Denkverbot

kic wrote:
i ja sam neki dan sanjao jedan predmet, pa ga našao u svom
stolu, još ne znam gdje će me to odvesti ali baš me zateklo..

sad sam poslušao ovaj podcast o inicijaciji, Angel Millar vodi intervjue i vidi se da je upućen, lijepo je slušati razne poglede o tome..

npr većina ljudi koji se bave "magijom" samo čita, teoretizira i sl, dok pravu čaroliju posjeduju umjetnici, glazbenici, pisci..  nekad je bolje utonuti u Goetheova ili Mozartova djela i proć ih dobrano, nego čitati tomove o hermeticizmu heh..  i tako

Hm.. Jesi li prestao sanjati Abena i Mate? Kao da ih je kakva crna rupa posaugala. :-)

---

Inace, svijet kristala prepun je takvih cudnovatosti. Ljudi uredno spominju kako im nestaju s mjesta gdje ih cuvaju i pojavljuju se ondje gdje ih nikada ne bi ostavili, danima ili tjednima nakon. (Naravno, rijec je o situacijama bez upliva djecjih rucica ili sapica i njuskica kucnih ljubimaca) Najneobicniji su slucajevi nalik ovom tvojem. Kad im se medju kristalima pojave posve novi primjerci. Citam te njihove price u jednoj povecoj grupi i ne mogu vjerovati. :-D Oni se smijulje i pricaju o tome kao o necemu svakodnevnom, a ja poput djeteta sirim oci. Materijalizacije, dematerijalizacije, piece of cake. :-)

---

Pokusavam ga poslusati, evo vec drugu vecer, ali zaspim. Tek kad krenem na spavanje mogu se posvetiti slusanju..

nojčudnije stvori se dogadjaju ka si na kristal methu

najčudnije najpogubnije inajopakije, najperverznije stvari se događaju kad se navučeš na moralni hazard.

znoš čo je moralni hazard?

znun, to je posljedica socijalizma

aben wrote:znun, to je posljedica socijalizma

neznuš jer i ti se sad ponošoš po moralnom hazardu.

moralni hazard je veliko polje nije samo posljedica socijalizma.

What is 'Moral Hazard'
Moral hazard is the risk that a party to a transaction has not entered into the contract in good faith, has provided misleading information about its assets, liabilities or credit capacity, or has an incentive to take unusual risks in a desperate attempt to earn a profit before the contract settles. Moral hazards can be present any time two parties come into agreement with one another. Each party in a contract may have the opportunity to gain from acting contrary to the principles laid out by the agreement.


BREAKING DOWN 'Moral Hazard'
A moral hazard occurs when one party in a transaction has the opportunity to assume additional risks that negatively affect the other party. The decision is based not on what is considered right, but what provides the highest level of benefit, hence the reference to morality. This can apply to activities within the financial industry, such as with the contract between a borrower or lender, as well as the insurance industry.

Moral Hazard and the Insurance Industry
When a property owner obtains insurance on a property, the contract is based on the idea that the property owner will avoid situations that may damage the property. The moral hazard exists that the property owner, because of the availability of the insurance, may be less inclined to protect the property, since the payment from an insurance company lessens the burden on the property owner in the case of a disaster.

Moral Hazard and the 2008 Financial Crisis
Prior to the financial crisis of 2008, certain actions on the parts of lenders could qualify as moral hazard. For example, a mortgage broker working for an originating lender may have been encouraged through the use of incentives, such as commissions, to originate as many loans as possible regardless of the financial means of the borrower. Since the loans were intended to be sold to investors, shifting the risk away from the lending institution, the mortgage broker and originating lender experienced financial gains from the increased risk while the burden of the aforementioned risk would ultimately fall on the investor.

Borrowers who began struggling to pay their mortgage payments also experienced moral hazards when determining whether to attempt to meet the financial obligation or walk away from loans that were difficult to repay. As property values decreased, borrowers were ending up underwater on their loans. The homes were worth less than the amount owed on the associated mortgage. Some homeowners may have seen this as an incentive to walk away, as their financial burden would be lessened by abandoning the property. In walking away, the borrowers assumed a risk where some of the penalty would fall back on the financial institutions holding the loans.



Read more: Moral Hazard https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp#ixzz58P5wwtFX
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

In economics, moral hazard occurs when someone increases their exposure to risk when insured. This can happen, for example, when a person takes more risks because someone else bears the cost of those risks. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of one party may change to the detriment of another after a financial transaction has taken place.

A party makes a decision about how much risk to take, while another party bears the costs if things go badly, and the party isolated from risk behaves differently from how it would if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Moral hazard can occur under a type of information asymmetry where the risk-taking party to a transaction knows more about its intentions than the party paying the consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard can occur when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.

Moral hazard also arises in a principal-agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t22816p840-denkverbot#1050212

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t11281p60-lijecnik-iz-dalmacije-koji-je-otisao-u-svedsku#509072

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t9380p40-kruha-bez-motike#400769


kako se to jo ponošun moralno hazardno?

aben wrote:http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t22816p840-denkverbot#1050212

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t11281p60-lijecnik-iz-dalmacije-koji-je-otisao-u-svedsku#509072

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t9380p40-kruha-bez-motike#400769


kako se to jo ponošun moralno hazardno?

zajebavaš ljude jer možeš odnosno nitko ti ništa nemože. isto kao i mnogi na ViP forumu svatko od vas ima svoj modus operandi. svaku temu začatate, svaku temu zatrolate, svaku temu zaspamate. ima i onih koji ma je specijalnost provocirati druge onima kojima su specijalnost flamewarsi na forumu. sve to rade iz moralnog hazarda jer misle da će proći nekažnjeno.

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t22816p840-denkverbot#1050212

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t11281p60-lijecnik-iz-dalmacije-koji-je-otisao-u-svedsku#509072

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t9380p40-kruha-bez-motike#400769


kako se to jo ponošun moralno hazardno?

zajebavaš ljude jer možeš odnosno nitko ti ništa nemože. isto kao i mnogi na ViP forumu svatko od vas ima svoj modus operandi. svaku temu začatate, svaku temu zatrolate, svaku temu zaspamate. ima i onih koji ma je specijalnost provocirati druge onima kojima su specijalnost flamewarsi na forumu. sve to rade iz moralnog hazarda jer misle da će proći nekažnjeno.

čekoj malo, nemoj mi nabrojati drugi ljudi, koga jo zajebovun, to napiši.

inače, zo te mi je malo žo ča si takov ispo; imoš dobar prvi instinkt za neverovati u government, samo unda to ne pretočiš u nešto konzistentno i dobro, nego imoš neki fašističko-partizanski sustav...mislin, prova šteta.

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t22816p840-denkverbot#1050212

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t11281p60-lijecnik-iz-dalmacije-koji-je-otisao-u-svedsku#509072

http://ex-iskon.forumcroatian.com/t9380p40-kruha-bez-motike#400769


kako se to jo ponošun moralno hazardno?

zajebavaš ljude jer možeš odnosno nitko ti ništa nemože. isto kao i mnogi na ViP forumu svatko od vas ima svoj modus operandi. svaku temu začatate, svaku temu zatrolate, svaku temu zaspamate. ima i onih koji ma je specijalnost provocirati druge onima kojima su specijalnost flamewarsi na forumu. sve to rade iz moralnog hazarda jer misle da će proći nekažnjeno.

čekoj malo, nemoj mi nabrojati drugi ljudi, koga jo zajebovun, to napiši.

inače, zo te mi je malo žo ča si takov ispo; imoš dobar prvi instinkt za neverovati u government, samo unda to ne pretočiš u nešto konzistentno i dobro, nego imoš neki fašističko-partizanski sustav...mislin, prova šteta.

hvala na komplimentu.

razmišljao sam out of the box pa si mi ti poslužio kao template (ništa osobno) jednostavno si mi najbolji za brainstorming na forumu. zajebavaš ili ne nebitno to mi nije bila ideja i cilj nego pokrenuti novu raspravu o moralnom hazardu onako out of the box.

pitao sam se da li bi hrvatski političari bili ovakvi kakvi jesu da za ono što rade postoji i kazna za wrongdoing tj. da nakon neke odluke koja je štetna snose i krivičnu odgovornost i financijsku iz svog džepa. da li bi razmislili koji će korak napraviti i kakvu će odluku donijeti? smatram hrvatske političare najgorim moralnim hazarderima što se može nazvati i veleizdajom. tu neki političar razjebe to i to i umjesto da ga se kazni napravi se suproto ...nagradi ga se još boljim mjestom gdje može krasti.

dok za građane ta šema ne vrijedi. žena je za marendu uzela dvi fete salame i dobila otkaz. primjer koji se desio. nije stavljena na mjesto direktora trgovačkog centra nego noga u dupe fired!

evo na primjer ovo:

During one of the Presidential TV debates, Representative Ron Paul was asked whether a person who does not choose to purchase health insurance coverage should later be refused medical treatment if he/she is unable to pay for it, even if it is life-threatening. Rep. Paul—a physician who opposes the new "Obama care" health insurance mandate—responded (to loud audience applause) that people should accept the consequences for their decisions. In other words, the needy person should be allowed to die.



This was a particularly egregious example of the currently fashionable economics term "moral hazard"—the idea that a person should pay for their voluntary bad decisions, whether it be failing to purchase health insurance or defaulting on their home mortgage. In both cases, so the reasoning goes, people should have known the risks, and "irresponsible behavior" should not be rewarded. This would only encourage more of the same.

There is, in fact, much evidence that our innate sense of justice and fairness includes the principle of "just deserts"—due rewards for merit and, conversely, equivalent punishments for our transgressions and the harm we may inflict on others.

For instance, many Americans are still angry about the taxpayer bailouts for the Wall Street banks in 2009 followed by a quick return to giving multi-million-dollar bonuses to the bank executives who had caused the financial meltdown. It seemed they were being rewarded for their malfeasance.

There is also much evidence, both in economics and in psychology, that our behavior is influenced by various "incentives"—the potential for rewards and the risk of penalties. Thus, health insurance co-pays are often used to deter the overuse of covered services. Likewise, good health habits may be rewarded with lower premiums, a good driving record may result in lower auto insurance premiums—and vice versa. And gambling casinos can be depended upon to keep your money when you lose.

But many situations in life are more complicated, especially when it involves public policies that encompass a large class of our citizens. There is an old saying "you can never do just one thing"—meaning that there may be many indirect and unintended consequences associated with your actions, and these unanticipated effects may outweigh what you intended to do. Thus, a moral hazard may be the lesser hazard in some cases.

A prime example is the current debate over government assistance for distressed home owners. Early on, the Florida Attorney General opposed the idea with the warning: "Don't reward those who simply choose not to pay their mortgage." More recently, the CNBC TV commentator Rick Santelli opposed the new $26 billion package of mortgage relief measures saying that we should not "subsidize the losers' mortgages." Indeed, is it fair toward those who have conscientiously continued to pay their mortgages to aid those who have not?

What these and other critics seem to be saying is that, if a homeowner fails to make the payments on their mortgage, it's their own fault. But wait a minute. The mortgage mess in this country is a lot more complicated than that. The vast majority of those who have fallen behind or defaulted on their mortgages are victims of the financial meltdown and the worst recession since the 1930s.They lost their job or saw their income dry up.The few who "chose" to stop paying their mortgages are already paying a price with a bad credit rating that will follow them for years to come and perhaps hinder their ability to get a future job. Do we refuse to help the many who involuntarily stopped paying their mortgages to avoid rewarding the undeserving few? Why not screen the applicants to weed out the "cheaters"?


Then there are the many millions of homeowners who have not defaulted but are struggling with high payments and can't refinance at today's lower interest rates because the current value of their home, thanks to the recession, is worth less than the mortgage. Helping these "underwater" mortgage holders to refinance is hardly a case of moral hazard.

Of course, there are also homeowners with mortgages they should never have taken on in the first place. Some no doubt can be blamed for these mistakes. But what about the predatory mortgage brokers who knowingly seduced people who were not qualified to take on "toxic" mortgages that they could not pay, or who trapped mortgage applicants with "teaser rates" and well-hidden escalator clauses? Who is really to blame?

There is also another fairness principle that needs to be considered here. Most of us are more than willing to help those who have what could be called "no-fault" needs (to borrow an insurance industry term)—needs that are not the victim's fault. Hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and tsunamis are obvious examples. We don't blame the victims in these cases. Nor should we blame the victims of an economic tsunami.

Indeed, most of us are inclined to give people a second chance if they are willing to learn from their mistakes. We do this for corporations when they are allowed to declare bankruptcy and start over. And even our all-knowing credit agencies allow people to rebuild their credit scores over time.

Finally, there is the huge indirect benefit that the $26 billion mortgage relief program could provide to every homeowner if it helps to revive our moribund housing market and increase home values.

So let's keep moral hazard in its place and stop the hypocrisy of applying it to homeowners while excusing the banks.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fair-society/201203/moral-hazard-or-moral-myopia

ne moreš političarima nametnuti sustav direktne povratne sprege. bilokakov predloženi oblik uvik imo više downsidesa nego dobroga. provoj ga zamisliti, a jo ću ga lako dekonstruirati. zoto, moj je prijedlog suziti bojno polje. jednostavno izbiti iz njihove moći poluge ke, ruku na srce, i ne bi tribale biti u njihovin rukami. 

eto, tvoj primjer s hipotekami.
ne zun moreš li pratiti, ali celi problijem je proizašo iz državnog uplitanja. jo znon da ti voliš optuživati banke, ali oni se tu ponašaju sasvin racionalno. država je ota koja potiče moralni hazard, i ako banka ne reagiro, druga oće, ča izravno znoči da upravni odbor rodi kontra interesov stakeholdersa. zoto to ni problijem ki se jednostavo rješava odsjecanje glava debelih bankarov- ka problem leži elsewhere.

Vjetrovnjak wrote:Hm.. Jesi li prestao sanjati Abena i Mate? Kao da ih je kakva crna rupa posaugala. :-)

---

Inace, svijet kristala prepun je takvih cudnovatosti. Ljudi uredno spominju kako im nestaju s mjesta gdje ih cuvaju i pojavljuju se ondje gdje ih nikada ne bi ostavili, danima ili tjednima nakon. (Naravno, rijec je o situacijama bez upliva djecjih rucica ili sapica i njuskica kucnih ljubimaca) Najneobicniji su slucajevi nalik ovom tvojem. Kad im se medju kristalima pojave posve novi primjerci. Citam te njihove price u jednoj povecoj grupi i ne mogu vjerovati. :-D Oni se smijulje i pricaju o tome kao o necemu svakodnevnom, a ja poput djeteta sirim oci. Materijalizacije, dematerijalizacije, piece of cake. :-)

---

Pokusavam ga poslusati, evo vec drugu vecer, ali zaspim. Tek kad krenem na spavanje mogu se posvetiti slusanju..

haha, nisam njih sanjao nikad začudo, mate se izgleda dematerijalizirala i ne zna se gdje će se pojaviti opet - čini mi se da s medama čeka pupanje proljeća..

a aben je i dalje prometni znak otporan na sve. :^^

zanimljive pričice..  baš sam pogledao White-Xmas epizodu, ma, naše sudstvo i policija se nisu ažurirali ni na video-snimke kamo li, jedno što im to odgovora a druga stvar je što se sa snimkama može manipulirati, pa ne znaš šta je autentično više..  ne znam, ima sveg u toj epizodi, prvi dio mi je zapravo bio najtraumatičniji, ono zavođenje sam morao par puta pauzirati baš sam shy-konzerva..

ruganje

aben wrote:ne moreš političarima nametnuti sustav direktne povratne sprege. bilokakov predloženi oblik uvik imo više downsidesa nego dobroga. provoj ga zamisliti, a jo ću ga lako dekonstruirati. zoto, moj je prijedlog suziti bojno polje. jednostavno izbiti iz njihove moći poluge ke, ruku na srce, i ne bi tribale biti u njihovin rukami. 

eto, tvoj primjer s hipotekami.
ne zun moreš li pratiti, ali celi problijem je proizašo iz državnog uplitanja. jo znon da ti voliš optuživati banke, ali oni se tu ponašaju sasvin racionalno. država je ota koja potiče moralni hazard, i ako banka ne reagiro, druga oće, ča izravno znoči da upravni odbor rodi kontra interesov stakeholdersa. zoto to ni problijem ki se jednostavo rješava odsjecanje glava debelih bankarov- ka problem leži elsewhere.

kako ne možeš? pa oni koji ih biraju mogu. jer ako ja dam punomoć odvjetniku da li sam dužan njega trpit 4 godine a vidim da radi na moju štetu? ukinem mu punomoć pronto odmah ako je neki veći gubitak ubijem ga pronto.

ima službenih naznaka da chemtrailsi nisu samo teorija zavjere.

Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions

Abstract
Many commentators have expressed concerns that researching and/or developing geoengineering technologies may undermine support for existing climate policies—the so-called moral hazard argument. This argument plays a central role in policy debates about geoengineering. However, there has not yet been a systematic investigation of how members of the public view the moral hazard argument, or whether it impacts on people's beliefs about geoengineering and climate change. In this paper, we describe an online experiment with a representative sample of the UK public, in which participants read one of two arguments (either endorsing or rejecting the idea that geoengineering poses a moral hazard). The argument endorsing the idea of geoengineering as a moral hazard was perceived as more convincing overall. However, people with more sceptical views and those who endorsed ‘self-enhancing’ values were more likely to agree that the prospect of geoengineering would reduce their motivation to make changes in their own behaviour in response to climate change. The findings suggest that geoengineering is likely to pose a moral hazard for some people more than others, and the implications for engaging the public are discussed.

1. Introduction: the social and ethical dimensions of geoengineering
Slowly but surely the concept of geoengineering—large-scale intentional intervention in the Earth's climatic system to counteract the effects of climate change [1]—has become the focus of both scientific enquiry and policy debate. A range of putative technologies are captured by the term ‘geoengineering’ (which is itself contested—for discussion, see [2]). They share few common features other than their possible utility in either removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequestering it elsewhere (carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies) or reflecting a small proportion of sunlight away from the Earth (solar radiation management (SRM) technologies). CDR technologies include both the biological and chemical capture of carbon dioxide, whereas SRM technologies could operate terrestrially (e.g. via more reflective crops, clouds or infrastructure) or at a stratospheric level (e.g. through the deployment of reflective aerosol particles).

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140063

AEROSOL GEOENGINEERING (AG)
SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT (SRM)

Weather Modification is Not a Conspiracy Theory - A Call for Action
(by Cyprus Green Party, Nov. 2012)

Geoengineering/weather modification is real and has been taking place globally for decades.
(See Ref. 1976 UN Weather Weapons Treaty; UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 &
2012; EU Parliament B4-0551/95 (plus other references listed at end of this document).
 In a nutshell, it is global atmospheric spraying with toxic chemicals, using nanotechnology,
without the control of a legal framework to regulate it, is conducted in secrecy without any
public debate or independent oversight, as documented by independent researchers worldwide
(see references).

Summary
Geoengineering is the intentional, large-scale technological manipulation of the Earth’s systems. Such
technologies include solar radiation management (SRM, reflecting sunlight to space), cloud whitening
and weather modification through aerial spraying (AG, Aerosol Geoengineering). Worldwide, there is a
massive clandestine aerial spraying of toxic miniaturized particulates, such as biosynthetic fibres,
aluminium, barium, strontium, sulphates, metallic oxides (and other) - a global campaign of
geoengineering employing nanotechnology, ongoing for over four decades. SRM and AG, sometimes
referred to as “chemical trails” or “chemtrails”, results in dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in
the environment (air, soil and water), which have short and long-term, known and unknown health and
environmental consequences. This spraying is being implemented without legal frameworks, national or
international. It violates fundamental human rights and the founding principles of the European Union
itself.
The issue was addressed in the European Parliament (Motion B4-0551/95, which demanded, among
other things, transparency and public information). The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
2010 and 2012 acts as a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. The UK
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee issued a report in March 2010 on Regulation of
Geoengineering. The Cyprus Green Party has been actively campaigning on this issue since 2008.
Cyprus Green MP George Perdikis submitted written questions to the Cyprus Parliament and in 2011,
secured a written agreement from the then Minister of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the
Environment to conduct analyses of air, soil and water samples following suspected chemtrails.
Recently, high-profile Green Party members in Spain and Sweden have also publicly supported the
campaign against aerial spraying.
Those who have failed to research properly the issue quickly dismiss weather manipulation as a
conspiracy theory. This is not “kooky” or “sci-fi”. There is a high level of AG activity globally and as a
consequence, there are credible reports from independent researchers who have meticulously recorded
it around the world. This evidence includes soil and water samples with extremely high levels of
aluminium and barium (and other substances that should not be in our soil and water), in areas
subjected to heavy AG. Given the now documented history of UK and USA governments conducting
controlled spraying on populations (see references), it is conceivable that secret experiments continue
on a global scale. We propose that it is time now for the European Green Party to launch a serious
discussion and investigation into this crucial issue. This summary paper provides a brief background,
with references, and some suggested strategies for an EU Green Party Campaign Against Aerosol
Geoengineering (AG).


http://www.enouranois.eu/enouranois/english/Aerosol_geoengineering_and_SRM_(Cyprus_Greens).pdf


WEATHER MODIFICATION ACT

weather modiƒcation activity includes any action designed
or intended to produce, by physical or chemical
means, changes in the composition or dynamics of the atmosphere
for the purpose of increasing, decreasing or redistributing
precipitation, decreasing or suppressing hail
or lightning or dissipating fog or cloud. (essais de modication
du temps)
R.S., 1985, c. W-5, s. 2; 2003, c. 22,

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/W-5.pdf

27.2.1904 – Štrajk kočijaša u Puli. U subotu na večer dne 27. zaključiše kočijaši da će u nedjelju početi štrajkovati s razloga, što im je obćinsko poglavarstvo oduzelo dosadašnja stajališta kočija po ulicama, a odredilo jim takova i na takovim udaljenim i nepristupnim mjestima grada, da je svaki, tko nije jaslar našega municipija, morao odobriti ovaj korak kočijaša, i zato što se je ova odredba protivila zaključku društva kočijaša stvorenim na skupštini od 3. novembra 1903. Nakon pregovora s načelnikom te s političkom oblasti i intervencijom ove, obćinsko glavarstvo napokon je u ponedjeljak poslie podne povuklo svoju odredbu i dozvolilo kočijašima dosadašnja njihova stajališta, na što je istu večer prestao štrajk.

27.2.1877 – Pomrčina mjeseca. Ono crveno svjetlo, što se je kad više kad manje vidjelo na mjesecu prigodom prekjučerašnje pomrčine dne 27. po sudu učenjakah nije drugo nego prelamanje sunčanih zrakah na zemaljskom zraku te njih padanje u onu tminu, u kojoj se nalazio mjesec kad mu se sunce sakrilo za našu zemlju, to jest, kad mu je pomaknulo. A može da je to i odsjev ono nešto malo svjetla što pada na mjesec sa drugih nebeskih tjelesah iliti zvjezdah koja zajedno s njim po nebu putuju.

kic wrote:


ruganje

nije, stvarno nije,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=g7Q1AUhdReo

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:ne moreš političarima nametnuti sustav direktne povratne sprege. bilokakov predloženi oblik uvik imo više downsidesa nego dobroga. provoj ga zamisliti, a jo ću ga lako dekonstruirati. zoto, moj je prijedlog suziti bojno polje. jednostavno izbiti iz njihove moći poluge ke, ruku na srce, i ne bi tribale biti u njihovin rukami. 

eto, tvoj primjer s hipotekami.
ne zun moreš li pratiti, ali celi problijem je proizašo iz državnog uplitanja. jo znon da ti voliš optuživati banke, ali oni se tu ponašaju sasvin racionalno. država je ota koja potiče moralni hazard, i ako banka ne reagiro, druga oće, ča izravno znoči da upravni odbor rodi kontra interesov stakeholdersa. zoto to ni problijem ki se jednostavo rješava odsjecanje glava debelih bankarov- ka problem leži elsewhere.

kako ne možeš? pa oni koji ih biraju mogu. jer ako ja dam punomoć odvjetniku da li sam dužan njega trpit 4 godine a vidim da radi na moju štetu? ukinem mu punomoć pronto odmah ako je neki veći gubitak ubijem ga pronto.

za odvjetnika- jasno, za predstavnike- ne baš.