Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

HumanAction

Members
  • Posts

    895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HumanAction

  1. Easiest way to do this?

    Ok imagine you know a rich guy, he's obviously loaded. He tells you he can lend you money.

    You accept his word for it.

    He then tells the guy who you wanted to pay for whatever with the borrowed money that he will look after the money for him until he wants it.

    Now make the imaginary leap to the truth of your "rich friend" being that he hasn't got a pot to piss in and never did. And that's how "money creation" occurs and why all banking is fraud.

    Fantastic post.

    I'm surprised more people havent figured this out yet...

  2. I'm just dealing with the facts.

    I think people in general are able to grasp the concept of an IOU. But if one group of people have demanded so much that they cannot possibly be paid then perhaps we need to review the 'service' that they're providing for the community, because it would appear on the surface as if monopolies are at work.

    Yes I agree, I offered the simpler solution. It's cheaper.

    I dont find the claim that the phrase IOU is expensive very convincing. If you've ever looked over a loan agreement you can soon establish that our banker friends are not actually averse to the use of large numbers of words at all..... If your claim were true they'd keep is simple, they do not do so at all.

  3. The point which interests me isn't the legal consequence, but the practical consequences.

    It looks like too many promises against future productivity have been made, which may never occur. With peak oil banging on the door and peak fossil fuel energy on the horizon, it is becoming more likely that these promises will not be kept. The consequences could be devastating and long lasting, which makes me think the current financial system is ill equipped to handle what the future is likely to throw at us. This is without even considering the consequences of rampant credit creation blowing big bubbles.

    Isn't that how it always ends though? The bankers make promises that they cant actually keep, presumably hoping that at some point they or maybe our children will be able to make good, at some point it becomes impossible to do so. It's like stealing in the hope that you can replace the item stolen before anyone notices, some posters here would no doubt argue that there has been no crime unless you get caught..... In reality the existence of the theft ( or fraud ) is not contingent on it's detection.

  4. You can exchange the IOU for a sterling denominated asset, as long as it's exchangeable it's doing it's job properly. Has you ever come across sterling/bank credit that wasn't tradable? Let me know when you do.

    I think this brings the thread full circle, as of now sterling has been significantly devalued over a short period of time, I'd guess it's going to lose a great deal more value over the next few months and years. It may or may not end up as non tradeable but it seems obvious that the underlying promises are going to be reneged on. A quick check of history will show you that bankers have a history of this sort of thing.

  5. A number isn't a contract whereas a promise to do something is.

    Hmmmm.

    This is why your number money and the banks' are qualitatively different, you're just offering a number whereas they are promising the labour debt that others have freely pledged.

    Not really true that though is it. They are actually promising so much future labour that it cant possibly be delivered ( at least not by those from whom it is supposedly due ). Even in the best case scenario the promise is dubious as the labourer is not even guaranteed to be alive at the due date let alone guaranteed able to deliver on the promise. To accept such a promise on the same basis as labour already delivered is not something people are likely to do if they actually appreciate what is being offered. They accept such deals because they do not understand and that I would hazard is a state that is not achieved accidentally.

    The banks don't write 'IOU' everytime they do this because it would be an extremely inefficient way of going about things. But avoiding this technicality doesn't render the process fraud.

    You have to be kidding right? There is a simpler explanation of why they do not write IOU. It's that they dont want people realising that is what they are actually getting. Simpler solutions are usually favoured by rational people, it's called Occam's razor.....

  6. Firstly, I doubt the average person is quite the dribbling cretin you make him out to be and secondly it doesn't matter in terms of fraud anyway because - keeping his money inside the bank as notes or coins - is not a condition of any arrangment he has with the bank

    So you seriously think people 'borrow' from banks at interest in the full knowledge that the bank doesn't actually have the money to lend them in the first place? I think it's you that is painting the average person as a dribbling cretin not me. I think they are the victims of an elaborate and quite difficult to grasp fraud.

    Well done for figuring it out though ;)

    It makes me brighter than you I guess ;)

  7. Well they couldn't pull the wool over your eyes. I guess you're just too smart for them, eh?

    You cant fool all of the people all of the time I guess ;). But then you dont need to fool everyone to make the system function because even those who can see the game for what it is are for the most part trapped into playing anyway.

  8. I think most people are aware by now that banks don't keep all their money in a vault behind the counter.

    If they know this, then they won't have to bend their mind to realise that their bank statement is only a claim on assets the bank has lent out. Or an IOU in common parlance.

    There is no mass fraud taking place. Get over it.

    Cobblers, the average man believes precisely that the banks actually have the money and the banks try very hard to keep it that way. Sure a few people figure the game out but that in no way translates to 'most people'.

    The whole system is essentially fraudulent with the bankers and their pet politicians stealing from the vast majority of the population. They defraud their 'creditors' by 'inflating the money supply' and they defraud their 'debtors' by convincing them that they have borrowed something that the bank actually possessed.

  9. Taking civil-service redundancy is a great option.

    Part of the reason it is such a generous amount is that it has to compensate you for giving up future growth of your gold plated pension.

    So you are converting an unrealistic promise of future money into real pounds now.

    My mate got £98k for 16 years (and now occasionally does nicely paid contractor work for the same department)

    I know a guy worked for a govt depy got £50k ish for 15 years. Now works for the Northern Ireland version of a related department. Staggering.

  10. The UK won't need the IMF, except as a pretext so they can say, "It's not our austerity, blame those nasty IMF people". The policies that the IMF would impose are already available to us independently, if we're only prepared to grasp them.

    It's not like they'd give us free money.

    edit: on that basis, and because I believe someone other than Brown must take the economic reins soon, I've changed my vote to "Never" but what I really mean is "not for the foreseeable future"; "never" is a very long time :)

    Agreed, if the call gets made it'll be a political dodge to avoid being seen to take unpopular actions with any alternative.

  11. Perhaps B&B would make more money more easily from a lower rate than by having to repossess 700 properties?

    Perhaps, but B&B are just another arm of the banking/state elite that's raison d'etre is to rob us all blind. I'm not clear that I should be sympathetic to their parasitic need to feed on the labour of others whilst doing nothing of value themselves....... Particularly in a case where they seek to profit simply from driving the price of a basic human need ever upwards.

  12. I found the story quite irritating in that they are receiving a prop in the form of reduced interest payments from a taxpayer owned lender. It really drives it home that the state will do anything at this point to avoid nominal falls in prices, even to the extent of effectively throwing public money at a couple of failed gamblers who have racked up enormous debts and speculative losses....... Criminal.

  13. How can the simple ability to refuse others demands ever die?

    Forcing agents get tired. They run out of resources. The reasons for their force become muddied over time. Force never lasts long, it always burns brightly, briefly and then is gone, burnt out.

    And yet if we look at human history we see that slavery is the norm with slave free societies being the exception. Honestly, I dont think a free market of any real scale has ever really existed, I doubt it even could exist without fundamental changes to human nature....

  14. One of us can't count and for your sake you better hope its you.

    http://entitledto.co.uk/calcresults.aspx?sid=1&cid=bfc1b7de-87b3-4c3c-95a8-b4e9dd2cc51c

    [\quote]

    You dont seem to have my details correct :(. And oddly I'm not going to give more than I did already for a side debate with someone I dont actually care much about.

    As to not considering the income:

    So yes he does, and what happens when the SMP runs out and she has to work and pay for childcare for twins? She better have a good (and easy) job if its worth putting 2 kids into one of those baby farms.

    Now link to any post in which he does calculations acknowledging that income. Sure he put his hands up after the fact when he's been caught out but its more than a little dishonest to try and paint it as though he always did.

  15. So I wasted 5 minutes of my life (again) on entitled to. By my calcs you'd be lucky to get £10.50 a week for the over £45K you claim to earn, plus £20 child benefit works out at around £130 a month.

    Not your £160. Unless of course you're basing that on the assumption the bumper child's first year payment carry on after his/her first birthday - the joke might be on you :lol:

    C'mon, give us some number to put into entitledto to get you all that tax credit you claim

    Read the link ( I editted so you may not have seen it ), up to £50k family income gets the whole entitlement for child tax credit and I am a sole earner for the time being......

  16. 90% for only 6 weeks ******tard

    then its only £123 a week (circa £500) for 33 weeks

    Bit of a difference to your claimed £900 a month isn't it?

    Still don't let facts get in the way of your argument

    It's still £500 a month that Radge et al have been omitting from their calculations. Then there is the minimum of child benefits on 2 babies.....

  17. http://entitledto.co.uk - All there ;)

    As well as a good understanding of my own circumstances :P

    Dont need the calculator, I can just check the bank statements ;). I'll give you a clue that my wife does not work and I'm not that far above the threshold on the tax front.

    For those who dont know I found an explanation;

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/sep/11/taxcredits.familyfinance

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information