Endgame - Nationalised Banks

[Scott Sando]

Check out this book, its a free PDF file, its called None dare call it conspiracy by Gary AllenLink to the PDF file

Edited February 7, 2011 by Scott Sando

[Pindar]

I suspect that if any government tried to issue its own debt free currency, then one of two things would happen:

1. They would be voted out at the next election

2. The rigged global markets would cause the new currency to be worthless in exchange for anything outside of the country in question.

Vested interests and a powerful network of influence would see to it that any threat to the existing order would be quickly de-fanged so that "business as usual" could continue unabated.

[Traktion]

I suspect that if any government tried to issue its own debt free currency, then one of two things would happen:

1. They would be voted out at the next election

2. The rigged global markets would cause the new currency to be worthless in exchange for anything outside of the country in question.

Vested interests and a powerful network of influence would see to it that any threat to the existing order would be quickly de-fanged so that "business as usual" could continue unabated.

Well, both the UK and the US have already issued a hole pile of debt free currency, i.e. their central banks have electronically bought their own government bonds (which are essentially money).

Did the moon fall into the sea?

EDIT: To add, so have Japan and the Eurozone too.

(ha, I just noticed I'm now a HPC Guru, apparently! )

Edited February 7, 2011 by Traktion

[Traktion]

It was for the Zen-like poetry of the moon falling into the sea.

And there was me thinking it was because of 5000 posts!

[aa3]

How does the government know what the next big thing will be and therefore push investment into it? It can't, which is why central planning is judged to be less efficient than a market based economy. In short, how can a few liars in suits know where to spend the money better than millions of individuals?

I'd leave the next big thing to venture capital and smaller more speculative banks. Although in fairness a great deal of US and UK technology came out of government programs, namely the military research programs.

A lot of industry its not that hard to figure out, they have rising demand and want to add capital to meet the demand so cheap loans are provided. It worked in Asia with their governments making sure the corporations got cheap loans.

A lot of the critiques of these government plans are not really a critique of government running things.. its a critique of our recent governments in the UK, which are not staffed by men who know how to run things.. or even want to. Somewhere the merticoracy broke down.

We don't really even have leaders. We have pretty boys who say and do what they think the public wants them to do..to be popular. And it works for getting elected. A leader command people to carry out his goals.. he doesn't hold a focus group to decide a policy position.

[Pindar]

Well, both the UK and the US have already issued a hole pile of debt free currency, i.e. their central banks have electronically bought their own government bonds (which are essentially money).

Did the moon fall into the sea?

EDIT: To add, so have Japan and the Eurozone too.

(ha, I just noticed I'm now a HPC Guru, apparently! )

But the point is, it's not the government that is printing the money. It's the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England (private banks) and they charge interest on that money, even if the rate is at a historic low.

[scepticus]

But the point is, it's not the government that is printing the money. It's the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England (private banks) and they charge interest on that money, even if the rate is at a historic low.

yeah but the BoE returns all the profits it gets in interest to the treasury!

don't tell me you've been suckered by the 'independant' bank of england guff???

an entity A that remits all its profits to entity B is owned by B, even if the management of A is carried out at arms length from B.

[Traktion]

I'd leave the next big thing to venture capital and smaller more speculative banks. Although in fairness a great deal of US and UK technology came out of government programs, namely the military research programs.

A lot of industry its not that hard to figure out, they have rising demand and want to add capital to meet the demand so cheap loans are provided. It worked in Asia with their governments making sure the corporations got cheap loans.

A lot of the critiques of these government plans are not really a critique of government running things.. its a critique of our recent governments in the UK, which are not staffed by men who know how to run things.. or even want to. Somewhere the merticoracy broke down.

We don't really even have leaders. We have pretty boys who say and do what they think the public wants them to do..to be popular. And it works for getting elected. A leader command people to carry out his goals.. he doesn't hold a focus group to decide a policy position.

Let's see where Asia ends up in the long run. While China may have a large and growing economy, wealth per capita isn't high. Who is to say they are not going down the wrong route altogether, in being the sweat shop for the developed world? Sometimes you only know that investment is in fact malinvestment, when it is too late. How about those ghost cities in China?

I certainly don't like the idea of a determined man at the top of a command economy. My reading of history doesn't paint such strong leaders well either. Need we look further than Egypt for a recent example?

People fall for the same idea time and time again, that we just need a few good men at the top and all would be well. I don't believe such people exist and nor do I believe that they can possibly know everything that is going on and therefore make educated decisions in all areas.

[Riedquat]

People fall for the same idea time and time again, that we just need a few good men at the top and all would be well. I don't believe such people exist and nor do I believe that they can possibly know everything that is going on and therefore make educated decisions in all areas.

Somewhere in The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"On no account should anyone capable of getting themselves into a position of power be allowed to do so."

[Traktion]

yeah but the BoE returns all the profits it gets in interest to the treasury!

don't tell me you've been suckered by the 'independant' bank of england guff???

an entity A that remits all its profits to entity B is owned by B, even if the management of A is carried out at arms length from B.

What he said - the profits are returned.

TBH, I'm glad that monetary policy is decided by Mervyn and his gang though, rather than a slick looking politician, even if the latter can set daft targets. I think Mervyn seems to get far more stick than he deserves.

IMO, central bank interest rates are becoming less and less important now that we are at peak/optimal debt; it's not like we're about to see rapid credit growth any time soon.

Surely, they only need bother themselves with preventing negative real rates, with liberal use of QE when necessary? Scepticus, what is your view on negative interest rates vs QE? Should they both be used or one instead of the other depending on circumstances (such as using QE when we have lots of gilts to buy up)?

Edited February 8, 2011 by Traktion

[Pindar]

yeah but the BoE returns all the profits it gets in interest to the treasury!

That's irrelevant and something akin to the slave owner paying its slaves a few peanuts from the plantation as a reward for good behaviour.

don't tell me you've been suckered by the 'independant' bank of england guff???

We're talking about the money system in general here. The point is that there is a monopoly supplier of money which dictates terms and conditions to everybody else and which is not accountable to any elected body for its actions. (I'm not talking about the government as being elected since it too is owned and paid for by the banking elite)

an entity A that remits all its profits to entity B is owned by B, even if the management of A is carried out at arms length from B.

Whatever.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

...as mentioned he never made the comment....but in the UK the Communist Leaning Stalinist Brown paved the way to destruction ...wonder what Karl Marx would have made of that.....

I don't think he would have distinguished between Brown and Cameron. They are part of the same class: the ruling class, enabled by a bourgeoise democracy. And Stalin was hardly Marxist, was he?

[Laughing Gnome]

Here's what Marx wrote in 1867.

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debts become unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the state will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism".

For goodness sake shermantor; read that again, understand what it means, and then think, 1867????

One does not need to be a student of Marx for the BS detector to be signalling 10.

A word of the era was "manufactories". "Technology" gained currency via Marx's close friend Harold Wilson.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Laughing Gnome

[aa3]

Let's see where Asia ends up in the long run. While China may have a large and growing economy, wealth per capita isn't high. Who is to say they are not going down the wrong route altogether, in being the sweat shop for the developed world? Sometimes you only know that investment is in fact malinvestment, when it is too late. How about those ghost cities in China?

Well, good point. My thought is it usually takes a strong leader to develop a nation. If you look from 1950 to 2000 only a handful of nations were able to industrialize. All of them were right wing dictatorships. It will be interesting to see if East Asian nations can keep up the advancing wealth, now that they have caught up with western nations.

I certainly don't like the idea of a determined man at the top of a command economy. My reading of history doesn't paint such strong leaders well either. Need we look further than Egypt for a recent example?

I do not believe Hosni Mubarak was that bad of a leader. Egypt was showing steady development. The statistic I follow most is electrical production. Britain's stagnation in living standards over the last 30 years has been met with a stagnation in electrical production. In 1980 when Hosni Mubarak came to power Egypt produced 18 billion kilowatt hours a year. Britain was a world leader at the time in electricit and produced 264 billion kwh a year.

By 2008 Egyptian power production has risen to 123 billion kwh. A 680% increase since 1980. British power production had risen to 361 billion kwh.

I think in Europe the experience of some strong leaders during the 20th century was so painful, that we have designed an elaborate series of checks and balances. But it creates an almost anarchy where no one is really in charge. Its fine when things are going well, but in tough times when reforms are needed, if no one has the power to change anything, its just a long, slow downward fall until breakdown.

I believe only dictator has the power to stand up to the vested interests, and the power to control the bureaucracy of the state. Both of those seem to be running wild in western nations right now.