Things just keep getting rougher for average citizens in Europe. Some have faced government seizure of accounts to help fund government operations and requirements that they explain withdrawals to their banks. Now, the European Central Bank (ECB) is imposing a negative interest rate on banks for their deposits. So, you can keep your money under your mattress or put it in a bank where the bank will use it to earn money while charging you for the pleasure. This is of course the central bank which directly relates to individual banks as opposed to individual depositors. Those banks will now pay to park their money and those costs will be passed along to depositors. Banks are likely going to try to hide the fact that the interest rate is now negative through fees and other measures.
The ECB cut the rate on its deposit facility for banks from 0 percent to minus 0.10 percent. It also cut its main interest rate to from 0.25 percent to 0.15 percent as well as cutting the rate on its marginal lending facility by 35 basis points to 0.4 percent from 0.75 percent.
It is an interesting situation where banks will now be treated as solely a safe place for holding your money but you will pay for the service as a fee. Much like the airlines where aspects of what was once viewed as the basic service are being converted into fees, banks will now be treated as akin to a safety deposit box. However, unlike airlines or safety deposit boxes, the banks are making money off the deposits. It is a fundamental change in function of banks.
I have long been critical of the tax increases and measures in Europe that will likely have displacement impacts on investments and movement of citizens and businesses. In this case, I would expect people to look for alternatives from Internet banks to foreign banks.
Enjoy:
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If you have the time please read: Global Warming a Chilling Perspective
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
on 1, June 11, 2014 at 3:07 pmJim22
Bob,
The ocean has over 90% of the stored CO2. Please do more research before fueling cool aide drinkers like Annie.
*********************
Bob, my 3:53 comment to you is referencing this comment of Jim’s. Perhaps you missed it or didn’t interpret in the same way I did. Whatever.
Annie,
Come again?
Annie,
Keep drinking that kool aid. There is no point in discussing such a complex model as the Earth when there is so much junk science, politics and belief resembling religion in it. But if you think the likes of Al Gore had YOUR best interests in mind, keep on drinking.
Bob, be mindful not to wander off the plantation, paraphrasing Jim.
RTC,
I’m sorry to inform you, but responsibility necessitates an element of control.
Simply because you, a United States citizen, have a Christ like concern for the global environment it does not follow that the United States is “responsible” for the acts of China.
That’s because the United States does not “control” China; for if we did, we’d call it part of the United States.
Circle of concern
Circle of influence.
Two different things.
Please make a note of it.
RTC,
So then by your logic, the greenies are reason for bad labor practices in Asia since all of the wonderful regulations you love made it too expensive to produce here and opened a market over seas. So I agree, let’s get rid of all of the regulations.
Bob,
The ocean has over 90% of the stored CO2. Please do more research before fueling cool aide drinkers like Annie.
Annie,
How many studies do you think I can find that will have the word(s) “Could”, “might”, “not necessarily” in them debunking man made climate change? Also, the sites you linked to, where do they get their funding?
Yes Bob: We are responsible when we demand the lower and lower prices for goods and we’re told by Business that the only way to get the lowest price is by producing these jobs overseas,all the while pretending that we don’t know that the they’re doing so to evade environmental regulations here in this country along with laws covering working standards.
Now, i know the odds of you understanding the philosophical underpinnings of that are pretty good
Paul, I trust the Max Planck Institute far and above anything you may have to say on the subject.
annie – did you link to the Planck Institute?
RTC,
I had no idea that the United States is “responsible” for the green house gases released by China. Are we also “responsible” for the way they treat their labor too?
You have a unique grasp of the concept of “responsibility.”
Now I know why you’re infatuated with weasels.
Bob: you really do have trouble with reading comprehension (see NRA has blood on its hands).
II said the U.S. is responsible for most of the increase in GHGs.
It’s true. historically we have produced more within our own borders, but now we have outsourced our manufacturing to other countries to do our dirty production for us. China is creating all that pollution producing the goods we consume.
You must work for Fox News
http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=126453&CultureCode=en
Carbon dioxide could reduce crop yields.
Annie – rising temperature could increase crop production.
Jim22,
I cited the volcano to get past the childish notion that the earth is infinitely capable of handling whatever we throw at it.
Used to be that trees were our natural CO2 scrubbers. Apparently that’s not enough anymore. (Although I do believe in cutting one and planting two).
All I’m saying is there is a problem but it’s not the type of problem where “the U.S. should lead the way.”
You don’t solve the tragedy of the commons by making the United States out to be the town drunk.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html
More Carbon dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Annie,
Besides getting the percentage wrong (Her mistake of .3 vs. .03 only made what her point was stronger), what was wrong with what she said?
Bob,
Large scale instantaneous releases are not comparable to what we are doing. And do you really believe that the only two processes for removal of CO2 is it falling back or trees? If so, you need to look into it more.
RTC: “The U.S. is responsible for most of the increase in greenhouse gases, therefore we should lead the way and set an example for the rest of the world.”
And this is what I was talking about; nailing the country to the cross HOPING others will follow.
China is the biggest polluter by far; almost double what we cause.
And then there’s the European Union, Russia and India.
The United States does not own the planet; it is one of many countries jointly responsible for the problem.
Wake up from the liberal fever dream and smell the coffee.
http://youtu.be/VNk–ZXoGVY
Didn’t Bachmann say CO2 was good for us? But in what levels?
http://www.thehcf.org/emaila3.html
Greenhouse gases.
Bob: The U.S. is responsible for most of the increase in greenhouse gases, therefore we should lead the way and set an example for the rest of the world. Inasmuch as this is one of the finest places on earth, we have more to lose. There;s no sense in sticking to foolish principles.
Also, by eschewing the trade agreements that prevent us from refusing imports produced through unsustainable methods, we can require other countries to comply.
RTC – When CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas I cannot take anyone seriously.