We're Sick Of The Lot Of You: Disgusted Voters Give All Three 'out Of Touch' Party Leaders The Worst Poll Ratings In History

[Traktion]

It is indeed an amazing scam:

Persuade us to compete ferociously with each other to buy little bits of our own country by borrowing into existence ever increasing amounts of money at interest.

Use the media to goad us to ridiculous levels of enthusiasm for the scam.

Package up our dodgy mortgage debt and sell it in tranches to our own pension funds.

Threaten to collapse the whole financial system unless we stump up some of our tax money to keep the scam going.

It seems so obvious that giving control of the money supply to a commercial cartel leads to debt slavery.

They saw the danger in 1844 and passed the Bank Charter Act to outlaw the commercial printing of paper banknotes.

We now desperately need an equivalent Act of Parliament for our modern electronic money system.

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk

As the state is in bed with the bankers, I'd rather have a solution that required neither.

Free market money and credit are the only sane solutions to the problem.

[The Spaniard]

As the state is in bed with the bankers, I'd rather have a solution that required neither.

Free market money and credit are the only sane solutions to the problem.

Given the existence of a (preferably small) state, it seems reasonable, efficient, and arguably necessary, to have a national (state) currency.

Provided that it is issued publicly and debt-free and is exclusively acceptable for the payment of taxes (necessary income for the state apparatus) it can function very well, at very little cost to its user base, as the ubiquitous, default, vanilla medium of exchange.

By all means have multiple complementary currencies, credit contracts between informed, consenting parties etc. Why not? Let the national currency be one among many, if that is what people want.

However, assuming of course that the debt-free national currency is well managed, issued responsibly and transparently etc., I doubt that any complementary currency could compete successfully as a general medium of exchange.

If, as I think you want, there is no state, then there can be no 'state currency' and we have nothing to discuss.

[Traktion]

Given the existence of a (preferably small) state, it seems reasonable, efficient, and arguably necessary, to have a national (state) currency.

Provided that it is issued publicly and debt-free and is exclusively acceptable for the payment of taxes (necessary income for the state apparatus) it can function very well, at very little cost to its user base, as the ubiquitous, default, vanilla medium of exchange.

By all means have multiple complementary currencies, credit contracts between informed, consenting parties etc. Why not? Let the national currency be one among many, if that is what people want.

However, assuming of course that the debt-free national currency is well managed, issued responsibly and transparently etc., I doubt that any complementary currency could compete successfully as a general medium of exchange.

Considering the current state of the state backed monetary system, why on earth would you assume that?

Then consider that when the state gets it wrong, we're all punished with their stupidity, do you not think that is a rather large risk to take?

Fiat currencies have failed time and time again. States print too much, borrow too much, spend too much until the citizens are impoverished. Hey, maybe this time, this super squeaky clean small state of yours will be different... I'd not hold my breath though.

It should be obvious by now that we don't need a single money. Money switches between USD, GBP, EUR, gold, silver, bitcoin and pretty much anything which can be traded. In a free market, those which are the most predictable and steady and the safest to store value in. That doesn't mean there needs to be only one, other than for convenience - banks do exchanges on the fly already and digital wallets will do it even better, with costs decreasing to vanishingly small amounts.

If the most successful currencies all try to meet the same goal of stability, the exchange risk between them will be kept as small as they are successful. Not only does this mean that stability is the selling point, it also means that there is space for even more stable competitors.

Ultimately, money is just something of value which is easily swapped. It can be used to extinguish promises/debts or traded for other stuff directly (including other assets usually used as money).

There is nothing magical about money and there is certainly no reason to only have one type, only managed by the state. The only reason they argue for this, is so that they can track what everyone is spending money on, ensure that tax is paid and the citizens are kept under control.

If, as I think you want, there is no state, then there can be no 'state currency' and we have nothing to discuss.

I'd like to hear your justification as to why the state needs to be involved in money at all and why it is in our interest. Perhaps you would rather debate that?

[Game_Over]

Considering the current state of the state backed monetary system, why on earth would you assume that?

Then consider that when the state gets it wrong, we're all punished with their stupidity, do you not think that is a rather large risk to take?

Fiat currencies have failed time and time again. States print too much, borrow too much, spend too much until the citizens are impoverished. Hey, maybe this time, this super squeaky clean small state of yours will be different... I'd not hold my breath though.

It should be obvious by now that we don't need a single money. Money switches between USD, GBP, EUR, gold, silver, bitcoin and pretty much anything which can be traded. In a free market, those which are the most predictable and steady and the safest to store value in. That doesn't mean there needs to be only one, other than for convenience - banks do exchanges on the fly already and digital wallets will do it even better, with costs decreasing to vanishingly small amounts.

If the most successful currencies all try to meet the same goal of stability, the exchange risk between them will be kept as small as they are successful. Not only does this mean that stability is the selling point, it also means that there is space for even more stable competitors.

Ultimately, money is just something of value which is easily swapped. It can be used to extinguish promises/debts or traded for other stuff directly (including other assets usually used as money).

There is nothing magical about money and there is certainly no reason to only have one type, only managed by the state. The only reason they argue for this, is so that they can track what everyone is spending money on, ensure that tax is paid and the citizens are kept under control.

I'd like to hear your justification as to why the state needs to be involved in money at all and why it is in our interest. Perhaps you would rather debate that?

He's absolutely right - you cannot have money without some form of state

You can have barter - but not money.

Your ideas would work if we went back to hunter gathering but this would require the eradication of 95%+ of the current human population.

Plus when we were hunter gatherers interpersonal / intertribal violence was endemic.

[Game_Over]

After the establishment woke up and directed a ferocious campaign to keep the status quo..

According to the Bolshevik Broadcasting Coropration the vote was neck and neck

Then it turns out that only a handful of extreme left wing constituencies voted for the idea.

If it was that easy to manipulate public opinion we would be given a vote on the EU

[Traktion]

He's absolutely right - you cannot have money without some form of state

You can have barter - but not money.

Your ideas would work if we went back to hunter gathering but this would require the eradication of 95%+ of the current human population.

Plus when we were hunter gatherers interpersonal / intertribal violence was endemic.

That's nonsense.

Money is barter.

Money is just stuff, which can be swapped for other stuff. The most popular swapped stuff, becomes what is commonly used as money.

In a cashless system, what is used as money becomes increasingly irrelevant too. Stuff can be converted from one type to another automatically. This is obvious, when using your debit/credit card outside of the country - you can still use ATMs, pay at shops and so forth. Here in NI, you can even spend both sterling or euro cash in many shops.

Digital wallets will make this easier too. You would likely just hold the most stable money on the market, but could switch to any other without doing a thing - it will just convert on the fly, at far lower rates than using credit/debit cards.

This is already happening around us. Gold, silver, bitcoin, ven, even facebook credits, are already changing what people consider money. Given you read this forum, I'm rather surprised that you are oblivious to this happening, TBH!

Edited April 3, 2012 by Traktion

[the shaping machine]

The other fantasy (if I may, before I have to return to my cell) would be proper democracy, whereby the people elect their representatives, the representatives choose their leader, and the leader chooses their management team. The political colour of the House would reflect that of the voters, while the political direction of the country would be less subject to violent swerves for short term advantage.

Why bother with having expensive corrupt "representatives" at all?

Just let the civil service run things as they do now, and have a small board of trustees (seconded from local councils) to keep an eye on things.

When laws need to be changed, organise a referendum.

[KingBingo]

We need a Monetary Reform Party in Government. Its the only way things will change.

Nationwide quarterly representational house price series: 1952-2010

This Has to STOP. The Banks, the monopoly of land, and our Corrupt Monetary System is a Cancer on us all.

Subsequent Tory and Labour Governmnets have destroyed us.

Houses in the 1930's were only about twice a man's annual salary, and buyers had more money to put down as a deposit, generally about 25%.

The average life of a mortgage was about 8 years - not because it was transferred to another property, but because it was settled early.

Imagine that.

Your home paid off after 8 years. Then you could begin actually living.

The only hope the 'Priced out' have is that there has never been a bubble that did not burst.

Never.

But thats what they are trying to create now. And they will keep trying. Over and Over.

We need to get rid of Parliament. The Tories and Labour are Traitors. And instead of protecting our interests they have sold us down the river like slaves.

They have a definite political and economic objective, which involves making us all serfs again.

For the banks, the property bubble is a huge money-creation bonanza. For the government, it is a valuable source of revenue, as stamp duty and capital gains tax roll in, and inheritance tax thresholds fail to keep up with grossly inflated house prices.

Between 1960 and 2006, UK mortgage borrowing rose from £3,350 million to more than £1 trillion.

Because banks flooded our money supply with counterfeit money as debt. This should never have been allowed to happen.

Our Government is our enemy. Im sick to death of the entire system. Its destroyed us.

The Banks should have been liquidated, after a short stint of nationalisation. The greatest threat to people in this country is allowing Banks to privatise profits but pass losses back on to the taxpayer

The bastards in parliament should genuinely be impeached, and imprisoned.

Not to mention the fact that all those debt-soaked property 'owners' are obligingly taking on, at their own risk and expense, money supply duties which should be shouldered by a public authority.

Include QE, which is nothing more than a secret tax on us all. If you print Billions to get a multiplier effect, supposedly to boost growth, but if fails, or if that money is hoarded by Banks, and the richest 1%, then all you have done is effectively tax people into oblivion. And no doubt, that was the plan all along. To feed the parasite and not the host.

Where the F*ck were our media in this? They should have been screaming the truth at us. [Oh yeh, theyre owned by the 1%]

I agree with this bit 100%

Capitalism failed, [or worked perfectly, if youre in the 1%] Woohee, here comes Feudalism again/

This bit however is ********. What we have today is fascism, not capitalism.

[the shaping machine]

...banning political parties, so that all politicians are independents, would go a long way to restoring some sort of sense to our political processes.

In my more cynical moments, I do wonder whether the regular "cash for influence" scandals are part of a longer-term campaign for state party funding, with the goal of locking the current 2.5 parties in power for eternity.

Sadly the turnout of the AV referendum makes me think most people don't think too hard about these broader issues.

Although I personally felt AV was a small step in the right direction, I can see why most people rejected what was in the end little more than a token change.

Edited April 3, 2012 by the shaping machine

[oracle]

I agree with this bit 100%

This bit however is ********. What we have today is fascism, not capitalism.

indeed.corporate fascism.

...and if it is left to metastacise and turn into the type of corporate fascism that hitler was fond of(ie production line babies,snoop culture and so on) it WILL end up the same way.

...on steroids.

it must be stopped NOW.

the politicians won't do it,they're bought and paid for.

the system needs an enema.....flush the poisonous little dregs of lawyers,bankers,paid for judiciary,corporate execs and politicians out of the system.

those who attempt to escape should be subject to their own snooping inventions.

..ie global e-bounty hunt.

[Wahoo]

It will be interesting to see if 'twatter' or 'offyerfacebook' etc enables a ground swell against party politics in the next election.

[billybong]

.

Edited April 4, 2012 by billybong

[Vagabond]

We're Sick Of The Lot Of You: Disgusted Voters Give All Three 'out Of Touch' Party Leaders The Worst Poll Ratings In History

And then promptly vote for them. Again.

Fool me once etc. Even without our currently, awful, system there are still the means to vote out poor candidates. The fact people don't so this just gets them that government they oh so deserve.

I've said before. With todays technology, there is no reason at all* why we couldn't have some sort of direct democracy and actually vote on the larger issues as and when.

* - Well, apart from the obvious reason of course.

[fluffy666]

And then promptly vote for them. Again.

Fool me once etc. Even without our currently, awful, system there are still the means to vote out poor candidates. The fact people don't so this just gets them that government they oh so deserve.

I've said before. With todays technology, there is no reason at all* why we couldn't have some sort of direct democracy and actually vote on the larger issues as and when.

* - Well, apart from the obvious reason of course.

If you look at the percentage of the population who actually cast a vote for the current government..

[Parkwell]

Exactly, and don't forget that a third of people didn't even vote to start with.

[tahoma]

Short version, people are tired of seeing hard work punished, and the feckless rewarded with the spoils.

Also, having successive governments that are clearly hell-bent on destroying the most successful cultural and legal system in the history of mankind - the fifth column state funded broadcaster, 'media', 'intellectual' and 'educator' classes cheerleading all the way - is unlikely to be popular.

Back to basics folks. Low taxes, small state and defend the f*cking borders from those who would be perfectly happy to turn this country into whatever backward hell-hole they scurried in from.

Edit: I've said it before, I'll say it again. We are one charismatic leader away from things turning very, very nasty indeed.

Edited April 4, 2012 by tahoma