Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Setantii

Members
  • Posts

    226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Setantii

  1. I have to say, I can kind of see how pogroms have happened in the past against money-lenders.

    There is something about the trade in money which people naturally separate from other trade and then call evil. There is a lot of that on this site. There is a lot of willful ignorance here as well which is surprising because in the past there have been enough sensible people writing here put people right, but still many believe the moronic nonsense about

    Yes, bankers were as lenders mostly to blame for the financial crisis (but in a lesser way so were policy-makers and indeed many borrowers), and yes the problems were so large that the tax-payer is implicitly on the hook for their excesses. But that doesn't that mean that all banking is inherently a scam. In essence it is no different than any other business, and once ways are found to make the system less vulnerable to it and the necessary adjustments are made in the banks themselves, they won't be that different from say Glaxo.

    Many of you believe that you have unearthed this big conspiracy called "finance" and you have spent many years spouting nonsense on this site (and on others) about how everyone is getting ripped off. It is a very arrogant argument because implicitly you are saying that you are more intelligent than the 10s of billions who have lived in the last 500 years or so who failed to spot this terrible thing happening all around them. In that way you are no different from the buy-to-let investors who drove hpi between 2000-2007 and who genuinely thought they had discovered a magical asset class which could only go up in value, which was right under our noses and which no one else had discovered ever...

    The best advice i can give is this: inform yourselves, because the more time you spend on this, the more of your lives you are wasting.

    I will now apologise for the language above, but without changing it. I do know that opinions here are heterogenous, but i also know that I am speaking to number of people who will watch videos and speak ignorantly about "fractional reserve banking". I came to this site originally because I knew house prices were grossly over-valued and because I had been banned from all the btl sites for upsetting the natives. But the nonsense spouted here is just as bad as the "house prices will go up forever" stuff I saw between 2000 and 2007.

    So, if you are genuinely interested in the way things work, read up about it (even Wikipedia is ok on this stuff) and post back here- just don't acquire your knowledge from the loony fringe here and on (other) websites where lonny people write in capital letters and multiple colours.

    Have a good crisis - it is a long way from being over.

    I used to have your view about banking until I tried to disprove some 'conspiracy nutter' on another forum and found out that banks do indeed create new money when they make a loan.

    Until the economic crisis started anyone who mentioned the flaws in a debt based money system was regarded as an economic incompetent but recently several respected economists have started to point out the flaws in the system.

    Can I ask you a few questions?

    Why does the M4 money supply continually grow year on year? Where did all this extra money come from before the government started any QE?

    Do you really think all these national debts are repayable? If so why do they only ever talk about reducing the DEFICIT and not the actual DEBT?

    If banking isn't completely corrupt, why does the ECB refuse to borrow directly to governments yet will borrow money to Private Banks at 0.5% interest just so said institutions of fraud can borrow to governments at 3% and upwards? Also why are things like this

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/someone-going-jail-mf-global-caught-stealing-hundreds-millions-customers

    allowed to happen with nobody brought to book?

    Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree but all I see is a fatally flawed financial system that is manipulated by greedy, ruthless fraudsters.

  2. What makes you think that commodity money has to involve handing over a physical lump of something in an exchange?

    You can still have commodity money and trade it digitally. It just needs to be backed 100% by something physical. Everything you like about fiat money can be retained, but got rid of all the boom bust parts.

    As soon as you start using something else to represent this '100% physical asset' the ponzi schemes would begin again.

    Anyway why would I agree to Gold and Silver being used as money? I don't have any, have no access to any and I can guarantee that the banksters who helped create all these fiat ponzi schemes have already bailed out of paper and are now sitting pretty with Gold and Silver stashed away!

  3. Don't be so melodramatic, they're not going to get thrown on the streets.

    They can rent like the rest of us thirtysomethings who didn't load up on 95% 5x combined income mortgages have been doing for the last 10 years.

    Why should the cautious be wiped out to save the reckless?

    These cautious savers, are these the ones who dumped their money in Icelandic banking Ponzi schemes because they were offering fantastic returns?

    I'm sick and tired of hearing savers bleat on about how badly they are being treated. Why should the government safeguard anybodys savings, giving guarantees that they will protect them if a bank fails? Is that capitalism?

    The banking system itself only survived because of Government intervention, borrowing money on the behalf of the public (which includes an awful lot of debtors) to prop it up. Savers would have been wiped out if it wasn't for this government interference. Also, if you understand how the present system works, it can only survive if somebody somewhere is taking on ever more debt - this is insane!

    The system has to be completely changed and at least Steve Keen is offering some kind of alternative.

  4. Say it takes a days work for a bank employee to process a mortgage application for a customer.

    If the mortgage is over a period of 25 years and one days pay per week is needed to repay the mortgage, the customer is essentially giving up 5 YEARS of work for the initial days work it took the bank sorting out the paperwork to conjour up the money out of thin air in the first place!

    This is debt slavery in a nutshell.

  5. NOW ANSWER TH QUESTION HOW ARE THEY GOING TO KEEP THE SYSTEM FROM IMPLODING AND CARRY ON IN THE STATUS QUO ???????????

    By the way im 48 not 55 .

    There is no completely 'fair'' way to save the system but how about this idea?

    If the banking system implodes nationalise the whole lot. Work out the total debts of everybody in the country. Create an equal amount of money. Gradually give this money out to the population on an equal basis (say over a 10 year period to try and ease the inflationary spiral somewhat), but insist that it must be used to pay off any outstanding debts a person may have.

    So say the first year everybody gets £20k.

    If my mate for example owes 200k on his mortgage for a 4 bedroomed detatched house he has to use this money to cut his debt to £180k. (the money going to recapitalise the banking system).

    If I owe 20K on my small terraced house I pay my debt off and I own my house outright.

    If you have no debts you get 20K to add to your savings.

    How about it?

  6. Hi Greg

    I admit it, I put the site up.

    And I know it sounds bad. But there's a reason for it.

    Basically, small vibrant companies don't take on interns because it's just too much bother.

    So this is my way of giving people access for a few days to these amazing businesses.

    Students are now spending £40,000 on a university education. And what do they get for it? A nice roll of paper and some mates.

    But I don't see why they wouldn't spend a few hundred quid more getting experience alongside a small business owner.

    Especially when the intern has no skills to offer the business.

    I'm totally against companies who take on 'interns' for six months at a time, making them do the job of proper workers. That's real exploitation.

    Whereas a few days sitting with the small firm CEO could change your life.

    What do you think?

    Kit

    I'm thinking we need a revolution. . . . .

  7. This is the truth of it I think.

    It also explains Economist's. I've long wondered why this essentially useless and non functional role persists, more so given their collective failure to detect the single largest financial disaster in human history.

    Their value lies not in the practical but in the ritual- their role is not to critically analyse the doings of their masters but to sanctify those doings- in the manner of a witch doctor's ceremonial blessing of the tribe before a battle.

    This also explains why the core members of the financial sector seem impervious to the utter failure of their own model of trickledown economics, which they continue to propagate to this day. The point being that neo liberal economics-being a religion-does not require the validation of empirical reality- it- like God- just is.

    America is a country of religions and cults- so it's not that surprising that Wall street- the inner sanctum of money here on earth-should become a 'holy' place- and that those who utter criticisms are in their turn branded as 'unamerican' - they are, after all, infidels and unbelievers.

    The real charge against Occupy Wall Street is not it's objectives- no one seems to know what they are- the real crime of the protesters is their willingness to spit in the face of God. They dare- horror of horrors- to utter criticisms against capitalism itself. :o

    Agree with everything you said. Good post.

  8. In a word, cronyism. In what way is a privately created money supply any worse than a privately created food supply or a privately created clothing supply?

    True, it would be logistical chaos.

    But the current system is cronyism in the extreme.

    I can grow my own vegetables or knit my own clothing but if I try and create my own legal tender I'll be arrested for counterfeiting.

    Whoever controls the money supply controls the economy. If money is in the hands of the Government at least we can vote them out of power if they abuse the monetary system. Currently private institutions crash the system and the public gets the tab to pay for the mess!

    If allowing Private Banks to control the monetary supply and thus the economy is a good idea why don't we privatise the army and police too?

  9. Personally I think Bill Still's arguements about money creation being the sole preserve of Government is spot on.

    Does anybody on these forums actually support the current status quo of money being created as a debt by private financial institutions? If so can they please tell explain to me why the current system would be better then money creation being the preserve of Government alone?

    Also, for proponents of ridding us of legal tender all together, how do they think any form of Government could possibly function if there are hundreds of currencies in circulation within a state?

  10. What a stupid post.

    The reason you don't get 4230 or whatever is because you didn't sell £4230 worth of bonds - e.g. your savings, to the BoE.

    This is from the BOE website -

    In March 2009, the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) began purchasing financial assets funded by the creation of central bank reserves. These reserves are new money that the Bank creates electronically in the accounts held with it by commercial banks. Often known as quantitative easing (QE), the Bank’s asset purchases are designed to inject money directly into the economy.

    The Bank buys financial assets from banks who may be selling on their own behalf or, more likely, on behalf of their clients, such as insurance companies, pension funds, banks and non-financial firms.

    So what exactly are these bank 'assets' that the BOE recieves for giving this new money out?

    Who gets to decide what these bank 'assets' are worth?

    If Q.E is designed to inject money directly into the economy why not just hand it out to the general population to spend instead of giving it to us as yet more debt via the banks? (thats if they actually bother to loan it out and not just hoard it)

  11. <br /><br /><br />

    Err??? You presumably have a house for you, your wife and four children and a monthly mortgage of £181 and you still feel hard done by?

    To f**king right I do!

    I've been paying a morgage on this small terraced house for 18 years - probably already paid the initial money I borrowed twice over in interest and yet I still don't own my own house.! Add to that the fact that the money I borrowed wasn't somebody elses hard earned savings as I believed (when I was young and naive) but was infact created from nothing by the bank when I agreed to enslave myself for 25 years and signed the dotted line. For the first time ever I'm actually behind on my credit card due to increased costs and you know what I don't frickin care anymore. I've made a concious descision to run up as much unsecured debt as posible before the whole pile of ******** that is our debt based financial system finally implodes.

  12. Just done some quick calculations so please correct me if I'm wrong -

    So far the Bank Of England has created £275 BILLION of new money via Q.E.

    Divide that amount by the polulation of Great Britain (using the figure of 65 million as a base) and I work it out at aproximately £4230 for every man, woman and child in the country!

    The BOE uses this new money to purchase 'assets' from private banks. In reality these assets are complex IOU's with no hope of ever being repayed. The banks are then supposed to loan this money out into the economy (creating more debt which is the fundamental problem in the first place!).

    Now have I seen or had access to any of this newly created money? Not at all! I haven't had a pay rise in almost 6 years and inflation (partly due to Q.E increasing the money supply) is making my meagre wage worth less and less each year!

    I'm married with four children so take £4230 and multiply by six gives a grand total of £25,380. If I'd been given that cash (I've got some rusty old bikes in the yard I could use as 'assets' - worth more in scrap metal then the worthless IOU's the banks use) I could have paid off my mortgage (helping recapitalise the bank) and still had around £4000 left over to spend into the economy!

    Combined with this I'd save money by having no mortgage repayments which this year would be another £2182 in my wallet!

    I'm being robbed blind by these banksters and their government croanies and I'm mad as hell . . . . .

  13. Many times on this forum people talk about how crap our country is at the moment and the fact they are thinking about or intending to emigrate in the near future.

    Personally I don't understand the logic in this. When things get tough economically there is usually a rise in anti-foreigner rhetoric and general hostility towards immigrants. Seeing as this is a global economic crisis why would anybody feel safe becoming an immigrant in another country at this present time, with the potential of the locals being very hostile at your arrival?

    Could anybody thinking of emigrating explain to me why they think they'd be better off in a foreign land at this moment in time?

  14. His message might be right but his delivery is all wrong - his fanatical rhetoric condems him to being regarded as some sort of fringe lunatic - if you want people to take you seriously JD, time to stop talking like a gospel preacher from the deep south.

    To be honest I think the gospel preacher approach is just what is needed.

    The likes of Max Keiser and Jonathan Davis ranting like real life 'Howard Beale's' is what we need to get the message out to the masses about the lies being spun in regards the global economy.

  15. I know all that.

    If they do not have funds, they have to go and find the readies to balance their books overnight or sometimes during the course of the day.

    They might need an initial deposit to perform this financial alchemy but that does not take away from the fact that banks create brand new money when they give you a loan.

    I'm pretty sure 99% of the population assumes that banks use other peoples savings when they make a loan and most would be outraged if they fully understood how the banking system really worked.

  16. I despair.

    Can a bank just lend money from nothing?

    Why then do banks have funding or 'liquidity' problems.? Why would it matter if there is a 'run on a bank' if they could just magic it out of thin air. Why on earth do they take deposits or failing that, the money markets where surplus countries are recycling their surpluses....yes, we're getting closer to an answer aren't we.

    Come on guys...utter b*llocks. Just concentrate and get your thinking caps on!

    To quote the Fed - "Banks actually create money when they lend it."

    http://dallasfed.org/educate/everyday/ev9.html#how

  17. Shamelessly pinched from somebody else but made me laugh -

    "When I heard that a small number of selfish individuals speaking their own bat$h!t gobbledygook language were causing widespread havoc to business's across the country and behaving with no care at all for the damage they cause or the consequences for others around them, making Britain look like a home for the stupidest, thieving, scumbags in Europe, I assumed the bankers were at it again. Then I saw that arrests had been made and people were appearing in court to be punished and I realised this couldn't be the case."

×
×
  • 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.