nad ei saand võimulegi kuradi tainapea, lubaduste realiseerimiseks tuleb valimised võita, nii et mine cheki parem valitsusparteide lubadusi ja võrdle reaalsusega
Ta lubas meil bussi pileteid odavamaks teha, noh vaata mis nüüd on. Ennem oli pilet 10 krooni (2tsoon vms) nüüd on 11 ja soodustalong oli 6 nüüd on 7 kr. SITU PIHKU KURADI SAVIPÄTS
aga jah, see kes edgari sitta usub peab ikka olema üks türamuse valus munn. Edgari peded valimisreklaamid on nagu tavalised reklaamid mida teleris iga türamuse päev näeb - ainult valus munn asub kohe ostma.. ja neid munne siin eestis on sittakanti.. eriti joodikutest venelasi ja ajudetta penskareid..
and do i need to add here STRONG criminal connections?
Tell me one seller from KeskTurg who is able to sale their products white out payng money to mafia for "protection" ? Last one who told "i will not pay" was shoot on day time and no one was arrested as usual.
And we all know the apartment deals (old and new ones) .
& its open secret about keskerakond party members who are connected to organized prostitution and other businesses what come along whit prostitution world..
Ei tea nüüd näib et keskerakond suudaks meid muuta sõbraks maailma jõukama riigiga sest mis mõtet on pugeda euroopale kui euroopa poeb ju venemaale et kunagi sai valitud küll reform aga nüüd kui nad riigi hukka ajasid siis tuleb muuta oma meelt.
keda sa siis valima hakkad? Keskikuid kellel Yhtse Venemaaga on koostöö leping v? :D
Ega ma pole öelnutki, et oravad parim valik on kuid kes keskerakonda valib sellel enamasti on kyll kas siis oma huvid või tõsised probleemid arusaamisega mille eest keskerakond seisab (või siis saavad täpselt aru mille eest nad seisavad... :P )
I for some reason think Keskerakond stands for more socially responsible state, like Finland for example, but Reformierakond stand for Anglo-Saxon economic model like in the UK and the US.
Well, whit their current image and the party head (savisaar) they stand for corruption, populism and endless lies (usually these on power have more reason to lie but keskerakond top's them all even if they are not elected).
Would be nice if there would be real party to connect Estonia interest whit local russian community but this one right now just feeds whatever lies is needed to russians to get the votes. (giving vodka for votes is fairly small criminal act compared to their other projects)
And as long as I know, free market capitalism has always worked better then socialism. And USA is not a free market and capitalist economy anymore, at least since Bush's bailouts and ofcourse even more bigger bailouts and stimulouses by Obama. I think that free market has proven to be the best economicalsystem and thus, if Estonia wishes to be succesful in the future, we must continue our way to mor eliberal policies, lower taxes, smaller or non-existent government intervenient.
I agree that free market is good, but it must be regulated. We have majanduskriis because the US allowed financial institutions to self-regulate and therefore perform risky operatrions for which we all pay now. I support higher taxation like in Finland to create a more fair society.
I disagree with you in here. I think that more regulations is definitely not that what's going to bring us out from this crises and prevent the upcoming ones. Regulations in some area have gone far too far. For example regulating the size and angle of cucumber in EU. What's the problem, is that these companies (AIG, fennia Mae etc.) weren't let to fail. Which means that those who made bad decisions were let go without punishment. I don't mean prisonment, but paying this back they lost.
You are missing the point. Don't you know that the EU and the US as well if not mistaken are now pushing for greater regulation and supervision of financial operations. And this is precisely to ensure that we avoid future crisis like this. The key is to look for long term economic growth rather then huge short-term profit and then face recession. The financial institutions have become too greedy and performed risky operations due to lack of supervision.
I agree, that we must look to a long-term scale, but I'm pretty convinced, that this crisis isn't created by lack of supervision, but by years and years of inflating and re-inflating the bubble by governments, mainly the US one. And total lack of responsibility for bankers.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, well, if I remember correctly this crisis started in the US sub-prime market, in other words it's a result of risky lending. Governments didn't inflate anything, but when people started to have easy access to credit they started taking out loans wich they perhaps couldn't afford to repay. For a while all this extra money in the economy created growth as there was more demand for goods and for a while even in Estonia the times were good, but in the end time came to repay the debt...
USa has been inflating it's economy for decades. really since 1913, when FED was created. Dollar has lost 97% of it's value, that's quite an inflation. After dot-com crisis USA actually did re-inflate this bubble. Then the realestateboom started. now this ended, maybe USA can find a new place to inflate themselves out for a while, but eventually, it's going to collapse even bigger. And es, you always have to pay back your debt. And if you can't, you're broke.
That's how you make billions from millions - by inflating the prices. With regards to property market this is what happened prices went up because the credit was easy to get. and demand exceeded supply i guess. Banks would give 100 mortgages. Property prices were continuing to grow 10% a year or more and people would borrow more money against their home to buy new car or something else. Now their house price has gone down, but the debt is still the same. If they lose their job they are f*cked.
Many of the loan money went to industry and new equipments. Not all ofcourse, but I still think that credit money is very good, if used right. And I don't see point of inflating all prices, which will just lead to lose of deposits and savings.
Credit is good for businesses I guesss, but not so good I think for ordinary consumers. I think governments and banks should be very careful when lending money to people becuase if you give people cheap and easy credit they will take it and spend it on goods and services, which in short-term will result in economic growth due to increased consumption, but this not real growth. This is like borrowing money to spend them all in casions. You will go broke. I believe in saving, not borrowing.
I'm also totally for savings, rather then borrowing, but just it's not enough with just the money you save to start a new business. Consumers as well, when you have savings, but it doesn't let you buy it, you need to get a loan. Very few people would be able to save enough money to buy a house or a car, but when loaning, they can. they can pay back in the future. it only boosts standard of living.
Giving people loans to start a business, or buy a house or car is not a bad idea at all. What I mean is when you want to buy a house, you should save some money for a deposit. If your house costs 1 million EEK, then you should save at least 100k. But if you cannot save this much money then perhaps you cannot afford to buy a house at all and bank shouldn't give you your loan. This measure also should help prevent housing bubbles and speculation.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, one more thing about regulation. I will agree it is necessary to decrease government bureacuracy and any unnecessary obstacles that make life difficult for business whilst serving no purpose, but this should not be confused with certain rules and regulations which are there to ensure that financial institutions i.e. banks, insurance companies, follow the it and do not put the whole economy under threat of collapse because of irrespnsible risky operations.
if banks and their CEOs would really be responsible what happens, they would not make such risky operations, cause they would pay for it by themselves. EVen after they have left the company.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I don't think it's that simple. All these big banks and insurance companies have become too big and too important to let them go under. If it was possible then I would be the first to say let them go bankrupt. But it doesn't work that way. Too many things depend on them. Tell me how do you propose CEO's to take responsibiity for what happened and prevent this from happening in the future? Give them more freedom? :)
All these banks that would go broke have good assets and bad assets. the good one will remain and some other bank would buy them or a new bank would arise and thos ebad deals would go bad anyway. i don't think there's anything too big to fail. Soviet Union wasn't.:)
I think that CEo's should give away all their property and practicly would pay it back for rest of their lives. Don't think I'm mean, this is their responsibility. Actually they should, by law, do so.
Yes they have good and bad assets, but most of them are bad, but banks don't agree that they are, so they will not accept the price that other banks might offer. If you bought a flat in Tallinn for 1.6 million EEK, but now it's worth only 1.2 million - that's a bad asset. But will you sell it now for 1.2 million? ;) What if CEO's under the law have not done anything wrong? I mean who knew this would happen? All they were doing is making money and profit - this is not illegal.
I mean, if they had nothing to do with bad decisions, if it's not in their responsibility's area, they don't pay for it, but those who had to do with this and are responsbile for that, must pay. They got huges wages, that were apropriate to their responsibility, now let them have the responsibilty they got payed for.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I think bad decision was to give people easy and cheap credit, especially to those who couldn't affrod it. When you want to buy a house you shouldn't be able to get 100% or 125% mortgage so easy. I think it is risky and based on the assumption that prices will always go up. In the UK prices went up a lot due to high demand until it became too expensive (housing bubble) and unaffrodable and then everything collapsed.
That's what happens, when banks lack responsibility. When the bankers have no responsibility. ofcourse you shouldn't loan to someone, who can't pay it back. it's bad for everyone, mostly for yourself. But bankers themselves should be responsible for more.
Yes, banks forgot about responsible lending and were giving loans to everyone so people could buy houses that they can't afford or spend money they could not afford to spend. This practice probably led to their huge profits and obviously bonuses and governments for a while also looked good as they could say that people's lives got much better. More people own their homes and so on, but in reality it was just living on the borrowed time, now is payback time. :)
Yes, not all borrowers have suffered, but those who were working in building industry I think are suffering a lot. And there are a lot of people in Tallinn who worked in building, they used to get a lot of money and took alot of loans to buy houses and cars and now there are no jobs and can't pay the loans. I don't blame them. I guess the problem was the housing boom in Estonia. I can't believe that some of those old soviet flats could cost 100,000 euro or more. This is just inflated price.
This is what's making these scams so easy. If it comes out, the government will bail you out. But this must not happen. It's yet another state intervention to free market. What bring us in this mess isn't too little state intervention, but too vast one. And higher taxation represses everybody, not just wealthy ones. I think that state should be as thin as possible and have as low taxes as possible. This is what gives that state flexibility in hardship and growth at good times.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, In the UK the government had to give money to the banks to inject cash into the economy to ease credit crunch and in some cases that meant buying their shares and therefore nationalizing it. It had to be done to save banking system! If it collapsed everything would go. A lot of companies depend on short-term bank loans. I am sure you wouldn't be happy if you couldn't take money out from your account cause the banks went bust.
I talk you about Austrian economis system. it's main point is, that recession is not the desease, but the cure and the desease is inflated and boomed economy that must let the air out. What UK and USA have done so far, is that they have bought all shit together, with people's money and save the banks, that did horrible descisions. And I'm pretty much sure, that the banking system will collapse anyway, now it's just going to be harder, as inflation comes in.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I'll be honest I am not familiar with Austrian economics system. :) I am not saying the recession is the disease. Everyone agrees that what we have now is a period of adjustment. My point was that the credit crunch and recession is avoidable. If financial institutions are regulated properly then we should have a stable long-term growth. the UK have done the right thing - you cannot allow collapse of the banking system even if it means having to use taxpayers money.
I know one system from past that had no economical collapses. And it was Soviet Union. But just as well it had slow growth.
And I think that banks have to go broke and people will have to lose their money. One may say that we must save banks to restore trust on market. but I don't trust thos ebanks that almost went broke and now states saved them. What has changed in them? Mostly nothing. When they would collapse, then those untrustable banks would go down and stronger ones would remain.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, actually the Soviet system was not too bad at all in a sense that life was less stressful I guess. I recently watched a programme on tv about East Germany and women for example said that it was better for them then because of the benefits an the respect that they had then. :) The problem was political freedom and obviously private business. You couldn't have that in Soviet Union. Slow stable growth is what we need, and growth in real economy, not fuelled by credit money.
I think that Soviet system was good in healthcare and education, but deffinately on economicalscale. You say the problem was lack of private businesses, but private, free market, business is what is behind all booms and busts. And if you have them, you have bigger growth, but more unstable one. And actually, I think that credit money is a brilliant invetion. it's one of the most important pillars of economy. if you coul donly use money you have in the moment, manby big things would not be born.
Soviet system I guess suffered from bad management, plus it was not really consumption orientated. To this day I have no clue how it worked. :) I believe you can have a free market economy with private businesses and no boom and busts if the government manages the economy very carefully and anticipates the future problems. I don't actually blame the banks for crisis. I blame the government for not seeing this coming. As I said befiore lack of supervision and regulation.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I do not agree that people have to lose their money. Why should they??? If a person has been saving money for 30 years and kept it in the bank, why should he lose it?? In the UK the government guaranteed all deposits up to 50 thousand pounds if i am not mistaken and it's the right thing. I did not hear anything about saving ebanks, but here in the UK the government helped Lloyds TSB and I trust this bank more then any other. In long term taxpayer should get their moeny back.
They have to lose their money, because they made bad risk assestments. they took too big risks and now other people should buy them up? it's biggest unfairness, ever. I actuall ythink that small depositors should be saved.
let's take parex bank for example, i don't trust them. DO I trust AIG? No.
And in long-term, taxpayers are going to pay it back. These bailout were done with money taken from the future. the higher taxes are yet coming. The inflation is coming (a hidden tax infact).
Those who made wrong choices should lose their money and they did. Look at Lehmann Brothers, they went bust. I am talking about ordinary people with deposits in the banks. Why should they lose their money? About bailout, what happened is that the taxpayer bought the bank, so we shouldn't lose in long-term. Another thing is when government is borrowing money to finance public spending then taxes will have to go up in the future, but in Estonia this shouldn't happen as government cut spending. :)
ohh, yeah, Estonia has done mostly right. not increased expenditures, but reduced them, thou should have been cutted more. Low public debt etc. Totally agree on that. Thou taxationlevel in Estonia is too high.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, in certain ways Estonia has done right, but on the other hand I do not believe it is right to cut spending where it is necessary, like education or healthcare. Estonia should have saved some money during good times to be able to avoid budget cuts. What will happen now is more people in public sector will lose their jobs and make crisis in Estonia worse.
I think that education is one of the few things every country should be involved and this relly shouldn't be cutted at all. but about Estonia, we actualyl saved money in past, should have been saved more, but it's enough, but the problem is, we can't use them. We need to keep budget deficit under 3% of GDP, if we want to get euro by 2011, if we fail in doin git, we would get it by fastest in 2013. But we can't use reserves, we have to cut, cut, cut.
Actually, Estonian budget deficit is one of the smallest in Europe. Only Finland and Cyprus (not sure) have smaller ones. But as others already have euro or they don't want it, they can spend how much they want. And what's worst, probably we are not able to cut enough, so we still can't get euro, but we have cutted some important things, we shouldn't have cutted. That's stupidity.
Saving bankingsystem and printing more money has one advantage, it shows that you are doing something and voters want to see action. But actually, in economicmodel I imagine, there is nothing a state can or should do. But if you want to remain in power for next election and maybe return once back, you need to do something, even bad things.
Well, what you are taliking about is quantitative easing which is printing money but this is printing money to prevent deflation. It is not printing money to help the government finance its deficit. ;) What i didn't agree with is a reduction of VAT from 17.5% to 15%. That will definitely have no effect. but otherwise the monetary policy should work. What do you suggest just sit and do nothing? I'd rather print money if it helps the economy. :)
But the thing is, printing money doesn't help the economy, it just seems like that for awhile. And I don't see much difference between quantitative easing and pure money printing. To the market, more money comes in and prices will rise.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, printing money doesn't help when government has no money, but can't cut it's budget - this leads to weaker currency and therefore higher prices (inflation), especially on imports. Quantitative easing is a bit different, it's when the Central bank of the country wants to give money to the banks who struggle for liquidity, so that they can start lending money to the businesses. This kind of printing money should't lead to inflation, but should help prevent depression.
Every central banks mission is to keep the ammount of money in circulation stable. indeed the money wasn't moving, but the money existed, it wasn't moving. And when one day this "closed" money starts moving, prices will skyrocket. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, but the simple fact is, the more money in circulation, the higher prices.
Yes central banks do control supply of money in the economy to help keep inflation at a stable rates. One thing all central banks do not want though is a deflation. When there is a risk of deflation, they increase supply of money and reduce interest rates so people borrow and spend more and thus stimulate consumption, which again in my opinion will result in recession and risk of deflation. :) Which means in my opinion we should avoid rapid expansion of easy credit and be very careful with it.
Yes, and quantitative easing is just a form of easy credit to banks.
And actually, it might be useful to create inflation. Loans taken in this currency becomes cheaper. And private owned centralbank, like in USA may have a threat of them wanting to print more money. As they could use the full value of these currencies, while every other step, it becomes cheaper.
I am not economist, but I think high inflation is not good, especially if it is caused by currency devaluation. Quantitative easing should only provide extra money to the banks so they can recapitalize and start lending again, especially to businesses. It should not cause high inflation. I do not see any reason for America to print any more money - their interest rates are very low, trade deficit is huge as well as budget deficit. This is enough to cause currency devaluation.
Many banks SHOULD go bust. Many people will HAVE TO go broke, they made wrong decisions, some got scammed, but we can't and musn't save them all. And ofcourse I wouldn't be happy if I can't take my money out o fbank, that that's why I keep my property mainly in shares, gold and real estate and this money I have is in many different banks to reduce the impact of sudden crisis. ofcourse many people don't do so, but they should.
xxxrrrxxxrrr, as for taxation, I am talking about the income tax for ordinary people. It is currently fixed at 22% in Estonia. I believe the income tax should be progressive - increase as your income increases - and should start from as little as 10% for people on low income and go up to 35%-40% for people who earn, say 100k kroon per month or more. I believe this is the right way. If you like low taxes so much then do like Russia and inroduce fixed 13% income tax. :)
I think that progressive taxation is even worse then just high taxation. Because when a person earnes more, they will anyway pay more taxes and if you put even higher tax on them, they will leave. Russia has done everything right with 13% fixed income tax. Atleast compared to many others. including Estonia, we have one of highest taxationrates in Europe. This is really bad, atleast I think. And yes, rich people may start leaving to other countries with lower taxes, like they've always done.
Well, you could say the whole idea of taxation is bad. ;) I mean why should we pay tax? Yes, I know people on higher incomes will pay more anyway, but I think they should pay more percentgage wise as well to help those ones who earn little. I know it's not really fair, but I think this is the only way to achieve a high standards of living for everyone, by that I mean good housing, healthcare, education, low crime. But the key of course is to find the right balance for taxation.
Actually I do think that we don't need taxes at all. But our sosciety would not remain standing if we would lose taxation and through this all states and authorities. I think that a flat tax is the closest we can get to a fair taxation. I leave you the opportunity to have a different oppinion.
xxxrrrxxxrrr,you said it yourself that without taxes our society wouldn't be able to function. When i was younger I also didn't like progressive taxation but as I get older I find it more acceptable. If we can have a prosperous society where poor people or people on low income can have a decent living standard and all children can get decent education etc. If this all is possible with flat tax rate then i will support it, but i guess that would mean more taxes elswehere or more stealth taxataion
i think, that many countries have taken too much responsibility from their people. it's not state's mission to give them all jobs and things they want, it's peole's own will to work that drives th eeconomy. Countries must create infrastructure and good economicconditions for private companies to grow and create more jobs and bring more wealth to the country.
I agree it's the business that drives the economy and creates jobs, but at the same time the government is also a very big employer that gives people jobs - public sector. Whilst government should create good economic conditions it should also be managing these conditions in such a way to support long-term growth and prevent boom and bust.. Government also must look after the unemployed, which is not the case in Estonia. The tax is high, but the benefit is low. Where does the money go?
How did you work that out? If the government raises taxes now, then I have no choice but to pay it, but I will not affect how much I earn. I will just have less money left to spend after I paid tax. I don't mind paying higher tax as long as I can have a decent life and maybe my friends who earn less than me or have no job can get better life because I pay more tax. I prefer this then to have poor people who will kill me and take my money. :)
When tax people more, they have less to spend and less to INVEST. This is what stops the growth. And if there is more investments, it will lead to more jobs, higher wages and higher standard of living. ofcourse there will be som epoo rpeople, probably more then in an socialist country, but on the other hand, there is alo tmore rich people. And what's actually the main problem of socialspendings, is the more you spend, the more dependent these people become. And the laziers they become
Well, I do not believe that ordinary people invest so much, unless they are businessman. And what kind of invstment are you talking about? With regards to spending, I think we have been spending too much anyway thanks to loans. This spending led to overproduction and inflation (housing market). Now people run out of credit money and production decreases, people lose jobs and star saving. :) When banks gave a lot of loans they put too much money into the economy. :))
Regarding social welfare I can only say what I said before is that I prefer social-economic system like in Finland or Sweden then, for example the US. Yes, some people become dependent, but this is the case not only in socialist countries, but in the US too there are a lot of people who depend on the state, black people for example, but their quality of life is worse and crime is worse. I think a normal person wih education and skills will always prefer to work, then to ask for state help.
I mean look even at Estonian property market. It has been growing so fast, the prices for some Estonian houses are just incredible. Why? Because of easy credit. People stopped saving, but started borrowing to buy new car, new tv, new home, go on holiday etc. Now banks don't give mortgages so easy to people and prices are falling as fast as they once grew. Some people find their home is now worth less then what they paid for it and if they sell it now they will still owe money to the bank.
Well, looks like they have good ideas, so what's wrong with Keskerakond? I don't follow Estonian politics much, but people I know many support Keskerakond. Can someone explain?
well - they have great populistic ideas on paper most of the time. There is no other party in Estonia who has so much criminal connectivity as in Keskerakond (so called "center" party ).
For starters go balticbusnessnews (.) com and type in the search for: Ivo Parbus. Then start from article 8.12.2008 and read the related articles.. - but this is just TINY part of the corruption. Its open secret that ONLY thanks to our city gov (center party) the Centre Market mafia can operate
LOL. yea Ivo Parbus was arrested, but hes in freedom now, because the whole thing was a fiction by KAPO.
Isn't that a little suspicious that Tsahkna was impeached after the elections and the people from Keskerakond were arrested before the elections and released after the elections (Parbus a little before them).
Yeah and I'm not going to talk 'bout Tsahkna and such ****s.Look in the mirror and then come to talk 'bout corruption.
Kriisiaja süü. Reformikatel oli lihtsalt ebaõnn, et sellisel ajal nad riigikokku said. Kriisi ajal ei saa midagi teha, peab kokku hoidma, minu arust, on nad seda hästi teinud.
Paremini kui mõni teine riik, aga siiski mitte enam kui rahuldavalt. Eesti riik on selgelt paksem kui varem, kui meie majandus oli sama suur kui praegu. paratamtult peame me veel kärpima, oleks pidanud kärpima juba eelmise aasta algul.
Hmm, aga kas see polnud mitte Reformierakond kes lubas Eesti 5 rikkama riigi hulka viia? Aga kus see on? Mina näen ainult majanduskriisi ja mitu korda kõrgemaid makse. Muidugi pole nii palju raha, kui reformikate jaoks jääb 50000 krooni palka LIIGA väheks, no jumala eest..niigi need rotid saavad maksumaksjate arvelt miljoneid. Hämmastav, kuidas neil veel üldse pooldajaid saab olla...
kuule edgarit tegelt valivad ju põhiliselt venelased
lumpima 8 months ago
1. Tegemata.
2. Tegemata.
3. Tegemata.
4. Tegemata.
5. Osaliselt.
6. Tutkit brat, hoopis müügimaks!
7. Tegemata.
1/7 Poleee pahaaa
eesti919 10 months ago 2
@eesti919
nad ei saand võimulegi kuradi tainapea, lubaduste realiseerimiseks tuleb valimised võita, nii et mine cheki parem valitsusparteide lubadusi ja võrdle reaalsusega
maitsepolitsei 6 months ago
odav m6la
TheFranka21 11 months ago
ou kuulge ta saadab mulle neid kuradi salajasi kirju jms. Kas saaksite õelda et ta selle lõpetaks?
lumpima 11 months ago
25kilo kroonides kuus? Mida perset....
Arto572 1 year ago
mhm mine perse värdjas, sitapea, ise ütlesid et me ei pea maksma lõuna eest,
''Kuni keskooli lõpuni''
Mine perse, ikka peab maksma mingi kuradi pasa hallitanud borsisupi pärast, mine perse edgar
runescrule 1 year ago
Kust see raha tuleb siis ?!
Orang3C0unti 1 year ago
Davai, teeme hääletuse. Kes hääletab kelle poolt? Mina annan hääle Reformile.
OhThatGuy9 1 year ago
@OhThatGuy9 Mina annan IRL-ile mu isa on seal :D
lumpima 8 months ago
Ta lubas meil bussi pileteid odavamaks teha, noh vaata mis nüüd on. Ennem oli pilet 10 krooni (2tsoon vms) nüüd on 11 ja soodustalong oli 6 nüüd on 7 kr. SITU PIHKU KURADI SAVIPÄTS
OhThatGuy9 1 year ago 2
blablabla savisaar situ pihu
TheCarrotMovies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See keskerakonna reklaamid on psüholoogidega hüpnoosiga tehtud jh.
Mitu lubadust nad täitsid sealt reklaamist?mingi 0.1
TheCarrotMovies 1 year ago
See keskerakonna reklaamid on psüholoogidega hüpnoosiga tehtud jh.
Mitu lubadust nad täitsid sealt reklaamist?mingi 0,1.
TheCarrotMovies 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheCarrotMovies 1 year ago
Palju neist tehtud on? Kuradi jobud!
jobu9220 1 year ago
See video on hüpnotiseeriva toimega.
Ramiak8 1 year ago
ah pange perse
mait95 1 year ago
Edgar on üks pede
juku525 2 years ago
Savimunn!
grafiti46 2 years ago 14
tra see edgar on kuradi VANA!! JAH VANA!!! VALIGE REFORMIERAKOND!
runescrule 2 years ago 8
@runescrule SAma pask teised näod
ImjeKasutaja 1 year ago
@runescrule
ei vali, mulle ei meeldi tänane elu sugugi
maitsepolitsei 6 months ago
v6ik juba õelda ei tee 2ra kui reformi erakonna valite
kipsu45 2 years ago
7st lubadusest 1 sai tehtud isegi.. lol
aga jah, see kes edgari sitta usub peab ikka olema üks türamuse valus munn. Edgari peded valimisreklaamid on nagu tavalised reklaamid mida teleris iga türamuse päev näeb - ainult valus munn asub kohe ostma.. ja neid munne siin eestis on sittakanti.. eriti joodikutest venelasi ja ajudetta penskareid..
Putsi see riik.
M1scV1d 2 years ago
Kuhu kadus see paroodiavideo "Kanepierakond"? Nii lõbus oli vaadata.
n4mel3ss 2 years ago
ja, ma tahaks ka teada :D
NinjaHotel 2 years ago
Nüüd avastasin! Otsisin seda google'is, leidsin, aga siis oli kirjas, et video on eemaldatud mingite kasutustingimuste rikkumise eest.
n4mel3ss 2 years ago
and do i need to add here STRONG criminal connections?
Tell me one seller from KeskTurg who is able to sale their products white out payng money to mafia for "protection" ? Last one who told "i will not pay" was shoot on day time and no one was arrested as usual.
And we all know the apartment deals (old and new ones) .
& its open secret about keskerakond party members who are connected to organized prostitution and other businesses what come along whit prostitution world..
WaffaDrunker 2 years ago
kas keskerakond mitte vanema huvitise vastu polnud eelmiste valimiste aeg? ;D
WaffaDrunker 2 years ago
see oli ka see tõstame tulumaksu, aga ei ole pandud
SuperRezzer 2 years ago
noh - eestlased... mida siin veel oelda
peenleib 3 years ago
lasteaias tasuta koolilõunad???irw
tvezi1 3 years ago 2
Ei tea nüüd näib et keskerakond suudaks meid muuta sõbraks maailma jõukama riigiga sest mis mõtet on pugeda euroopale kui euroopa poeb ju venemaale et kunagi sai valitud küll reform aga nüüd kui nad riigi hukka ajasid siis tuleb muuta oma meelt.
Tucsmen 3 years ago
keda sa siis valima hakkad? Keskikuid kellel Yhtse Venemaaga on koostöö leping v? :D
Ega ma pole öelnutki, et oravad parim valik on kuid kes keskerakonda valib sellel enamasti on kyll kas siis oma huvid või tõsised probleemid arusaamisega mille eest keskerakond seisab (või siis saavad täpselt aru mille eest nad seisavad... :P )
WaffaDrunker 2 years ago
WaffaDrunker,
I for some reason think Keskerakond stands for more socially responsible state, like Finland for example, but Reformierakond stand for Anglo-Saxon economic model like in the UK and the US.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
Well, whit their current image and the party head (savisaar) they stand for corruption, populism and endless lies (usually these on power have more reason to lie but keskerakond top's them all even if they are not elected).
Would be nice if there would be real party to connect Estonia interest whit local russian community but this one right now just feeds whatever lies is needed to russians to get the votes. (giving vodka for votes is fairly small criminal act compared to their other projects)
WaffaDrunker 2 years ago
WaffaDrunker,
I can hardly judge on what's happening in Estonia now as I live abroad. I am not against Reformierakond at all, but perhaps some of their actions.
With regards to Rusian community I can say this: they blame Estonians for isolating them and treating them like second class citizens.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
And as long as I know, free market capitalism has always worked better then socialism. And USA is not a free market and capitalist economy anymore, at least since Bush's bailouts and ofcourse even more bigger bailouts and stimulouses by Obama. I think that free market has proven to be the best economicalsystem and thus, if Estonia wishes to be succesful in the future, we must continue our way to mor eliberal policies, lower taxes, smaller or non-existent government intervenient.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr
I agree that free market is good, but it must be regulated. We have majanduskriis because the US allowed financial institutions to self-regulate and therefore perform risky operatrions for which we all pay now. I support higher taxation like in Finland to create a more fair society.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I disagree with you in here. I think that more regulations is definitely not that what's going to bring us out from this crises and prevent the upcoming ones. Regulations in some area have gone far too far. For example regulating the size and angle of cucumber in EU. What's the problem, is that these companies (AIG, fennia Mae etc.) weren't let to fail. Which means that those who made bad decisions were let go without punishment. I don't mean prisonment, but paying this back they lost.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr
You are missing the point. Don't you know that the EU and the US as well if not mistaken are now pushing for greater regulation and supervision of financial operations. And this is precisely to ensure that we avoid future crisis like this. The key is to look for long term economic growth rather then huge short-term profit and then face recession. The financial institutions have become too greedy and performed risky operations due to lack of supervision.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I agree, that we must look to a long-term scale, but I'm pretty convinced, that this crisis isn't created by lack of supervision, but by years and years of inflating and re-inflating the bubble by governments, mainly the US one. And total lack of responsibility for bankers.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, well, if I remember correctly this crisis started in the US sub-prime market, in other words it's a result of risky lending. Governments didn't inflate anything, but when people started to have easy access to credit they started taking out loans wich they perhaps couldn't afford to repay. For a while all this extra money in the economy created growth as there was more demand for goods and for a while even in Estonia the times were good, but in the end time came to repay the debt...
Kristian2403 2 years ago
USa has been inflating it's economy for decades. really since 1913, when FED was created. Dollar has lost 97% of it's value, that's quite an inflation. After dot-com crisis USA actually did re-inflate this bubble. Then the realestateboom started. now this ended, maybe USA can find a new place to inflate themselves out for a while, but eventually, it's going to collapse even bigger. And es, you always have to pay back your debt. And if you can't, you're broke.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
That's how you make billions from millions - by inflating the prices. With regards to property market this is what happened prices went up because the credit was easy to get. and demand exceeded supply i guess. Banks would give 100 mortgages. Property prices were continuing to grow 10% a year or more and people would borrow more money against their home to buy new car or something else. Now their house price has gone down, but the debt is still the same. If they lose their job they are f*cked.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
Many of the loan money went to industry and new equipments. Not all ofcourse, but I still think that credit money is very good, if used right. And I don't see point of inflating all prices, which will just lead to lose of deposits and savings.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Credit is good for businesses I guesss, but not so good I think for ordinary consumers. I think governments and banks should be very careful when lending money to people becuase if you give people cheap and easy credit they will take it and spend it on goods and services, which in short-term will result in economic growth due to increased consumption, but this not real growth. This is like borrowing money to spend them all in casions. You will go broke. I believe in saving, not borrowing.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I'm also totally for savings, rather then borrowing, but just it's not enough with just the money you save to start a new business. Consumers as well, when you have savings, but it doesn't let you buy it, you need to get a loan. Very few people would be able to save enough money to buy a house or a car, but when loaning, they can. they can pay back in the future. it only boosts standard of living.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Giving people loans to start a business, or buy a house or car is not a bad idea at all. What I mean is when you want to buy a house, you should save some money for a deposit. If your house costs 1 million EEK, then you should save at least 100k. But if you cannot save this much money then perhaps you cannot afford to buy a house at all and bank shouldn't give you your loan. This measure also should help prevent housing bubbles and speculation.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, one more thing about regulation. I will agree it is necessary to decrease government bureacuracy and any unnecessary obstacles that make life difficult for business whilst serving no purpose, but this should not be confused with certain rules and regulations which are there to ensure that financial institutions i.e. banks, insurance companies, follow the it and do not put the whole economy under threat of collapse because of irrespnsible risky operations.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
if banks and their CEOs would really be responsible what happens, they would not make such risky operations, cause they would pay for it by themselves. EVen after they have left the company.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I don't think it's that simple. All these big banks and insurance companies have become too big and too important to let them go under. If it was possible then I would be the first to say let them go bankrupt. But it doesn't work that way. Too many things depend on them. Tell me how do you propose CEO's to take responsibiity for what happened and prevent this from happening in the future? Give them more freedom? :)
Kristian2403 2 years ago
All these banks that would go broke have good assets and bad assets. the good one will remain and some other bank would buy them or a new bank would arise and thos ebad deals would go bad anyway. i don't think there's anything too big to fail. Soviet Union wasn't.:)
I think that CEo's should give away all their property and practicly would pay it back for rest of their lives. Don't think I'm mean, this is their responsibility. Actually they should, by law, do so.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Yes they have good and bad assets, but most of them are bad, but banks don't agree that they are, so they will not accept the price that other banks might offer. If you bought a flat in Tallinn for 1.6 million EEK, but now it's worth only 1.2 million - that's a bad asset. But will you sell it now for 1.2 million? ;) What if CEO's under the law have not done anything wrong? I mean who knew this would happen? All they were doing is making money and profit - this is not illegal.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I mean, if they had nothing to do with bad decisions, if it's not in their responsibility's area, they don't pay for it, but those who had to do with this and are responsbile for that, must pay. They got huges wages, that were apropriate to their responsibility, now let them have the responsibilty they got payed for.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I think bad decision was to give people easy and cheap credit, especially to those who couldn't affrod it. When you want to buy a house you shouldn't be able to get 100% or 125% mortgage so easy. I think it is risky and based on the assumption that prices will always go up. In the UK prices went up a lot due to high demand until it became too expensive (housing bubble) and unaffrodable and then everything collapsed.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
That's what happens, when banks lack responsibility. When the bankers have no responsibility. ofcourse you shouldn't loan to someone, who can't pay it back. it's bad for everyone, mostly for yourself. But bankers themselves should be responsible for more.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Yes, banks forgot about responsible lending and were giving loans to everyone so people could buy houses that they can't afford or spend money they could not afford to spend. This practice probably led to their huge profits and obviously bonuses and governments for a while also looked good as they could say that people's lives got much better. More people own their homes and so on, but in reality it was just living on the borrowed time, now is payback time. :)
Kristian2403 2 years ago
You're absolutely right, but not all borrowers have problems with paying back. Those who had some savings as well, have a easy life now.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Yes, not all borrowers have suffered, but those who were working in building industry I think are suffering a lot. And there are a lot of people in Tallinn who worked in building, they used to get a lot of money and took alot of loans to buy houses and cars and now there are no jobs and can't pay the loans. I don't blame them. I guess the problem was the housing boom in Estonia. I can't believe that some of those old soviet flats could cost 100,000 euro or more. This is just inflated price.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
This is what's making these scams so easy. If it comes out, the government will bail you out. But this must not happen. It's yet another state intervention to free market. What bring us in this mess isn't too little state intervention, but too vast one. And higher taxation represses everybody, not just wealthy ones. I think that state should be as thin as possible and have as low taxes as possible. This is what gives that state flexibility in hardship and growth at good times.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, In the UK the government had to give money to the banks to inject cash into the economy to ease credit crunch and in some cases that meant buying their shares and therefore nationalizing it. It had to be done to save banking system! If it collapsed everything would go. A lot of companies depend on short-term bank loans. I am sure you wouldn't be happy if you couldn't take money out from your account cause the banks went bust.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I talk you about Austrian economis system. it's main point is, that recession is not the desease, but the cure and the desease is inflated and boomed economy that must let the air out. What UK and USA have done so far, is that they have bought all shit together, with people's money and save the banks, that did horrible descisions. And I'm pretty much sure, that the banking system will collapse anyway, now it's just going to be harder, as inflation comes in.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I'll be honest I am not familiar with Austrian economics system. :) I am not saying the recession is the disease. Everyone agrees that what we have now is a period of adjustment. My point was that the credit crunch and recession is avoidable. If financial institutions are regulated properly then we should have a stable long-term growth. the UK have done the right thing - you cannot allow collapse of the banking system even if it means having to use taxpayers money.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I know one system from past that had no economical collapses. And it was Soviet Union. But just as well it had slow growth.
And I think that banks have to go broke and people will have to lose their money. One may say that we must save banks to restore trust on market. but I don't trust thos ebanks that almost went broke and now states saved them. What has changed in them? Mostly nothing. When they would collapse, then those untrustable banks would go down and stronger ones would remain.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, actually the Soviet system was not too bad at all in a sense that life was less stressful I guess. I recently watched a programme on tv about East Germany and women for example said that it was better for them then because of the benefits an the respect that they had then. :) The problem was political freedom and obviously private business. You couldn't have that in Soviet Union. Slow stable growth is what we need, and growth in real economy, not fuelled by credit money.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I think that Soviet system was good in healthcare and education, but deffinately on economicalscale. You say the problem was lack of private businesses, but private, free market, business is what is behind all booms and busts. And if you have them, you have bigger growth, but more unstable one. And actually, I think that credit money is a brilliant invetion. it's one of the most important pillars of economy. if you coul donly use money you have in the moment, manby big things would not be born.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Soviet system I guess suffered from bad management, plus it was not really consumption orientated. To this day I have no clue how it worked. :) I believe you can have a free market economy with private businesses and no boom and busts if the government manages the economy very carefully and anticipates the future problems. I don't actually blame the banks for crisis. I blame the government for not seeing this coming. As I said befiore lack of supervision and regulation.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, I do not agree that people have to lose their money. Why should they??? If a person has been saving money for 30 years and kept it in the bank, why should he lose it?? In the UK the government guaranteed all deposits up to 50 thousand pounds if i am not mistaken and it's the right thing. I did not hear anything about saving ebanks, but here in the UK the government helped Lloyds TSB and I trust this bank more then any other. In long term taxpayer should get their moeny back.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
They have to lose their money, because they made bad risk assestments. they took too big risks and now other people should buy them up? it's biggest unfairness, ever. I actuall ythink that small depositors should be saved.
let's take parex bank for example, i don't trust them. DO I trust AIG? No.
And in long-term, taxpayers are going to pay it back. These bailout were done with money taken from the future. the higher taxes are yet coming. The inflation is coming (a hidden tax infact).
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Those who made wrong choices should lose their money and they did. Look at Lehmann Brothers, they went bust. I am talking about ordinary people with deposits in the banks. Why should they lose their money? About bailout, what happened is that the taxpayer bought the bank, so we shouldn't lose in long-term. Another thing is when government is borrowing money to finance public spending then taxes will have to go up in the future, but in Estonia this shouldn't happen as government cut spending. :)
Kristian2403 2 years ago
ohh, yeah, Estonia has done mostly right. not increased expenditures, but reduced them, thou should have been cutted more. Low public debt etc. Totally agree on that. Thou taxationlevel in Estonia is too high.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, in certain ways Estonia has done right, but on the other hand I do not believe it is right to cut spending where it is necessary, like education or healthcare. Estonia should have saved some money during good times to be able to avoid budget cuts. What will happen now is more people in public sector will lose their jobs and make crisis in Estonia worse.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I think that education is one of the few things every country should be involved and this relly shouldn't be cutted at all. but about Estonia, we actualyl saved money in past, should have been saved more, but it's enough, but the problem is, we can't use them. We need to keep budget deficit under 3% of GDP, if we want to get euro by 2011, if we fail in doin git, we would get it by fastest in 2013. But we can't use reserves, we have to cut, cut, cut.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Actually, Estonian budget deficit is one of the smallest in Europe. Only Finland and Cyprus (not sure) have smaller ones. But as others already have euro or they don't want it, they can spend how much they want. And what's worst, probably we are not able to cut enough, so we still can't get euro, but we have cutted some important things, we shouldn't have cutted. That's stupidity.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Saving bankingsystem and printing more money has one advantage, it shows that you are doing something and voters want to see action. But actually, in economicmodel I imagine, there is nothing a state can or should do. But if you want to remain in power for next election and maybe return once back, you need to do something, even bad things.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Well, what you are taliking about is quantitative easing which is printing money but this is printing money to prevent deflation. It is not printing money to help the government finance its deficit. ;) What i didn't agree with is a reduction of VAT from 17.5% to 15%. That will definitely have no effect. but otherwise the monetary policy should work. What do you suggest just sit and do nothing? I'd rather print money if it helps the economy. :)
Kristian2403 2 years ago
But the thing is, printing money doesn't help the economy, it just seems like that for awhile. And I don't see much difference between quantitative easing and pure money printing. To the market, more money comes in and prices will rise.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, printing money doesn't help when government has no money, but can't cut it's budget - this leads to weaker currency and therefore higher prices (inflation), especially on imports. Quantitative easing is a bit different, it's when the Central bank of the country wants to give money to the banks who struggle for liquidity, so that they can start lending money to the businesses. This kind of printing money should't lead to inflation, but should help prevent depression.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
Every central banks mission is to keep the ammount of money in circulation stable. indeed the money wasn't moving, but the money existed, it wasn't moving. And when one day this "closed" money starts moving, prices will skyrocket. Maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, but the simple fact is, the more money in circulation, the higher prices.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Yes central banks do control supply of money in the economy to help keep inflation at a stable rates. One thing all central banks do not want though is a deflation. When there is a risk of deflation, they increase supply of money and reduce interest rates so people borrow and spend more and thus stimulate consumption, which again in my opinion will result in recession and risk of deflation. :) Which means in my opinion we should avoid rapid expansion of easy credit and be very careful with it.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
Yes, and quantitative easing is just a form of easy credit to banks.
And actually, it might be useful to create inflation. Loans taken in this currency becomes cheaper. And private owned centralbank, like in USA may have a threat of them wanting to print more money. As they could use the full value of these currencies, while every other step, it becomes cheaper.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
I am not economist, but I think high inflation is not good, especially if it is caused by currency devaluation. Quantitative easing should only provide extra money to the banks so they can recapitalize and start lending again, especially to businesses. It should not cause high inflation. I do not see any reason for America to print any more money - their interest rates are very low, trade deficit is huge as well as budget deficit. This is enough to cause currency devaluation.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
Many banks SHOULD go bust. Many people will HAVE TO go broke, they made wrong decisions, some got scammed, but we can't and musn't save them all. And ofcourse I wouldn't be happy if I can't take my money out o fbank, that that's why I keep my property mainly in shares, gold and real estate and this money I have is in many different banks to reduce the impact of sudden crisis. ofcourse many people don't do so, but they should.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr, as for taxation, I am talking about the income tax for ordinary people. It is currently fixed at 22% in Estonia. I believe the income tax should be progressive - increase as your income increases - and should start from as little as 10% for people on low income and go up to 35%-40% for people who earn, say 100k kroon per month or more. I believe this is the right way. If you like low taxes so much then do like Russia and inroduce fixed 13% income tax. :)
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I think that progressive taxation is even worse then just high taxation. Because when a person earnes more, they will anyway pay more taxes and if you put even higher tax on them, they will leave. Russia has done everything right with 13% fixed income tax. Atleast compared to many others. including Estonia, we have one of highest taxationrates in Europe. This is really bad, atleast I think. And yes, rich people may start leaving to other countries with lower taxes, like they've always done.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Well, you could say the whole idea of taxation is bad. ;) I mean why should we pay tax? Yes, I know people on higher incomes will pay more anyway, but I think they should pay more percentgage wise as well to help those ones who earn little. I know it's not really fair, but I think this is the only way to achieve a high standards of living for everyone, by that I mean good housing, healthcare, education, low crime. But the key of course is to find the right balance for taxation.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
Actually I do think that we don't need taxes at all. But our sosciety would not remain standing if we would lose taxation and through this all states and authorities. I think that a flat tax is the closest we can get to a fair taxation. I leave you the opportunity to have a different oppinion.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
xxxrrrxxxrrr,you said it yourself that without taxes our society wouldn't be able to function. When i was younger I also didn't like progressive taxation but as I get older I find it more acceptable. If we can have a prosperous society where poor people or people on low income can have a decent living standard and all children can get decent education etc. If this all is possible with flat tax rate then i will support it, but i guess that would mean more taxes elswehere or more stealth taxataion
Kristian2403 2 years ago
i think, that many countries have taken too much responsibility from their people. it's not state's mission to give them all jobs and things they want, it's peole's own will to work that drives th eeconomy. Countries must create infrastructure and good economicconditions for private companies to grow and create more jobs and bring more wealth to the country.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
I agree it's the business that drives the economy and creates jobs, but at the same time the government is also a very big employer that gives people jobs - public sector. Whilst government should create good economic conditions it should also be managing these conditions in such a way to support long-term growth and prevent boom and bust.. Government also must look after the unemployed, which is not the case in Estonia. The tax is high, but the benefit is low. Where does the money go?
Kristian2403 2 years ago
The more you tax people, the less they earn and the less they will pay taxes, that's where the money goes. it's just never made.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
How did you work that out? If the government raises taxes now, then I have no choice but to pay it, but I will not affect how much I earn. I will just have less money left to spend after I paid tax. I don't mind paying higher tax as long as I can have a decent life and maybe my friends who earn less than me or have no job can get better life because I pay more tax. I prefer this then to have poor people who will kill me and take my money. :)
Kristian2403 2 years ago
When tax people more, they have less to spend and less to INVEST. This is what stops the growth. And if there is more investments, it will lead to more jobs, higher wages and higher standard of living. ofcourse there will be som epoo rpeople, probably more then in an socialist country, but on the other hand, there is alo tmore rich people. And what's actually the main problem of socialspendings, is the more you spend, the more dependent these people become. And the laziers they become
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Well, I do not believe that ordinary people invest so much, unless they are businessman. And what kind of invstment are you talking about? With regards to spending, I think we have been spending too much anyway thanks to loans. This spending led to overproduction and inflation (housing market). Now people run out of credit money and production decreases, people lose jobs and star saving. :) When banks gave a lot of loans they put too much money into the economy. :))
Kristian2403 2 years ago
Regarding social welfare I can only say what I said before is that I prefer social-economic system like in Finland or Sweden then, for example the US. Yes, some people become dependent, but this is the case not only in socialist countries, but in the US too there are a lot of people who depend on the state, black people for example, but their quality of life is worse and crime is worse. I think a normal person wih education and skills will always prefer to work, then to ask for state help.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
I mean look even at Estonian property market. It has been growing so fast, the prices for some Estonian houses are just incredible. Why? Because of easy credit. People stopped saving, but started borrowing to buy new car, new tv, new home, go on holiday etc. Now banks don't give mortgages so easy to people and prices are falling as fast as they once grew. Some people find their home is now worth less then what they paid for it and if they sell it now they will still owe money to the bank.
Kristian2403 2 years ago
And what is your proposal to end this unfairness?
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Well, looks like they have good ideas, so what's wrong with Keskerakond? I don't follow Estonian politics much, but people I know many support Keskerakond. Can someone explain?
Kristian2403 3 years ago 2
well - they have great populistic ideas on paper most of the time. There is no other party in Estonia who has so much criminal connectivity as in Keskerakond (so called "center" party ).
For starters go balticbusnessnews (.) com and type in the search for: Ivo Parbus. Then start from article 8.12.2008 and read the related articles.. - but this is just TINY part of the corruption. Its open secret that ONLY thanks to our city gov (center party) the Centre Market mafia can operate
WaffaDrunker 2 years ago
LOL. yea Ivo Parbus was arrested, but hes in freedom now, because the whole thing was a fiction by KAPO.
Isn't that a little suspicious that Tsahkna was impeached after the elections and the people from Keskerakond were arrested before the elections and released after the elections (Parbus a little before them).
Yeah and I'm not going to talk 'bout Tsahkna and such ****s.Look in the mirror and then come to talk 'bout corruption.
gara2021 2 years ago
WaffaDrunker,
Thanks for your reply and explanations. Maybe i'll do that when I have some time after playing this"Juhi nagu Ansip" game . )))))))
Kristian2403 2 years ago
pane p6lema end kommar!
rwiho 3 years ago
Ma küll valiks.
feardot 3 years ago
Kriisiaja süü. Reformikatel oli lihtsalt ebaõnn, et sellisel ajal nad riigikokku said. Kriisi ajal ei saa midagi teha, peab kokku hoidma, minu arust, on nad seda hästi teinud.
ahty123 2 years ago 2
Paremini kui mõni teine riik, aga siiski mitte enam kui rahuldavalt. Eesti riik on selgelt paksem kui varem, kui meie majandus oli sama suur kui praegu. paratamtult peame me veel kärpima, oleks pidanud kärpima juba eelmise aasta algul.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
Ega ongi, hingelt eestlased ei langeks kunagi nii madalale, et oma häält keskerakonnale annaks!
Traktor77 3 years ago 3
keskerakonda ikka ei valiks..sorry olen eestlane ;)
pulse792 4 years ago 7
jah aga midagi nad ei teeks et seda raha tuleks millega saaks nii teha - NII PALJU RAHA POLE JU!!!!!! võimatud inimesed...
lilgreenfreaky 4 years ago
Hmm, aga kas see polnud mitte Reformierakond kes lubas Eesti 5 rikkama riigi hulka viia? Aga kus see on? Mina näen ainult majanduskriisi ja mitu korda kõrgemaid makse. Muidugi pole nii palju raha, kui reformikate jaoks jääb 50000 krooni palka LIIGA väheks, no jumala eest..niigi need rotid saavad maksumaksjate arvelt miljoneid. Hämmastav, kuidas neil veel üldse pooldajaid saab olla...
getumusike 3 years ago
Arvestades kõiki alternatiive, pole reformierakond üldse kõige kehvem valik =P
xxxrrrxxxrrr 2 years ago
keegi ei vali keskerakonda
eesti91 5 years ago
tra see jumala perses reklamm hui valite keskerakonna
tapamasin776 5 years ago
ma ei vali keskerakonda
takishi1945 5 years ago