Discuss.

Impossible. 99% of money is debt/credit.

Only 2 ways to get rid of the debt.

1 Default

2 Default

Eh?

I take it that this is the Martenson-explained necessary exponential inflation of the money supply intrinsic to a fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system you are going on about here?

The total money supply in notes and coins is around £60billion, of which around £55bn is held by banks. All the other money is PC numbers and only exists on bank PC screens.

The rest is in wallets and teapots etc up and down the country.

If the banks stop giving out both types in new loans, how can anyone repay the old debts?

with guns

generally i agree with you injin, but on fiat money i dont

fiat debt based money in itself is not evil. the problem is that the market is manipulated by a central bank.

I was more thinking that you could just demonstrate to a court that repayment was impossible and BINGO, all debts canclled.

Can't contract to perform the impossible, see?

You're mistaken...

1.Default

2.Erode

3. Print your own £50 notes in your garden shed.

In theory when a bank makes a new loan, it erodes the value of all outstanding loans by the same amount.

So as a borrower - surely you should want the banks to go on a lending spree.

Also, how can fiat continue to have any value when the jokers that issue the stuff already own pretty much everything.

When a game of monopoly comes to an end, the board goes back inside the box and the monopoly money means nothing to anyone.

So here is the situation.

1) The bankers have all the money.

2) Lots of people have contracts to give the bankers money but can't because the bankers already have it.

Surely the contracts are invalid, no?

I can't contract to give you something you already possess, can I?

Sure you can. You may have gold, I contract to give you more gold, how I get it is my problem.

You dont need more loans to repay the debt. The debtors exchange their labor for cash and hand the cash back in part payment of the debt. Now if there was insufficient cash in the system to pay wages that would be a deflationary scenario, I dont see the BoE letting that happen.

Our debt system relies on ever-increasing amounts of debt/money to be borrowed into existence in order to pay off the debt that is currently owed. Even a fool can see it's unsustainable. We'll probably be reaching the mathematical limits of viability of such a system round about NOW.

Yes, by any normal measure all fiat denominated debt contracts should be frustrated. And by English common law, all frustrated contracts automatically come to an end.

No, because you are not allowed to make more money.

If it was gold, then fair enough. Fiat currency on the other hand you are not allowed to create or make yourself. The only place you can possibly get it from is a bank, and they aren't giving it out.

If they don't give it out, you cannot acquire it, and therefore you cannot possibly fulfil your contract.

If it's impossible, you aren't liable to do it and so the contract is invalid.

devalue £ then join the Euro

The problem with gold money or a gold-backed currency is that debts can't be inflated away.

That means the lending with interest is a problem as suddenly there is not enough money to repay debts....but with fiat as soon as you see money supply contracting as debts are called in, you can just try and expand the money supply - try consumers at first but if they don't spend then spend on their behalf.

This reminds me of a guy I knew years ago who would continually be in court for minor offences, and would refuse to give his name, say things like, if the procurator fiscal swears an oath to an invisible being (God) he must be mentally unstable, therefore he is not fit to bring a case etc. etc. they would just get pissed off with him and fine him even more or send him down for 30 days etc. etc. By signing the loan agreement you have agreed, under the system that prevails, to work your **** off until all the little zeros are re-paid. You have accepted the asset price, whether it be manipulated or not, and you have accepted the means of re-payment. If the coming shitstorm forces enough sheeple to default we will have an interesting situation, because you need the co-operation of the majority to run any system of law? The banks will have forseen this and may use the only real weapon at their disposal, short sharp repossesion, forcing less indebted sheeple to hang on in there with their repayments. However it seems that the system has recieved a shock of serious enough magnitude to seriously curtail the banks behaviour. Re-payment is impossible, but you won`t see courts letting people keep their arset because payment is impossible, just the banks taking possesion of all their pretty useless assets to try and keep the sheeple humble. The only solution is to just stop using credit for ANYTHING.

Would fiat exist for 5 seconds in a free market without a central bank?

If there is £5Bn in the hands of the people and you owe the bank £500,000 then it would be possible for you to get your hands on the £500,000 (if you work/thieve hard enough). I would have thought the argument would only stand a chance of holding up if you owned more money than the people collectively have.

Interesting.



No, you haven't. You've agreed to repay pound notes to the bank because they gave you pound notes. There is no contract to labour or trade or anything else - just an agreement to provide pound notes in return for having receives pound notes.



Npo, you have agreed to return pound notes. Even if you had agreed to provide some other substance such as gold, in the absence of it you must still provide pound notes to settle the debt.

I

Ignorance, more probably. The internet is causing the judiciary real problems at the moment, because any idiot can go and read the actual law they are being accused of breaking via google.



I'd agree with this prognostication. They've taken too large a bite (although the logic of the system says that they eventually must) and there is a good chance that they will be out on their ear in a few years time and something like a gold standard brought back in. (Shame really, because gold standards suck donkeys.)

There is no way that they can dispossess millions through a flimsy fraud in the age of the internet. Not a chance.

The problem is when a bank loans you some money, they aren't making 20% APR from their own money lent to you.

They just create the money out of thin air (so it costs them nothing) then they earn all the money back plus the 20% interest (or 10%, whatever amount it is). But because it was never their money in the first place that gain of 10% is actually a gain from just the service of offering money rather than sacrificing their own money.

You see money is a valuable thing and with the right investment it can give you a good return (30-50% or unlimited if your risky enough), hence why banks would rather make 30% profit by investing your money that you have deposited in a bank rather than loan out your money to others. Then for other peoples loans they just invent the money as debt.

So through this system we have two distinct winners:

1) Commercial Banks
2) Central Banks

So you can see it's fair for everyone. The only drawback is that for anyone not getting inflation busting rises in their investments and salaries they will lose real wealth which is what is happening right now. Also if commercial banks get too greedy with their issuance of debt the central banks can come to the rescue and inflate the money supply effectively stealing from everyone to save the banks and making a profit while they are at it- after all they are providing a vital service so why not make a profit

Because of the Basel regulations this exchange of labour for debt relief can be done only to a very limited degree, even in theory, and probably not at all in reality.

Suppose at time zero the bank has assets A and liabilities L and that in compliance with Basel regulations its reserves A-L are greater than one nth of its balance sheet A, say by an amount H (for headroom). BTW I think n=25 in fact.

H = A - L - A/n and H>0

Now suppose that a debtor does work for the bank and in return is effectively paid P by having debt reduced by P.

Bank assets are now A-P, its liabilities remain L, and Basel imposes that (A-P)-L > (A-P)/n

This simplifies to P<H/(1-1/n), which places an upper limit only slightly bigger than H on the permitted size of P.

In kind!

OK Injin I agree with you that credit is just numbers on a screen and that it is the collective confidence in this system that makes them real. But previously I have found it quite interesting that you could actually rescind a debt because it wasn’t real. My problem with it is how could you get a call centre monkey to realise this?

you let them chase you and ask for proof of their claims.

one of the most powerful things you can ever learn to do is ask questions in a helpful, well meaning and slightly dim witted way with people who think that you owe them something.

If this strategy works once and unreal debts are removed how likely is it that you will get any credit in future.

Very likely.

You take a different approach with the credit reference agencies.

Saying you are a dead beat when no court action has been filed, no evidence provided....libel.

So basically credit reference agencies have got libellous information about you because it hasn’t gone to court and there is no evidence to back it up. Then do Equifax et al just remove the information thus giving you back the ability to gain credit. Sorry but I’m not really brave enough to test this out empirically, guess I have been sucked into this you must keep your credit file in order or you’ll be fooked in the future!

Edit: missing N

What I did was write to them from the position I assumed there had been some mistake that needed sorting out. From that vantage point I asked for the proof that the bank in question (HSBC) had sent them so I could locate the individual responsible for maligning me in that way to pursuse action against them....

I really shouldn't have wasted my time with it. I left the system completely. I don't have a bank account, credit card or any of that shit these days and am much better for it.

II you are employed, employers will always want to pay you with BACS so it difficult to circumvent the banking system completely.

I've had the discussion before about being paid with legal tender. Basically you can opt to get paid in cash by insisting upon it but it will probably cause more trouble than it's worth for most people.

As it happens I was self employed at the time and am now shacked up with my stash, my food and a few other bits and bobs for a bit and just do a few bits and bobs for people I know and trust to pay the last remaining bill I have - the food. Now is probably the best time in history to be taking time off. We'll never see this level of affluence, peace or social order again in my lifetime I would imagine and as the state is about to catastrophically fail, I can't see there being pensions for the boomers etc either.

Head down, feet up etc etc before the fun starts, you know it makes sense.

Over the next few years people will realise what is important and these are basic human needs not all the fluff that surrounds it. I have been saying this to colleagues at work for the months, but no one listens.

but guns are illegal

we dont have the right to defend ourselves in this country.

Only handguns. Rifles and shot guns are still available. If you want a machine gun you will probably have to make your own. www.homegunsmith.com

if you send me your body sizes in cms please, Ill be happy to make you a bespoke sandwich board.

I have a nice range of standard "the end is nigh" boards, but, for you, you can have whatever you like

I'll take a cheese and ham please. (Oh, and lettuce!)

What does it matter?

You may as well ask, how can the oceans ever be full if a lot of the water is in the sky and flowing down the rivers.

To ask such a question is to have a very confused, faulty concept of credit.

The banking system of technologies and services are NOT at fault. The fault is at the money source - government. I wish people would focus and not just say stupid things like banks create money out of thin air and try to have sex with your grandfather.

Banks do create money out of thin air.

Or rather, they let their customers create money out of thin air and then lie to them about the procedure.

No they don't. Banks borrow money and they lend money.

No they don't.

Banks do two thionsg -

1) Accept deposits.

2) Accept promissory notes that access credit with the central bank.

The two are not related, save in the ratio that the banks need to keep some fiat currency on hand to maintain the myth that they are.

When you walk into a bank and take out a "loan" then you sign a promissory note. All modern money is unbacked, so you have promised to provide promises to provide promises in exchange for promises. The second that the form is signed, the bank adds that amount to their assets and then returns that amount to you.

If you know this and can ask a few simple questions, the lie is revealed and you owe nothing. If you are not in the know the bank then claims the full amount of the money you gave them plus interest and keeps it. So if you take a "loan" out of £10,000 then you give the bank £10,000, then another £10,000 plus interest. Not a bad deal for he banker, eh?

yes they do.



They turn government bonds into FIAT.

They can also turn other assets into FIAT.

Thats what they do. They are money factories.

i would say, whatever the debt are - there someone elses to pay.
so thats why inflation will do the job for them and make my savings worth less each year as the debt erodes down in real value.

so i bought gold to avoid their control over my money.

Given their rather enviable business model, it is amazing that they have been able to get themselves into difficulties!

p-o-p

It relies on an increasing amount of suckers who both fall for the fraud and who try and are in some way able to pay for their foolishness. As usual the bankers have run out of decent people who will try to honour their cfraudulent "ontracts" before they have run out of suckers.

God help us all. You guys have fallen for the leftist argument.

Well, if banks can create money, why did Northern Rock fail?

I understand that here at HPC, we do not allow the facts to get in the way of our socialist revolutionary ideology.


The supply of MONEY is dictated by the central bank (which is simply an arm of the treasury) and the money supply exists as e-deposits at the central bank or in notes and coins in circulation.

The rest of us, including banks, issue promises to pay money. We CANNOT CREATE MONEY and NEITHER CAN THE COMMERCIAL BANKS.
And just because a bank lends money+interest and then 'declares' the total as an asset on a balance sheet, does not constitute money creation. Anyone can claim they hold assets to any notional value they like.... Try selling them to find out how much money you will really get.

The stuff you guys talk about is in DIRECT contention with what is actually taking place 'ie, the credit crunch'

Let's deal in facts hey?

It is actually more straighforward than that.

You fill in a form telling the banks you can't pay back their imaginary money.

A judge stamps it for you.

The banks reset the numbers in their computer to zero for you.

In order to introduce an element of disincentive into the system (otherwise everyone would do it!) the banks, via the reference agencies, won't give you more imaginary money for 6 years, then they start again. If they didn't start again they would ultimately have no new imaginary debtors and so the system would collapse.

Indeed, if everyone who had an imaginary debt filled in a form at the same time the banks would disappear overnight along with our current system, but social conventions mitigate against it happening.

Money in this case is just a token for future time and effort. What you are saying is essentially correct in absolute terms, but the banks don’t really want the money, they want the time that you need to put in to try and make the money.

In the most basic sense, what the banks have given out is the ability to acquire that which has not yet been earned, and in return they want the product of your future labour, be what ever it may.