Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MikeG63

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Well, in-spite of opposing vested interests, it seems there is a ground-swell of opinion that thinks the banking industry should put in its place. Steve Baker MP has tabled a debate 'Money Creation an Society' so that Parliament can discuss whether money should be created by private banks for the purposes of their profit, or whether, as I think, it should be under Parliamentary control for the benefit of the people. Money is a man-made concept and Parliament can - as it did last time - change the rules. You can help: just ask your MP to attend the debate; that's all! It doesn't matter which
  2. Thanks for the feedback. @Joan: Yes, e-petitions are way less effective than the initial promise. In my experience they usually result in a response of the party line. The reason I went in this direction is: - there isn't a party line per se. The biggest problem with the banking system is lack of understanding. When people were asked who creates money, the majority said Govt or Central Bank. When people were asked whether they would want a banking system where the creation and destination of new money was decided by profit seeking enterprises, the majority said no. Yet the latter is w
  3. I must say that HPC seems to have a higher level of understanding than most. I have got into some lengthy arguments - often with memebers of financial services - when I raise the issues caused by allowing private profit seeking companies to benefit from creating money from fresh air. I'd say the average view I encounter is that banks are intermediaries, and then the more informed view is the standard textbook money multiplier model, which at least accepts that *someone* creates money. None of those arguments on this thread; yet at the same time no real support on the e-petition. As we head
  4. If money creation is in the hands of vote seeking politicians we can expect problems just as today we have problems because it's in the hands of profit seeking enterprises. You can imagine the spending/tax cuts/bribes that would go on in the run up to an election. The amount of new money required has to come from a committee that does not directly benefit either way. I like the idea that Parliament sets the targets and the committee figures out the amount of money required. Citizen's dividend is certainly one way to introduce the money. A Sovereign fund would also work. Imagine if £375bn
  5. I don't think that would do it. The majority of new money goes into property but some of it also goes into financial instruments. They would simply find another asset class to inflate. The fix is to stop private companies creating money from fresh air in the first place.
  6. Finding evidence that private commercial banks should be stripped of the power to create money and pump it into the most profitable bubble of their choice is easy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656406/Is-house-earning-The-33-areas-increases-property-prices-outstripped-local-wages.html Each new mortgage devalues your salary by another tini bit. Slow enough so you don't notice, big enough to cause you problems between the crash of 08 and today. I'm working to fix it, my MP is on-side, but I need support: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050 Thanks!
  7. In what way did private banks allocate funds better? As wonderpup says, see recent history for details: tens of millions pushed into real poverty by a global crash, and a drop in real income for some number beginning with billion. Even Mugabe only ruined the lives of about 13M. Money creation should not be in the hands of private profit seeking enterprises (hence http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050), nor should it be in the hands of vote seeking politicians. The answer I think is an independent committee that does not benefit directly from the amount of money in supply. They s
  8. I think the differences are a) the rate at which money is introduced is limited to players passing go, unlike real life where the banks will create money limited only by their confidence to lend and peoples' desire for a bigger mortgage new money is not associated with equivalent debt to the bank
  9. So HMG mistakenly thinks that an economy can be stimulated by more mortgates - it can't, the new money is locked up - or maybe wants to publish growth in GDP and champion their success. They give the money to private banks who multiply the interest by three or more (because they have little competition) and give it to the public, who buy a roof over their head so they can get that job in a different town. A housing bubble emerges: Carney (sooner or later) raises interest rates, and as with the crash, the banks win and everyone else loses as their mortgage payments went up. ... Alternatively
  10. No, they were given access to your money far more cheaply via your taxes, in schemes such as funding for lending. File on 4 had an interviewee who stated that banks no longer called up to be the top of the interest tables, they called up to make sure they were in the middle. Banks make a profit from lending when they create new money by typing numbers into a computer, so they don't need to offer you great returns because your money is at most just the fractional reserve, and at least just the multiplier on that reserve. Apropos of a personal campaign on behalf of the public, the banks would
  11. I guess the leading UK economic commentator of the Financial Times got it wrong then? He seems to be of the opinion that the crash will happen *unless* we take action to strip banks of the power to print electronic money. Action like this really: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050 FT post is free but requires registration, so here are some highlights. Title: "Strip private banks of their power to create money" "The giant hole at the heart of our market economies needs to be plugged. Printing counterfeit banknotes is illegal, but creating private money is not. ... It could –
  12. In reverse order, yes, yes, and no. How do you get to advanced editing to quote just the relevent sections not the whole post? Previously I've used BB codes but I don't see the option for "/quote". Yes, that's the current fractional reserve banking system, but it's much worse than the textbook 10%. At the time of the crash reserves were average 2% IIRC, which means the £100 Sterling, let's call that 'real' money, was promised out to 47 other people turning it into £4800 total, with 0-15% interest, so the arduous work of typing numbers into a computer on the back of your £100 earned the har
  13. Don't you think that Zopa is an indication of the real price of money?
  14. It's not a necessary fact of money that it devalues. From about 1700 we had a couple of hundred years of stable purchasing power with IIRC one revaluation 1813 or thereabouts. The reason we have had massive currency inflation from mid 20th century on is that we let private companies (banks) create new money, it was profitable for them, and computers allowed them to leaverage in ways previously unimaginable.
  15. Lets put some facts together 1) When commercial banks make loans, they create new money by typing numbers into a computer. Don't believe me? Here it is from the Bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2014/051.aspx# Here it is in practice: Granny deposits £100 cash into the bank. Builder comes along for a loan of £90. Bank thinks 'we're good for it', types £90 into his account and notes a liability of £90 to make the books balance. Granny withdraws £100. Builder withdraws £90. Et Voila! Now £190 exists where before it was only £100. In practice, only a
  • 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.