Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
The Spaniard

Hansard's Omission From Steve Baker's Money Creation Speech

Recommended Posts

During the Parliamentary debate on Money Creation and Society yesterday Steve Baker (Conservative MP for Wycombe) stated that:

... there is a categorical difference between earning money through the sweat of one’s brow and making money by just creating it and lending it to someone in exchange for a claim on the deeds to their house.

Interestingly, the Hansard transcription of Steve's statement has omitted the phrase "just creating it and", thus reporting:

... there is a categorical difference between earning money through the sweat of one’s brow and making money by lending it to someone in exchange for a claim on the deeds to their house.

Is this an example of John K Galbraith's observation: "The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled."?

Could the transcriptionist's brain simply not handle the truth?

Or is something more sneaky going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't they supposed to record the speeches verbatim - rather than miss out the three most important words in the sentence to completely twist the meaning of the sentence.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the actual point of them discussion this topic? Are they actually thinking of creating a law against QE/money creation by banks? A return to the gold standard/glass steagal :lol: (one can dream).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the transcriptionist's brain simply not handle the truth?

Or is something more sneaky going on?

I go with theory one- the idea that money could be just created from thin air is so alien to them that they simply failed to register it. What people see-and hear- is remarkably conditioned by their expectations and world view. A classic example being the case where a child collided with a parked car and the police were able to interview a totally honest witness who was convinced he saw that car run the child down. He was not lying exactly- he was just reporting reality in line with his expectations- and in his mind the most likely- therefore true- version of events was the one where the car ran down the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if these session aren't recorded! They even have a TV channel. No excuse!

some sessions are, some sessions are not.

The ones where they take off their masks and eat babies are not recorded, for example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.