Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

earth

New Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About earth

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. I don't think Brown's capitalism is real capitalism. Avoiding downturns by borrowing money on the back of houses and spending it on holidays is what capitalism is all about now is it. That just makes the inevitable downturn bigger and badder. Anyone noticed the recent Hollywood films? Terminator Judgement - Blair is the first villan Transformers 2 - Britain enters as an old empire has-been who has 'never done anything worthwhile'. I think some retard socialists have been hoodwinked by the yanks who are now sucking up to the French after they have bankrupted us - again!!
  2. It most certainly is a scam. But it's even worse than you first point out. Although fractional reserve and quantitative easing invent money from nothing, they only invent the principle sum that is borrowed. The borrower is required to pay that back + interest. But the money to pay the interest is not created. So even if everyone gave back the money they borrowed there would be no money left to pay the interest. They only way to get the money to pay the interest is to invent more through borrowing. Which then creates more interest. So its not possible to get out! I think this mechanism is being used to bring nations into so much debt that they collapse. The movement is towards one world currency, bank and government. Look at Iceland. A few years ago all their banks were nationally owned. They also owned their country and have no debt. 2001 the last nationally owned bank was privatized and now they have been bankrupted by debt. So they are being fast tracked into the EU. Blair + Brown fell for the yanks ploy of going into war, following their policies on using the CPI, low interest rates borrowing on the back of real estate. I was in America 10 years ago and people were telling me exactly what was happening and exactly what would happen now. Democrat congress and Obama resisted all attempts by the Republicans to stop the NINJA loans being made. Forward 10 years and its collapsed leaving us with enormous debt and no way out. We have so much debt if we raise interest rates we will all default and if we keep them low we risk taking on even more debt which makes it even worse! The yanks have bankrupted us and now they are favoring the French and the EU who are circling our City like vultures. It's the last money maker we have left after all our industry has been ground down or sold.
  3. Thanks for your answer. It was a dumb question, far too obvious but I didn't mind sticking my neck out. I have not seen anyone else ask. If the government paid everyone's mortgages then sure everyone would go for the biggest house they could get, that would be a mess. That would be like bailing out incompetents and frauds. It would not work and to continue doing so would require terrible regulation. Except of course they bail out banks. But then they are owned by them and run by them and move to and from employment in them... You know though, certain middle east states do just this. If a person has not paid their mortgage in within a given amount of time then the Sheik pays them off. But I'm not suggesting they do this all the time. We are all being fleeced here. Even those who did not go to the party are helping clean up the mess. Those who had their variable rate mortgages in the 80's, went through high interest rates then and are on fixed incomes been stitched up twice. And I did see this coming. Mainly because I read this site. I did not in anyway overstretch and I am not in negative equity (although time may change that). If I lived in a different town then I would have needed to borrow far more to purchase and would probably not have done so. Plenty of other people did though. While you are right that no one has forced anyone to take out loans I would say the market has been manipulated up and I don't think there was any option but to pay higher prices. Now the conservatives say they will keep house prices under control. So that means anyone in negative equity will have a long wait until they get out. I've read about fractional reserve, interest usury etc. If money as we know it changed I think we might have a chance but it won't. No they will never pay our mortgages. Its all in the names: Labour - You are a tired worker, come and have a big party with us. If you are not worker already you will be once we have finished. Conservatives - Now that Labour have put a chain around your ankle we will conserve it - its for your own good.
  4. Rather than give banks our tax so they can eventually lend it back to us at interest why not us that same money to pay off chunks of everyone mortgage? Anyone having purchased a property in at least the last 5 years probably paid too much due to too much credit pushing prices up. On the positive: The banks get the money they need, just the same. Their bad loans are reduced. The borrowers have smaller monthly repayments and therefore more to spend and less defaults. Some people would be back in positive equity. Those remortgaging would have better LTV. The government would be so popular they would surely be voted back in. On the negative: Some people would be rather offended if their tax was spent on paying off ninja loans which were perhaps made fraudulently. The government would be so popular they would surely be voted back in. It seems overall banks are going to get money from us anyway so why not give it to them this way and at least people benefit from it directly. What would the economic repercussions be?
  5. earth

    New Uk Currency?

    Here you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/finance...tton-Woods.html Gordon Brown suggests we return to Bretton-Woods - that's gold backed currency. Question is where is he going to get the gold after he sold it below the market value and now it costs four times as much. In the last two weeks people have been buying up gold until the mints had to work overtime to keep up with demand. I suspect gold fever will take over and people will buy like there's no tomorrow. Then it will be confiscated and given to the treasury. Gold has been on a bull run for the last 5 or so years. Infact it was at its lowest when Gordon sold ours. Its gone up ever since. All bull runs end and the beginning of the end is when Joe Public catches on. I sense that time is approaching.
  6. I certainly considered that when I first understood how much $ China had. Then I thought they would probably be far more stealthy about it. Then I considered how you have these two groups waring with each other - USA and Iraq/Afghanistan with China sitting on the sidelines waiting to swoop in and claim the spoils. It looks just like WWII. As I understand it the US held back, we sold our businesses to them cheap and then took out a further loan to fund our fighting. Once WWII finished USA rose to be dominant. Back to my original idea. I think what I am really saying is sell stuff to other people to keep your finances in order. Which is no revelation but what would we sell to the countries that produce all these things that we want? I suppose that the services rather than products argument.
  7. I did not necessarily mean banks when I said assets in fact I did not really consider what they would be but I suppose if it were possible it would be something that did not reduce their growth further. I know that sounds like a worthless asset but you could consider gold for instance. I can see what you mean, asset was the wrong word. 'Something' would have been better I am aware of banks being bought by other countries and the interest paid to them going to those other countries. As a side note this has already started to happen for the US. I read 38% of Citygroup was purchased by a Chinese sovereign wealth fund.
  8. I understand what you are saying here. As people can no longer borrow debt money is not created. While they continue to pay back their existing debts debt money is destroyed. Overall the quantity of money decreases.
  9. Don't all answer at once I don't know if any of my reasoning is actually correct or if I have misunderstood all the principles touched on. If it is incorrect then please correct me.
  10. I am USA and I have some financial difficulties. Banks are not lending. If they do not lend I face a possible recession. If I lower interest rates to create more money to lend then I will create inflation. People with dollars will not be happy with their dollars depreciating. The dollars I need are out there - in places like China. If I sell assets to China I can get the dollars to put into my economy without creating inflation. I am China. I have dollars and I see the USA is in difficulty. Inflation will devalue my dollars but if I start to sell them on the open market it will put the value down further. I would be happy to exchange some of them privately with the USA for something less risky, especially if that means my remaining dollars keep their value. Is this thinking anywhere near realistic?
  11. I asked a similar question on a gold forum. One answer I remember particuarly is that over history nations have gone on conquests for gold because it was the ony way to meet their monetary needs. If money is a physical entity then there is a limited amount. If you need more for what ever reason then you must find some more - or steal someone elses. The market can also be cornered, meaning one party gets all the money. If you combine interest with fractional reserve banking then it looks to me that eventually the banks will get all the money. I seems to me that both fiat and physical money systems have an ugly sides. Because fiat requires no physical entity it avoids those problems but it is easily misused. This is just my own thoughts though. I am interested in knowing whether they hold merit. I think it was Nixon that finally lead the demise of the gold standard, although it was not a real gold standard even then. He needed money to fund the Vietnam war and began printing dollars to pay for it. Other nations who held dollars did not believe he had enough gold to back them and feared their dollars were depreciating. They started to ask for their gold in exchange for the dollars and he ended up saying 'no you cannot have anymore - we're fiat now'. Notice how this ties in with first problem mentioned about gold. He needed more money but did not have enough gold. But instead of trying to get more he just changed the money system. Inflation followed. I don't know how he justified it. Probably did not, just ignored people who did not like it. I think you are supposed to be able to exchange your dollars for oil because oil is always sold for dollars. I think this is the meaning of the term 'petrodollar'.
  12. So it did piss a lot of people off then.
  13. You mean they just took the gold that other nations had stored in their vaults for themselves? Didn't that anger a lot of people? Is there a prior agreement that they can do that if the gold is in their vaults? It would only be possible to do what I suggested for a finite period until you ran out of gold to sell. I guess this cartel you describe sold gold when it started to get valuable and then bought it back once it had dropped. Moving it about amongst each other and keeping the price under control.
  14. Been reading this thread. Got to page 5 before I had to post a question. Two things I noted from this thread. 1. Someone stated we had much larger gold reserves in the 1960's and we sold them to help out the dollar. Could someone elaborate on this or correct me if I misunderstood. 2. The $ is a reserve currency and will keep its status if the yield is greater than could be made elsewhere, such as gold investment. So it is in the interests of the USA to keep gold as a bad investment and they can do this by selling some of their reserve to force prices down. According to BullionVault they have about 8000 tonnes of it so they have plenty of ability to do this. Gordon Brown managed to lower the value when he sold our remaining gold a few years ago. Are the gold bugs not bothered that if gold starts to perform better than the $ than the US will start to sell gold to stop it performing? If they need to they will won't they? For instance, according to BullionVault, the gold they have is only worth 2% of their debt so it does not seem that its value to them is in its monetary equivalent. It seems that its value is as an ace card in keeping the dollar valuable by devaluing gold. Did we sell our gold in the 1960's and recently to keep the dollar afloat? We are dependent on its success as well right?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.