Dit is ongezien: @mboudry gooit een bom in @deafspraaktv. Hij bewijst dat van de zogeheten VRT-studie over wat mensen denken niet alles mocht worden gepubliceerd… Met name de data over de herkomst mochten niet worden bekendgemaakt.
Een staande schande.
Beleggers moeten straks belasting betalen over papieren winst. Deze week stemt de Kamer over het nieuwe box 3-stelsel.
@MPHoogeveen legt uit waarom dit fundamenteel verkeerd uitpakt 👇
Sir, your comments about “Flemish nationalist PM De Wever's sympathy toward Russia” are slanderous and defamatory. Unlike you, I know these people, I have spent time with them, having been their candidate in the French-speaking part of the country. De Wever and co. have a mixture of contempt and hatred for the Russian regime. But that does not justify sabotaging Belgium, reducing it to financial slavery to Russia for 100 years — while changing nothing at the end of the war in Ukraine. Bart De Wever's sympathy lies with the country of which he is Prime Minister. Something that has become difficult to understand for the bureaucratic creatures who gorge themselves on public money without ever being accountable to anyone.
Monsieur, vos propos 'Flemish nationalist PM De Wever's sympathy toward Russia' sont calomnieux et diffamatoires. Contrairement ) vous, je connais ces gens, je les ai fréquentés, pour avoir été leur candidat dans la partie francophone du pays. De Wever and co. ont pour le régime russe un mélange de mépris et de haine. Mais cela ne justifie pas de saborder la Belgique, de la réduire en esclavage financier à l’égard de la Russie pour 100 ans — tout en ne changeant *rien* à l’issue de la guerre en Ukraine. La "sympathie" de Bart De Wever va en l'occurrence au pays dont il est le Premier ministre. Ce qui est devenu difficile à comprendre pour les créatures bureaucratiques qui se gavent d’argent public en ne rendant jamais de compte à personne.
Meneer, uw uitspraak ‘Flemish nationalist PM De Wever's sympathy toward Russia’ is lasterlijk en smadelijk. In tegenstelling tot u ken ik deze mensen, ik heb met hen omgegaan, omdat ik hun kandidaat was in het Franstalige deel van het land. De Wever en co. koesteren een mengeling van minachting en haat voor het Russische regime. Maar dat rechtvaardigt niet dat ze België te gronde richten, het voor 100 jaar financieel tot slaaf maken van Rusland – en tegelijkertijd niets veranderen aan de uitkomst van de oorlog in Oekraïne. De sympathie van Bart De Wever gaat uit naar het land waarvan hij premier is: iets wat moeilijk te begrijpen is voor de bureaucratische wezens die zich volproppen met publiek geld zonder ooit verantwoording af te leggen aan iemand.
The #Euroclear issue needs some extra explaining for our non-Belgian friends I think. Here are my five cents👇👇👇
I've been advocating since years during interviews in different media outlets to have a structural financial support for #Ukraine . Such a multi-annual financial guarantee is essential to uphold the will to fight of the Ukrainian people and is the only real proof that Europeans (and once upon a time also Americans) are ready and serious about the issue. Unfortunately, such a guarantee has never come.
The idea of seizing #Euroclear assets is already on the table since the end of 2022. So it is nothing new. And the fact that such an action is a "bad good idea" is not new either. I explained why this is a "bad good idea" on this medium a couple of weeks ago: https://t.co/I3pc7zPXLY
The "cavalier seul" initiative from the Commission and the lack of coordination with member states, and especially Belgium, has brought us into the position that we know today. A stalemate and a divided EU and NATO. It has become a shitshow were we Europeans, whatever the outcome, will loose.
If in the end the assets will be used, it is a clear sign that EU/European countries are not ready to go all the way in supporting Ukraine. Using the assets is therefore also a sign of weakness and lack of unity. It also symbolises the non-comprehension of the situation where we, whether we like it or not, are at war with Russia. And war is like being pregnant, you cannot be a little bit pregnant. Once at war, you must go all out. But most Europeans are not ready for that. It also explains the much commented declaration of the French Chief of Defence two weeks ago.
What most people also do not understand is that using the seized assets is also the most expensive solution, especially if you pretend to protect the rule of law. Russia will not disappear from the map. Fines will come, as is already the case for Luxembourg for example. Experts familiar with the subject talk about a fine as big as the seized assets which would bring us up to a cost of € 300 billion. Even spread among EU members, this is still a whole lot of money (1,5% of EU GDP if everybody pays!), that can better be used to support Ukraine or later support the reconstruction.
An EU loan would be the ideal solution and a strong message to Russia. But that is politically impossible which also sends an image of weakness, ready to be exploited by our adversaries. It would however be the real sign of solidarity with Ukraine and less costly than seizing Russian Euroclear assets. But EU nor NATO will bring such a solution. The lack of unanimity makes it impossible. And this lack of unanimity is exploited to the fullest by our adversaries.
The next best thing are therefore loans given by the individual states of the "Coalition of the Willing", if they are still willing! It was at a certain moment on the list, but it disappeared apparently. It will also be less costly than seizing assets in the end. And whether we like it or not, when using the Euroclear assets, the questions for new loans will be again on the table within a year.
The Belgian Prime Ministers position is therefore a correct one that I fully support. Using these Euroclear assets will weaken Europe in the end structurally which will make support to Ukraine for European countries even more difficult.
In Parliament, I responded to questions about our country’s position regarding Euroclear. Many false insinuations are being spread to put pressure on us, but our conditions are reasonable and constructive. We are not going to burden ourselves with irresponsible risks.
Triomphe de Bart De Wever avant-hier soir aux Grandes conférences catholiques. Son mépris pour von der Leyen est désormais sans borne. Le soutien du public à son refus du vol des assets russes en Belgique par VDL et Kaja Paljas était unanime. On a rarement vu public belge aussi enflammé.
Bart De Wever heeft een triomf behaald tijdens de Grote Katholieke Conferenties. Zijn minachting voor Von der Leyen is nu grenzeloos. Het publiek steunde unaniem zijn weigering om toe te staan dat VDL en Kaja Paljas Russische activa in België zouden stelen.
The only politician who today acts in Europe’s long term interest is Belgian PM Bart De Wever.
If EU wants to show it is serious, each country should pledge UKR funding from its own budget.
However: using your own voters’ money is harder than confiscating someone else’s.
WHY YOU’RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY ON STOCKS THIS DECADE!
Legendary investor Howard Marks puts it bluntly:
“When you buy the S&P 500 at a 23x P/E, your 10-yr annualized return has always fallen between +2% and –2%, IN EVERY CASE, EVERY CASE.”
Today the market sits at a 25x P/E. Add inflation… and your “returns” are negative.
So what’s Marks doing? Buying bonds!
During the 2000–2002 crash:
- Long-term Treasuries: +40–45%
- NASDAQ: –78%
History doesn’t repeat perfectly, but it rhymes.
We might only be in the first inning of the next pullback.
I’m already reallocating heavily into long-term bond ETFs like $TLT and $ZFL.TO, and I think they’ll outperform for years.
Please, @grantshapps, let’s avoid spreading misinformation. Accuracy matters especially on issues of such importance. @FT@Bart_DeWever message was clear: Belgium will not back the EU’s plan to seize and repurpose Russian assets unless the entire mechanism is fundamentally reworked.
Other leaders were reluctant to assume the level of risk-sharing Belgium was asking for. Yet De Wever’s position, is less about realism. The EU’s proposed scheme to turn frozen Russian funds into collateral for loans carries serious legal and financial risks. It looks clever on paper, but dangerously familiar-like the complex financial products that fueled the 2008 crisis.
De Wever’s demand is simple & fair: if Belgium is to be part of this, the risks must be shared. Not just the risk of litigation-almost inevitable if an international court rules the plan illegal-but also the risk of retaliation. He recalls what happened to Google, when Russia seized $100 million after YouTube blocked several of its broadcasters.
This is not the first time Europe has tried to solve a political problem with financial engineering. When real risk-sharing becomes politically uncomfortable, there’s always a temptation to design another “creative” mechanism, hoping complexity will blur accountability.
So De Wever’s intervention was a call for clarity, legality, and shared responsibility.
🔥 One of the most LEGENDARY lines from President Trump’s speech at the UN
“I ended SEVEN wars ... I never even received a phone call from the UN offering to help...”
“These are the two things I got from the United Nations: a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter. Thank you very much.”
Just ordered my copy of The Trader’s Handbook from @traderlion 📘
Can’t wait to level up my trading system with proven setups, risk rules, and real trade examples.
If you're serious about trading, grab your copy here:
👉 https://t.co/m28bh0VWXl
#TradersHandbook