risk preferences). This requires that somebody needs to judge how profitable investments will be. I don't think government should do that (in the short-term that might work ok, but long-term it's not going to work, see the downfall of most communist economies, China has its own quirks there), so we need free market alternatives. Banks are one of them and by linking their profits to the profitability of the investments they have a better incentive than government to pick the right projects. Actually the allocation of ressources to the most profitable projects through market mechanisms is where Adam Smith's invisible hand expression comes from.

Banks have three choices on how to recoup this, first increase fees on bank deposit holders, second pay less dividends to its owners, third reduce the value of its equity. If it's option one, the bank depositors will carry the cost, if they choose two or three the bank owners (i.e. people whose super invests in banks) will carry the cost (so it doesn't matter if banks change dividends, it will hit people's super investments in both cases). My guess is that it will likely be a mix of one and three. (and if you don't want to carry the risk for bank failure, invest your super into something else than banks) These three options concern only who pays the levy. The second dimension is what happens in the case of bank default. At the moment government promises that if a bank fails all depositors below 250k will be made whole, i.e. the government will take general tax revenue to pay the differential between the value of the deposits and the remaining assets of the failed bank. This guarantee looks exactly like an insurance paid for by general tax revenues, i.e. the general tax payer. The new system now changes who pays how much tax (the paragraph above) such that bank depositors and bank owners (your super) pay more, i.e. those who profit from this insurance. (it's more complicated but banks and thereby bank owners also profit from the guarantee) I disagree with your point about private banking (and IMO the last decade hasn't really proved anything like you assert), though I am curious is your point that we shouldn't have PRIVATE banking (i.e. public banking is fine) or we shouldn't have any banking ?

He ain't doing a Cyprus. If you are a labour supporter he is creating a better system for protecting the banking sector and the bank deposits of small savers. If you are a coalition supporter, the whole thing looks very much like a new tax on banks and bank deposits designed to fill the holes in the budget... just nicely wrapped as deposit insurance

No, they are loosing 15$ (or less) a year now so they don't lose 30000$ in case the bank goes down

First, if a bank decides to pass it on directly they will also pull it from accounts over 250k (though maybe only for 250k) since that is the amount covered under deposit insurance. The whole point of the 250k threshold is not to screw the poor, it's the opposite, if you have less than 250k you can be certain of getting your total deposit back when the bank goes under, anything above the threshold might be lost... And the 'The banks will not take this from profits.' and 'The other is from dividends' contradict each other. If a bank makes profit it either passes it on as dividend or it keeps it on its books (increasing its equity value and likely the share value), so there is no separate category 'profits' from which they could take it. It's either the customers (through fees) or the owners (through lower dividends+equity) which pay this levy. But yes depending on your personal investment profile that may either come through higher deposit fees or through lower (super) investment returns. Technically over the long term the levy reduces the tax burden (since government doesn't have to directly pay for bank failure), so in the end this system helps those who don't have any substantial deposits/super investments, since they don't have to pay anymore for the insurance of everyone's deposits as they do now. So it's actually fairer than the current way.

Costs will be shared between banks (i.e. shareholders) and depositors, depending on how much of the fee the banks can pass onto their customers. Essentially what the government is doing is to force you to buy insurance against bank failure and the loss of your deposit (and the insurance premium is the share of the fee your bank will pass on to you)