Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Kill The Banks, Save The World?


Recommended Posts

Watching the EU slowly unwinding under the pressure of international financial markets begs the question- has Wall street and the City become a clear and present danger to the viability of western civilisation?

At what point does their accumulation and manipulation of debt obligations become so disruptive to the real world that they require elimination?

Should both the EU and the US now be turning it's security apparatus on the masters of universe before they create so much social dislocation that our societies no longer function?

It just seems more and more obvious that the Financial sector has gone rogue- it no longer operates in the self interest of the majority, but exists now to serve the interests of a small minority only- and is now so out of control that it must be effectively taken out in order to prevent a collapse of the host societies-

any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Watching the EU slowly unwinding under the pressure of international financial markets begs the question- has Wall street and the City become a clear and present danger to the viability of western civilisation?

At what point does their accumulation and manipulation of debt obligations become so disruptive to the real world that they require elimination?

Should both the EU and the US now be turning it's security apparatus on the masters of universe before they create so much social dislocation that our societies no longer function?

It just seems more and more obvious that the Financial sector has gone rogue- it no longer operates in the self interest of the majority, but exists now to serve the interests of a small minority only- and is now so out of control that it must be effectively taken out in order to prevent a collapse of the host societies-

any thoughts?

Tis very true. My father is an ex-miner die-hard labour supporter, I am currently an investment banker. Guess who thinks the banks should have been bailed out to prevent damage to the further economy and who thinks the banks shold have been allowed to go bust? The world has been turned on its head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, try and work out what really caused the problem. Lose your obsession with bankers and focus on the governments whose policies the banks are playing out. They are the real issue.

I think you'll find that for the most part the political classes are owned lock, stock and barrel by the banking industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, try and work out what really caused the problem. Lose your obsession with bankers and focus on the governments whose policies the banks are playing out. They are the real issue.

So you accept that the financial sector is now a threat to the stability of our societies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that for the most part the political classes are owned lock, stock and barrel by the banking industry.

this has been going on a very,very long time indeed.

the format is nothing new at all.

just look at the rise and fall of rome,and it is a carbon-copy......almost in time-span too,as well as behavioural patterns.

so who financed rome to begin with?

or ancient egypt for that matter?

this has been going on for THOUSANDS of years.The politicians we have are bought and paid for by the same people that presided over these empires,to do things in exactly the same fashion that they always have done.

for what ends??......beats me.

maybe ancient egypt pre/post flood holds a few clues.

maybe atlantis before that.....hitler was into that,and we have space projects like the shuttles that are very much atlantis-orientated.

are we just repeating REALLY ancient history all over again?....given that time is basically cyclical it's not an absurd proposition.

Edited by oracle
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that for the most part the political classes are owned lock, stock and barrel by the banking industry.

I think you'll find you are wrong.

So you accept that the financial sector is now a threat to the stability of our societies?

I accept that certain Governments following Keynsian economics of borrow to spend are a threat to the stability of our societies.

Don't forget, the nationalised banks have LENDING TARGETS they have to hit or be fined heavily. Those LENDING TARGETS are set by the Government, primarily to support Government policy. e.g. a key policy is for a larger private rental society created by people or organisations borrowing money to buy property. Where is the majority of this money to come from? The banks of course.

I think the banks have learned a harsh lesson. I think certain Governments haven't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find you are wrong.

I accept that certain Governments following Keynsian economics of borrow to spend are a threat to the stability of our societies.

Don't forget, the nationalised banks have LENDING TARGETS they have to hit or be fined heavily. Those LENDING TARGETS are set by the Government, primarily to support Government policy. e.g. a key policy is for a larger private rental society created by people or organisations borrowing money to buy property. Where is the majority of this money to come from? The banks of course.

I think the banks have learned a harsh lesson. I think certain Governments haven't.

What harsh lessons would those be? Seems to me they had their belief that they can hold society to ransom greatly reinforced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One way of characterising the current problem is that the issuance or origination of our (broad) money supply, which is the means of exchange upon which our economy is entirely dependent, is inextricably amalgamated with the commercial lending of it. Our means of exchange is lent into existence at interest for profit, under the control of and at the discretion of the commercial banking system. The result is that society is therefore paying heavily and unnecessarily, but unavoidably, to a commercial minority for the very existence of an adequate means of exchange. The nation state is indebted because it has handed over the function of providing an adequate money supply to the commercial banking system. The nation itself borrows money previously lent into existence at interest by commercial banks.

Doesn’t this strike you as rather odd, the tail wagging the dog?

In contrast, imagine a society that collectively (i.e. publicly), responsibly and exclusively issues its money without debt, thereafter to circulate permanently. Trade and commerce proceed more or less as now, money is lent and borrowed, and so on. The difference is that there is no universal background interest charge on the money supply which continuously drains wealth from the general economy back to the commercial issuer-lenders. The privileged issuer-lenders are gone, the function of money issuance is de-coupled from commercial lending. Instead there is just one issuer, the state, which issues the money debt-free, and quite separately a multitude of competing private lenders and borrowers of this now permanently circulating money.

We need a banking system that serves society, not one that enslaves it with debt and rent-a-currency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget, the nationalised banks have LENDING TARGETS

You seem to have missed out the bit where the nationalisation of the banks was caused by the banks creating unsustainable debts and needing to be bailed out.

The lending targets are in part an attempt to prevent the bankers from diverting all the cheap money they have been given into further speculation or bonus payouts.

Given the history of the last couple of years, can you honestly say that the finance sector operates in the public interest?- and before you reply give a thought for the millions now without jobs courtesy of our banking friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, try and work out what really caused the problem. Lose your obsession with bankers and focus on the governments whose policies the banks are playing out. They are the real issue.

I disagree. Follow the money as Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, JFK tried to do. Politicians by and large don't understand what's what until it's too late or they are bank shills-see Obama and Bush. NO banking reform-you can't change a damn thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One way of characterising the current problem is that the issuance or origination of our (broad) money supply, which is the means of exchange upon which our economy is entirely dependent, is inextricably amalgamated with the commercial lending of it. Our means of exchange is lent into existence at interest for profit, under the control of and at the discretion of the commercial banking system. The result is that society is therefore paying heavily and unnecessarily, but unavoidably, to a commercial minority for the very existence of an adequate means of exchange. The nation state is indebted because it has handed over the function of providing an adequate money supply to the commercial banking system. The nation itself borrows money previously lent into existence at interest by commercial banks.

Doesn’t this strike you as rather odd, the tail wagging the dog?

In contrast, imagine a society that collectively (i.e. publicly), responsibly and exclusively issues its money without debt, thereafter to circulate permanently. Trade and commerce proceed more or less as now, money is lent and borrowed, and so on. The difference is that there is no universal background interest charge on the money supply which continuously drains wealth from the general economy back to the commercial issuer-lenders. The privileged issuer-lenders are gone, the function of money issuance is de-coupled from commercial lending. Instead there is just one issuer, the state, which issues the money debt-free, and quite separately a multitude of competing private lenders and borrowers of this now permanently circulating money.

Only the first user of money benefits from its issuance. Everyone else just has to readjust their pricing mechanisms.

You want the State to issue all money and 'supply'- despite the fact that this is impossible if economic participants are still allowed access to international debt markets where they can post collateral. The money supply or "supply of money" will still increase.

Despite this glaring oversight - this can only end in one of three situations:

1. Massive enlargement and wealth transfer to the State

2. Stagnation in the general economy due to lack of access of money.

3. Hyperinflation.

None of those appeal to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to do we want to be permanently in debt to the bankers, which always must be the case to avoid a deflationary death spiral in fractional reserve banking. Sure a few individuals might be able to be debt free, but its impossible for the society not to go further into debt as productivity rises in a fractional reserve system.

Or do we want to issue currency for the public benefit. Spending on public infrastructure, then letting the money circulate freely without owing interest to anyone.

There is even a middle ground. Doubling the reserve factor from 7% to 14% would cut in half the amount of debt the banks could have. China today has a strong economy and is at 16.5% reserve requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to do we want to be permanently in debt to the bankers, which always must be the case to avoid a deflationary death spiral in fractional reserve banking. Sure a few individuals might be able to be debt free, but its impossible for the society not to go further into debt as productivity rises in a fractional reserve system.

Or do we want to issue currency for the public benefit. Spending on public infrastructure, then letting the money circulate freely without owing interest to anyone.

There is even a middle ground. Doubling the reserve factor from 7% to 14% would cut in half the amount of debt the banks could have. China today has a strong economy and is at 16.5% reserve requirement.

Banks profits can be taxed to the maximum through the existing mechanisms. Warehouse accounts can be offered to people who don't wish to be creditors to the machine. To suggest 'we are in permanent debt to the bankers' is emotive nonsense. We are in debt to the people who provided the funding. Bankers collect on the arbitrage. There's no need to completely rip out the existing infrastructure - when the same can be achieved with proper controls.

We cannot eliminate debt and the borrowing of capital with a mono-currency unless you also outlaw the concept of private capital and disposal thereof. Look at the Chinese and US Treasury - they've been passing the same piece of money between them via the US consumer and the chinese are collecting interest on each time it has passed.

Edited by Alan B'Stard MP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, try and work out what really caused the problem. Lose your obsession with bankers and focus on the governments whose policies the banks are playing out. They are the real issue.

that is 1 issue, I agree. but the real issue is that 1 unit of currency is not worth 1 unit of anything real. therefore, mathematical manipulations are worthless, regardless of their soundness, as the reality kicks in.

for example, you can issue as much debt in numbers as you like...as long as you keep issuing more, then, in theory, you will get your debt paid back..hence 2% inflation targets...sadly, the reality on which the loans are based, and the LAWS on which the loans are issued, are based in reality.....and reality isnt increasing by 2% every year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What harsh lessons would those be? Seems to me they had their belief that they can hold society to ransom greatly reinforced.

Errrrr, no. The shareholders of quite a few UK banks learned that if they leant money to people who couldn't pay it back then they lost most, if not all of their shareholding value, so I struggle to see how the real owners of these banks have benefitted.

You seem to have missed out the bit where the nationalisation of the banks was caused by the banks creating unsustainable debts and needing to be bailed out.

The lending targets are in part an attempt to prevent the bankers from diverting all the cheap money they have been given into further speculation or bonus payouts.

Given the history of the last couple of years, can you honestly say that the finance sector operates in the public interest?- and before you reply give a thought for the millions now without jobs courtesy of our banking friends.

And you seem to have missed the cause of the reckless lending i.e. the Government dropping IRs specifically to increase borrowing to boost asset prices (Eddie George, 2003). That's what got us into this mess in the first place. You also seem to have missed the Government failing to stop the reckless lending despite being warned times of how unsustainable it was. The lending targets are purely an attempt to get asset prices back up to where they were at the peak. If the Government wanted to stop bonus payouts then it easily could at the nationalised banks. And if the bankers were to blame then why have the nationalised banks continues the same business model.

The economy is back to where it would have been if we hadn't had the credit boom. Brown and his fellow bunch of tax abusers did nothing clever. There was no real growth. Most of the businesses that have gone under would have been unviable without the boom anyway. And most of those jobs lost equally so. There never was a miracle economy. Get over it.

that is 1 issue, I agree. but the real issue is that 1 unit of currency is not worth 1 unit of anything real. therefore, mathematical manipulations are worthless, regardless of their soundness, as the reality kicks in.

for example, you can issue as much debt in numbers as you like...as long as you keep issuing more, then, in theory, you will get your debt paid back..hence 2% inflation targets...sadly, the reality on which the loans are based, and the LAWS on which the loans are issued, are based in reality.....and reality isnt increasing by 2% every year.

Part of the problem is population growth. If there are 10 people in the UK and £1,000 in circulation, then each can have £100. If someone new is born or arrives then there is only enough for £91 each 9roughly). Issue another £100 and everyone is happy again. Issue £111 then everyone has £101 and everyone is richer than before. Cut the population and everyone is richer still.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Watching the EU slowly unwinding under the pressure of international financial markets begs the question- has Wall street and the City become a clear and present danger to the viability of western civilisation?
I don't think the EU is unwinding - it seems to be acting fairly robustly towards the Greek crisis. The Euro hasn't plummeted against the pound, in fact it's up a bit this morning.

I think Wall St. and the City have already shown how they can go against the interests of society.

Now I'm beginning to suspect that when the recovery takes off, Britain won't be part of it and the 'City' will dwindle in importance as a financial centre.

If ever there was a case for a windfall tax, it's Barclays, now!

Edited by blankster
Link to post
Share on other sites

Errrrr, no. The shareholders of quite a few UK banks learned that if they leant money to people who couldn't pay it back then they lost most, if not all of their shareholding value, so I struggle to see how the real owners of these banks have benefitted.

Bank shareholders have benefited enormously and learned very little.

The shareholders of many banks would be holding worthless shares if those banks had not been saved by taxpayers in the UK and US. The fact they have any value at all is because the rest of us have had to dig deep to bail them out.

All the banks - even investment banks like GS (now no-longer an investment bank of course) - have learned is that they are underwritten by the public.

Edited by redalert
Link to post
Share on other sites

And you seem to have missed the cause of the reckless lending i.e. the Government dropping IRs specifically to increase borrowing to boost asset prices (Eddie George, 2003).

The State can drop IR's but ultimately banks can only lend what their capital allows them to lend. It's the trade deficits of the western world and the recycling of eastern savings that provided the financing. Why these asian producers were allowed to accumulate these savings is the real cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the EU slowly unwinding under the pressure of international financial markets begs the question- has Wall street and the City become a clear and present danger to the viability of western civilisation?

At what point does their accumulation and manipulation of debt obligations become so disruptive to the real world that they require elimination?

Should both the EU and the US now be turning it's security apparatus on the masters of universe before they create so much social dislocation that our societies no longer function?

It just seems more and more obvious that the Financial sector has gone rogue- it no longer operates in the self interest of the majority, but exists now to serve the interests of a small minority only- and is now so out of control that it must be effectively taken out in order to prevent a collapse of the host societies-

any thoughts?

Welcome to the real word. The banks were never anything other than rogue. Being in control of so much power is simply too much temptation.

Rothschild reputedly hoodwinked the market over the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo. World war One occured only months after The Federal Reserve Act passed the US Senate in December 1913, the act having been concocted by a coven of the world's powerful bankers at Jekyll Island in the preceding years. Prescott Bush, grandfather to Former US President George W Bush (major shareholder in Carlyle Group) was a director at a New York bank that was seized in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Tower Seven at the World Trade Centre, occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defence and the Office of Emergency Management, is said to be the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire. Iraq had WMD's it could deploy in 45 minutes.

Enjoy this video:

but don't delude yourself there's ever gonna be a revolution. There ain't. The elite use the media to keep the people in a bovine state; too many people are hopelessly distracted with nonsense like who wins X-Factor, who killed Archie Mitchell and what Jordan did next, for revolution to ever happen.

Go enjoy your life in a place you like with people you love doing things that matter. Find happiness in that; it's the best you can hope for.

Edited by Dave Spart
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 439 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.