Sigurno ne možete ubijediti jedan drugog. Svako ima svoje mišljenje o ovome ali je vlada uradila što je uradila i to se više ne može promijeniti.
Bilo je, ili ovako kako su uradile sve zemlje oko nas i dobar dio EU. Ili smo mogli imati liberalniji pristup ali bi nam svakako sve granice bile zatvorene i naša ekonomija opet u lošem stanju. Ništa puno po ekonomiju liberalni zdravstveni pristup ne bi značio. Jedino što bi imali 3000 oboljelih umjesto 300.
Ovdje će veći problem biti psihoza i posljedice stanja koje će uticati na odluke vlade. I pitanje je kako će se izboriti sa ovime. Mediji i društvene mreže su u histeriji a pošto ljudi ostaju bez poslova i primanja, njihovu situaciju će takvi mediji i društvene mreže dodatno pogoršati.
Ako se ovako nastavi narednih 20 dana, onda će vlada imati pritisak i od otpuštenih radnika i od poslodavaca koji ostaju bez posla ali najveći pritisak od svoje administracije. Niko ne voli da gubi novac i svi će tražiti od Fadila, ili da im namiri njihovo ili da ne dira ono što imaju. Pa je tu očekivati svašta.
Vlada FBiH
-
Sitna buranija
- Posts: 2354
- Joined: 12 May 2016, 10:51
Re: Vlada FBiH
Slažem se.
Samo da dodam da bi liberalniji pristup ponovo doveo do zaustavljanja ili bar dobrog usporavanja ekonomije, jer bi bio ogroman broj ljudi koji su bolesni i koji bi bili na bolovanju, s tim što bi bilo mrtvih kao u priči. Eh sad, šta je nekome prioritet novac ili ljudski životi? Kod nas je hvala Bogu ovo drugo, kod Amerikanaca je očito novac na prvom mjestu. Razvijena Evropa vaga između ovo dvoje.
Samo da dodam da bi liberalniji pristup ponovo doveo do zaustavljanja ili bar dobrog usporavanja ekonomije, jer bi bio ogroman broj ljudi koji su bolesni i koji bi bili na bolovanju, s tim što bi bilo mrtvih kao u priči. Eh sad, šta je nekome prioritet novac ili ljudski životi? Kod nas je hvala Bogu ovo drugo, kod Amerikanaca je očito novac na prvom mjestu. Razvijena Evropa vaga između ovo dvoje.
Re: Vlada FBiH
Ne mora niko biti bolestan, niti da bude mrtvih ali ako je stala ekonomija u EU staje i kod nas.
I tu je sad nijansa hoćemo li imati 30.000 nezaposlenih koji su vezani sa poslove sa EU ili ćemo imati 50.000 nezaposlenih tj. ovi prvi plus 20.000 ugostiteljskih radnika.
I jedno i drugo je problem ako država nije finansijski jaka.
I tu je sad nijansa hoćemo li imati 30.000 nezaposlenih koji su vezani sa poslove sa EU ili ćemo imati 50.000 nezaposlenih tj. ovi prvi plus 20.000 ugostiteljskih radnika.
I jedno i drugo je problem ako država nije finansijski jaka.
-
Investitor
- Posts: 912
- Joined: 19 Apr 2012, 10:37
-
Sitna buranija
- Posts: 2354
- Joined: 12 May 2016, 10:51
Re: Vlada FBiH
Tako je. Npr. auto industrija je u EU zaustavljena radi sprečavanja širenja zaraze. A naša industrija je dobrim dijelom nakačena na njihovu autoindustriju. Ali i da je oni u EU nisu dosada zaustavili, u neka doba bi se zaraza toliko raširila da bi je bili prisiljeni zaustaviti, ali uz 100 puta više oboljelih i umrlih. Isto važi i za nas... Koliko bi dosad bilo pozitivnih slučajeva u Konjicu da se proizvodnja nastavila? I da se čitava smjena zarazi, može li se proizvodnja nastaviti?panzer wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 11:20 Ne mora niko biti bolestan, niti da bude mrtvih ali ako je stala ekonomija u EU staje i kod nas.
I tu je sad nijansa hoćemo li imati 30.000 nezaposlenih koji su vezani sa poslove sa EU ili ćemo imati 50.000 nezaposlenih tj. ovi prvi plus 20.000 ugostiteljskih radnika.
I jedno i drugo je problem ako država nije finansijski jaka.
Re: Vlada FBiH
Čak i to da zanemarimo. Da pretpostavimo da virusa nema i radi njega neće biti zaustavljena nikakva proizvodnja.
Sva dešavanja oko nas bi svakako zaustavila puno firmi. I u tom slučaju vlada i budžet svakako imaju problem. Nema ga ko puniti, ne možeš ni ostalima dići poreze da bi popunio rupe. Šta će se uraditi. Hoće li se prihvatiti zahtjevi da od državnih firmi povuku određena sredstva. Ima javnih preduzeća kako kantonalnih tako i entitetskih koji realno imaju sredstava koje drže već duže vrijeme.
Ili će ta sredstva zanemariti a okrenuti se vanjskom zaduživanju.
Nama bi i uključivanje ovog prvog načina finansiranja budžeta vrlo dobro odgovarao.
Sva dešavanja oko nas bi svakako zaustavila puno firmi. I u tom slučaju vlada i budžet svakako imaju problem. Nema ga ko puniti, ne možeš ni ostalima dići poreze da bi popunio rupe. Šta će se uraditi. Hoće li se prihvatiti zahtjevi da od državnih firmi povuku određena sredstva. Ima javnih preduzeća kako kantonalnih tako i entitetskih koji realno imaju sredstava koje drže već duže vrijeme.
Ili će ta sredstva zanemariti a okrenuti se vanjskom zaduživanju.
Nama bi i uključivanje ovog prvog načina finansiranja budžeta vrlo dobro odgovarao.
-
Sitna buranija
- Posts: 2354
- Joined: 12 May 2016, 10:51
Re: Vlada FBiH
Nama bi najviše odgovaralo da država povuče dividendu (redovnu i akumuliranu) iz firmi koje imaju para i dobit, a to bi bilo i najpoštenije. Međutim, ono čega je mene strah, jeste da ne natjeraju te firme da kupe obveznice FBiH, jer bi na taj način zeznuli nas ostale dioničare. Podjelom dividende začepljavaju dio rupe, a ne povećavaju ukupno zaduženje, pa se mogu više zadužiti kod drugih kreditora, a ovom drugom varijantom smanjuju svoj kapacitet za zaduživanje što za posljedicu može imati manji priliv novca. Nadam se da će se odlučiti za prvu varijantu. Treća opcija bi bila da taj novac ne diraju nikako, ali meni to ne izgleda razumno.
Re: Vlada FBiH
Evo gledam, Tržnice Sarajevo na početku godine nisu znali šta će sa parama pa su odlučili da uđu u projekat izgradnje stambeno poslovnog objekta. Imaju sigurno 4-5 miliona raspoloživo. Aerodrom Sarajevo godišnja dobit je oko 15 miliona KM. Jeste da sad prave novi terminal ali i dalje im je ostalo na raspolaganju dobra cifra.
Rudnik soli Tuzla, neki dan je kantonalna vlada bila u posjeti lukavačkoj Sodi i pohvalili su se da rudnik ima 12 miliona KM na raspolaganju ako bi šta trebalo ulagati.
Svi su imali neke planove a sad je pitanje hoće li i koliko je vladama dostupno da ta sredstva iskoriste za moguće intervencije.
Rudnik soli Tuzla, neki dan je kantonalna vlada bila u posjeti lukavačkoj Sodi i pohvalili su se da rudnik ima 12 miliona KM na raspolaganju ako bi šta trebalo ulagati.
Svi su imali neke planove a sad je pitanje hoće li i koliko je vladama dostupno da ta sredstva iskoriste za moguće intervencije.
Re: Vlada FBiH
virus je samo pokrice kad pohlepni postaju jos pohlepniji.cijela svjetska ekonomija prelazi u tokenizaciju svega od finansiskog sistema,nafte ,osiguranja i svega drugog gdje u svim tim lancima vise nece biti potrebni posrednici i zato ce mnogi izgubiti posao a pohlepni ce uzimati i njihov dio zarade.umjetna inteligencija i robotika dodatno ce ostaviti ljude bez posla ,zato sve treba dobar izgovor a i priprema kako te ljude zbrinuti a da drustvo ne ode u katastrofu.
With the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, Universal Basic Income has suddenly become big news. Many people are now calling for governments to give everyone a regular income with no work requirements – since we want most people to stay at home and not work – with no means testing (that is, adjusting for income).
However, delivering universal basic income is problematic. Governments lack the up-to-date information on identities and addresses needed for physical delivery of money or pre-paid cards. And checks or bank transfers shut out the unbanked. That leaves a gap for a new institution to step in, like a central bank, which could issue a digital currency as an efficient way of delivering a universal basic income.
Universal basic income (UBI) is a cash income that is paid to every individual regardless of their circumstances. It is paid:
Regularly (i.e. not one-off “helicopter drops”)
Directly (i.e. not via an intermediary such as a bank)
To the individual, not the household or family
Unconditionally, i.e. without work requirements or means testing (though it may be taxed away at higher incomes)
Universally, i.e. to everyone irrespective of their age, gender, race, religion, class, income or any other characteristic.
Government already gives regular payments to benefit claimants. Many of these are intermediated through banks, but programs such as Food Stamps bypass banks. However, because Food Stamps have a restricted use, they are often traded by the poor for money, since people can’t live on basic foodstuffs alone. Also, many benefits, even if paid in cash, tend to go to the household rather than to individuals, creating hardship for, say, women in abusive relationships. In the U.K., where I live, the Conservative government’s flawed Universal Credit system shows how harsh work requirements can deprive people of the means to live, while pushing people too fast to go without benefits creates a disincentive to work. Welfare systems are, by their nature, both complex and perverse.
The present crisis has stretched welfare systems beyond their limit and demonstrated governments can’t deliver the basic income that everyone needs, and that, I believe, should be everyone’s by right.
There is an urgent need, and many practical reasons, to provide every individual with a no-questions-asked basic income, delivered in the form of digital cash dollars. But how might it work?
No more government debt
The first thing: Forget about any universal payment that would mean higher government debt. UBI needs to be a right that cannot be taken away. Government debt is ultimately paid from taxes, and people can and do vote to end welfare programs that take too many tax dollars. One of the biggest criticisms of UBI is that it would go to everyone, regardless of means. Higher taxes for people on high incomes would, of course, effectively tax it away, but this is not as “visible” as withdrawing it. Politically, the “U” of UBI would soon be dropped if it were funded from tax revenue.
IT IS BEST PLACED TO DELIVER A REGULAR, NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED MONTHLY PAYMENT TO EVERYONE, AND TO MANAGE ANY ENSUING INFLATION.
So let’s consider a totally different source of money, the central bank.
There would be two ways for a central bank to deliver UBI. One would be for the central bank to put money into people’s bank accounts. To ensure this went to as many people as possible, governments would have to force banks to offer basic banking services to everyone. But even so, some people would drop through the net. After all, you can’t force people to have bank accounts, and some people choose not to.
There’s another, more radical route. That would be for everyone to have accounts at the central bank. Of course, the central bank isn’t a retail payment agent, so there would need to be a gateway to payments networks. How might this work?
This is where a CBDC might come in. Imagine that instead of creating a gateway to the existing bank-dominated payments system, which would once again create problems for people who didn’t want to use banks, the central bank created a digital currency and an associated wallet. The digital currency would be a stablecoin, with a 1:1 peg to the U.S. dollar guaranteed by the central bank.
ANSWER: IT’S THE CENTRAL BANK’S JOB TO MANAGE INFLATION.
Every month, the central bank would put an amount of digital dollars in the wallet. People would access the wallet via their smartphones or other devices. They could transfer the digital dollars to their bank accounts if they wished. Or they could spend them directly because the guaranteed dollar peg would ensure they would be acceptable in payment for goods and services. I would expect a forest of apps to appear, enabling people to use these digital dollars for whatever purpose they want. Alternatively, people could exchange the digital dollars for other cryptocurrencies.
At this point, those who firmly believe money should be scarce will shout, “But what about inflation?” Regularly giving money to people, no questions asked, would increase the risk of inflation, they would say. Answer: It’s the central bank’s job to manage inflation. The central bank could vary the payments, reducing them if consumer prices started to rise or increasing them if they fell. Alternatively, they could keep interest rates much higher, bearing down on bank lending and reducing the economy’s reliance on debt. Many people might welcome this.
Obviously, the idea central banks could deliver UBI using a CBDC isn’t going to please those who think central banks shouldn’t exist and money should be entirely decentralized. But let’s face it, a fully decentralized UBI is a pipe dream. In many countries, the central bank is independent of government and largely immune from the whims of politicians. It is best placed to deliver a regular, no-questions-asked monthly payment to everyone, and to manage any ensuing inflation. That way, when the next disaster hits we won’t once again scrabble around trying – and failing – to get money to people via a patchwork of inadequate benefits, tax systems and primitive payment networks.
It’s too late to create a CBDC for the current crisis. But as part of the exit strategy we should plan to create a CBDC as soon as possible and create a constitutional right to UBI, so that when the next disaster hits, people know that they will survive.
With the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, Universal Basic Income has suddenly become big news. Many people are now calling for governments to give everyone a regular income with no work requirements – since we want most people to stay at home and not work – with no means testing (that is, adjusting for income).
However, delivering universal basic income is problematic. Governments lack the up-to-date information on identities and addresses needed for physical delivery of money or pre-paid cards. And checks or bank transfers shut out the unbanked. That leaves a gap for a new institution to step in, like a central bank, which could issue a digital currency as an efficient way of delivering a universal basic income.
Universal basic income (UBI) is a cash income that is paid to every individual regardless of their circumstances. It is paid:
Regularly (i.e. not one-off “helicopter drops”)
Directly (i.e. not via an intermediary such as a bank)
To the individual, not the household or family
Unconditionally, i.e. without work requirements or means testing (though it may be taxed away at higher incomes)
Universally, i.e. to everyone irrespective of their age, gender, race, religion, class, income or any other characteristic.
Government already gives regular payments to benefit claimants. Many of these are intermediated through banks, but programs such as Food Stamps bypass banks. However, because Food Stamps have a restricted use, they are often traded by the poor for money, since people can’t live on basic foodstuffs alone. Also, many benefits, even if paid in cash, tend to go to the household rather than to individuals, creating hardship for, say, women in abusive relationships. In the U.K., where I live, the Conservative government’s flawed Universal Credit system shows how harsh work requirements can deprive people of the means to live, while pushing people too fast to go without benefits creates a disincentive to work. Welfare systems are, by their nature, both complex and perverse.
The present crisis has stretched welfare systems beyond their limit and demonstrated governments can’t deliver the basic income that everyone needs, and that, I believe, should be everyone’s by right.
There is an urgent need, and many practical reasons, to provide every individual with a no-questions-asked basic income, delivered in the form of digital cash dollars. But how might it work?
No more government debt
The first thing: Forget about any universal payment that would mean higher government debt. UBI needs to be a right that cannot be taken away. Government debt is ultimately paid from taxes, and people can and do vote to end welfare programs that take too many tax dollars. One of the biggest criticisms of UBI is that it would go to everyone, regardless of means. Higher taxes for people on high incomes would, of course, effectively tax it away, but this is not as “visible” as withdrawing it. Politically, the “U” of UBI would soon be dropped if it were funded from tax revenue.
IT IS BEST PLACED TO DELIVER A REGULAR, NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED MONTHLY PAYMENT TO EVERYONE, AND TO MANAGE ANY ENSUING INFLATION.
So let’s consider a totally different source of money, the central bank.
There would be two ways for a central bank to deliver UBI. One would be for the central bank to put money into people’s bank accounts. To ensure this went to as many people as possible, governments would have to force banks to offer basic banking services to everyone. But even so, some people would drop through the net. After all, you can’t force people to have bank accounts, and some people choose not to.
There’s another, more radical route. That would be for everyone to have accounts at the central bank. Of course, the central bank isn’t a retail payment agent, so there would need to be a gateway to payments networks. How might this work?
This is where a CBDC might come in. Imagine that instead of creating a gateway to the existing bank-dominated payments system, which would once again create problems for people who didn’t want to use banks, the central bank created a digital currency and an associated wallet. The digital currency would be a stablecoin, with a 1:1 peg to the U.S. dollar guaranteed by the central bank.
ANSWER: IT’S THE CENTRAL BANK’S JOB TO MANAGE INFLATION.
Every month, the central bank would put an amount of digital dollars in the wallet. People would access the wallet via their smartphones or other devices. They could transfer the digital dollars to their bank accounts if they wished. Or they could spend them directly because the guaranteed dollar peg would ensure they would be acceptable in payment for goods and services. I would expect a forest of apps to appear, enabling people to use these digital dollars for whatever purpose they want. Alternatively, people could exchange the digital dollars for other cryptocurrencies.
At this point, those who firmly believe money should be scarce will shout, “But what about inflation?” Regularly giving money to people, no questions asked, would increase the risk of inflation, they would say. Answer: It’s the central bank’s job to manage inflation. The central bank could vary the payments, reducing them if consumer prices started to rise or increasing them if they fell. Alternatively, they could keep interest rates much higher, bearing down on bank lending and reducing the economy’s reliance on debt. Many people might welcome this.
Obviously, the idea central banks could deliver UBI using a CBDC isn’t going to please those who think central banks shouldn’t exist and money should be entirely decentralized. But let’s face it, a fully decentralized UBI is a pipe dream. In many countries, the central bank is independent of government and largely immune from the whims of politicians. It is best placed to deliver a regular, no-questions-asked monthly payment to everyone, and to manage any ensuing inflation. That way, when the next disaster hits we won’t once again scrabble around trying – and failing – to get money to people via a patchwork of inadequate benefits, tax systems and primitive payment networks.
It’s too late to create a CBDC for the current crisis. But as part of the exit strategy we should plan to create a CBDC as soon as possible and create a constitutional right to UBI, so that when the next disaster hits, people know that they will survive.