Reikėtų Lietuvos valdžią lyginti ne su visos Afrikos vyriausybėmis, o su Mugabės režimu Zimbavėje. Tas pats žmonių niekinimas, tie patys voliuntaristiniai sprendimai ekonomikoje ir švietimo srityje, tas pats klaikus skurdas.

Tiems, kurie mus valdo paskutinius du dešimtme�ius, reikėtų kasdien pasižiūrėti į veidrodį ir save paklausti, kaip jiems pavyko taip nustekenti Lietuvą, kad tokie palyginimai tapo įmanomi.

Pagrindinis skai�ius, skiriantis recesiją nuo depresijos yra bedarbystės lygis. Dauguma Lietuvos bedarbių išvažiuoja, kai tik gali tai padaryti. Mes turime kur išvažiuoti, galime ten dirbti už normalų atlyginimą. Todėl 15 procentų likusių bedarbių tik parodo Lietuvos ekonomikos smukimo ledkalnio viršūnę.

Zimbabvės gyventojams, kaip taisyklė, neleidžiama dirbti Vakarų Europoje. Todėl aišku, kad po Mugabės veiklos ten darbo neteko kas antras dirbantysis.


Pernelyg įsitraukiau, kritikuodamas poną Kubilių. Na ir kas, kad ponai Kubilius ir Mugabė visiškai sugriovė jų šalių ekonomikas (turėdami tik kilnius tikslus). Svarbiausia, kad ponas Mugabė yra juodas, kaip tamsi naktis. O ponas Kubilius yra ne tik, kad baltas, bet net rožinis nuo brangaus gero lietuviško maisto, kaip darbštaus ūkininko paršelis. Kaip aš galėjau juos lyginti? Kokia neužtarnauta panieka... Kur žiūri mūsų etikos sargai? Man reikėtų uždrausti mėnesį pasisakyti Seime...

G-20 Split on the Need for a Global Tax on Banks


By SEWELL CHAN
Published: April 23, 2010
WASHINGTON — Proposals to establish a global tax on banks and charge them for the cost of government bailouts divided representatives of the Group of 20 countries during a summit meeting here on Friday.

The perilous fiscal condition of Greece and other countries in Europe, and the need for the world’s big economies to coordinate changes in financial regulation, were the other major topics in the daylong meetings of Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors.

“The global recovery has progressed better than previously anticipated, largely due to the G-20’s unprecedented and concerted policy effort,” the officials said in a joint communiqué.

The International Monetary Fund endorsed a proposal this week that would establish a tax on bank profits and on salaries paid to bank executives. Canada, whose banking system withstood the crisis, has led the opposition to the idea, while the Obama administration, which has called for a $90 billion levy to be collected over 10 years from banks that received bailout money, tried to marshal support for it.

“There was not agreement on a global bank tax,” Jim Flaherty, the Canadian finance minister, said at a news conference after the meetings. “Some countries are in favor of that. Some countries quite clearly are not. It depends whether a country has had to use taxpayers’ dollars to bail out banks, for the most part.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner defended the idea. “We’re trying to establish the basic principle that where governments are exposed to risk in putting out financial fires like this, that taxpayers don’t bear the costs of paying for those actions,” he said, adding, “That is a simple, fair, basic imperative.”

Mr. Geithner said there was “significant support” for the bank tax, but allowed that he understood a “certain lack of enthusiasm” from Canada.

He added, “We’re going to do what’s necessary for the U.S., what’s in our interest, and I think the world’s going to want to watch what we do. And I suspect that’ll provide a basis for other actions across some of the other economies.”

The cautiously worded joint communiqué acknowledged, but sidestepped, the bank tax proposals. It called for further I.M.F. study “on options to ensure domestic financial institutions bear the burden of any extraordinary government interventions where they occur, address their excessive risk-taking and help promote a level playing field, taking into consideration individual countries’ circumstances.”

John Lipsky, the deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said on Friday that the bank tax, if calculated based on the risk banks posed to the financial system, “could help to discourage financial institutions from taking on excessive risk.” Such a fee would also “address the public policy concern that financial institutions are able to privatize gains but socialize costs arising in the financial sector,” he said.

Mr. Lipsky’s boss, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the top I.M.F. official, caused rumblings on Friday when he suggested that some countries were moving too quickly on reform. He said the Obama administration’s plan “comes too soon” given the need to coordinate responses across countries.

“I read that and I thought, really?” Mr. Geithner said in response. “My sense is that it’s been 15 months — or more than a year — since we started this process in the United States. We’re not moving with excessive haste.”

Mr. Geithner acknowledged that one of the biggest reform elements — forcing banks to hold more capital as a buffer against economic disruptions — was partly beyond the scope of the legislation being debated by Congress. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a global regulatory body, is coordinating discussions around capital requirements in the hope of announcing new standards by the end of this year.

“The core issue there is the quality and quantity of capital and setting standards for that, and also an appropriate cap on leverage,” said Mr. Flaherty. “We agreed that that’s a key element.”