martedì 21 marzo 2017

Primo corso in Italia sul Forensic accounting della creazione di denaro

Primo Corso "Forensic accounting e Moneta Nostra" 

Data: 22 marzo 2017 (full immersion, una giornata) 

Luogo: HOTEL PALACE DEL CONERO Via Grandi, 6, 60027 Osimo AN (VICINO USCITA A14 ANCONA SUD) tel. 071 710 8312

Docente:  Marco Saba, presidente IASSEM

Per informazioni e prenotazioni, contattare: Associazione Vie Armoniche Onlus (www.viearmoniche.eu) dolcini.m@libero.it - VIE ARMONICHE ONLUS - Largo 1 Maggio n. 11 - 60020 Agugliano (AN)
Tel . 071.9715041
cell. 328-4236513 - Manuela Dolcini

lunedì 20 marzo 2017

Incontro Moneta intera, 20 marzo 2017, e lettera

Incontro Moneta intera, 20 marzo
Lunedì, 20 marzo 2017
Ore 20:30
Sala multiuso scuole comunali
Sessa, Malcantone

Informazioni:
+41 76 201 49 08
info@moneta-intera.ch


Lettera nei tre principali giornali
Lettera di Konstantin Demeter riguardante la distribuzione degli utili della BNS, pubblicata sul Giornale del Popolo (10 marzo), sul Corriere del Ticino (11 marzo), e su La Regione Ticino, più corta (13 marzo).

"Tuttavia ci accontentiamo di distribuzioni relativamente esigue: se venisse accettata l’iniziativa Moneta intera, forse già a fine anno oggetto di votazione, otterremmo un importo ben più elevato."

domenica 5 marzo 2017

Comment les banques créent-elles de la monnaie?

BNS 2012:
 http://web.archive.org/web/20120106214318/http://www.snb.ch/f/welt/portrait/banks/4.html

"Les banques drainent les fonds d'épargne et les prêtent à des emprunteurs. En jouant ce rôle d'intermédiaires, les banques créent de la monnaie. Le mécanisme peut être expliqué à l'aide d'un exemple. Supposons qu'un épargnant dépose 20 000 francs en billets sur son compte bancaire. Ce dépôt ne modifie pas la quantité de monnaie dans l'économie. Les billets ne circulent plus, mais sont dans les coffres de la banque. Le compte de l'épargnant est crédité de 20 000 francs. (Ndr: dans la banque il y a maintenat 20 000 frans en papier et 20 000 francs en argent éléctronique, la monnaie a doublé)

Laisser l'argent inactif dans des coffres ne rapporte rien à la banque. Pourquoi ne le prêterait-elle pas contre rémunération? Un entrepreneur a besoin d'argent pour acheter du matériel informatique. Des 20 000 francs versés par l'épargnant, la banque prête 16 000 francs à l'entrepreneur et porte la somme sur le compte de celui-ci. Cette opération modifie-t-elle la masse monétaire? L'épargnant a toujours 20 000 francs sur son compte. L'entrepreneur a reçu en prêt 16 000 francs. La masse monétaire a par conséquent augmenté de 
16 000 francs. 
 (NdR: Non, maintenant à la banque il y a 56 000 francs en plus qu'au debut. 36 000 francs ont été crée par la banque.) Si l'entrepreneur acquiert pour 16 000 francs de matériel informatique et que le vendeur verse le montant reçu en billets à sa banque, celle-ci peut à nouveau en prêter une partie sous forme de crédit. La masse monétaire s'accroît à nouveau. Le processus de création monétaire se poursuit."

sabato 4 marzo 2017

Brexit: all countries could quit EU without paying a penny


Brexit: UK could quit EU without paying a penny, say Lords


The European commission headquarters in Brussels. 
The European commission headquarters in Brussels. Photograph: pbombaert/Getty Images

The UK could walk away from the European Union in 2019 without paying a penny, the House of Lords has said, in a report bound to raise tensions with Brussels in the run-up to Brexit talks.

The British government would have no legal obligation to either pay a €60bn (£52bn) Brexit bill mooted by the European commission or honour payments into the EU budget promised by the former prime minister David Cameron, according to analysis by the House of Lords EU financial affairs sub-committee.
In a report published on Saturday, the committee argues that the British government would be on strong legal ground if it chose to leave the EU without paying anything, adding that Brussels would have no realistic chance of getting any money.

The peers stress, however, that if the government wants goodwill from EU countries and a deal on access to European markets, agreement on the budget will be important.

“The UK appears to have a strong legal position in respect of the EU budget post-Brexit and this provides important context to the article 50 negotiations,” said Lady Falkner of Margravine, the Liberal Democrat peer who chairs the sub-committee.
“Even though we consider that the UK will not be legally obliged to pay into the EU budget after Brexit, the issue will be a prominent factor in withdrawal negotiations. The government will have to set the financial and political costs of making such payments against potential gains from other elements of the negotiations.”
Ingeborg Grässle, a German centre-right MEP who chairs the European parliament’s budget control committee, said she was astonished at the “really disappointing” conclusions. “It is not about the money. It is about responsibilities. The question is, do you stick to your engagements?” she told the Guardian.
Grässle, who gave evidence to the Lords committee, described their conclusion as “putting the knife on the table” and said, if taken, the approach would damage Britain’s Brexit negotiations.

“Do you start with a view to let everything go straight to the wall or do you want a result?” she asked. She suggested the UK was not taking Brexit talks seriously. “The EU feels that we have to organise a real divorce and we have to sort out the money, the kids, who gets the dog and the cat … and for the British, it is as if they are leaving a golf club,” she said.


The peers’ argument will be toxic to the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, whose staff drew up the mooted bill ranging from €55bn-€60bn (£47bn-£52bn). This covers the UK’s share of EU civil staff pensions, unpaid bills and decommissioning nuclear power plants.
Barnier is expecting the UK to pay into the EU budget in 2019 and 2020, putting the UK on the hook for payments worth £12.4bn, agreed by Cameron in 2013.
The EU’s €1tn, seven-year budget was negotiated in late 2013 by EU leaders including the British prime minister. It is due to expire at the end of 2020, although bills may be trickling in until 2023. This reflects that payments for EU-funded infrastructure projects, such as roads or airports, are not settled until two to three years after being promised.
A commission spokesperson said: “During the time of its membership, the UK has taken – and will take – financial commitments. They should be honoured in full. This will be an essential element of the negotiations on the orderly separation.”

The report is likely to cause alarm among the 2,900 British nationals who work or are retired from the EU institutions and fear their futures, including pensions, will become a political football.

Barnier is seeking to move the debate away from figures: early in the talks, he will seek to agree principles of liability with the British government, rather than presenting a bill – an approach backed by member states, who agree that the UK should pay its share.

Brussels sources acknowledge that the Brexit bill varies depending on the assumptions, with estimates ranging from €20bn to more than €70bn.
Grässle said the €60bn estimate looked reasonable when the UK’s share of EU liabilities, pensions and budget promises was taken into account.
The Brexit secretary, David Davis, has hinted that Britain may pay into the EU budget to get single market access, but large payments would be a political problem for the Conservative government. Setting out her Brexit vision last month, Theresa May said: “The days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end.”

Principles for European (Swiss ?) whistleblower legislation

Principles for European whistleblower legislation

http://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/news/principles-for-european-whistleblower-legislation/

From the Greens/EFA Transparency and Democracy Team


The need to protect whistleblowers is increasingly recognised at international, national and local level, and in many different sectors, ranging from health care, to public spending, to banking or the environment.

The European Parliament has called for EU-wide whistleblower protection on several different occasions, and the Greens/EFA group even drafted their own proposal for an EU Directive in order to push the issue forward.

Today, the European Commission has finally launched a public consultation on the issue and is conducting an impact assessment to determine whether it could, or should, propose specific legislation to protect whistleblowers.

The Greens/EFA group will prepare our own submission to the consultation based on the following key principles, which we believe should be enshrined into future whistleblower protection laws. Once our submission is ready, we will also make that public.

  1. Both public and private bodies should be obliged to protect whistleblowers: Waste, misconduct and corruption affect all sectors, and freedom of expression and freedom of information must also be protected in all sectors.

  1. Whistleblowers should be able to report on wrongdoing and reveal information that is in the public interest: Alerts should not be limited to purely illegal activities but should also cover other forms of misconduct or wrongdoing. Threats to the public interest that have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur should also be covered. Exclusive lists should be avoided, and instead indicative lists covering a wide range of examples should be put forward: environmental protection, health and safety, public finance, violations of human rights, corruption and fraud, discrimination, conflicts of interest, public safety, the functioning of the internal market, etc.

  1. Whistleblowers should be protected in all fields of EU competence: Sector-specific legislation should be avoided. For example, proposing legislation to only protect whistleblowers that report mis-spending of EU funds leaves out mis-spending of national funds, and all the other areas (environmental, social, health-related) as well.

  1. Whistleblowers should be free to report both internally and externally: We believe that whistleblowers should be protected no matter what their choice of reporting channel is. In the Greens/EFA Directive we proposed that it should be possible for whistleblowers to disclosure information either alternatively or cumulatively, and in various ways - internally within the workplace, externally to the competent authorities, parliamentarians and oversight agencies, trade unions and employers’ associations, and also to the public through the media or non-governmental organisations.

  1. Whistleblowers’ reports should be quickly and seriously investigated: Investigations into the issues raised by whistleblowers should be conducted independently and within the shortest time frame possible, protecting also the rights of individuals that might be implicated by a disclosure. Both the whistleblower and any person implicated by a disclosure should be able to provide additional arguments and evidence throughout the investigation, and they should be kept informed of the handling of the disclosure.

  1. Whistleblowers should not suffer as a result of their disclosures: Whistleblowers should be able to report information anonymously and to have their identity kept secret. They should be exempted from both criminal and civil proceedings related to the disclosure as well as from other disciplinary measures or other forms of reprisal (including dismissal, demotion, withholding of promotion, etc). They should have the possibility, wherever it fits with the national legal system, to file for interim or injunctive relief in order to prevent dismissal until the outcome of the whistleblowing case has been established.

  1. Whistleblowers should not bear the burden of proof: Whistleblowers who disclosure inaccurate information in honest error should still be protected, and they should not have to prove that they acted in good faith. The only thing that matters is whether the information they revealed was in the public interest or whether it revealed wrongdoing or other misconduct (in the case of a purely internal disclosure).

  1. There should be sanctions for harassing whistleblowers, or their family or colleagues: Those who harass whistleblowers, their family or their close colleagues as a result of a disclosure, should be held liable. The employer must be the one that demonstrates that any measures taken against a whistle-blower are completely unrelated to the information revealed. Action taken against colleagues or family members as a result of the protected disclosure should also be prohibited and sanctioned.

  1. Whistleblowers should be given advice as well as legal, financial and psychological support: Whistleblowers should have access to independent legal advice on their case and to an attorney, and they should be given psychological support and/or treatment if needed. Whistleblowers should also be able to claim compensation for any harassment suffered or the loss of current or future livelihood, if the damage occurred in retaliation for a protected disclosure. Whistleblowers, their family members or colleagues who are at risk should be protected by the State.

venerdì 3 marzo 2017

Il CEO di UBS, Ermotti, non sa come funziona la banca...

Un patto di paese per il Ticino

Se ne parla ai Conti In Tasca Questa sera, mercoledì 15 febbraio, alle 20.45

http://www.teleticino.ch/video/i-conti-in-tasca/354990/un-patto-di-paese-per-il-ticino"Un patto di paese per il Ticino" è il titolo de "I conti in tasca" che andrà in onda mercoledì 15 febbraio alle ore 20.45 su TeleTicino. Recentemente è stato pubblicato il rapporto conclusivo del tavolo di lavoro sull'economia ticinese istituito alla fine del 2015 dal Dipartimento delle finanze e dell'economia. Il rapporto propone 37 misure per favorire lo sviluppo del Cantone. Queste proposte sono raccolte sotto il cappello di cinque grandi aree tematiche che sono il Ticino imprenditoriale, il Ticino competitivo, il Ticino digitale, il Ticino interconnesso e il Ticino sostenibile. In buona sostanza si delineano alcune traiettorie di sviluppo e si indicano i comportamenti di attori privati e pubblici indispensabili per la loro realizzazione. Ma si tratta di sogni oppure di proposte fattibili? Quale è il loro orizzonte temporale? E quale dovrebbe essere l'impegno dell'ente pubblico? Inoltre esistono oggi le condizioni favorevoli per uno sforzo congiunto di partner sociali, partiti politici e opinione pubblica? Di questo discuteranno, moderati da Alfonso Tuor, il Consigliere di Stato Christian Vitta, Direttore del Dipartimento finanze ed economia, Sergio Ermotti, CEO del gruppo UBS, Renzo Ambrosetti, già Presidente nazionale del sindacato UNIA, e Sergio Rossi, Professore ordinario di macroeconomia e di economia monetaria all'Università di Friborgo.
I Conti in Tasca | 15 feb 2017 07:00

Forensic evidence: Risposta della Banca d'Italia a on. Villarosa (E-mail)