it is because it is compounded ,, i figured it at annual interest payment.. if you take your principle and immediately add the interest you have increased your principle by that amount.. a hundred euro becomes 104 Euro..
to demonstrate the effect if you are paying off the mortgage on your house in say 15 years,, making a monthly payment,, if you split the payment in half paying the loan 1/2 on the 1st and the other 1/2 on the 15th.. remember you are paying exactly the same amount each month,, instead of taking 15 years to pay the loan it will take you only 13 1/2 years to pay it back.. If your payment was say $1,000. (no Euro sign) you would be saving your self $18,000. in payments.. not a bad piece of pocket change you ask me.. Does that help you understand they power of money if used intelligently and effectively? Allan RP could you see a company that simply made house payments?? they pay you once a month and you pay the Bankster 2X a month?? On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:19 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Again , Allan , I don't see how 100 euros grow so astronomically at a > simple rate of interest of 4% ? > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay I have been doing a lot of thinking ... well I am sure there are > > enough good ideas that can radically change the world.. Oddly I really > do > > not think it will take massive amounts,, but it will take some funds > and I > > have a lot of faith in our group to be able to develop workable ideas.. > > Now to put my money with my mouth is even though I do not have massive > > amounts of money I can easily contribute 100 Euro to commit to a fund to > > change the world.. I do not know if others are willing to develop a > world > > improvement fund. as I know this discussion will go one for years after > we > > are gone I could for see it still in existence 500 onward.. > > there needs to be unchangeable able rules like > > The principle can not be spent.. > > No more than 20 % of the income can be spent on fund administration. > > 20 % of the income generated must be added to the principle every year, > (or > > more often) > > How the 60 % well .. some types of projects just do not make nor are > meant > > to make money just for the improvement of society some where.. > > Now there is even a small amount of money available. > > We need to discuss how to set it up maybe I have it all confused,, > anyways > > I will send the money to where it is decided to set up the funds,, > There is > > one hundred Euro available sitting in a tin behind me.. If others do > > contribute it should be in amounts of their own currency and to an amount > > that will not cause harm to them or thier families... as once the money > is > > gone it is gone and can not be expect to have it returned. > > If we set it up and develop it correctly in five hundred years that 100 > > Euros will have a value if it grows at a simple 4% of: > > 32,860,158,157.oo Euro > > 32 billion is an amount that can have some on going effects to improve > > society.. It is called putting your money where your mouth is.. The > > question is who wants to run it.. I am not able to Vam? Molly? Neil? > Chris? > > Rigsy? hmmm > > Allan > > > > > > > > Because > > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Ah, Rigs... that isn't as tragic... as the fact that Cheats are Elites > >> and Elites are Thieves ! > >> > >> On Oct 24, 2:23 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Machines/technology are replacing human labor. Children might do > >> > better being educated via computer and leave socialization to play > >> > groups and sports. The military can effect as much damage via remote > >> > control. But- will women return to being stay-at-home moms/homemakers > >> > thus freeing up what jobs remain for the men? I doubt it - it has > >> > become an ego/security matter for Western women. There will always be > >> > cheats and thieves, Archytas, who cause as much monetary losses as the > >> > "elites"- it's all relative, depending on the number of zeros. > >> > > >> > On Oct 24, 1:37 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > There was philosophy once called logical positivism. \\it's people > >> > > were well-intentioned, like Russell and Carnap. If you have a few > >> > > hours to spare I could explain its basics - in the end it got so > >> > > concerned with words they were all that was left. Strangely it was > >> > > accused of being crude in its use of brute fact. > >> > > >> > > The problem as I see it is that we want democracy but have not > found a > >> > > way to accept its biggest flaw - that of decisions made through the > >> > > sway of ignorance, and further problems with the corruption of > >> > > representatives. Attempts at a fix of this in perfection are doomed > >> > > or the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. > >> > > >> > > One might try to produce communication free of ideology and this let > >> > > Reason alone have power (Habermas) - but as far as I can see this > >> > > never works - and Habermas only suggests his 'ideal speech > situation' > >> > > as an ideal type (following Weber). > >> > > >> > > The best positive I can reach is that we could change our material > >> > > conditions to produce less discontent. To get to an understanding > of > >> > > this we need to agree on some basic facts - and the move towards > these > >> > > is critical. People as old as Orn and myself can remember when it > was > >> > > possible for most in the West to get somewhere near this because > there > >> > > were plenty of well paid jobs about. Oversimplifying a lot this is > >> > > not now the case and we need to establish what the new conditions > are. > >> > > >> > > Productivity is vastly enhanced from the times in which our work > >> > > ethics arose. My guess is we could get by quite nicely on a 30hr > >> > > working week and a 40 week year with retirement at 60 whilst > >> > > increasing current production. I am only guessing, but the reason I > >> > > have to guess is odd. Why don't we know? There are perhaps a dozen > >> > > vital areas like this to which we have no accepted answers. > >> > > >> > > The positive moves are all about establishing facts and the first of > >> > > these has to be an explanation of why we are so bad at this and > >> > > whether new technology can help break the 'spell'. Here, the > paradox > >> > > is we need the technology to start working to this end with most > >> > > people not able to understand why and an existing situation in which > >> > > dominant education and media will try to pervert any attempts. > >> > > >> > > Many are discussing these issues in great detail. I'm sure a few of > >> > > us could put a '101' together from Internet sources. Semiotics is a > >> > > key discipline in the critique (Michael Betancourt), as is > >> > > environmental science (as opposed to the Kymer Vert) and most > >> > > economics that you don't get on Fox and the increasingly dumb BBC > >> > > (Steve Keen) One can even argue the Tea Party and OccupyX have > >> > > similar protest issues. You can get a radical smear of this on the > >> > > Keiser Report (courtesy on Russia Today). > >> > > >> > > The aim is already worked out - a return to economies with a link > >> > > between toil (labour value) and reward and money in people's hands, > >> > > not hoarded by an elite or subject to their looting- and meaningful > >> > > democracy. > > > > > > -- > > ( > > ) > > |_D Allan > > > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
