Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

InternationalRockSuperstar

Members
  • Posts

    5,156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InternationalRockSuperstar

  1. Ah..the magic of fractional reserve banking! families being repossed because they can't make the interest payments on a loan that the bank made to them using money that didn't exist in the first place.
  2. Good question. NONE of the Acts of Parliament relating to the BoE have ever listed the names of the stock holders. The stocks are not traded on any market and so one can only presume they are inherited. The stock holders are (as far as I can work out) in the most powerful position in Britain, and so it's to be expected that their identities remain hidden. I doubt anyone in the House of Commons knows the answer to your question, as their power and influence is feeble by comparison to that of the Stock Holders. If you're up for a laugh - you could send your question to the Treasury as a Freedom of Information Request - but I'm sure they'd just tell you to piss off! Who ever these people are, they will be beyond wealthy (Trillionaires) - as in makes Bill Gates look poor. Actually, there's no point in calling these people Trillionaires. They have no interest in money themselves. Money is just their tool for keeping the rest of us in check.
  3. It reduces the bank's capital, and reduces its ability to lend in the future, but does nothing to destroy money that is already 'out there'.
  4. here the link to the 1946 act. 1a states the the Bank's stockholders are to give up their stock to the Treasury. 1b states that in return for the Bank Stock, the stockholders are to be issued with "Government Stock" So, if the stock holders have had their bank stock replaced by "Government Stock", this begs the question what is the difference between these two types of stock? The Answer: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! refer to Article 8 of the act: The 1946 Act is simply a paper shuffling exercise to give the illusion of nationalisation. Hope this helps.
  5. If you go to the statistics section of the BoE website you can look the figures up. M4 is the broadest money supply measure, so it is mostly credit and therefore interest bearing. M0 is the base money supply. The ratio between these is about 34 (off the top of my head) so only about 3% of the money supply is interest free. This figure was much higher, around 47%, in the mid 1950s. Id also recommend you download the pdf of the 1946 act from the BoE website. Read Act 1a, 1b and 8. You'll see that the Bank was never nationalised and in fact remains privately owned to this day.
  6. We should have a whole separate thread detailing this......mainly for the benefit of the deflationists
  7. What if you throw in some home schooling as well. State schools are sh1t, and private schools in the South start from around £8k per year. So if you've got three kids, there mother would have to earn 24K after tax (which most people don't) to make it worthwhile going to work.
  8. Buy some Gold, it'll cheer you up. If M1 and M3 continue onthe trend shown in that graph, then it would be profitable to go short on credit and long on cash. ie short sell securitised mortage debt sh1te while simultaneously buying up US Treasuries, One problem with this investment strategy: I can't......I just can't..........no matter how hard I try....I really can't bring myself to buying US Treasuries! Gold it is then. Edit: I said US Treasuries rather than cash because in this example I'm assuming they won't default. In reality, who knows?
  9. I expect over the next few years we will have deflation if your unit of account is a fixed weight of Gold. Does that count?
  10. Look at the M1 on that chart though - scary sh1t! I'm basically convinced that we're in for high/hyper inlfation, although the reduction in base money supply does make me wonder what the hell the Fed is up to. Perhaps they're trying to engineer a MASSIVE deflationary bust in 2010?
  11. In response to the original title of this thread (better late than never)... Gov'ts and CBs have spent the last decade doing everything they can to suppress the price of Gold, while simultaneously doiing everything in their power to pump house prices. This obviously cannot go on indefinately - now that Gov'ts are essentially broke, I would not be surprised if house prices fall 80% priced in Gold.
  12. I suspect financial assets will fall in value and tangible assets (except real estate) will fall in value. Whatever happens over the next few years, when it's all over, Gold will still be worth something. Like Mises said, you don't get rich holding Gold during a crack-up-boom. You get rich by having capital to invest at the end of it.
  13. Bernanke has already stated (several years ago) that the fed would purchase treasuries to keep long term yields down, if he deemed it necessary to avoid deflation. As another poster has already pointed out - the Fed is hardly going to let on how much of this they have actually been doing - remember these are the same jokers that won't even publish M3 anymore!
  14. Not so. With 19 of the worlds top 20 currencies currently undergoing double digit % annual money supply growth, don't be surprised to see all fiat currencies and financial assets fall in value relative to tangible assets.
  15. 1) The Economist has repeatedly stated over the last few years that Gold is a bad investment. 2) The Economist though it was a good idea to go into Iraq. 3) The Economist said that Enron was to big to go bust. It filed for Chap 11 the very next day! But yeah, apart from gettting three of the biggest issues of this millenium wring so far, it's not a bad read! ps. the Economist probably knew they were talking sh1t on the above three issues - they are probably deliberately spreading VI propaganda.
  16. My bet's on inlfation because... 1) Double digit money supply growth in all major currencies 2) Central Banks willingness to keep interest rates well below money supply growth. 3) There aren't enough police to enforce all the repossesions should deflation occur. 4) Central Banks' willingness to accept pure sh1te as collateral. 4) Historcal Precedent of what gov't/CBs have tried to do in the past when faced with similar situations. 5) I notice things all around me going up in price. Inflation has always been there, but it has never been so glaringly obvious before that i remember (btw I'm too young to remember the 70s) 6) If you take all of Britain's debts (including gov't future liabilities) and divide it by Britain's GDP on 2006, you get a similar ratio to what you get if you divide the 1st World War reparations by the GDP of the Weimar Rep in 1919. I'm at work now, but I shall dig out the exact figuresand post them this evening.
  17. Continual money supply inflation I'd say. So in effect, the total amount of debt doesn't really matter. What has changed over the years is the proportion of money which is debt based (and therefore interest bearing). In the mid 1950s about 53% of the Sterling money supply was debt based. It's now about 97% ish (see stats section on BoE website for exact figure). Since the commercial banks now issue nearly 100% of the money supply (as debt) it means that they don't have much scope for increasing their proportion of the supply. Is this significant in some way, and if so then can someone please explain why so?
  18. What! I can't even say pen15 on this forum? Being serious though - once you've bought your 25%, how easy is it to get out of it.
  19. Better yet, cut your ***** off with a rusty bread knife.
×
×
  • 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.