Personal Responsibility 2: The IRS and Home Buyers
Perhaps personal responsibility is not a good topic for discussion. After all, ridiculing one side of an argument will draw out its detractors...but how do you get a discussion going where everyone is at fault?
While reading the following artice about first time home buyers, I had another huh?! moment.
I am always inclined to point out the government's shadiness and utter contempt for everything sensical, but in this case I have to wonder about first time home buyers, as well.
Since I read this article I spoke to 8 people who took advantage of the first time home buyer credit. They were all in an uproar. Nobody had a clue that they would have to pay the credit back.
A $7,500 credit is far less impressive when you have to pay it back at a $500/year * 15 year clip. Dare I even mention inflationary effects?
On the the other hand, how stupid do you have to be not to read the fine print? Or just look up the meaning of credit?
In the case of my 8 examples, all are college or better educated and make good money.
One's even a real estate broker?!
...
On the other side of the coin, the IRS does it's best impression of blind air traffic controller. Apparently, those who took advantage of a similar tax credit in 2009 and 2010 will not have to pay anything back.
This idiotic situation is just another reminder to you younger guys of the hidden expenses of owning a home. The process has become so convoluted and twisted that buying a home on credit has become more trouble than it is worth.
This sad, stupid story is a great sign of our times. Nobody knows who's ordering, nobody knows who's picking up the tab...but the drinks keep on rolling in.
So who do you guys think is in the wrong here?
Who is more responsible for the slop around housing, in other words?
The dimwits taking free money and expecting not to pay it back?
or
The dimwits enabling them to continue being dimwits?
The saga continues...
have you seen that michael moore movie about the housing collapse?
while the retardedness of michael moore is a whole other topic of discussion. he tries to get the audience's sympathy card by showing people saying 'they just took my house and put me on the street and now i have no home'... yeah no shit, you didn't pay your bills for your house NOR did you contact your bank and ask to take part in several of the options to help you keep your home and pay less.
I actually think Moore is the most brilliant propagandist since Joseph Goebbels and uses many of his tactics on screen. What that says about him personally...I'll let others debate that point.
As to your film reference, the thing that pisses me off is that you actually have to be on the unpaid bill track to get options. If you are (for example) a hardworking honest single mom working two jobs after your husband died and left you with the house and car notes to pay...your options are dick.
But let me not start ranting about everything that's fucked up with relation to housing, I'll be here a while.
Not sure I agree with that - mostly because Goebbels was hugely fucking successful, while Michael Moore, at least in Europe, is entertaining rather than believable. Which is kind of funny, considering that you (americans) see us (europeans) as a bunch of commies.
I got the first time homebuyer's tax credit last year when I bought land for construction. The rules were so convoluted that my CPA mistakenly approved me of the tax credit when I wasn't actually allowed to take it (construction had to be finished by June 1, 2010). So when I sell my property in the next few months I will have to pay back the $8,000.
As far as the $7,500, how stupid do people have to be? That was well publicized information. They should be shot for taking $7,500 and not understanding that they had to pay it back.
This is America, buddy. That's what you get for being a capitalist!
The government tax system is created to steal money from the taxpayer. Think about it, I prepared basic taxes and that was not the easiest thing ever. I tried to do my father's taxes once, and he would have vastly overpaid because of the complicated nature of his capital structure. People who don't have a CPA will generally overpay, maybe get an IRS redemption and then think, "Wow, I just got free $$$$" and go and spend it, giving more money to the government through sales tax. With inflation the $ is also worth marginally less than before. The government is trying to get money to waste on inane programs rather than just doing what they need to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
Anybody else think sales tax is one of the biggest scams of all time? Midas or Edmundo should write an article about this.
Glad I didn't buy a home (and don't intend to for quite a while)...
love the first tag to this post, btw.
Home buyers shouldn't bitch if all the terms and conditions are laid out for them and they were too lazy to read and understand them.
On the other hand, has anybody done a deep analysis of home buying vs. renting? There are benefits to both sides of the coin and a lot is dependent on different variables.
I took the credit in 09 on my home.
My brother is a Moore-loving communist, public-school teaching b*tch. He's letting me crash at his house next week for 3 days. So that's cool.
Moore is a scumbag. Most Socialists are.
Government should not be in the business of promoting behavior. Get rid of all deductions and tax credits. Stop trying to manipulate social activity. Something with child tax credits.
Hey... don't knock Michael Moore. While I hope he rots in hell, he made one contribution to society... He directed Canadian Bacon with the late John Candy.
Well - you've got a point on that. Goebbels was reviled everywhere after the war - and even during that he was reviled out of Germany. But then, germans were his "target market" and in there he was incredibly successful.
Regarding my impression of how europeans percieve Moore - I admit that it may be sample bias, because most people I speak with are college kids (not necessarily in economics or finance). And even though he receives lare publicity and fanfare (celebrities are stupid - whether they speak english fluently or not; and a crowd of 1000 fans in venice may mean that you have 10 million fans in Italy - but it may also mean that you have 2000 very fanatical ones) my perception is that he receives far less attention among the "lower" status people.
(funny side note: there is small minority of communist leaning kids in Milan who distribute leaflets at universities to whoever is willing to take them. After refusing to take one, I got a stupid smile and "You are not a comrade?". I sort of refrained from snarling "No, I was born and grew up in an ex communist country,you ditz!" Meh.)
Guess it depends, Moore's the darling of the liberal intellectual, read idiot elite here in the states. As for commies on campus that's a global phenomenon, where else are you going to catch vain fools but in schools full of youthful egotism and stupidity?
Btw, what's your take on North vs. Central vs. South Italy in terms of where they stand on the political spectrum. Who leans more in which direction?
Eh, I was educated in the north - and I am somewhat biased against southern Italy (not as much the right-wing formerly separatist northern party which is currently "allied" with Berlusconi and holds him hostage with its votes), so take my words with a pinch of salt.
My take is that there is not a clear divide on the capitalism/socialism issue between south and north - the situation is sort of murkier than in the US (amusing, for such a small country).
In general, there is a HUGE entitlement culture in the south - corruption, organized crime and mingling between mafia, politicians and business. To give a basic example, in Sicily there is 1 public manager per 8 public workers. In Lombardy and the rest of the north that's 1:15 - 1:23. And we've got far fewer public workers relative to total population in the north.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that right and left don't have their economic polcies aligned in the usual way: the most "capitalist" reforms over the last 10 years were done by the left during its brief government in 06-08. The "right" usually defends the guilds - the professional orders of lawyiers, pharmacists, accountants and so on. The "left" defends unions - which are historically left leaning (but there are big outliers with catholic unions and unions which are aligned with the northern party).
So the real test is: if a goverment (any) started to seriously introduce free market reforms, who would squeal the loudest?
I would say the south - but only because they are more used to grabbing money from the government via political power and votes. But believe me, the guilds in the central and northern regions will grumble too - only more silently.
I am still looking with envy at the UK - they introduced MASSIVE cuts over the last 6 months and were able to sell them very well to the voters. Of course, a lot of people are still complaining, but it's nothing compared to the fuss that France threw up over 2 more years in pensionable age. Now, you may say that this is the classical angosaxon vs continental divide - but if you look at germany (very visible right now) and some eastern european countries such as the baltic states (less visible, but an interesting case study), they have gotten the austerity measures down pretty well. Kind of makes me think that the biggest cultural mess is in Italy, France, Spain and Ireland. (I don't know the portoguese and greek mentality well enough to include them in that list).
Good points. In my view they are essentially a form of market socialism, if you will. Business is acceptable, but the politics and power completely centralized. Interesting that the separatists have Silvio by the stones. Tell me, what are their territorial ambitions on secession? Are they trying to carve out a piece of land or is it more of just a power play?
My theory is that like a few little Nazi client states here and there in the backwoods of Europe, Italy's never really quite faced punitive measures for their activities in WWs 1&2. As a result "sit there, be quiet and host American aircraft carriers" has carried them through without any forced reforms.
Anyone who recalls how weak the Lira was in relation to the stronger European currencies (pre-monetary union), however, should be able to see where my line of thinking is headed.
The cultural debate's an interesting one. I think Italy's definitely as bad as the places you mentioned if not worse. As far as the Greeks they take the cake and the Portuguese are not far behind...or in front, depending on how you look at it.
I can't help but to look at themes like these and reiterate that I think the EU was doomed to failure at inception. What do you think about that notion? Europeans have a tendency to be mum on the subject whenever I bring it up.
warning: excessively long post. Read only if really interested in Italy and the EU
Nah, Lega Nord is no longer interested in secession. Let me say this: their comments (especially in the past) have been completely inane and idiotic - but on a personal level, their leader(s) are anything but stupid. At some point they realized that their public squaking was able to raise awareness and attention, but they have more to gain by staying in the system and just pushing the edges. Right now, their ploy is fiscal federalism - that is, every region has the right to raise taxes and keep them (and accordingly, receive no more money from the central government). This will of course cause the collaps of several southern regions, because they have been long subsidized by the north. (Which has caused even some anti-south politicians/intellectuals to say "wait a second, that's a little bit too brusque - it makes sense from the point of view of justice, but from practical point of view if we don't introduce real reforms in the south before the fiscal federalism, we are just going to have half a country default - and be forced to bail them out"). So the Lega Nord is just using its power to keep pushing Silvio for trying the fiscal federism again (it failed last time in parliament), and is not afraid of calling anticipated elections - it knows that it's the only possible winner. (they don't have majority by any stretch, but they are the only growing party).
(I know that you are probably liking the portrait I am painting, but hold your horses - I've seen them sinking to appalling levels of intellectual and political dishonesty).
As for Italian culture...what can I say? Italy has never been a nation of fighters. Some would say it's never been a nation at all - regional cultural differences, not just between north and south, have festered for 150 years, and it seems that what unifies them is food and la bella vita, rather then patriotic pride. The real problem of Italy is that the elder generations have an abnormal level of power (the only young politicians are member of Silvio's harem), and those generations - left or right leaning - do whatever they can to keep power in their paws.
Over the last 20 years, the general populace has sunk when it comes to general culture and education - it's a commong joke that the greatest tools in Silvio's arsenal are the reality shows on TV. The "5 million club" - those people who get their news from multiple sources, and use newspapers rather than tv news, are voting overwhelmingly against him. But a lot of them have sort of given up and just try to fend for themselves and their family. 80% of the kids in my university want to go and live abroad.
I enjoy making fun of the french as much as anyone else, and they share a lot of this culture - but at least they have this fierce interpersonal competition and give opportunities to the young. This gives them a slight edge over Italy, when it comes to culture.
Regarding the EU - that's a complex issue. I am got to put my foot down and state a priori that I identify myself as an european more than anything else - and that I support the EU even though I am very critical and realistic about its shortcomings. I'd probably prefer to spend some time to gather and present my thoughts on the topic in general, so I am just going to briefly go over a couple of topics here.
First of all - EU as political and EU as economic integration. The original meaning of the community was simply to prevent more wars on a continent which has seen almost 2000 years of constant warfare. Let that sink for a moment. In this, the union has certainly succeeded - conflict is unthinkable.
As a free trade area, the union has succeeded too (although there is still work to be done, and some of it even low hanging) - companies and the economy benefit a lot from having an almost unified area bigger than the us in population and gdp. It's less harmonized than the us, but it's 100x better than it used to be.
So the choice is whether to stop here or not. I've studied intra-EU lobbying, and the diplomatic and intellectual efforts to have achieved this, and to have moved to monetary union are incredible - props to all the non elected technocrats and elected pro-european leaders. I think they have done quite the good job.
I think that if you move towards monetary union, you have to go the whole way to fiscal union. A middle way point only brings destruction - as we can clearly see. By the way, Krugman (probably one of those liberals you despise the most) has had an axe to bear with the EU precisely because of this - and his is quite happy about the sovereign crisis. You can't have monetary union without at least some sort of fiscal union - or at least, tight rules on fiscal responsibility. The original plan of the technocrats, who realized that they were already stretching their authority too much, was to wait for a small crisis to mollify the resolve of nationalist parties and push a little bit more for integration. What they didn't see coming was of course the massive mess which started in the US and two-three years later risks putting 3-4 member states in default. Which, amusingly, gave the Germans enough political power to start pushing reforms down our throats - although I am not sure they are pushing the potentially most effective reforms.
So, given the enormous risk and difficulty of further integration, why am I supporting more of it? Three reasons.
1) Geopolitics. It's undeniable that the relative power of the US over the rest of the world is declining. And quite frankly, China makes me edgy, especially after the events of this year. Russia is not too dangerous: they have a demographic bomb which will destroy them in 20-30 years. Europe has been relying on the US to set its foreign policy for 60 years - it has a lot of untapped potential for unification and exercize of global power. Granted, it's never ever going to be a military power intervening all over the world - but this is not what it should aim for. Rather, it has to defend its interests.
2) Local politics are disruptive. If you take a look at italy's economic reforms and liberalizations, 80% of them come from EU directives. Local politicians would have never allowed it to happen, fighting for the status quo. EU has dragged them kicking and screaming into a slightly more free and open economy.
3) Simple pride. Ok, sorry. I've been very unemotional and objective so far - but I have a sort of european pride about our history. I hate to see the european states divided and bickering the way they were. It makes me afraid that on the long run, they will follow the fate of the city states in Greece, the city states of Renaissance Italy and the regions of the holy roman empire. I don't want to see europe americanized, or chinafied, or arabified. I want to see some european pride - we bloody fucking created the global post medieval world civilization, goddamit - while still seeing local cultures preserved. (after all, italian food really IS the best of the world :D )
Again, I apologize for the long post - but I'd rather write this then the next chapter of my thesis.
No need to apologize, you make some good (though biased by inexperience) points. I don't want to argue with you or try to detract you from your ideals, but I do want to bring up a few "other side of the coin" issues you may not be considering with regards to the EU.
1) Geopolitics. The prevalent issue facing Europe, (much like it was between 600-800 years ago) is the Islamic invasion, so to speak. Wherein more than half a million ago it was done with the sword, today it is done with the Petrodollar. Though it is a slow process, European (read Christian) culture is slowly but surely taking a back seat to Islam (and in all fairness, market oriented neosocialism) and the shifting population graphics are a huge issue. Also, to add to this point and address a huge error on your part, Islamic influence had a huge role to play in the breakup and denominations of the former Yugoslavia. The EU's ineptitude at policing its own backyard actually aided to that conflict coming about in the first place. What remained was NATO (read, the U.S.) coming in to clean up the mess, demilitarize the region and enforce the protocols of the Hague. I am loathe to believe that the EU has shown any evidence of being able to quell aggression of any sort within its "borders".
2) Local politics are disruptive. Reread that sentence. It is the precise reason why Americans look at Europeans as being "commies". Local politics=free republics or democracies, if you are more comfortable with that term. A centralized government is the death of free thought and expression, because it not only urges but forces an intellectual and ideological migration to intellectual and cultural centers. As for "kicking and screaming into a free and more open economy". Well...if I am a Bulgarian sheep farmer, how does a "free and more open economy" entice me to join a market and a currency where I am paying the same prices as the German industrialist? Remember, the strong arm can only hold it's grip for so long. I am willing to accept that you are not a communist, if you are able to be honest with yourself and recognize some of the highly centralist (i.e. totalitarian) notions in your point.
3) Simple pride. You see, this comment gives me both hope and makes me feel like hope should be abandoned. Why? Well, you mention "European pride". You also mention being from a former communist country, correct? Then you must be well versed in the history of the "2 Europes", correct? It is a fallacy that these "2 Europes" had a common history, past and faith. This is precisely why (IMHO) today's European intellectual elite attempts to "de-Christianize" Europe. The problem with this is that by killing of a millennium-plus old cultural ideology, you leave an undefined populace. Less than a hundred years ago, under (big surprise) the leadership of Germany, England and France the mission of Europe was to create states out of tribal groups. Let's not get into the demographics of the eastern Hapsburg monarchy at the outset of the 19th century and how many of those identities were (forcefully, like the EU of today) co-opted.
I am not going to spend too much time on this topic. But I would like to suggest you expand your readings on these subjects. If you truly love Europe and European history (but more importantly European survival) you may (seriously) want to consider the point that the unification of Europe serves nobody but its richest and most powerful people. I would argue that for the prosperity of Europeans as a whole, decentralization and strong local governments and nationalistic beliefs are the answer.
Naturally, this notion is the polar opposite of the globalism so proudly preached in today's Germanized Europe. Just some things for you to consider...
Frabjous,
Really interesting insight. I'd like you to expand on a few points.
First, you mention that the EU has brought military stability to a region thats constantly been at war for two millenia. Are you sure that this is the result of the EU's political structure, or could it have something to do with American occupation and rebuilding after WWII, plus the constant presence of the American military on the continent since?
Second, you also mention that America's global influence is declining. Why do you think this to be the case?
Really enjoyed your comments in this thread thus far.
Hmm, that's a very fair point - and a nice challenge I don't usually get from people I duscuss with in Europe.
I think that it is fair to say that NATO, rather than the american bases coming with it, certainly played a huge role by making all the militaries work together. Even more importantly was the mindset that we are all allied against the soviets.
Looking at the long term, the last 200 years of that 2000 year history have had fewer and bloodier conflicts involving (usually) France + Germany (or its predecessors) and the UK (when it couldn't avoid it). But we must not forget the several less visible conflicts, such as the italian states vs austria, the conflict in easter europe before the communist era and so on.
The european community made it impossible for France and Germany to wage war right from the beginning of the fifties, but putting the steel and carbon industries under common control. You can't fight if you can't control the base of your war machine.
I think that this, and the Pax Americana started the "engine of peace", but it is the EU and economic integration which mantains it. By now, we have had 3-4 generations growing up and thinking of europe as "their place", freely moving in other countries for education and work. Even if the nato were to vanish, even if there was no common external threat, it would be next to impossible for us to contemplate an agressive action against one of our neighboors - we are simply way too linked. We are that sort of litigious and diversified bunch of cousins who would bicker to death over a pie, but still come together to decide on when to harvest the next crop. (silly analogy, I know).
Hell, I identify myself more with other students from other european universities which are partners with mine, rather than other italian universities.
Regarding the America's global influence - I know less about the US than about the EU. But to steal a model from a blog I once read (don't remember the name, but a google should find it),
Influence = Capability x Interest x Will
Capability is simply power. The strong type, or the soft type. You have buttloads of the first type, and that combined with the economic inluence used to created buttloads of the second type. But your will has been declining - you've suffered some nasty prolonged fights in vietnam and the middle east - the voting public no longer has the stomach for expensive fights. I mean, even the republican voting people gasp when the dead count rises by a mere hundred or thousand. (I am not trying to be a prick - I am just saying that a thousand people more compared to, say, the korean war - which was way briefer - that's nothing).
But that's not too bad - a couple of big scares, or a major conflict, and the will should go up. In the meanwhile, your interest payments and deficits (which you are doing almost nothing about - you seem to lack the political will to actually touch defense and social programs) are cutting space for meaningul defense investments. (Disclaimer: I think that you can cut down defense AND increase power. I know it sounds like a paradox, but if you retool the purpose of your military from global local occupation to global rapid intervention, and, oh let's say triple the expense in R&D - that should be more effective than making XX new destroyers and X new aircraft carriers).
When you couple this with the raising capablity AND will AND interest of China, the raising soft capability AND will AND interest of Brazil, and how they get along well, the declining capability of Japan and the stagnant, if not decreasing Europe (historical allies) - you definitely have less global power than 15 years ago.
I am not saying that you are losing, or anything - you will still have enough power to curbstomp any nation over the next 20 or so years and still be untouchable. But everyone can see that the US can no longer afford to play the global rule maker.
I don't know...a lot of this is mental too. For 100 years the US has been the place to go - the place where everything is possible, where people believe in their state, the place which always grows. Nowadays, if I want to live in a dynamic envirnoment unoppressed by debt and an overload of institutions, I would seriously consider Brazil first - for all the problems and inefficiencies it has. Most importantly, brazilians and chinese (brrr) believe that they CAN do and SHOULD do more.
I was going to write another long reply, but I actually stumbled on this thread, which has quite a few VERY good posts (to which you didn't reply, so it is possible that you did not read them). http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/what-is-going-on-with-europe
So, the short responce is:
1) Yugoslavia's problems had far more to do with a history of revenge, ethnic identity and people fanning the flames of hate, than religion. I have yet to witness large scale muslim-caused problems in western europe countries, where people have been living next to each other for decades/centuries. Do I think that sometimes christians are too apologetic? A little bit. Do I dislike the isolation of the islamic communities? Definitely. I apply the same judgement to the chinese communities. Am I afraid of an islamic invasion? Meh...not too much.
2) There will never be an ideological and intellectual center in Europe. Ever. That was possible in the US - you started from 13 colonies, and no matter the regional differences, are one nation. Europeans will never surrender national identities - which is ok. I am not asking for that, nor do I think it is desirable. I am asking them to get together on a table more, and be more willing to issue common resolutions to problems, instead of running around like headless chickens, everyone getting a locally optimal solution which results in a regionaly bad solution.
As for the bulgarian farmer - I am not sure I am interpreting the comment correctly, but if you are saying that prices in bulgaria are getting up to match the german ones - that is not so. The european price levels are still widely varied, but on an average adequate to the purchasing power.
3) Two europes over 50 years? I think that it's a fallacy to assume that 50 years of recent history cancels 2000 years of common roots. And given the fact that I don't subscribe to your fear of islamic cultural armageddon, I don't see how a bunch of divided states are stronger than a bunch of independend states with a common economic and foreign policy.
By the way, I REALLY appreciate this discussion. This forum gets irritating to read at times, because of the knee jerk reaction against anything that isn't the "dog eat dog, we are ballers, usa for the win and everyone different is a pussy" ideology. And regardin europe, I find it funny how everyone picks the worst elements (something that I can do as easily with America) and pounds on them, at the same time refusing to admit that not all europeans are fucking commies and that in some of those states the standards of life are hey - pretty good.
Go back and look over that thread, my comment's one of the first.
As far as your comments, (though I do appreciate their attempt at earnestness) you still resort to the typical Euro pseudo-intellectual issue avoidance, I like to refer to as "the ostrich syndrome".
Namely, 1) I brought up the issue of Yugoslavia to refute your point that the EU has proven its ability to police its own region. This former country is today's Europe's #1 import/export location for: heroin, islamic fundamentalists and sex slaves. As far as Muslims not making large scale problems in Europe, I am guessing you have never heard of Madrid or Paris? Or does your comment only refer to the last few weeks?
2) The ideological and especially the intellectual center of Europe for the past 4 to 5 hundred years has been Vienna. You really ought to do more reading on the subject. It is also foolish to discount the value of the Vatican in European affairs over the last millennium, including today. As far as my Bulgarian shepherd it is an analogy as much as it is a literal example. Countries which are still largely agrarian and non-mechanized have neither the economies of scale nor the skilled workforce to compliment their more advanced and wealthy "neighbors". What results is a form a serfdom, where banking credits replace actual binding to land.
3) 2000 of joint cultural history? Are you sure you're from Europe? Everything south and east of Austria was under Ottoman rule until 200 years ago. Previous to the Islamic invasions this part of Europe (alongside Russia) belonged to the Byzantine Empire. Reiterating again why you need to read about the Great Schism of 1054, as the hairline fracture of the argument. With Islam's foray into Europe and with Russia's great cultural, religious, ideological and linguistic differences from WESTERN Europe you can even make the case for three...not just two different Europes.
To make it clear, I understand where you are coming from in your notions. I am just not quite sure you understand the individual identities of European tribes (a much better word for what they actually are than "states" or "nations") and their proven inability to NOT coexist over the millennium(s).
Sigh.
When did I ever assert that Europe has proven its ability to police its region? Find the phrase. You just assumed I said it, and your brought the example of Yugoslavia. Yeah, the Yugoslavia region is a hotbed of crime. So is Mexico.
I am not sure why you are so focused on Vienna. Sure, it peaked about a century ago - it had a few decades of intense cultural strength. I am not sure whether you get the idea that it's been the european center for 400 years. I start to wonder what books you are reading - you flaunt your superior knowledge, but the assertions you make are quite dubious.
As for the bulgarian shepard - you must really disagree with Ricardo.
No, the muslim population has not caused any societal problems in western countries. Sure, you can fling around the muslim extremist acts around - but at the end, the vast, vast majority of muslims are more worried about providing an income to their family than about the downfall of the west. The same way in which the vast majority of christians are compassionate and good people - except those occasional nuts who want to shoot whoever doesn't bow before jesus christ and ayn rand.
Yes, yes, cultural and religious divides, wars, different kingdoms etc etc. We are linked by a history of violence and difference as much as we are linked by a history of common religion or culture. What you are not getting is that the intra-european differences pale when compared to the differences between europeans and nations from the other continents. Things like basic respect to human rights, fairness and a desire for peace.
And yes - you replied in the beginning of that thread. Then you got some very tough answers from a couple of european guys and never replied back.
I am not ignorant of the european history. You just can't accept that an informed person doesn't subscribe to your interpretation of the facts. Sorry, but we don't share the same ideology - and your is not necessarily absolutely right.
Sunt et cumque voluptatem nemo id. Ratione omnis distinctio quia fuga. Aut tempora nihil qui. Error dolore quod optio enim.
Nisi laboriosam illo rem dolorem maiores sit. Aliquam necessitatibus at amet sunt tempore. Necessitatibus et optio natus. Enim magnam tempora ea sed dolor similique. Harum accusamus vitae voluptates ut qui. Accusamus asperiores beatae earum qui minus eveniet omnis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Occaecati voluptate voluptas id at quasi expedita numquam et. Sit maxime voluptas neque nihil. Sint aut veritatis quod mollitia quasi.
Aut fugiat qui illo asperiores dolores. Voluptatem et expedita perspiciatis. Molestiae tempore harum quibusdam voluptatem. Dolores provident vero magnam rerum quidem at molestiae. Veniam sunt eligendi rem sit architecto voluptas. Ut animi unde placeat voluptatem eveniet officia. Sunt dicta facere animi aperiam. Odio velit minima voluptatem quia reprehenderit.
Atque facere ut quis. Distinctio aliquam similique voluptatem eaque id nihil aspernatur. Dicta harum accusantium animi deleniti. Dolorum voluptatem ut distinctio a repudiandae ut.
Labore doloremque ut possimus laborum. Rerum modi saepe impedit architecto eius explicabo. Placeat sapiente deleniti quod esse impedit. Incidunt perferendis magnam rerum omnis error. Eos assumenda quia aspernatur ipsum ut accusantium dolor et. Excepturi sint alias in in rerum placeat. Accusantium et aliquam voluptatum possimus animi ut nulla.