Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Setantii

Members
  • Posts

    226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Setantii

  1. OK, here we go....

    We (Britain) borrow money and owe loads out. So do all the European countries. And so do America. And so does just everyone else as far as I can find out.

    So just who the fk do we all owe this money to...?

    I've heard about goverment borrowing since I was a small boy, and yet at 46 I still don't know who it is who lends out all this cash.

    Is there some pan-galactic Provident agent who comes knocking on the door of 10 Downing Street every Friday...?

    Please can someone explain - In very, very simple terms if that's possible - 'cos I'd really like to understand....

    Thanks in advance,

    XYY

    This link might help -

    For example, every country in the world suffers from a massive and constantly increasing national debt. Britain has a national debt that is fast approaching £400 billion. Canada's debt has reached $560 billion and Germany's now exceeds 500 billion deutschmarks. So are these poor countries? No more so than Japan with a debt equivalent to two trillion dollars or America with a national debt now in excess of five trillion dollars. Since the poorer nations are crippled by their indebtedness to international lending institutions and foreign banks, the overall picture is of a world suffering acute and ever worsening insolvency.

    But this is really quite illogical and absurd... The question almost asks itself. If all the nations of the world are in debt, who are they in debt to?

    http://www.cfoss.com/grip.html

  2. My wife and I are having similar thoughts.

    The only real debt I have is the mortgage on my terraced house and a small amount on a credit card.

    All my friends in low paid jobs like myself are in far worse positions debt wise. Two of them who are single have mortgages on three bedroom semi's that they are only paying the interest on.

    If there was a debt Jubille I'd be pi**ed off that I've kept in my humble terraced that I can just about afford (six of us live here) while these singletons get to keep their bigger semi's that they could never really afford!

    We are sorely tempted atm to get as many credit cards as possible and run up loads of unsecured debt before the shit hits the fan.

  3. Most people assume that when you take a loan out with a bank (for a mortgage, car or whatever) the money they use comes from the deposits of savers. However, according to this Professor this is not the case at all. The banks CREATES the money when you apply for your loan. The money didn't exist until you agreed to the loan. Then, in the case of a mortgage, they use the collatoral in you newly purchased house as a guarantee, if you don't repay the loan they take possession of the property. So to sum up, the banks creates money out of thin air (after all in our debt based economy credit equates to real money with real purchasing power) and for a couple of hours paperwork tie you into economic servitute for the next 20-30 years.

    This in my opinion is legalised fraud.

  4. Major C.H. Douglas proposed a 'third way' between Capitalism and Socialism - the Social Credit movement that spread in the inter war years but is almost forgotten now, which manifested itself in the form of the 'Green Shirt's.

    I found this talk given by him on the BBC in 1934 in which he argues that the major cause of war is the debt based financial system and the economic warfare that ensues between nations as they all try to increase their exports, at the expense of other nations, to pay off ever incresing debts created by the debt based monetary system still in use today.

    I would be grateful for any opinions.

  5. There are a lot of threads on this site highlighting the numerous problems with society, the economy and politics.

    My question to you is what 3 things would you change to make this country better?

    My 3:

    1. Nationalise money creation and introduce limited pupose private banking - Announce a 2 year period after which the only government guranteed deposits are those held with the national bank, other banks can exist they will just not have the government guarantee. The only bank allowed to engage in fractional reserve banking is the national bank, the others may only invest the deposits they hold. The nationalised bank will engage in limited purpose banking, only making loans for homes and business ventures and offering low risk rates of interest. The private banks are completely unregulated and can engage in whatever activities they like - however - this is entirely at the risk of investors.

    2. Tax system to encourage mutualism and collectivism in business - Any firm wholely owned by it's workforce with a John Lewis partnership type approach to pay lower taxes. This recongnises that the more equal distribution of profits throughout society benefits everybody and reduces the burden on the tax payer of combating poverty.

    3. Reducing capital requirements for construction of housing and relaxing planning laws - The only people capable of developing housing under the current conditions are large multi-national corporations. Instead local authorities should relax the plans for building developments down to an individual plot basis. New developments need not be rows of faux-period houses with tiny gardens. Instead the infrastucure should be put in and then people should be free to build whatever they like on their plot. This would benefit architects, builders and result in *shock* new styles of buildings reflecting individuals tastes and needs.

    I think your first two ideas are very good - nationalise the banking system and outlawing the creation of money by private institutions would be my number one priority,.

  6. The bankers will be sacrificed to save the politicians, whether this will work is another question but it's certain the bankers will be the fall guys for this mess and their own stupidity at managing the situation just confirms what will happen.

    The banking institutions are the real cause of the mess in the first place - creating money out of thin air as a debt.

    The politicians are at their beck and call IMO.

  7. This issue gets raised time and again, unfortunately people like Michael Rowbotham are deeply misled confused individuals who insist on leading many others down this intellectual dead end.

    Well his arguements sound quite reasonable to me so far . . . .

    First off, there's nothing wrong with charging people for the creation of money, despite claims that banks are making money out of 'thin air' it still costs money to provide their services. Banks have to pay staff, they need to pay taxes and shareholders, they need to rent buildings and they need tools like computers etc. All this costs, so one way or another banks will have to charge and it doesn't matter whether this is interest or charged at a flat rate.

    So say for example I go into a bank and take out a £80,000 mortgage. The bank employees may spend say around an hour, maybe two, checking my credit rating and drawing up a contract. Then they create £80,000 worth of new money by typing a few digits into a computer. So for a few hours wages and overheads the bank has turned me into a debt slave who continually pays a substancial amount of my weekly wage to them for the next twenty five years or so. How can that possibly be fair? It sounds more like an extortion racket.

    Also, even if currency system was fundamentally unstable

    which it is

    it wouldn't be an economic issue at all. It would be a tehcnical one. People often argue that there isn't enough money because banks lend it at interest, I don't believe that this is true,

    It's an indesputable fact.

    If we gathered up every coin and note in circulation there wouldn't be anywhere near enough money to repay all debts in full.

    Its not in the banks interest for there not to be enough money because it would mean they wouldn't get paid, nobody wants that. We need to ensure that people pay their debts and the money supply is used to that end, not highjacked so that people cannot perform their obligations to one another. It would be totally self defeating!

    Banks currently get paid because people are continually borrowing on 'future' wealth to pay off the debts of today. The system almost fell apart but our wonderful governments around the world were so scared of the fallout from the system collapsing they became lenders of last resort, creating even more government debt. As soon as any 'major' Government defaults on it's debts the whole debt mountain will implode IMO.

  8. i am not. i think this view, which i have heard time and again, is extremely mislead.

    please read human action by von mises. it will sort your head out and teach you all about money and credit.

    ps

    Perhaps there is some serious flaw in the rationale of the money reformers that I'm missing

    yes there is! it proposes to replace the current fiat money regime with an identical one, only put in the hands of people for whom we can trust more to safeguard our interests. please!

    allowing competiting currencies and ending the government monopoly on what we are forced to call money is the only (and obvious, you would think) solution.

    Well I can't comment on what Von Mises argues - I'll add it to my read list.

    What would these competing currencies be based upon if they are not fiat in nature? Who would define what is legal tender and what isn't?

  9. I am a firm believer that all our current economic woes are the result of a financial system that is based upon the creation of money as debt.

    I'm currently reading 'The Grip Of Death' by Michael Rowbotham and everything he says rings true to me at least. I was wondering if anybody on these forums actually believes that allowing private banks to create money as debt 'out of thin air' is a good thing? If anybody would like to defend the current state of affairs in regards to money creation I'd be most interested in trying to understand their reasoning. Perhaps there is some serious flaw in the rationale of the money reformers that I'm missing - at the moment I'm firmly of the position that this legalised fraud must end.

    Secondly, if most people here believe that the banking system itself is the biggest economic question that needs addressing then how can we get it onto the political agenda? How can we change the curent political discourse? Can it really be done without resorting to violence?

    Currently I feel I'm torn between spending the next twenty years of my life banging my head against a wall, in the vain hope that somebody in a postition of power might pick up on the cause, because in a heirachy of credibility I'm at the bottem end having had no formal education in economic theory. Or I could just say ****** IT and dissapear into computer games until the power eventually goes off and people start rioting. I must admit the latter option seems the most appealing at the moment because I'm sick of watching endless arguements between politicians who never address what I believe is the biggest problem out there.

  10. The workers at Cadbury's (a profitable company even in this economic storm) are taxpayers and as such helped to bail out the Royal Bank of Scotland via the government's intervention.

    Then Kraft get a huge loan, a large amount of which is from said bank, purchase Cadbury's and today announce they are making 400 workers redundant - these poor lovers have in fact helped finance their own job losses!

    Are British workers so apathetic that they will continue to put up with outrageous acts like this? Am I the only one who feels like throwing a few molotovs around?

  11. "Here's a pointless, meaningless job that we've created because we want you to work. Work is good for the soul."

    "Why?"

    "Because we say it is. And if you don't do what you are told, we will make you starve until you obey and do what you are told."

    "But why should I spend the rest of my life running round a hamster wheel, just because other people do?"

    "Because you will earn more money and have a better life."

    "So I earn more money. I can buy all the everyday things I need with very little. The charity shops are rammed full of cheap stuff from consumers who are bored with it so they go and buy newer shinier stuff. Food is cheap. I get my rent paid, council tax benefit, etc. The only thing I might really want to buy is a house and that's impossible. So how will work make me better off?"

    "You get the pride and self-respect of standing on your own two feet."

    "Sure. I earn money that gets paid out to some ******* slumlord. If I lose my job, probably through no fault of my own, I get evicted and end up homeless, as the council won't house me. If I take another job I lose my benefits and if that job ends in turn it takes weeks to get benefits reinstated. I pay council tax etc etc. Where's this better life you talk about?"

    "You get more out of work."

    "Sure, if you are smart, well-educated, middle class. Being a working class prole is and has always been a crock of sh!te. Save your moralising for your own kind."

    "OK well we'll build a load of hamster wheels and force people like you to run on them so we can feel smug and self-satisfied about lecturing you from the security of our well-paid middle class jobs. And if you don't do what we say we will make you, by force of law. Because as Injin says that is our privilege. Now get out of my face as I have a massively important spread sheet to fill in."

    LOL Great post!

    Have you heard of Douglas Credit and Guild Socialism by any chance?

    To be honest I can see why on first glance people get angry hearing about cases like the one in the O.P.

    However I sometimes feel most of the anger comes from people stuck on the hamster wheel who begrudge the fact that these people won't 'play the game' and become voluntary wage slaves in this fraudulent debt based economy. All our anger should be directed at the banksters who perpetuate this system.

  12. Whilst watching Andrew Marr's "The Making of Modern Britain" he referred to a movement in the inter-war years called the "Green Shirts". Their prime objective was to remove the power of the banks and bring into creation "Social Credit".

    Social Credit was pioneered by C.H. Douglas and website about Social Credit and his work is found here:

    DOUGLAS SOCIAL CREDIT SECRETARIAT.

    As for the Collapse movie on YouTube being removed. This is because the film makers invoked a copyright clause.

    I too picked up on the mention of the 'Green Shirts' during this documentary. I must admit I'd never even heard of them.

    I tried finding out more about the group and the theory of Douglas Social Credit and my wife bought me two books for Christmas - 'What Everybody Really Wants To Know About Money' and 'The Political Economy Of Social Credit And Guild Socialism'. I'm half way through the first book and it is very interesting reading.

    All we ever hear about as alternative movements to Capitalism in the 20's and 30's are the Blackshirts and the Communists - nobody ever mentions the Green Shirts. I wonder why that could be?

  13. Why doesn't the government conjour up £300 Billion in new money, distribute £10,000 to every adult in the country, stipulating that if you have debts you must use the money towards paying them off.

    Anybody with debts less than £10,000 gets to keep any money left over, so no debts = £10,000 better off.

    Of course this input of money will cause drastic inflation but surely it's a better idea then just wiping the slate clean for people in debt, which punishes the people who were prudent even more?

×
×
  • 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.