Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)

  1. Hyperinflation needs no wage inflation at all.

    The only thing that needs to happen, is for people with savings to lose confidence and to start bailing out of Sterling. It's as simple as that.


    The central banks want velocity of money to pick up, with people consuming and investing. What they don't want is velocity of money picking up, with this money ending up in commodities because 1. they don't want to consume (worried about job, future etc) and/or 2. there is nothing to invest in (businesses struggling, companies down sizing etc).


    hyperinflation - paper money implodes as enough people see the con game for what it is

    it is not caused due to an increase in economic activity

    and yet most of those arguing against hyperinflation state that we cant have it due to the excess capacity

    they should check out hyperinflations that have happened previously

  2. Take your pick, are you in the deflation camp or inflation camp? Im of the inflation view but house prices are so high relative to earnings, we will see house price falls until the wage price spiral kicks in.

    inflation in stuff we need

    deflation in stuff bought with borrowed money( for a while anyway)

    and Merv only worries about wage inflation - all part of the plan to make the masses have less money

  3. its one big ******ing con - wake the ****** up


    Unfortunately, since bailment law was undeveloped in the nineteenth century, the bankers' counsel were able to swing the judicial decisions their way. The landmark decisions came in Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century, and these decisions were then taken over by the American courts. In the first important case, Carr v. Carr, in 1811, the British judge, Sir William Grant, ruled that since the money paid into a bank deposit had been paid generally, and not earmarked in a sealed bag (i.e., as a "specific deposit") that the transaction had become a loan rather than a bailment. Five years later, in the key follow-up case of Devaynes v. Noble, one of the counsel argued correctly that "a banker is rather a bailee of his customer's fund than his debtor, … because the money in … [his] hands is rather a deposit than a debt, and may therefore be instantly demanded and taken up." But the same Judge Grant again insisted that "money paid into a banker's becomes immediately a part of his general assets; and he is merely a debtor for the amount." In the final culminating case, Foley v. Hill and Others, decided by the House of Lords in 1848, Lord Cottenham, repeating the reasoning of the previous cases, put it lucidly if astonishingly:

    The money placed in the custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he i s not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, i f he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted.[3]

    The argument of Lord Cottenham and of all other apologists for fractional-reserve banking, that the banker only contracts for the amount of money, but not to keep the money on hand, ignores the fact that if all the depositors knew what was going on and exercised their claims at once, the banker could not possibly honor his commitments. In other words, honoring the contracts, and maintaining the entire system of fractional-reserve banking, requires a structure of smoke-and-mirrors, of duping the depositors into thinking that "their" money is safe, and would be honored should they wish to redeem their claims. The entire system of fractional-reserve banking, therefore, is built on deceit, a deceit connived at by the legal system.

    A crucial question to be asked is this: why did grain warehouse law, where the conditions – of depositing fungible goods – are exactly the same, and grain is a general deposit and not an earmarked bundle – develop in precisely the opposite direction? Why did the courts finally recognize that deposits of even a fungible good, in the case of grain, are emphatically a bailment, not a debt? Could it be that the bankers conducted a more effective lobbying operation than did the grain men?

  4. Hello everyone

    I don't post a lot on here but I lurk a lot, and I've learnt a lot (like how to fend off friends and relatives - and spendthrift ex - who keep hassling me to blow my hard-earned deposit money and buy 'because property only ever goes up').

    Anyway, I came across this posting on the Adam Curtis blog

    Let Them Eat Plastic and I don't think I've seen it mentioned on this site - he refers to a book called Fault Lines by Raghuram Rajan who argues that access to cheap debt was used as a means to quell social unrest.

    Here's how he sums up the book:

    "Faced with this [social unrest], governments made a political choice. Rather than reform society, they removed all restrictions, gave up on their moral disapproval [of debt], and allowed a system to be created by the bankers that let everyone borrow.

    It was better to give in and allow the "little people" to borrow rather than let them keep on striking and threaten social order. And what's more you could make lots of money out of it."

    I imagined it's telling most of you what you already know but I thought you still might want to have a look

    Best wishes


    Raghuram Rajan has an extraordinary statistic. That if you look at the the growth in real incomes between 1976 and 2007, 58% of it went to the top 1%.

    its always the same with inflation every time in ******ing history

    people need to wake the ****** up

  5. :lol: those nasty Muslims, who do they think they are competing against the bankers


    Alhamdulillah, we are happy to announce the news all of us have been waiting for – the official launch of Dinar and Dirham in the state of Kelantan will be held in its capital, Kota Bharu, on 12 August 2010.

    The upcoming event in Kelantan is history in making as it marks the beginning of both, the rise of Islam and demise of Capitalism for the two can’t co-exist: when the light comes darkness disappears.

    This is the first time in the last 100 years, since the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, when a Muslim government introduces Shariah Currency. Indeed there has been four generations of Muslims who have not seen Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham; four generations of Muslims who have been divided into little national reservations and sentenced to permanent robbery first by local, then by international Masters of Riba; four generations of Muslims who haven’t known what is their Deen. The introduction of Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham in the state of Kelantan is not a new idea or experiment, it is the return to the medium of exchange that has been known for 1400 years throughout Dar al-Islam as Money of Shariah taking its legislation from Allah’s Revelation and Rasul’s Sunnah.

  6. I'm sure they will try, but in the event of state failure, what power base do they use as leverage?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think the tide has turned, but there is a suggestion of it beginning to turn. A man can hope, can't he? :)

    we're hoping and we're trying

    we made need some arrows though, but not paper ones

  7. That too. The original man prescribed savings in good times, and then spendings in bad times. Brown ignored the first part.


    the original man changed his mind all the time, spouted aboslute nonsense with the occassional correct observation and some wit

    paradox of thrift

    crumpling towels


    digging ditches

    governments saving money when they dont have any

    bancor world currency (yep they are going to try it)

    credit expansion can turn stones into bread

  • 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.