View Full Version : IMPORTANT: Why the banks MUST be allowed to fail!
I am slightly nervous about writing this as it could spark a revolution, all be it bloodless. I do believe the concept is right both logically and morally, even if it rocks the status quo, it is in the best interest of the British people which is ultimately more important. This information must be gravely considered before taking action.
Given that banks lend 9 times more than they borrow (their borrowings are your deposits that you lend them) and the average UK debt has approximately £40,000 of debt and the average savings a mere £7,500 when the Government says propping up the banks is protecting UK savings, what they really mean is they are protecting your debts!!!
If the banks were allowed to fail and their debts written off the average person would be around £32,500 better off. Given this point, why is the Government using tax payer funds and borrowing more, the interest for which will be charged to our children’s tax bill, when we would be better off if the banks fail?
If the banks failed and their debts written off, many would have their mortgages wiped. If you have paid all the demands made upon you by the bank the bank doesn't have the right to reposses your home. If your bank fails and stops making claims on you who are you going to pay?
Remeber the banks are telling you know that if they don't get multiple bailouts and they go bankrupt the money you have lent them in savings etc. will be lost, (Blackmail) it is only right then that the money they have lent you is also lost if they fail.
If they ever sent you notice regarding repossession due to bankruptcy, all you need to do is gather legal advice (or do it yourself) and confirm that you have received their notice but are contesting it due to legal reasons - these can include:
1 - It was not your fault that the bank became bankrupt and feel it was down to bad management or irregularities within the bank, which you require thorough investigation of
2 - You have not missed payments on your mortgage and through no fault of your own, they are no longer willing to honour your contract. They are in breach not you.
3 - You do not feel that it would be ethical for the bank to reposses your home and wish to take this to the EU or World court due to breach of human rights
Bear in mind to that with potential take over suitors knowing this is mortgage payers intent, how many will want to buy these morgage "assets"? The contract can either lapse, or you can buy your own mortgage back at whatever price you can negotiate. Liquidators have a legal obligation to try and sell these assets to recover creditors money so make an offer.
Those on variable rates who are worried the bank will jack prices, check what your variable rate is, 2% above BOE for example. They cannot exceed this. It should not be much of a cocern anyway as you will only have any imminent payments to cover, bank runs only take a few hours to collapse a bank.
With mortgages gone, disposable income would increase. With so much more disposable income you could afford to by a new car, go out for some expensive meals or build an extension. Pumping cash back into the faltering, manufacturing, service and construction sectors and driving unemployment down.
With parents mortgages gone, many could choose to give there children more help financing university education which benefits society.
If the banks fail, the housing market would be freed up. No longer would sellers have to keep the price above the mortgage secured on it and with no banks to lend crazy mortgages prices would fall to more realistic levels. First time buyers would have more access to the market and as demand returns the construction industry enjoys a boost.
The boost in spending will also increase Govt. tax revenue, (which will be useful later).
Potential losers
Low to mid level Bank Employees:
Those that had debts with the banks will have those removed reducing the urgency with which they need to earn. The boost in consumer demand will also increase demand for labour, creating jobs in other sectors.
Top level Bank Employees:
The shares they gifted themselves in the banks for free (they didn’t buy them on the open market) will be reduced to nothing. However those with diverse portfolios will benefit from the boost in consumer demand and profitability in other companies. Most will also have susbtantial cash and other assett reserves.
Also you would be surprised how little of an obstacle “Bought the country to its knees” on their CV will be for their friends finding them top jobs in other industries.
Pensioners:
Those which loose there pensions are the new recipients of all the cash the Government had lined up to give to the banks. Also the increase in tax revenue from the new spending will help finance increase state pensions. Many will have seen the value of their pensions savaged anyway over the last few weeks.
Savers with more savings then debt:
For the few who have more savings than debt and fail to get their money out before the crash, perhaps they were saving for a house? House prices will come down by a substantial amount. This group should be allowed to be the first to withdraw there savings.
Investors:
When entering the market “The value of your investments can go down as well as up” do they deserve a government bailout any more than a gambler at a casino deserves one? Those with diverse portfolios will benefit from the economic upswing in there other share assets. Looking at your portfolio right now, what kind of condition is it in anyway?
Inflation:
Since no new money has been created, in fact a whole load of debt money removed from the economy there shouldn’t be inflationary pressures. People will still be receiving in general the same pay cheques.
Potential Negative Side effects:
Housing speculators who have large debts seem to gain lots of equity from all of this. However house prices will dive so speculators will not have massive gains. Home owners won’t be affected by the dive in house prices, as they will simply be swapping one house for another of similar value if they decide to sell
Those who have run up debts will get them wiped, those without debts will feel cheated. This is no different to begrudging a gambler who bets on something and wins, whilst you either bet and lose or refrain from placing a wager. This is the honest mechanism of Free Markets.
Now when you understand this, and you have contracted with a bank for an instant access savings account you are perfectly within your rights to withdraw your savings at any time. It is not your fault if banks became too greedy and have over leveraged there finances and will collapse if you choose to exercise your legal rights. Again this is no more your responsibility than a Las Vegas gambler who borrows and looses.
If the Government chooses to maintain your debts rather than let the banks fail and improving your economic situation, by nationalising banks rather than letting them fail. Have they really got your best interests at heart? If you think not, you can take action to achieve the results you want, direct self governance. There is no need for the likes of un elected "Peter, twice resigned under accusations of corruption, Mandleson" (or Blunkett for that matter) to hand down un fair, unjust and un consulted policies from on high without either your consent or your welfare at heart.
We would no longer have to revive the economy by being allowed to borrow more. We would actually have more! Who ever borrowed there way out of debt?
If you wish to act on this simply withdraw your savings from all banks, and send this info to everyone in your address book, CC media outlets and your MP and post it on every forum, blog and website you have access to.
matthew84
08-10-2008, 09:37 AM
Absolutely brilliannt post.
Couldn't agree more.
The banks are bust, the gov ought to be giving the 50 billions direct to the savers and should wipe the debts for the rest of us.
Instead they are trying to keep the entire corrupt game partying on with the money from the little people.
JUST SAY NO
If I have got this right, we should debate and consider this for a while, but if we agree we should take the action to spread this info.
signalnorth
08-10-2008, 09:53 AM
Great post. Yes this SHOULD be common knowledge. I feel a flyer entitled 'Propping up the banks - In whose interest?' coming on!
pduffy4
08-10-2008, 09:56 AM
I agree.
The banks should fail and be replaced with a better system.
But who would do it? The 'system', which the Bankers fully control, is totally corrupt. It would require the public taking affirmative action which would be very difficult to start without the backing of the corrupt media.
The only way is for the people who own the banks to be arrested for fraud. We would also need to become a Constitutional Republic like the USA used to be and get rid of all our career Politicians.
Great post. Yes this SHOULD be common knowledge. I feel a flyer entitled 'Propping up the banks - In whose interest?' coming on!
Electornic distribution is faster, cheaper and easier.
Please examine the concept and try and find flaws before we decide to act.
I agree.
The banks should fail and be replaced with a better system.
But who would do it? The 'system', which the Bankers fully control, is totally corrupt. It would require the public taking affirmative action which would be very difficult to start without the backing of the corrupt media.
The only way is for the people who own the banks to be arrested for fraud. We would also need to become a Constitutional Republic like the USA used to be and get rid of all our career Politicians.
The affirmative action is just a mass withdrawel of savings and sharing of this text, easy. Who would do it? You and me would do it.
This text can be spread quickly over the internet by just the members of this forum. If media is CCd into this as it spreads then they will take notice. If they don't report something the public knows, everyone will realise something is up.
All the stock markets are still tanking despite the new bailout annouced this morning. Something needs to be done, is this it?
nth_degree
08-10-2008, 10:06 AM
i did not post this at ^^^^tht time its acctually 09:05 we are not insomniacs! .... much :D !
signalnorth
08-10-2008, 10:09 AM
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5449&edition=1&ttl=20081008090742
Good place to start to spread the word about this.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5449&edition=1&ttl=20081008090742
Good place to start to spread the word about this.
If the conclusion is to run with this I was also thinking money saving expert, and any other forum related to anything, along with emailing everyone.
signalnorth
08-10-2008, 10:33 AM
If the conclusion is to run with this I was also thinking money saving expert, and any other forum related to anything, along with emailing everyone.
Good call.
wazaaap
08-10-2008, 10:33 AM
You have this slightly wrong.
If you have a mortgage the bank that owns that mortgage also owns the house.
if the banks go in to rescission and fail - they will reclaim all debts owed to them. this is what the government want to avoid.
If they reclaim the debt then they will reclaim credit card debt first then loan debt then your mortgage.
can you imagine if your bank said that you had to payback all debt owed to the bank within 7 days?
Do you think you could find a buyer for your house to repay the debt in 7 days, or another bank to give you a new mortgage to pay off the one you have?
This is where we are heading.
Remember they want everyone in rental accommodation controlled by the government, they don't want you to own you home.
You have this slightly wrong.
If you have a mortgage the bank that owns that mortgage also owns the house.
if the banks go in to rescission and fail - they will reclaim all debts owed to them. this is what the government want to avoid.
If they reclaim the debt then they will reclaim credit card debt first then loan debt then your mortgage.
can you imagine if your bank said that you had to payback all debt owed to the bank within 7 days?
Do you think you could find a buyer for your house to repay the debt in 7 days, or another bank to give you a new mortgage to pay off the one you have?
This is where we are heading.
Remember they want everyone in rental accommodation controlled by the government, they don't want you to own you home.
Your mortgage contract is for the structured monthly payment, unlike your savings account which is instant access. The bank has no right to demand repayment in full when it is contracted for the monthly repayments only.
Collapse the bank then buy your own mortgage for pennies. Can a mortgage be sold to anyone else without both parties consent? I don't think that is right if it can be and needs a legal reform.
Thanks for the analysis mate, this is exaclty what I wanted before steaming agead.
fortysixandtwo
08-10-2008, 10:59 AM
I think this is a very good idea!
Collapse the banking institute and start again. I'm not quite sure how bad things would get if this happened as I'm not future-sighted-inclined, however, my gut tells me this is a good thing.
wazaaap
08-10-2008, 11:12 AM
Your mortgage contract is for the structured monthly payment, unlike your savings account which is instant access. The bank has no right to demand repayment in full when it is contracted for the monthly repayments only.
Collapse the bank then buy your own mortgage for pennies. Can a mortgage be sold to anyone else without both parties consent? I don't think that is right if it can be and needs a legal reform.
Thanks for the analysis mate, this is exaclty what I wanted before steaming agead.
Trust me i work in banking i know that it says on the terms and conditions - yes the part that has never been read :-)
you should check it out - it is happening in America already, banks are claiming debt back.
Trust me i work in banking i know that it says on the terms and conditions - yes the part that has never been read :-)
you should check it out - it is happening in America already, banks are claiming debt back.
Mortgage calls eh...better dig out my contract and read the fine print.
What about re notiating your mortgage in your own favour? Withdraw all your savings, brink the bank to the brink, stop the Govt from nationalising, then offer the bank whatever you want for your own mortgage.
anthony65
08-10-2008, 11:20 AM
You have this slightly wrong.
If you have a mortgage the bank that owns that mortgage also owns the house.
if the banks go in to rescission and fail - they will reclaim all debts owed to them. this is what the government want to avoid.
If they reclaim the debt then they will reclaim credit card debt first then loan debt then your mortgage.
can you imagine if your bank said that you had to payback all debt owed to the bank within 7 days?
Do you think you could find a buyer for your house to repay the debt in 7 days, or another bank to give you a new mortgage to pay off the one you have?
This is where we are heading.
Remember they want everyone in rental accommodation controlled by the government, they don't want you to own you home.
And what if everybody says:
"Hell No, We Won't Go!" :mad:
Can't find anything in the T&Cs about mortgage calls.
wazaaap
08-10-2008, 11:26 AM
And what if everybody says:
"Hell No, We Won't Go!" :mad:
Thats what i say - protect your house.
They have a legal right to repossess it if they want.
you have a legal right to protect the place you call home.
if you feel threatened take them down.
do you know bailifts are not authorised to enter your house with out first being authorised to enter.
another power we give them is (they are only doing there job) and let them in.
fuck that put a knife to him and tell him to leave your property and come back with a warrent.
wazaaap
08-10-2008, 11:29 AM
Can't find anything in the T&Cs about mortgage calls.
lol - if lawyers don't know about it then how do you think you will find it.
it is called the banking code.
They have the right and that is why anarchists never get mortgages. most know this.
best bet - sell your house take the cash buy gold and rent a house.
wazaaap
08-10-2008, 11:30 AM
Guys the best thing that could happen is for EVERYONE to start pulling there cash out of the bank.
I withdrew all monies yesterday from RBS - they werent happy. i left in £500 to pay my bills this month.
from now on when i get paid im taking the cash out.
How can they reposses your house if you have fulfilled all your repayments?
I think you are protected under unfair contract terms.
You might be able to claim lawfull excuse in court for not leaving if you contest that you paid all your payments.
lol - if lawyers don't know about it then how do you think you will find it.
it is called the banking code.
They have the right and that is why anarchists never get mortgages. most know this.
best bet - sell your house take the cash buy gold and rent a house.
If the terms were deliberatly concealed do they stand?
tracker
08-10-2008, 11:35 AM
[QUOTE=wazaaap;546158]Thats what i say - protect your house.
They have a legal right to repossess it if they want.
you have a legal right to protect the place you call home.
if you feel threatened take them down.
do you know bailifts are not authorised to enter your house with out first being authorised to enter.
another power we give them is (they are only doing there job) and let them in.
QUOTE]
i have always known that bit my self .
like so many other things .
for instance .
i never signforms that contradic them self .
some forms say ;
it is our legal obligation to keep all information private under the data protecion act .
just to follow that sentance they then add;
however we may have to share some ofthe information with other relevnt organisations to gather data to clrify your request .
or something like that .
what they mean is .
we are liers , and we will use this info with whom ever we please to see if we can either knock you back or prosicute you in furture .
thats thats they mean.
an english mans home is his castle .
he has every right to protect it .:cool:
Thats what i say - protect your house.
They have a legal right to repossess it if they want.
you have a legal right to protect the place you call home.
if you feel threatened take them down.
do you know bailifts are not authorised to enter your house with out first being authorised to enter.
another power we give them is (they are only doing there job) and let them in.
fuck that put a knife to him and tell him to leave your property and come back with a warrent.
And get yourself done for offensive weapons charges (or haveing a handy baliff take the knife and turn it on you)...just don't answer the door.
Legal and just. No one danger to them or youself.
frankanne
08-10-2008, 11:44 AM
I agree with you 1694. I don't think taxpayers should bail out the banks.
wazaaap
08-10-2008, 11:48 AM
How can they reposses your house if you have fulfilled all your repayments?
I think you are protected under unfair contract terms.
You might be able to claim lawfull excuse in court for not leaving if you contest that you paid all your payments.
who will you pay your morgage too?
the bank is going down the tubes! they are reclaiming cash to pay back the government.
wellsyboy
08-10-2008, 11:52 AM
There aren't enough bailiffs etc. to evict and reposess tens of thousands of homes all across the UK, and where would everyone go if we were all evicted.
The banks can only repossess your home (I believe) in an attempt to sell your property on the open market to recoup their debt. If thousands of people were suddenly homeless and penniless then the housing market would completely crash. The bankrupt banks would then be left with tens of thousands of houses unoccupied and essentially worthless because either a) people could not afford (i.e. no banks would be willing to lend money) to buy them back; or b) the price of homes would fall so low that you'll end up buying them back for 2 loaves of bread and a can of coke!
As a financial expert said today on SKY News, the whole banking system is a house of cards. Let's make a few strategic blows in the right direction and watch it all crumble. Time to wipe the slate clean and start afresh.
I've got a certain amount of equity in my home, so I think I'll make that the front door, back door, windows and roof. Like to see them get in and reposess it!! ;)
nirvana
08-10-2008, 12:00 PM
Very good post.
We need leaflets exposing this.Its a pity we not as organised like the anachists,animal rights,no id etc. These organisations sell leaflets 1000 at a time for a tenner.
Peace:)
who will you pay your morgage too?
the bank is going down the tubes! they are reclaiming cash to pay back the government.
Precisely. As long as you paid all the demands made upon you, if the demands stop what can you do....sit back, relax and enjoy yourself.
wazaaap
08-10-2008, 12:08 PM
Precisely. As long as you paid all the demands made upon you, if the demands stop what can you do....sit back, relax and enjoy yourself.
And you think the government would allow that?
They would rather let the bank make people homeless - bare in mind bank owns the government.
They are one and the same.
And you think the government would allow that?
They would rather let the bank make people homeless - bare in mind bank owns the government.
They are one and the same.
So if we expose that in the text too in more detail showing how the governemt is preventing people from freedom, will be bring down the government too if the refuse. Or take back control of our government in that they bow to the pressure and do what is right for the people.
New paragraph added:
If the banks failed and their debts written off, many would have their mortgages wiped. If you have paid all the demands made upon you by the bank the bank doesn't have the right to reposses your home. If your bank fails and stops making claims on you who are you going to pay?
wellsyboy
08-10-2008, 12:13 PM
Also, the situation in the US is different. People were defaulting on their payments and therefore non-bankrupt banks were legally repossessing the homes.
Here in the UK if the banks went bankrupt (which I believe a number were on the brink of bankruptcy yesterday e.g. RBS down 39% in share value) then a liquidator would review the assets and pay the creditors off in a strict order. A home in a volatile housing market would not (in my opinion) be seen as a good asset, therefore I doubt very much that a creditor would want it. More than likely the first to go would be any unprotected (more than 50,000) worth of savings in the bank, plus share/bond portfolios that the banks currently own.
Also, when/if they ever sent you notice regarding repossession due to bankruptcy, all you need to do is gather legal advice (or do it yourself) and confirm that you have received their notice but are contesting it due to legal reasons - these can include:
1 - it was not your fault that the bank became bankrupt and feel it was down to bad management or irregularities within the bank, which you require thorough investigation of
2 - you have not missed payments on your mortgage and through no fault of your own, they are no longer willing to honour your contract
3 - you do not feel that it would be ethical for the bank to reposses your home and wish to take this to the EU or World court due to breach of human rights
All of these actions will take a tremendous amount of time to be resolved and you are perfectly within your human rights to investigate them all. Make sure you acknowledge their notice of intent to repossess though within the allocated timeframe.
Mostly though, don't panic - YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS!!!
Wellsyboy has it, I will add your arguments.
Original text edited again.
micklemus
08-10-2008, 12:45 PM
1694 - very well said with your thread starter and comments. And indeed the other posts.
You don't need a degree in economics (although I'm fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to have one) to realise this is madness. It would be fabulous news if it all collapsed. I watched Alistair Darling on breakfast TV trying to justify the bail out this morning and he sounded an absolute prize idiot. I have no time for politicians but I almost felt sorry for him at one point. I watched and thought he must be sitting in that studio thinking "this is all complete bollocks and I feel ashamed at having to sell something I don't believe in to the population at large". However, he is free to walk away and he hasn't.
Now is the time for a collective demonstration of intent (another online petition perhaps?) as this is the craziest and potentially most dangerous economic development there has been. It doesn't have to be this way though; we don't need to allow it to manifest.
Think about it, and it doesn't matter which country you're in as the principles are the same. Governments and therefore taxpayers (that means you and I) are massively in debt to the banks already. Most individuals and businesses are in debt too, to a greater or lesser degree. Certain lenders/banks are in debt to each other (and you have been sold a lie about this being the cause of the 'credit crunch' but that's another story). But focus on that fact that at a government level the buck stops with the taxpayer anyway. Now, governments worldwide are taking on enormous additional liabilities to (supposedly) keep the banks afloat. The same banks that the same governments are in debt to already. Which means each and every tax paying individual and business on this planet pays still further for the privilege of keeping the system afloat and remaining in debt to the banks! Any outsider looking in at this would be laughing at the utter lunacy of it all.
And added to that there is no reciprocal credit for individuals and business. No reduced taxation (in fact it will go the other way), no debt relief on loans and mortgages. Just more debt to sustain the house of cards system that the existing debt burden created.
In the process governments put themselves more at the whim of the banks than ever before, and in fact there are growing examples of the two coming together through nationalisations and other stock deals. If it wasn't the case before then it most certainly is now that banks and government are drawing closer and closer together. To all intents and purposes banks and government become one and the same. And we are all silently sitting back and paying for it. INACTION IS CONSENT.
From the conspiratorial point of you, you soon realise the extremely sinister implications of this development. Governments will come under increasing pressure to repossess and sell property to reduce their debt burden. If you get carried away you could envisage unscrupulous governments repossessing homes and causing financial nightmares for those who don't co-operate with the whole scam. And sooner or later (it will be sooner in fact) people will scream "something must be done" to minimise or avoid -
1. Stock and currency speculation (which has caused or substantially contributed to this mess);
2. Future uncertainty about the banking sector generally;
3. Future uncertaintly over the position between national governments and banks;
4. Debt levels generally (and find a means of making money worth something again)
The solution will be one world bank and one world currency. That much is obvious.
Doesn't have to be this way though and I think its time the people made this known. Peacefully.
Intent is everything and now is time for the new collective intent to become reality. Express your new reality.
hokhmah
08-10-2008, 12:45 PM
1694, you said,
If the banks were allowed to fail and their debts written off the average person would be around £32,500 better off. Given this point, why is the Government using tax payer funds and borrowing more, the interest for which will be charged to our children's tax bill, when we would be better off if the banks fail?
I agree in principal with everything stated in the post: However, I think it's highly unlikely that ANY personal debts will be written off. Looking at recent events, have any of those people who had personal loans, credit cards and mortgages with Bradford and Bingley or Northern Rock etc., had any percentage of their debts written off?
NO.
For example, if you owed them £40,000 before they 'crashed', then the UK government have seen to it that you still owe the same amount to whoever takes over the bank (either by privatised hands or by their part-nationalising bollox) - but you still owe 'them' the money IN FULL.
As you stated, although the government is seen publicly bleating on tv and in the press about how they "will work hard to guarantee people's savings", yes, what they are really doing is protecting people's DEBT... NOT their savings! and they are ensuring that people who owe banks money will pay back every penny (with interest of course).
The government are allowing greedy unscrupulous banking people, who have pocketed countless millions of pounds, just to 'slip away quietly' with their ill-gotten gains, and forcing UK taxpayers to pick up the bill (either sooner or later).
I agree, why have no legal prosecutions for fraud and corruption been cited yet?
Problems: If outstanding mortgages were just written off this would cause a lot of problems, because it would be seen as very unfair to all those people who have bust their balls for 25 to 30 years to pay off their mortgages, and yet those people today who may have just brought a house who for example have a £90,000+ mortgage, would just be 'let off' with this debt. People would feel really angry and hard done by.
Also, those people who have worked for 25 to 30 years to pay off their mortgages do not have much money to live off during their retirement simply because they haven't been able to put enough money away as such a large proportion of their salary/earnings over that 25 to 30 years has gone into paying their mortgages off. People who have worked hard to pay their personal loans and credit cards off will feel hard done by if people who have thousands of pounds on credit cards are just let off with the debt.
THE BAIL OUT: It's a complete gamble with YOUR money!! Prime Minister Gordon Brown is putting in 50 BILLION POUNDS of UK taxpayers money - being put up IN RETURN FOR WHAT?
This money is gonna be frittered away and will disappear without trace, but the bill to pay it back will remain as a burden on us and our children. Financial experts are already stating that this move by the UK government is *the* most expensinve way of stabilising the financial / banking system - i.e. by simply subsidising banks bad debts by chucking in huge amounts of money. This money has to be payed back either sooner or later. The 50 BILLION POUNDS will lead to increased taxes, further cuts in public expenditure, meaning the financial recession will bite even harder and deeper, and will last much longer.
This isn't all as easy and straightforward as it first looks on paper, so I would have to think more on this before rushing to the bank and drawing out my few bits of sodding paper... for what it's worth...
All this is being done on purpose... i.e create econominc chaos... then provide the solution... stability, by having a cashless society and one world bank = NWO
1694, you said,
I agree in principal with everything stated in the post: However, I think it's highly unlikely that ANY personal debts will be written off. Looking at recent events, have any of those people who had personal loans, credit cards and mortgages with Bradford and Bingley or Northern Rock etc., had any percentage of their debts written off?
NO.
Those banks weren't allowed to collapse they were nationalised. If people realised what a scam that was, would the government back down to the will of the people and actually allow them to fail.
For example, if you owed them £40,000 before they 'crashed', then the UK government have seen to it that you still owe the same amount to whoever takes over the bank (either by privatised hands or by their part-nationalising bollox) - but you still owe 'them' the money IN FULL.
Since 'them' is you can you not chose not to pay.
As you stated, although the government is seen publicly bleating on tv and in the press about how they "will work hard to guarantee people's savings", yes, what they are really doing is protecting people's DEBT... NOT their savings! and they are ensuring that people who owe banks money will pay back every penny (with interest of course).
The government are allowing greedy unscrupulous banking people, who have pocketed countless millions of pounds, just to 'slip away quietly' with their ill-gotten gains, and forcing UK taxpayers to pick up the bill (either sooner or later).
I agree, why have no legal prosecutions for fraud and corruption been cited yet?
Problems: If outstanding mortgages were just written off this would cause a lot of problems, because it would be seen as very unfair to all those people who have bust their balls for 25 to 30 years to pay off their mortgages, and yet those people today who may have just brought a house who for example have a £90,000+ mortgage, would just be 'let off' with this debt. People would feel really angry and hard done by.
This is something I am also grappling with. However, lending and borrowing from a bank is a risk. You bought a house and repayed the morgage at your own risk. It is not up to anyone else to ensure that asset is worth more at the end. No different to betting on the stock market. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Also, those people who have worked for 25 to 30 years to pay off their mortgages do not have much money to live off during their retirement simply because they haven't been able to put enough money away as such a large proportion of their salary/earnings over that 25 to 30 years has gone into paying their mortgages off. People who have worked hard to pay their personal loans and credit cards off will feel hard done by if people who have thousands of pounds on credit cards are just let off with the debt.
THE BAIL OUT: It's a complete gamble with YOUR money!! Prime Minister Gordon Brown is putting in 50 BILLION POUNDS of UK taxpayers money - being put up IN RETURN FOR WHAT?
This money is gonna be frittered away and will disappear without trace, but the bill to pay it back will remain as a burden on us and our children. Financial experts are already stating that this move by the UK government is *the* most expensinve way of stabilising the financial / banking system - i.e. by simply subsidising banks bad debts by chucking in huge amounts of money. This money has to be payed back either sooner or later. The 50 BILLION POUNDS will lead to increased taxes, further cuts in public expenditure, meaning the financial recession will bite even harder and deeper, and will last much longer.
This isn't all as easy and straightforward as it first looks on paper, so I would have to think more on this before rushing to bank and drawing out my few bits of sodding paper... for what it's worth...
As I said at the beggining and keep repeating, this needs grave consideration and should be debated and discussesd not charged into.
.
A related point, if your bank fails and comes after you for debts wher you have not defaulted:
The same year, trial by jury became a pretty explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:
Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land." Although it says and or by the law of the land, this in no manner can be interpreted as if it were enough to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen. The law of the land was the consuetudinary law, based on the customs and consent of John’s subjects, and since they did not have Parliament in those times, this meant that neither the king nor the barons could make a law without the consent of the people. According to some sources, in the time of Edward III, by the law of the land had been substituted by due process of law, which in those times was a trial by twelve peers.
You can be tried, by 12 of your peers. Shouldn't be too hard to convince 12 sane people that no one has the right to disposses you if you have not defaulted.
micklemus
08-10-2008, 01:01 PM
1694, you said,
I agree in principal with everything stated in the post: However, I think it's highly unlikely that ANY personal debts will be written off. Looking at recent events, have any of those people who had personal loans, credit cards and mortgages with Bradford and Bingley or Northern Rock etc., had any percentage of their debts written off?
NO.
For example, if you owed them £40,000 before they 'crashed', then the UK government have seen to it that you still owe the same amount to whoever takes over the bank (either by privatised hands or by their part-nationalising bollox) - but you still owe 'them' the money IN FULL.
As you stated, although the government is seen publicly bleating on tv and in the press about how they "will work hard to guarantee people's savings", yes, what they are really doing is protecting people's DEBT... NOT their savings! and they are ensuring that people who owe banks money will pay back every penny (with interest of course).
The government are allowing greedy unscrupulous banking people, who have pocketed countless millions of pounds, just to 'slip away quietly' with their ill-gotten gains, and forcing UK taxpayers to pick up the bill (either sooner or later).
I agree, why have no legal prosecutions for fraud and corruption been cited yet?
Problems: If outstanding mortgages were just written off this would cause a lot of problems, because it would be seen as very unfair to all those people who have bust their balls for 25 to 30 years to pay off their mortgages, and yet those people today who may have just brought a house who for example have a £90,000+ mortgage, would just be 'let off' with this debt. People would feel really angry and hard done by.
Also, those people who have worked for 25 to 30 years to pay off their mortgages do not have much money to live off during their retirement simply because they haven't been able to put enough money away as such a large proportion of their salary/earnings over that 25 to 30 years has gone into paying their mortgages off. People who have worked hard to pay their personal loans and credit cards off will feel hard done by if people who have thousands of pounds on credit cards are just let off with the debt.
THE BAIL OUT: It's a complete gamble with YOUR money!! Prime Minister Gordon Brown is putting in 50 BILLION POUNDS of UK taxpayers money - being put up IN RETURN FOR WHAT?
This money is gonna be frittered away and will disappear without trace, but the bill to pay it back will remain as a burden on us and our children. Financial experts are already stating that this move by the UK government is *the* most expensinve way of stabilising the financial / banking system - i.e. by simply subsidising banks bad debts by chucking in huge amounts of money. This money has to be payed back either sooner or later. The 50 BILLION POUNDS will lead to increased taxes, further cuts in public expenditure, meaning the financial recession will bite even harder and deeper, and will last much longer.
This isn't all as easy and straightforward as it first looks on paper, so I would have to think more on this before rushing to the bank and drawing out my few bits of sodding paper... for what it's worth...
If you don't mind me saying, I think you've just illustrated why the money/interest/debt system as it stands is lunacy. No one can help that fact that for years we have silently accepted it and run ourselves ragged to keep a roof over our heads. It's our own stupidity. The current arrangements will take that stupidity to a new level. Its time for change.
Paper money is worthless. It has been that way since usury became legal and even more so since the gold standard was removed. But we have all happily gone along with it. Inaction is consent.
It doesn't have to be this way. In many respects we should be thankful that this is coming to the surface. Its the ultimate manifestion of hundreds of years of collective acceptance of others' realities. Its time to show we don't need to be led by others. We don't need to comb the mirror. We must remember that each and everyone of us is a unique expression of infinity and it's time for us to truly live that way.
It is such a truism that the only power anyone has is the power which another grants to him. Lets remove that power.
micklemus
08-10-2008, 01:07 PM
A related point, if your bank fails and comes after you for debts wher you have not defaulted:
The same year, trial by jury became a pretty explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta read:
Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It is translated thus by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land." Although it says and or by the law of the land, this in no manner can be interpreted as if it were enough to have a positive law, made by the king, to be able to proceed legally against a citizen. The law of the land was the consuetudinary law, based on the customs and consent of John’s subjects, and since they did not have Parliament in those times, this meant that neither the king nor the barons could make a law without the consent of the people. According to some sources, in the time of Edward III, by the law of the land had been substituted by due process of law, which in those times was a trial by twelve peers.
You can be tried, by 12 of your peers. Shouldn't be too hard to convince 12 sane people that no one has the right to disposses you if you have not defaulted.
Creating mass default is easy - you raise interest rates. Which will inevitably happen because SO much money is being pumped in to keep everything afloat.
In the UK you haven't been entitled to a jury trial in civil matters (save for libel) for over 100 years....
redhead
08-10-2008, 01:11 PM
It is such a truism that the only power anyone has is the power which another grants to him. Lets remove that power.
:D
This quote sums this thread up nicely, fantastic ideas and info going on in these 5 pages, very inspiring and a true call to arms, come on people ACTION IS NEEDED NOW!!!
If the OP does'nt mind im going to copy & paste his opening thread to some money forums this afternoon.
Creating mass default is easy - you raise interest rates. Which will inevitably happen because SO much money is being pumped in to keep everything afloat.
In the UK you haven't been entitled to a jury trial in civil matters (save for libel) for over 100 years....
For those off fixed rate, it would take the BOE to raise interest rates to raise as even variable rates are tied to BOE rate.
Given that a bank run takes a few hours to collapse a bank, not many people will even have a next months payment to make at the new higher level.
Yeah my Lawyer sister said that too....thought she might have been a tool of the system. Can you contest the matter is criminal (it is to my mind)?
:D
This quote sums this thread up nicely, fantastic ideas and info going on in these 5 pages, very inspiring and a true call to arms, come on people ACTION IS NEEDED NOW!!!
If the OP does'nt mind im going to copy & paste his opening thread to some money forums this afternoon.
Although I have laid out a plan, what is a plan but a list of things that don't happen!! Spreading this around may have serious consequences and I think we should all be aware of that.
micklemus
08-10-2008, 01:34 PM
For those off fixed rate, it would take the BOE to raise interest rates to raise as even variable rates are tied to BOE rate.
Given that a bank run takes a few hours to collapse a bank, not many people will even have a next months payment to make at the new higher level.
Yeah my Lawyer sister said that too....thought she might have been a tool of the system. Can you contest the matter is criminal (it is to my mind)?
Without wishing to say too much, I speak with some authority on the legal side. I don't like to mention that because there are people here who seem to think that automatically makes me a freemason or some elite/illuminati person, which is both funny and frightening (the latter when the 'witch hunt' mentality starts manifesting). I have no secret society connections of any kind nor any desire to take that path. I'm none of that and I will also say that although there certainly are masons within the law, just like the police, banking and commerce generally, in my experience the numbers are low (extremely low in fact). ANYWAY, that's by the by.
Short answer is that mortgage reposessions and contractual disputes are civil matters. So you're unlikely to get much relief using the legal system to challenge things; it's far too rigid. It's also another stone in the same pyramid.
The key to change is to truly take your power back. It's a peaceful exercise. It doesn't require revolution or war....
duckingdafta
08-10-2008, 01:39 PM
nice plan and very well written, it really does promote the use of rfid chips and a more secure controlled society :rolleyes:... the main part I agree with is the part we spoke of already about wiping debts and a result of any attempted bailout, especially mortgages. But I will still stick to my own guns as this is still not enough for the people to evolve on a constructive way. ultimately money has to be eradicated from society in full. Any government and it's workers can make you feel like you have to need them, I believe humans don't and also ready to get rid. I would have thought if people are true to their own beliefs then they would have lost faith in banks already and removed any monies... the fact not many have really means they are either scared/confused or greedy. It will only be when many lose their actually cash will people react.
take money out of the system and the losers are... the bankers and politicians, not the people....it's just harder to imagine working unless you really can have a wider perspective as to many narrow minded people look for problems rather than solutions.
Without wishing to say too much, I speak with some authority on the legal side. I don't like to mention that because there are people here who seem to think that automatically makes me a freemason or some elite/illuminati person, which is both funny and frightening (the latter when the 'witch hunt' mentality starts manifesting). I have no secret society connections of any kind nor any desire to take that path. I'm none of that and I will also say that although there certainly are masons within the law, just like the police, banking and commerce generally, in my experience the numbers are low (extremely low in fact). ANYWAY, that's by the by.
Short answer is that mortgage reposessions and contractual disputes are civil matters. So you're unlikely to get much relief using the legal system to challenge things; it's far too rigid. It's also another stone in the same pyramid.
The key to change is to truly take your power back. It's a peaceful exercise. It doesn't require revolution or war....
What if a contracual dispute constitues fraud?
thanks for the learned info.
duckingdafta
08-10-2008, 02:00 PM
Without wishing to say too much, I speak with some authority on the legal side. I don't like to mention that because there are people here who seem to think that automatically makes me a freemason or some elite/illuminati person, which is both funny and frightening (the latter when the 'witch hunt' mentality starts manifesting). I have no secret society connections of any kind nor any desire to take that path. I'm none of that and I will also say that although there certainly are masons within the law, just like the police, banking and commerce generally, in my experience the numbers are low (extremely low in fact). ANYWAY, that's by the by.
....
this amazes me about this site...admittedly there is a lot to do with secret societies and societies with secrets in conspiracies and freemasons are one group. But if people actually listened to David Icke they should know not all are bad and have honourable intentions...and have no idea of what is suggested goes on at the top. I think it's about time those claiming to be freethinkers actually allow free-thought rather than their controlled view. I occasionally work for many [ex-]mason in my area and I haven't witnessed any evil doings (though one of them is a right twat)..and I know of ancient hidden secret lodges in this area. I also have a friend who is into NWO and Illuminati research and is a local police officer (none mason) and he says there are plenty 'uniformed' services that are aware they may be required to do certain commands in the near future and to expect a 'down tools' attitude as they too don't like the way governments are treating them as a service. basically all they have to do now is piss off the army and they have no protection against peaceful protesting (prison officers and police in civvies are known for infiltrating protests to wind up people and turn it rowdy)
micklemus
08-10-2008, 02:06 PM
Ducking - can I just say a huge "THANK YOU"
1694 - at the risk of sounding "lawyery" that all rather depends. Fraud is a criminal offence; fraudulent misrepresentation is a civil cause of action in contract. I'd have to think about it some more, but my immediate reaction is that these are civil matters (and probably not fraudulent misrep either). And I still say that turning to the law isn't the answer (much as in one sense I wish it was)
Ducking - can I just say a huge "THANK YOU"
1694 - at the risk of sounding "lawyery" that all rather depends. Fraud is a criminal offence; fraudulent misrepresentation is a civil cause of action in contract. I'd have to think about it some more, but my immediate reaction is that these are civil matters (and probably not fraudulent misrep either). And I still say that turning to the law isn't the answer (much as in one sense I wish it was)
Thanks.
Whilst law maynot be the answer, being unlawful could quickly backfire. So these things must be considered.
A new concern:
Money supply, will there be enough paper and metal money or will there be a money shortage?
Will the money shortage be overcome in the short term by bartering?
Will prices rise as those with commodities hold those with money to ransom. This should self correct, as very few hold everything they want or will ever want in it's material form right now.
wellsyboy
08-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Just out of interest - does anyone know WHO we (Britain) are borrowing the billions from? Russia, China, World Bank, Japan?
Just heard that Russia have "helped" Iceland to the tune of 900 billion dollars. So effectively they own Iceland now!!
I wonder who will own us soon...
wellsyboy
08-10-2008, 02:54 PM
Also, I think Facebook might be a good place to get the message across. A "Group" could be set up that contains our agreed plan of attack...
tyler
08-10-2008, 03:33 PM
Ok, let us know when you have set up the group. We will all join. How long will it take you to set it up? Half an hour?
I'll have a look in an hour or so.
I'll be out sticking posters on trees tonight and planning a bit of freeway blogging.
Ok, let us know when you have set up the group. We will all join. How long will it take you to set it up? Half an hour?
I'll have a look in an hour or so.
I'll be out sticking posters on trees tonight and planning a bit of freeway blogging.
Don't you not have any concerns? Why trust me any more than the bankers?
micklemus
08-10-2008, 04:29 PM
That is a good point, 1694!
The internet is still free, well just about. Why not email all your friends and give them a precis of what's going on. Encourage them to think for themselves and, if they agree, to notify their friends too.
In no time, if there's a collective willingness to truly and peacefully bring through change, it will happen. Look at poll tax in the 80s for example.
I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people worldwide are absolutely astounded by the crass stupidity of what's going on right now. "Negligent" doesn't even begin to describe the state of mind of the average political leader right now. Absolutely brainless might be closer. But what does that say about us - to sit back and moan but not truly start to live some changes. So in truth it is a reflection of the population's collective stupidity that we are seeing.
I am NOT condoning any form of violent protest in any way, shape or form. Evil intent is evil intent, no matter which side you are on. However, my mind drifts back to a slide at a David Icke presentation and words to the effect of-
"Big Brother is watching you....
And Big Brother can just f*** off!"
It's time for change; time to live a new reality. I think part of that involves showing that this is not what people want (assuming it isn't, of course). A peaceful illustration of that would speak volumes.
It's time to forget about belief, just know who you are, how amazing you are and live it. I say again - no one has power over anyone without consent.
Let it be known peacefully that your consent has been withdrawn.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 04:36 PM
have you ever tried to explain chemtrails to the average joe? people need education before they accept anything which confronts what they already believe, though now would be a very good time to get peoples interest....
surely we'll soon have lots of freelance computer guys getting short of work? maybe they could assist in a widescale media campaign of some sort?
micklemus
08-10-2008, 04:40 PM
Hope I've not been misunderstood! I'm not saying try emailing all your friends with an explanation of every conspiracy you can think of. I'm saying email them about what's happening right here right now with the banks. And the stupidity of it all doesn't require a conspiratorial angle - it can be done in simple, common sense language as many have done already here.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 04:58 PM
yeah thats very true actually, soz!
my mind's on the bigger picture today, since i have no real cash to protect anyway...
i'm gonna go spread the word on other (random) forums for a bit.....
Hope I've not been misunderstood! I'm not saying try emailing all your friends with an explanation of every conspiracy you can think of. I'm saying email them about what's happening right here right now with the banks. And the stupidity of it all doesn't require a conspiratorial angle - it can be done in simple, common sense language as many have done already here.
I agree. The banking issue is something that everone if they don't understand at least knows about and is concerned about loosing out on.
So far no objections to the plan?
So do we go ahead and launch this, say tommorrow morning.
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 05:12 PM
[...] If the banks were allowed to fail and their debts written off the average person would be around £32,500 better off. Given this point, why is the Government using tax payer funds and borrowing more, the interest for which will be charged to our children’s tax bill, when we would be better off if the banks fail?
If the banks failed and their debts written off, many would have their mortgages wiped. If you have paid all the demands made upon you by the bank the bank doesn't have the right to reposses your home. If your bank fails and stops making claims on you who are you going to pay? [...]
You still will have to pay your mortgage to someone. Being it the new bank that takes over the fallen bank or to the state or to whoever the debts of the bankrupt bank were passed over.
The whole point of the monetary system is to keep people trapped on the tread mill going nowhere. That’s its main objective - period!.
Do you really think that they’ll allow you to get off the hook because a few banks went belly up? Even if all the banks in the world go down you’ll still have to deal with the central banks, those won’t go down even if completely broke.
But I do agree that the banks should be left out to dry if they’re insolvent. Let the whole thing collapse.
Sure it’d be pandemonium but on the plus side it’ll expose the system wide open, no more room for burying the head in the sand, ergo, people would be forced to face reality and hardship might just give them the kick in the rear that they so desperately deserve to wake the hell up already. Only then we might be able to get on with the clearing process and get something done for a change!
So when a bank goes bankrupt what we have lent to them we lose, but what they have lent to us is they can keep.
Hardly seems just. You don't think this could be the catalist to bring the sytsem down?
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 05:33 PM
So when a bank goes bankrupt what we have lent to them we lose, but what they have lent to us is they can keep.
Oh yeah my friend, you've got that straight.
Hardly seems just. You don't think this could be the catalyst to bring the system down?
There's nothing 'just' about this, never was never will. Hence the reason why I suggested this is the trap of the tread mill.
And it shouldn't need to be like this, but yeah I do think a collapse could work as a catalyst, we need to be clever though and seize the opportunity.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 05:42 PM
have wondered for a while...
what would happen if everyone held back their mortgage payments this month? or something similar....
and...
if millions of people lost their homes to the crash.... could the banks really take control of everybody's property? seems like a big job to force peole out and most coppers will surely be in the same boat as the rest of us?
In that scenario however you are in the wrong, in the scripted plan you have done exaclty what the banks have said you could....we have the power, they just don't want us to know it.
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 06:01 PM
have wondered for a while...
what would happen if everyone held back their mortgage payments this month? or something similar....
and...
if millions of people lost their homes to the crash.... could the banks really take control of everybody's property? seems like a big job to force peole out and most coppers will surely be in the same boat as the rest of us?
That’s the key here, numbers. We need numbers. There’s no way to get around this.
If huge numbers of people agree on a particular action (your example is just as good as refusing to pay taxes for instance) that’s it. The jig is up, the veil of deception lifts and they’ll expose themselves for what they are, no need for us to expose them.
Then the muscle might come, and we’ll need to stay strong and focused, backing down is not an option, neither is compromising.
I’m not saying it’ll be easy, but at least all the cards will be on the table and that’s a huge step on the right direction. Enough of wasting time trying to explain people what's really going on, they'll know either if they like it or not.
Transcript updated slightly.
If bankruns etc happen without proper education, people will clammour for banks to have more security, regulation etc. more powerfull central bank!
People need to know that banks brought this upon us all and should be done away with, not re enforced.
micklemus
08-10-2008, 06:13 PM
The opportunity should be seized and it's jumping up and down in front of you right now, set against the choice of do nothing and tie yourself into a process which most would object to. It's clearer to me than ever that what is happening is a reflection of the collective mindset, unpalatable as that might sound to some. David Icke - may I say that "combing the mirror" is a genius metaphor.
I say again it's time to know who you are and take your power back. You are infinite, we all are; we just constantly convince ourselves that we're not.
This is the most amazing time to be alive. A time to truly create a new beginning. There is going to be a new beginning either way; it's just a choice between one which embraces true love and freedom or one which pushes power and control to a new level.
I know which future is for me.
Up to you - sit and moan, or express your infinite potential.
[PS - I emphasise yet again that this is not a call for violence in any way. I hope those who do read this also read everything else I've said on this thread]
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 06:15 PM
[...] People need to know that banks brought this upon us all and should be done away with, not re enforced.
You won’t hear me arguing about that.
Absolutely, people needs to know who are the real culprits here, there’s no doubts about that.
Perhaps that’s our role.
So say 10 am tommorrow we "go live" and the trascript from the first post is emailed to everyone you know, CC media outlets and MPs with instructions to pass it on. Also post it on any forum, blog and website you have access to? Everyone also withdraws there cash from the bank and starts spending it. Those who want to "hoard" money, can buy physical gold or silver as both these require time and effort to be produced. Alternativly by tinned food and bottled water if you are worried.
Should a link to the money as debt video also be included?
steevo
08-10-2008, 06:20 PM
When the banks are all "nationalised", and when the SUPPOSED "credit crunch" REALLY hits (and everyone loses their jobs), then everyone will fail to pay their mortgages. The houses will then be owned by the state. They will in effect become council houses and they will have to pay rent on them in the same way that council house tennants do BUT the rent will be higher if the houses are bigger.
EVERYONE would have to work for the state (eg. dig holes and fill them in again just to keep us busy) so that we can pay the rent.
Police/Military would then become a very attractive job option for most people.
EVERYONE is gonna be in the same boat, and anyone who doesnt do as they are told (ie work for the state) would become homeless.
The opportunity should be seized and it's jumping up and down in front of you right now, set against the choice of do nothing and tie yourself into a process which most would object to. It's clearer to me than ever that what is happening is a reflection of the collective mindset, unpalatable as that might sound to some. David Icke - may I say that "combing the mirror" is a genius metaphor.
I say again it's time to know who you are and take your power back. You are infinite, we all are; we just constantly convince ourselves that we're not.
This is the most amazing time to be alive. A time to truly create a new beginning. There is going to be a new beginning either way; it's just a choice between one which embraces true love and freedom or one which pushes power and control to a new level.
I know which future is for me.
Up to you - sit and moan, or express your infinite potential.
[PS - I emphasise yet again that this is not a call for violence in any way. I hope those who do read this also read everything else I've said on this thread]
Just wondering why you are talking in the second person? Why use the word "you" instead of "We"
micklemus
08-10-2008, 06:37 PM
Valid question but no need to ponder too deeply. I used the word "you" in the sense that I have already made my choice - I am truly going to express who I am. Live my intent, if you will, not talk about belief.
I most certainly did not mean to sound divisive if that was the impression. There is no chance of me dishing out commandments to others. I've no right to demand anything of anyone, and I won't. But the flip side is that no one (banks etc included) may demand anything of me which I don't consent to.
I do not consent to a process which will see everyone enslaved to a system which they (or at least the overwhelming majority) don't want. Reality is an expression of intent and it is my intent to see true love prevail. But your choice is your choice; same for everyone.
Hope that's clear and not too flowery!
And on a lighter note, everything is always worthwhile experience, not just the good stuff.
Valid question but no need to ponder too deeply. I used the word "you" in the sense that I have already made my choice - I am truly going to express who I am. Live my intent, if you will, not talk about belief.
I most certainly did not mean to sound divisive if that was the impression. There is no chance of me dishing out commandments to others. I've no right to demand anything of anyone, and I won't. But the flip side is that no one (banks etc included) may demand anything of me which I don't consent to.
I do not consent to a process which will see everyone enslaved to a system which they (or at least the overwhelming majority) don't want. Reality is an expression of intent and it is my intent to see true love prevail. But your choice is your choice; same for everyone.
Hope that's clear and not too flowery!
And on a lighter note, everything is always worthwhile experience, not just the good stuff.
OK. Will you be following the outline?
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 06:43 PM
So say 10 am tommorrow we "go live" and the trascript from the first post is emailed to everyone you know, CC media outlets and MPs with instructions to pass it on. Also post it on any forum, blog and website you have access to? Everyone also withdraws there cash from the bank and starts spending it. Those who want to "hoard" money, can buy physical gold or silver as both these require time and effort to be produced. Alternativly by tinned food and bottled water if you are worried.
Should a link to the money as debt video also be included?
You got it!
I wouldn’t be holding my breath if I were you... but sure let’s go for it.
Where’s the updated transcript BTW?
And yeah, ‘Money as Debt’ is a great documentary. I’m always recommending it to everyone.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 06:54 PM
other people have expressed this subject more concisely than we have on here, what are the best weblinks to provide for people as a persuasive introduction?
money as debt is an excellent start!
micklemus
08-10-2008, 06:56 PM
OK. Will you be following the outline?
I've answered your question in previous posts. The answer is pretty much "yes". We will all have a different emphasis but it seems the intent will be generally the same.
ABORT!
ARg, just pulled it apart with my sister, doing her law masters atm. The concept needs some slight re alignment.
The current transcript I was proposing is the first post still for those who want to read it but it isn't accurate.
It needs refining. If the banks fail liqudators are called in to make sure creditors are repayed. So a shell company remains in which we will have to repay mortgages and debts to. In theory, it would just cut out all the bank staff and costs, and the money would just flow from borrowers to savers in a nice orderly fashion. Fair enough. BUT The money goes to the creditor que, at which I suspect savers, pension holders etc are at the back and other banks who lent on the international money markets are at the front.
Sorry guys, I'm not sure this is the golden ticket I thought. Hence why i urged caution, debate and discussion before going ahead.
I will continue to work on this, a similar, or completely new solution.
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 07:28 PM
[...] It needs refining. If the banks fail liqudators are called in to make sure creditors are repayed. So a shell company remains in which we will have to repay mortgages and debts to. In theory, it would just cut out all the bank staff and costs, and the money would just flow from borrowers to savers in a nice orderly fashion. Fair enough. BUT The money goes to the creditor que, at which I suspect savers, pension holders etc are at the back and other banks who lent on the international money markets are at the front.
Told ya! ;)
Told ya! ;)
You did, but I didn't grasp the mechanism untill it was explained.
The hampster is still turning the wheel furiously...think man think.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 07:43 PM
i still can't think of a better idea than becoming freemen on the land...
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 07:53 PM
The hampster is still turning the wheel furiously...think man think.
LOL! :D
Man (or gal) I love your spirit!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qcgHMe9Ek_o
wellsyboy
08-10-2008, 08:09 PM
So did anyone discover who is lending Britain the money?
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 08:23 PM
what money?!
OK so when declaring bankrupcy creditors re repayed in terms of the strength of their claim, not the size. So secured claims have more claim than unsecured etc. Who has the stongest legal claim, a pension holder or saver or a money market lender?
Could we bankrupt the banks, then as a result everyone in the coutry claim bankrupcy themselfs? That would be a shit storm, but would it help find a solution?
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 08:38 PM
Bankruptcy laws had been changed recently in many countries including US and UK. So it depends where you are. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean a clean start anymore as it used to be.
Very long story short; if you declare bankruptcy they take whatever they can off you, if you have a job a part of your wage goes directly to the creditor, if you’re unemployed and get unemployment benefits the same applies.
Bankruptcy laws had been changed recently in many countries including US and UK. So it depends where you are. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean a clean start anymore as it used to be.
Very long story short; if you declare bankruptcy they take whatever they can off you, if you have a job a part of your wage goes directly to the creditor, if you’re unemployed and get unemployment benefits the same applies.
Attachement of earnings, but it wont take your earnings below £900 a month.
What about the cost/benefit ratio of bankrupting the banks and having everyone risk there savings.
Is it just as simple as:
If you saved your savings now...so they can be taxed off you in the future. Might as well give em up and start again interest free rather than deepen the debt.
Banking institions will need to be replaced with some form of system (not necessarily a new instituion) to help facilitiate trade.
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 08:55 PM
Attachement of earnings, but it wont take your earnings below £900 a month.
What about the cost/benefit ratio of bankrupting the banks and having everyone risk there savings.
Is it just as simple as:
If you saved your savings now...so they can be taxed off you in the future. Might as well give em up and start again interest free rather than deepen the debt.
Banking institions will need to be replaced with some form of system (not necessarily a new instituion) to help facilitiate trade.
How can you live with £900 a month? :confused: Unless of course you live with mum & dad or in a council house...
Anywhoo...
No need for fancy moves to bankrupt banks, first I believe they’ll come down on their own, it’s not so much a collapse as it’s an implosion, and secondly if people wants to accelerate the implosion all they need to do is to use the oldest tool since the monetary system was invented.
A run on the banks!, take it all out, and those with current accounts shut them down.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 09:16 PM
? do you live in london?
my mortgage, bills, fuel, taxes and expenses are only 750 a month.... 150 to spend is do-able so 900 isn't a bad minimum really.
anyway, the banks and government are gonna do whatever they're gonna do, i think our first priority now is to prepare ourselves for the inevitable.
we are going to be needed to explain this mess to the masses once they become more receptive, we need to take care of ourselves before we can help others to fully understand the gravity of our situation.
i think now is the time to stock up for a harsh winter, organise ourselves into sustainable local communities, and get our facts straight in preparation for educating those who have not been watching this unfold.
How can you live with £900 a month? :confused: Unless of course you live with mum & dad or in a council house...
Anywhoo...
No need for fancy moves to bankrupt banks, first I believe they’ll come down on their own, it’s not so much a collapse as it’s an implosion, and secondly if people wants to accelerate the implosion all they need to do is to use the oldest tool since the monetary system was invented.
A run on the banks!, take it all out, and those with current accounts shut them down.
The thing is they aren't comming down, they are being nationalised and new bigger loans are being taken out from other banks.
It actually takes more people to want, and force all banks out, esp central banks. So many people just don't know what is going on at all and are looking to precisely "leaders" to save them; Politicians, big investors, banking icons etc.
Maybe just the money as debt link being sent to everyone in your address book and posted on every forum, blog and webpage with a brief explanation.
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 09:26 PM
? do you live in london?
my mortgage, bills, fuel, taxes and expenses are only 750 a month.... 150 to spend is do-able so 900 isn't a bad minimum really.
I hear ya. ;)
But 190 won’t be much with prices sky rocketing, currency devaluation and wages frozen or even reduced.
anyway, the banks and government are gonna do whatever they're gonna do, i think our first priority now is to prepare ourselves for the inevitable.
Oh absolutely, those that can... should prepare themselves, no doubt.
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 09:41 PM
The thing is they aren't comming down, they are being nationalised and new bigger loans are being taken out from other banks.
It actually takes more people to want, and force all banks out, esp central banks. So many people just don't know what is going on at all and are looking to precisely "leaders" to save them; Politicians, big investors, banking icons etc.
Maybe just the money as debt link being sent to everyone in your address book and posted on every forum, blog and webpage with a brief explanation.
Ok, this is the thing, which I’m sure you already understand it, but we must figure out a way to include this concept....
What ‘they’ are doing, is the exact same carbon copy of what they already did to so called third world countries. The only difference is that instead of doing it via the World Bank and the IMF they’re doing it via the Central Banks.
Same thing. They’re collapsing the economy, devaluing currencies, destroying solvency and propping up a dictatorial apparatus to deal with the rightfully angry populous.
The main issue is that they’re bankrupting people, saddling them with unplayable debts with even more unplayable interest on top of that. People ends up indebted for generations to come, no one seen a penny of that debt, no one knows where it went and few will have a feint idea of where it came from and why, yet everybody will have to pay for it, one way or another.
This is the bottom line, in a nut shell
Ok, this is the thing, which I’m sure you already understand it, but we must figure out a way to include this concept....
What ‘they’ are doing, is the exact same carbon copy of what they already did to so called third world countries. The only difference is that instead of doing it via the World Bank and the IMF they’re doing it via the Central Banks.
Same thing. They’re collapsing the economy, devaluing currencies, destroying solvency and propping up a dictatorial apparatus to deal with the rightfully angry populous.
The main issue is that they’re bankrupting people, saddling them with unplayable debts with even more unplayable interest on top of that. People ends up indebted for generations to come, no one seen a penny of that debt, no one knows where it went and few will have a feint idea of where it came from and why, yet everybody will have to pay for it, one way or another.
This is the bottom line, in a nut shell
I know that and you know that, everyone else thinks the Government is riding to the reque.
and justice for all
08-10-2008, 09:51 PM
everyone else thinks obama/cameron will save 'em :rolleyes:
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 10:04 PM
we don't need to be connected to all of this....
before i dive head first into the legal process, does anybody know of any negative aspects of becoming a freeman? aside from losing out on the dole (big deal...) and has anybody had success in paying bills using their government bond tracking number?
by now i'm almost totally convinced it is our only real solution, reject government, law and taxes and just let them deal with their own shite...
wellsyboy
08-10-2008, 10:54 PM
When I said who is lending Britain the money, I meant exactly that. Gordon Brown and Alistair (I know nothing about economics) Darling admitted today that they will need to borrow the money for Britain to provide to the banks!!
So private banks are short of capital, we are going to pay for this as taxpayers, so our government will borrow money (I assume from other banks) to fund banks!!!
Is this really as crazy as it sounds!!!!!!!! I assume the banks won't lend directly to the banks as they know how farcical this is. Only sheeple would be stupid enough to foot the bill (and be middle men/women/children) for such loans and then pay the interest on it.
WAKE UP PEOPLE THIS IS UTTER LUNACY!
Let's not be afraid of stirring up the hornet's nest. Is the result going to be any worse than being lumbered with even more debt?
I mentioned earlier today that Russia have bailed out Iceland to the tune of 900 billion dollars. This only received 10 seconds of news on TV and I haven't seen it mentioned again.
SO I ask again, who is lending Britain the money, which I understand now is closer to 500 billion pounds or to put it another way 1 trillion dollars (1,000,000,000,000 dollar notes)? Each and every taxpayer (mug) will be liable for approx 16,000 pounds.
Rothschild, Rockefeller or Russia? Let's hope the last, I'd prefer my odds there.
Has anyone heard of Benjamin Fulford? He has been predicting this huge collapse by an Asian alliance toppling the Illuminati. Any chance this could be what's happening? With one last ditch effort by the Illuminati to grab as much money from us via governments before they are wiped out??
When I said who is lending Britain the money, I meant exactly that. Gordon Brown and Alistair (I know nothing about economics) Darling admitted today that they will need to borrow the money for Britain to provide to the banks!!
So private banks are short of capital, we are going to pay for this as taxpayers, so our government will borrow money (I assume from other banks) to fund banks!!!
Is this really as crazy as it sounds!!!!!!!! I assume the banks won't lend directly to the banks as they know how farcical this is. Only sheeple would be stupid enough to foot the bill (and be middle men/women/children) for such loans and then pay the interest on it.
WAKE UP PEOPLE THIS IS UTTER LUNACY!
Let's not be afraid of stirring up the hornet's nest. Is the result going to be any worse than being lumbered with even more debt?
I mentioned earlier today that Russia have bailed out Iceland to the tune of 900 billion dollars. This only received 10 seconds of news on TV and I haven't seen it mentioned again.
SO I ask again, who is lending Britain the money, which I understand now is closer to 500 billion pounds or to put it another way 1 trillion dollars (1,000,000,000,000 dollar notes)? Each and every taxpayer (mug) will be liable for approx 16,000 pounds.
Rothschild, Rockefeller or Russia? Let's hope the last, I'd prefer my odds there.
Has anyone heard of Benjamin Fulford? He has been predicting this huge collapse by an Asian alliance toppling the Illuminati. Any chance this could be what's happening? With one last ditch effort by the Illuminati to grab as much money from us via governments before they are wiped out??
Mate you have the scam down to a T. Whoe we are borrowing off no one seems to know...Phone your MP, they should be able to find out.
Now I know that Gordon Brown brought in UBS and N M Rothschild (both private banks) to "consult" there is an article somewhere on this site from the daily mail. Ill try and dig it up.
Boo ya : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1065453/Brown-pressure-reveal-details-1-9trillion-bank-bail-gamble.html
It emerged last night that the Prime Minister has taken the unusual step of hiring bankers UBS and N M Rothschilds to advise him on a possible bail-out deal, independent of Chancellor Alistair Darling.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 11:14 PM
won't it just be borrowed from (as in created by) the bank of england?
with debt attached.
bastards.
won't it just be borrowed from (as in created by) the bank of england?
with debt attached.
bastards.
The BOE is nationalised, it doesn't really do anything, its just a layer between commercail banks which create and lend the money and the government.
British commercial banks hold there reserve at the BOE (the BOE borrows it and pays them interest), then create 9 times that money for the country.
pdcdp
08-10-2008, 11:22 PM
get ya!
xpleet
08-10-2008, 11:33 PM
Dow jones down another 2% by t oday, now at 9258...and they talked about "under 10000", it's likely hitting the below 9000 mark tomorrow.
I'm not a market expert so I wonder if and where there is a breaking point in % where the market just implodes.
Dow jones down another 2% by t oday, now at 9258...and they talked about "under 10000", it's likely hitting the below 9000 mark tomorrow.
I'm not a market expert so I wonder if and where there is a breaking point in % where the market just implodes.
Yes and no.
The actual value of a share is its NPV, net present value. The sum of the future discounted cashflows.
So if a share is expected to pay a dividiend of £1 every year for the next 100 years how much would you pay for it today? Depends how likely you think it is to be able to continue to pay that £1 or if there is a lot of risk.
People will soon think hang on, that company is solid and very profitable, it's shares are well under the price I would pay for the return in dividends. SO they start buying and the market stabalises.
Market value is only important if a company needs to secure a credit line and can't prove it's credibility.
Do some reaserch into a company called Long Term Capital I think who masterminded the Black Schoels formula for calculating NPV and spotting arbatrage situations.
It's not full proof, but it looked like it was and they believed it was...and then realised it really wasnt!
Bear in mind if a co is expected to pay a dividend for ever, you should not only enjoy the divs when you own the share, but should be able to recoup your money when you sell.
duckingdafta
09-10-2008, 12:08 AM
conversation on kerrang at the moment is going along these lines:
£500bn bail out money.
61 million UK people.
that's about £80,000 for every living person young,old, rich, poor no questions asked.
far less crime as most is caused by being skint!,... and all those rich pop stars and footballers will feel so guilty they don't need it they will feel they have to donate to charities.
and flaws in this?
you have to buy British also to keep it in it's own economy.
frankanne
09-10-2008, 12:13 AM
conversation on kerrang at the moment is going along these lines:
£500bn bail out money.
61 million UK people.
that's about £80,000 for every living person young,old, rich, poor no questions asked.
far less crime as most is caused by being skint!,... and all those rich pop stars and footballers will feel so guilty they don't need it they will feel they have to donate to charities.
and flaws in this?
That's the message to get out then. Would we rather £80,000 go to each and every one of us as individuals (yes please), OR give it to the banks?
I think I know the answer.
blueyonder2012
09-10-2008, 12:15 AM
The Bank of England & Fed (Private) are LENDING this money to the goverments at INTEREST - ECONOMIC ENSLAVEMENT:eek:
This is the fact of the matter that people get lost on!!!
And the sheeple pay more interest to borrow on that amount:eek:
EXTRA TAX
;)
pdcdp
09-10-2008, 12:21 AM
£80k would pay my mortgage, pay for a business setup and give a 1 year buffer zone before i had to be making profits.
count me in!
lu tze
09-10-2008, 12:23 AM
conversation on kerrang at the moment is going along these lines:
£500bn bail out money.
61 million UK people.
that's about £80,000 for every living person young,old, rich, poor no questions asked.
far less crime as most is caused by being skint!,... and all those rich pop stars and footballers will feel so guilty they don't need it they will feel they have to donate to charities.
any flaws in this?
Yes there is.
you are one decimal place out in the calculation
500,000m / 61m = 8196
you are out by a factor of 10
LOL, so if they offered you the money would you take it? I wouldn't.
Why not, because I have paused for 30 seconds instead of being blinded by the money.
Its a loan, I don't want a loan. I don't even know what the interest is.
OH wait, I'm being forced to take it on....and somone else will spend the loan for me... that can't be right...
*starts to sob*
rhydra
09-10-2008, 12:27 AM
The banks will decide who gets the money and who does not. As for businesses and property they are only concerned with snatching as much assets from people though repossessions as they can.
The banks are now pulling the rug, they will amass vast quantities of assets and propery when the times are tough in the anticipation that they can then offload them at a later date at huge profit. They also don't care about people being made jobless or homeless, the more there are the more, they presume, it will make those who can pay, keep up with their payments.
It's all borrowed, no one "gets" anything.
Except us, we get shafted.
and justice for all
09-10-2008, 12:35 AM
The BOE is nationalised, it doesn't really do anything, its just a layer between commercail banks which create and lend the money and the government.
The Bank of England is privately owned, most likely by the Rothschilds and usual suspects.
But good luck trying to grab hold of documentation that proves this.
This is one of the best guarded secrets in england, not too difficult to achieve when you've got like 3 pieces of legislation that allows this...
UK - The Land of Secrets
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31959
***
I think it's more sublte thank banks snatching assetts, I think that would cause too much uproar. Instead the banks get into trouble, tell you they need bailing for you to keep your assets, the govt borrows to bail out the banks, we keep our asetts for now BUT taxes go up and public spending goes down to repay the government borrowing.
The Bank of England is privately owned, most likely by the Rothschilds and usual suspects.
But good luck trying to grab hold of documentation that proves this.
This is one of the best guarded secrets in england, not too difficult to achieve when you've got like 3 pieces of legislation that allows this...
UK - The Land of Secrets
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31959
***
I contest: http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/boe1.html
A link to this site has been in my sig since joining.
The gilts issued on nationalisation may well have gone to the Rothschilds.
and justice for all
09-10-2008, 12:40 AM
Yes there is.
you are one decimal place out in the calculation
500,000m / 61m = 8196
you are out by a factor of 10
That's correct. :)
The fake billons (and trillions) the media talks about it's a thousand million.
A 'true' billon it's a million million.
blueyonder2012
09-10-2008, 12:46 AM
The Bank of England is privately owned, most likely by the Rothschilds and usual suspects.
But good luck trying to grab hold of documentation that proves this...
UK - The Land of Secrets
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31959
***
documentation that proves this =Watch Eutice Mullins from the official archives researcher http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2209342295571464429
;)
I think this might be the paragraph we use to start the revolution:
Do you know that saving the banks with more loans will cost you more in increased tax than the savings you might lose? The principal plus the compound interest on those loans will have to be repaid by YOU?
Fail the banks, save yourselves.
The average adult UK saver has £7500, every man woman and child, all 61 million have just been landed with an additional debt (on top of the National Debt we already have) of £8196 at X% interest. Every individual, including the children, who have less than £8196 of cash in a bank earning X% interest is made poorer by this bailout. The big banks who are lending the government on the other hand are getting rich of this interest. This bailout must not be allowed, the government must stop it and allow the banks to fail as this is actually better for the nation.
and justice for all
09-10-2008, 12:49 AM
I contest: http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/boe1.html
You can certainly contest it, and I won’t argue because the only information available is that “The Bank of England was nationalized in 1946”
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/index2.htm
Reason, as far as I’m concerned says otherwise.
duckingdafta
09-10-2008, 12:57 AM
Yes there is.
you are one decimal place out in the calculation
500,000m / 61m = 8196
you are out by a factor of 10
500bn ...it's billion divided by 61 million
the 500 billion is 11 zeros, yanks is different.
duckingdafta
09-10-2008, 01:05 AM
500 UK billion is 11 zeros, yanks is different.
I thought it was 12 [1,000,000,000,000] (is that trillion?)
and justice for all
09-10-2008, 01:11 AM
I thought it was 12 [1,000,000,000,000] (is that trillion?)
That’s a true billion, and it should be that, but the figures on the media and used by the government are ‘Americanized’.
...mind you if that would be the actual figure giving just a couple of those would had set the country in flames over night. (lol)
lu tze
09-10-2008, 01:22 AM
This whole problem is caused by borrowers defaulting on their debts.
Well actually its down to greedy bastards who lent money to people who had not a prayer of repaying their debts expecting to make a nice tidy sum.
These debts are secured on an asset which the lender will the reposess and sell on in order to recoup the debt.
This asset is not worthless. It has a value and in many cases it is indeed worth more than the debt secured on it.
If I borrowed £200K to buy a house on a fixed low rate mortgage three years ago but have now found after the three year discounted period that I can no longer keep up my payments and I end up defaulting and my house is repossesed. My house has actually gone up in value quite considerably over the last three years - house prices have just started to fall in the last few months but not by a lot, for the last two years the value has been rocketing so right now my house could easily be worth £250K
The bank will take my house and sell it on to recover the debt but they will make sure they at least get the full £200K back.
What they will not get is the £200K in PROFITS that my mortgage will have reaped over the remaining 22 years of the mortgage as I would have surely repayed something in the region of £400K back on the £200K I originally borrowed.
Let us not loose sight of the issue here. The UK government has poured £500bn into the financial system to guarentee PROFITS for the banks and not to repay losses as the assets that the debts were secured upon have not got up and vanished or suddenly lost all value over night. That asset still exists.
If my house does loose value it because these fucks have flooded the market or are happy to sell it for a song to get their money back as fast as possible. They will wait 25 years to get £400K but they will not wait a few extra months to get a fair price and so will be happy to sell it for less than the original debt and then chase me for the difference.
If these banks have losses it is down to the commisions and silly money bonuses they have paid out and paying too much for "I owe You's" that are not worth what they thought.
The values of these banks are tumbling because investors are pulling out their investment because they are not going to get the profits and dividends they expected. Nobody invests in a company expecting to get no more than they put in. The idea is to get as much out as possible and when it looks like their investment will not pay out as much as they would like they invest in other things where it will.
The banks are loosing vast quantities of money becase someone out there will pay £350K for my £200K mortgage debt because they expect to be repayed £400K and walk off with £50K profit.
This is all about greed and an expectation of being paid money that does not exist.
Its like going out on a wild spending spree every Saturday because you expect to win the lottery that evening only to find that you havent. You are in the shitter financially. In actual fact you still have all the goods you bought and you could take them back to the shop or sell them to recoup your losses but you dont. You go crying to all that will listen for them to bail you out.
As for the £500bn bail out
If I went out and bought £16,000 worth of shares I would expect a healthy dividend each year and a tidy profit when I sold them but as sure as eggs are eggs this bunch of clowns are not going to cut my taxes and pay me a rebate once my £16,000 stake in the british banking industry starts to pay out
Fuck em! Thats what I say. If they dont trust each other enough to lend to each other and they certainly dont trust me enough to lend to me why should I lend to them?
You are right, on a superficial level. There is a deeper issue that almost all the money in existence and being introduced is borrowed at interest.
It can never be repayed as the money for the interest has not been created.
lu tze
09-10-2008, 01:42 AM
I thought it was 12 [1,000,000,000,000] (is that trillion?)
My god man, if the £500bn quoted in the media was a UK billion and not a yank billion then each man, woman and child would have just coughed up nearly £8.2m each, Gordon and Alastair would be gently turning in the wind, strung up from the lamp post at the bottom of downing street and not a mansion would be left standing in the Surrey broker belt by the morning.
The interesting point is that several people replied to your post, one even quoted it but I was the first to actually question your figures.
We are in this mess because nobody has taken the time to check the figures.
This forum is supposed to be a hot bed of scepticism, espousing the message that we should not believe what we are told but given the first chance we take a simple figure quoted from another site at face value without even bothering to bring up the calculator on the computer we are sat at to check them for ourselves.
A great shame all round.
No offence to you my friend, I thought when you said does anyone see a flaw you were refering to the error in the maths.
and justice for all
09-10-2008, 01:44 AM
Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins
[...] Although a Labor government nationalized the Bank of England in 1946, The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia points out (vol. I, p. 490c) that the Bank of England continues to pay 12% dividends per annum, just as it had done prior to the nationalization. The "Governor" is appointed by the government, in a situation similar to that in the United States, where the Governors of the Federal Reserve System are appointed by the President. However, as is pointed out in the Encyclopaedia Americana v. 13, p. 272, "In practice, the governors of the Bank of England have not hesitated to criticize and bring pressure on the government in public."
[...] directors of the Bank of England (1982) include Leopold de Rothschild of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Sir Robert Clark, chairman of Hill Samuel Bank, the most influential bank after Rothschilds, John Clay, of Hambros Bank, and David Scholey, of Warburg Bank, and joint chairman of S.C. Warburg Co.
Anthony Sampson writes, in "The Changing Anatomy of Britain", Random House, New York, 1982, p. 279, "The more cosmopolitan banks with foreign experts and directors, such as Warburgs, Montagus, Rothschilds and Kleinworts, had also discovered a huge new source of profits in the market for Eurodollars which began in the late fifties and multiplied through the 60s . . . British bankers themselves controlled relatively small funds, but they knew how to make money out of other people’s money."
The Eurodollar market, a new development in "created money" is monopolized by the above firms. [...]
LINK;
http://www.barefootsworld.net/fs_m_app.html
I got that thanks to your pointer blueyonder2012 ;)
frankanne
09-10-2008, 01:54 AM
I liked the way David Icke explained it.
The bankers have been given total freedom to 'lend' out money that they don't have, and then to get it repaid (+ -) that cancels everything out BUT, HERE'S THE CRUNCH, THE BANK THEN GET MONEY AS INTEREST.
Now, if you or I were to be given this wonderful prize of calling ourselves a 'banker', we could give a piece of paper (cheque) to someone say for £1000. We don't need to actually HAVE £1000 REAL pounds, we just write it on a cheque. Now that person must pay back the £1000 (all well and good so far), then they pay back another £100 to us. How nice is that? £100 to us and we didn't have to do anything at all, except write on a piece of paper £1000.
Multiply that by millions. What a nice little earner the bankers have.
And if people can't pay that interest, well, then as bankers, we can take their car, their home.
So we get to rake in a load of goodies for doing sod all, except call ourselves bankers and write numbers on bits of paper.
The whole thing is a scam from start to finish.
and justice for all
09-10-2008, 02:05 AM
...Multiply that by millions. What a nice little earner the bankers have.
And if people can't pay that interest, well, then as bankers, we can take their car, their home.
Yes, and interests are paid first, not last.
APR (Annual percentage rate) is one of the biggest pieces of usury going.
lu tze
09-10-2008, 02:05 AM
You are right, on a superficial level. There is a deeper issue that almost all the money in existence and being introduced is borrowed at interest.
It can never be repayed as the money for the interest has not been created.
You are absolutely correct.
The sad fact is that this crisis has come about because the financial system has come unglued because it is suddenly stuck with the value of the assets as they are worth right now and not what they will be worth in 20 years time.
Our elected representatives have chosen to spring into existence out of nowhere, a big pot of money to make up for that difference and in effect given the financial sector a cash advance on their earings for the next few years.
It is up to you and me (presuming that you too are a UK tax payer) to make good this magic money from the cash that we work hard for.
The banks realise that they are not going to make the money that they thought they would, they all get frightened that the assets they have are only worth what they are worth in the real world and nothing more and so they come to the government to make up the difference. The Bank of England (BofE) magics the money into existence to give to the government so the government can give it to the city and the tax payer makes good on the governemnts promise to pay the money back to the BofE out of our future taxes.
Stability is restored because the city now knows that the difference in the value of the assets and what they expect the value to be and what they are willing to trade them for will be made up from the public purse and guarenteed by the tax payer
I think I want to be a banker.
Do you want to borrow £100?
You will have to pay me £200
Dont worry though if you can not afford the £100 interest just as long as I get my £100 capitail because I can always screem to the government that I have made a £100 loss because you can not pay me my interest. If its good enough for gits in red braces it should be good enough for me :D
frankanne
09-10-2008, 02:08 AM
My god man, if the £500bn quoted in the media was a UK billion and not a yank billion then each man, woman and child would have just coughed up nearly £8.2m each, Gordon and Alastair would be gently turning in the wind, strung up from the lamp post at the bottom of downing street and not a mansion would be left standing in the Surrey broker belt by the morning.
The interesting point is that several people replied to your post, one even quoted it but I was the first to actually question your figures.
We are in this mess because nobody has taken the time to check the figures.
This forum is supposed to be a hot bed of scepticism, espousing the message that we should not believe what we are told but given the first chance we take a simple figure quoted from another site at face value without even bothering to bring up the calculator on the computer we are sat at to check them for ourselves.
A great shame all round.
No offence to you my friend, I thought when you said does anyone see a flaw you were refering to the error in the maths.
A british BILLION at one time was ONE MILLION MILLION, i.e. 1,000,000,000,000.
So the 500 BILLION POUNDS spoken about could have been seen as
500,000,000,000,000.
In actual fact, the billion now is ONE THOUSAND MILLION, i.e.
1,000,000,000.
I still say that if the government want to splash 500 Billion into the economy, they would be better off splashing it around each and every person, which OK isn't the £80,000 each but £8,000 each - rather than give it to the 'bankers'.
The 'bankers' have had it all their corrupt and theiving way for far too long as it is.
duckingdafta
09-10-2008, 02:11 AM
A great shame all round.
No offence to you my friend, I thought when you said does anyone see a flaw you were referring to the error in the maths.
we all have to learn somewhere... not all of us had an education and are self taught. so I prefer to be put right...(btw..if repaired your spelling mistake) :D
tyler
09-10-2008, 02:14 AM
Good to see an intelligent poster here. Stick around, Terry!
duckingdafta
09-10-2008, 02:22 AM
all I can say is on my calculator if I type
61000000 (61million)
X
80000 (£80thousand)
I get
4880000000000 {bold decimal point counts 12 - 4 billion 880 thousand million?}
(almost 500 billion to me)
frankanne
09-10-2008, 02:34 AM
Good to see an intelligent poster here. Stick around, Terry!
who's Terry?
lu tze
09-10-2008, 02:49 AM
we all have to learn somewhere... not all of us had an education and are self taught. so I prefer to be put right...(btw..I've repaired your spelling mistake) :D
Not a problem.
I did not think the error was your own, I thought you had lifted it from the Kerrang web site and was commenting on their bad maths.
There has been a lot of bad maths in the last 24 hours.
The media is all too happy to report the £50bn figure announced today but mostly glosses over the extra $450bn made available by the BofE today as well as the £119bn pledged to propping up Northern Rock and the £14bn for B&B.
In 24hrs a quantity of cash equal to a third of the UK GDP has been given to banks and you and me have had no say in it what so ever. There was no debate, there was no vote. Gordon, Alastair and Mervin got together and saddled me and you each with a £16,000 liability.
The total annual UK public spending budget is just over £600bn. The NHS budget is £110bn on its own and is part of that but we can magic £500bn up just like that.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45090000/gif/_45090334_bail_figures466x248.gif
Image courtesy of the BBC website
The yanks took a week of wrangling and deal making and it got kicked out of congress the first time round until they came up with a better plan before they bailed out wall street with £350bn ($700bn) and their tax payers only got saddled with a £600 liability.
Our bunch of (s)elected fucktards just rolled over and coughed up the dough without so much as a whimper
BTW - many thanks for correcting my spelling mistake - its late in the hour and its been a long day and my dyslexia is getting the best of me. In return I've corrected yours :D
lu tze
09-10-2008, 03:04 AM
all I can say is on my calculator if I type
61000000 (61million)
X
80000 (£80thousand)
I get
4,880,000,000,000 {bold decimal point counts 12 - 4 billion 880 thousand million?}
(almost 500 billion to me)
In finance as a US billion is 1000 million and a trillion is one million million so a 4 with the 12 bold decimal places behind it would be 4.8 trillion if taking about finance
A UK billion is a million million so you would indeed be correct with 4.8 billion if you were not talking about money.
you contradict yourself however by saying on the following line that 4 billion 880 thousand million is close to 500 billion when in fact it is almost 445 billion short if using UK billions.
If using US billions as used in finance, 4,880,000,000,000 would be 4.88 trillion
The difference between US and UK billions was why I showed my calculation in millions
500,000m / 61m = about 8000
lu tze
09-10-2008, 03:14 AM
who's Terry?
I think you could say that unfortunately that is a question often asked by Terry these days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu-Tze
frankanne
09-10-2008, 09:08 AM
I think you could say that unfortunately that is a question often asked by Terry these days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu-Tze
aahh. Thank you for that. This lu tze sounds like an OK chap. lol.
wazaaap
09-10-2008, 09:21 AM
I think you could say that unfortunately that is a question often asked by Terry these days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu-Tze
Oh i do love terry pratchett books!
wellsyboy
09-10-2008, 09:43 AM
OK - so having a bad nights sleep thinking about how we are all being shafted by the owners of the "safe" banks that are lending all this money, I think it is time for action...
Who really has 500 billion pounds to bail out a country??? So far I have heard of 900 billion dollars going to Iceland (from Russia), 700 billion dollars going to the US (I assume from a none US source) and of course our 500 billion (or to keep in check, close to a trillion dollars). So that is 2100 billion dollars or using americanised figures:
2.1 trillion = 2,100,000,000,000 dollars
If this amount of money is floating around to "save" developed countries why the F are there poor nations in the world? What a disgusting world we live in!!
Anyway, back to the plan of attack - here are some ideas, which will clearly need discussion:-
1) Get the true message out to as many people as possible (as previously discussed here) but using one agreed and accurate (as possible) message via forums, YouTube, Facebook, email chains etc
2) Create (in the UK not sure about other countries) an official UK petition online using the government website, perhaps including this in point 1 above. The message could be...
"Demand the UK government review their decision to invest billions of pounds worth of borrowed money to save banks, as this is totally immoral due to the debt burden added to UK citizens without discussion"
An action/caveat added to this if the petition is popular enough could be to refuse or hold back £16,000 worth of tax payments by every UK taxpayer
3) Now for the radical one - create a UK Peoples Bank that would allow all British citizens to deposit their money into the bank. No interest provided on savings but equally no interest added to loans. Branches in every town and the way to pay for this service is that every customer of the bank must pay an annual fee to have the account. Assuming 30,000,000 customers (half the population) at £10 per person = £300,000,000 per year, which should cover expenses??? Add a further zero per person and thats £3 billion per year.
Obviously point 3 needs a lot of thinking through but surely there are enough of the right people we know between us that could MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
WE DON'T NEED A STOCK EXCHANGE OR PRIVATE BANKS THAT ARE ONLY LOOKING TO MAKE A PROFIT. IT CLEARLY DOESN'T WORK, well except for the owners!!!
OK - so having a bad nights sleep thinking about how we are all being shafted by the owners of the "safe" banks that are lending all this money, I think it is time for action...
Who really has 500 billion pounds to bail out a country??? So far I have heard of 900 billion dollars going to Iceland (from Russia), 700 billion dollars going to the US (I assume from a none US source) and of course our 500 billion (or to keep in check, close to a trillion dollars). So that is 2100 billion dollars or using americanised figures:
2.1 trillion = 2,100,000,000,000 dollars
If this amount of money is floating around to "save" developed countries why the F are there poor nations in the world? What a disgusting world we live in!!
Anyway, back to the plan of attack - here are some ideas, which will clearly need discussion:-
1) Get the true message out to as many people as possible (as previously discussed here) but using one agreed and accurate (as possible) message via forums, YouTube, Facebook, email chains etc
2) Create (in the UK not sure about other countries) an official UK petition online using the government website, perhaps including this in point 1 above. The message could be...
"Demand the UK government review their decision to invest billions of pounds worth of borrowed money to save banks, as this is totally immoral due to the debt burden added to UK citizens without discussion"
An action/caveat added to this if the petition is popular enough could be to refuse or hold back £16,000 worth of tax payments by every UK taxpayer
3) Now for the radical one - create a UK Peoples Bank that would allow all British citizens to deposit their money into the bank. No interest provided on savings but equally no interest added to loans. Branches in every town and the way to pay for this service is that every customer of the bank must pay an annual fee to have the account. Assuming 30,000,000 customers (half the population) at £10 per person = £300,000,000 per year, which should cover expenses??? Add a further zero per person and thats £3 billion per year.
Obviously point 3 needs a lot of thinking through but surely there are enough of the right people we know between us that could MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
WE DON'T NEED A STOCK EXCHANGE OR PRIVATE BANKS THAT ARE ONLY LOOKING TO MAKE A PROFIT. IT CLEARLY DOESN'T WORK, well except for the owners!!!
If it was 0 interest on a loan everyone would borrow, no one would repay.
Just have no loans.
I liked the way David Icke explained it.
The bankers have been given total freedom to 'lend' out money that they don't have, and then to get it repaid (+ -) that cancels everything out BUT, HERE'S THE CRUNCH, THE BANK THEN GET MONEY AS INTEREST.
Now, if you or I were to be given this wonderful prize of calling ourselves a 'banker', we could give a piece of paper (cheque) to someone say for £1000. We don't need to actually HAVE £1000 REAL pounds, we just write it on a cheque. Now that person must pay back the £1000 (all well and good so far), then they pay back another £100 to us. How nice is that? £100 to us and we didn't have to do anything at all, except write on a piece of paper £1000.
Multiply that by millions. What a nice little earner the bankers have.
And if people can't pay that interest, well, then as bankers, we can take their car, their home.
So we get to rake in a load of goodies for doing sod all, except call ourselves bankers and write numbers on bits of paper.
The whole thing is a scam from start to finish.
The first thing I did when I learned the scam was look into starting my own bank. :o Of course it is well out of reach of any normal person, or even a decent group of normal people, you need a group of millionairs at least.
There is also a pile of legal framework to climb through.
Bankers don't want more bankers otherwise we would all do it and level the playing field.
danster82
09-10-2008, 11:20 AM
Zero interest does work and its ultimately the key to removing the artificial state of lack around the world, yet it will not work along side the current system for the simply fact everyone would borrow and reinvest into the old system.
What we need to demand in a petition is that the ability to issue credit is removed from private hands and put back into the hands of the government and so the interest received on that newly created money goes towards government budgets and thus will begin to vastly reduce taxes.
That would be the first step which would help greatly.
Once that is in place we then tackle the issue of credit not being connected to anything and we need to connect the credit to the goods of the economy so that government can only expand credit in relation to the expansion of the economy, thus money is always backed by a certain value.
Then after that we can remove interest.
Then we are in a golden age.
The above can only happen in relation to our progress in consciousness if greed is still dominate in your mind then this will never happen as the collective flushes out greed and weakens its ego then this will transpire.
duckingdafta
09-10-2008, 12:24 PM
500,000m / 61m = about 8000
This was a UK plan and not a US one that would be more than 61 million people....so US conversions don't matter
this is why I live as a freeman as close as possible ...because money is numbers to me then there would be less corruption and ok, I'm thick, but I can't be the only one confused.
(this reminds of the tale raising a child that 2 + 2 = 5 ..and a little from the Orwell book).
I think I'll carry on my agenda of wiping money off the face of the earth and living on a resource society
on the calculator
61,000,000 X £80,000 = £4,880,000,000,000 What ever you call this figure that is what will be needed. (in UK) if yu do have to keep money in the system.
all this arguing/debating over billions and yet none of our government bat an eyelid at the odd trillion for arms and defence even when not at war or in terror situations. (only last week bush pushed through congress a bill for arms over a trillion whilst all were watching the markets)..all this is always funded by Rothschild's as they fund all sides in any money scam (with interest) about time this was made right. I thought according to the EU banks aren't allowed to lend to each other, yet this is why they went bankrupt and no-one questions it.
daveashe
09-10-2008, 12:41 PM
I had the thought the other day that interest rates should be in-line with growth, otherwise money will be devalued - that is exactly what is happening.
So really, if there is no growth, interest rates should be set as low as possible, say it was 0%, then the banks can add a couple of percent or so to it so they can get their running costs back and give a percent or so to savers.
I reckon something else they have not taken into account is the vast numbers of people starting their own online businesses, buying and selling goods to each other and bypassing huge industries that previously had a monopoly on, this is causing the 'big club' to have a massive crash in confidence.
I really think you're making a better investment buying domain names rather than stocks and shares ;)
The growth of the internet is definetly having a big impact, if you look at the markets now IT corporations like IBM and SUN have not been hit hardly at all.
frankanne
09-10-2008, 02:14 PM
, you need a group of millionairs at least.
.
Any group with the wonderful scam of raking in money that just flows our way, simply because we call ourselves 'bankers' would be millionaires in a few months.
If I could lend to my neighbour say £5000 (I don't have two halfpennies to rub together, but what does that matter if I am a 'banker'). So anyway, I'm totally skint, BUT I can legally write out a cheque for £5000 to my neighbour who promises to pay me back £5,500 in 6 months, say.
Well, multiply that by a few thousand and I'd soon be rolling in it, wouldn't I?
Any group with the wonderful scam of raking in money that just flows our way, simply because we call ourselves 'bankers' would be millionaires in a few months.
If I could lend to my neighbour say £5000 (I don't have two halfpennies to rub together, but what does that matter if I am a 'banker'). So anyway, I'm totally skint, BUT I can legally write out a cheque for £5000 to my neighbour who promises to pay me back £5,500 in 6 months, say.
Well, multiply that by a few thousand and I'd soon be rolling in it, wouldn't I?
Aye but the legal privalidge to create money requires you to deposit so many millions with the BOE. It is an insane example of one law for the rich and another for the poor.
My information war has begun:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38392
bob_jones
09-10-2008, 02:57 PM
I once wrote to John Redwood MP and pointed out that Gordon Brown's phrase "joining the euro at an appropriate rate" meant devaluing the pound by 15%. And so for every pound surrendered you get 85p worth of euros.
That would make the country 15% poorer overnight.
I told him that if you multiplied the total number of pounds by 0.15 that would give you the cost of joining the euro (plus the cost of changing tills, machienes, ect. which is huge but neglegable by comparison).
I asked him to find out how many pounds are in existence and write back with the answer.
He never replyed.
Only this year I found out that there is no total number of pounds or any other currency because when a bank lends money it creates it out of thin air.
That is how low interes rates cause inflation. People borrow money and that increases the number of pounds in circulation.
We are all told that putting up interest rates throtles the spending of people with mortgages and so reduces demand and so prices can't rise so fast.
They never let on that banks lending is altering the total number of pounds in circultation.
New attempt at a solution.
Dear Treasury,
Rather than borrow yourself into more debt why don’t you:
Offer a 100% secure govt savings account that offers 0% interest BUT has a double platinum titanium guarantee on it, the panicky public will love this more than the 0% interest deters them.
Use that money as a deposit and then fractional reserve yourself 9 times this amount.
Lend the fractional reserve money to the commercial banks to free up their liquidity.
Charge the commercial banks interest.
Use the interest to pay off the National debt
And save the nation!!!!
You can reduce income tax, increase public spending etc.
ichi wa zen
09-10-2008, 04:57 PM
Hello People,
As usual, Ichi wa Zen will go against the stream and tell you something completely different compared to the in this thread spammed David Icke Forum Status Quo opinion!
Now people, economics are boring for a reason. They dont want us to understand whats going on. Well whats going on: the N.W.O. is about to go bankrupt, infinite debt cannot exist, the bankers thought they could continue this infinite debt out of thin air scam for eternity. Guess again, the status quo as we know it, on this site know as the N.W.O. or Powers That Be are dying. The NWO is falling apart. The N.W.O relied on the Yakuza Japanese Central Bank for infinite loans at ZERO interest rates. This plan got messed up when China figured out what that Yakuza Japanese Bank was doing and started doing the same. The G7 conspirators told China to stop doing that because it only works when 1 country is doing it. China refused.....
The N.W.O. wanted to create infinite debt forever so they could have sex with overpriced hookers, more yachts, bigger villas and start endless wars etc etc etc. They DONT WANT THIS COLLAPSE, they wanted to attack Iran and maybe get WWIII going, not going to happen this way when your BANKRUPT!!!
So the old status quo is now DEAD: G7 banking nations are the true conspirators. Soon we will see the collapse of both the Euro and Dollar. I am so happy, that Euro robbed us all!
New status quo = Asia, China will be the new Ruler. Yes China = the N.W.O. destroyer! The evil commie Enemy in your eyes, in reality our friends! Remember everything you read about China was written by a western person or are you able to read Chinese!?!?! Thought so :D
Below are some nice insightful quotes from the greatest site outthere, dont read this site if you dont know what REALITY is, reality is different from Ideas,Concepts and Theories, this reality deals with things as they are happening right now, reality is REAL, and does not just exist in someones head or in someones book, go to: http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/
"The entire G7 complex and all the tiny countries attached to the EU/UK/US system has collectively decided to drop interest rates lower in tandem. They hope this will trigger wild lending and wilder spending. Like the last two times this was done. The Bilderberger people have a very poor learning curve, it seems. The Derivatives Beast must either be resolved tomorrow or it will finally put all the gnome bankers out of their joint misery by eating all paper wealth on earth. In one gulp. But the true cause of all this is the Floating Currency. It is a total, roaring failure. "
"Every leader in the G7 alliance can't help but join forces...against their own people. This is the New World Order. The US and Europe spend fortunes propping up dictators in the Middle East, the borders of Russia, Africa and South America in order to keep the rulers loyal to the G7 bankers and conspirators. Not to listen to dissent at home. So long as we can arm police who crush their own people, we are happy. Or rather, the gnomes are happy. Steerage has to be kept locked below while the Titanic sinks!"
"Well, the way magic works is, it reverses things. So the Japanese created this magical flying piggy bank system running on 0% interest, a novel thing indeed! So long as everyone else ran normal systems, their magical system undermined all the trade systems of rivals. This could go on only for a decade before the advantages were so great, the whole thing fell apart. Now, everyone is aware of the dire need to run their systems the same way and all are rushing to do this as fast as possible. "
"The yen carry trade is dead. I'll be frank: the entire focus of the G7 nations is to restart this carry trade. Throughout the last three years, the G7 has ganged up on China over the value of the yuan while remaining utterly silent about the yen. Attempts were made to force China to not copy Japan. China ignored all this. Then, suddenly last summer, China began the relentless unwinding of the Japanese carry trade by the simple act of buying up yen. All news stories about the yen get things utterly backwards. They talk as if a strong yen is a good thing. It is not. It is pure hell for the dying status quo. It is why 'liquidity' suddenly vanished from G7 banks last summer. Time to take yet again, a deeper look into all this."
THIS POST WILL BE FOLLOWED BY 1.000.000 DISINFO POSTS SAYING I AM A LIAR AND THAT THE ENTIRE WORLD IS EVIL AND PART OF THE NWO! I HAVE REALITY ON MY SIDE, WHAT DO YOU HAVE?
wellsyboy
09-10-2008, 05:37 PM
What ichi wa zen says is very enlightening and indeed seems to compliment what Benjamin Fulford has been discussing (in part). He (Fulford) has talked about an asian take-down of the NWO and this is what ichi wa zen reconfirms.
It is non-violent (so far) however I do not claim to fully understand what he is saying and quoting. Does it go so far as to confirm who the EU and US are borrowing from i.e. Japan and China?? If so, will they be setting the rules for how we act from now on, or to put it another way how the NWO will not be acting from now on?? I hope so...
I think the nationalised banks might actually be the veihcle that save us.
IF
There is a slow and steady run on commercial banks and everyone and puts the money in Northern Rock. The treasury can fractional reserve that money and lend it to faltering commercial banks for interest preferably at a higher rate than savers get. Slowly the commercial banks fail and the profits go to the treasury reduce the national debt and the interest we pay on that. Taxes down public spending up.
This is the real reason there is a market share cap on Northern Rock.
spiritist
09-10-2008, 08:40 PM
Congrats 1694. You've started a great thread here to seize the moment and create change, and by the way apologies for coming in a bit late on it.
The time is right to move the power away from a handful of bankers and bloodlines for ever. Lets do peaceful revolution properly and lets do it now.
I PROPOSE WE START OUR OWN ADMINISTRATION AND OUR OWN ECONOMY IN THIS COUNTRY, FREE FROM ANY CONTROL BY THE LIKES OF RELIGIONISTS, BANKERS AND BLOODLINES. WE WILL LAY DOWN A SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION AND ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO SIGN UP.
We'll be mindful that in times of great change it is the weak, the sick and the vulnerable who come off worst. It would be our overriding objective to put them first.
So we let all the media outlets know what we are doing, big time.
Whose for a quick meet on this somewhere central to discuss a way forward and act on it. Come on, lets do something concrete and show we are not about hot air.
"I for one do not want to be laying on my death bed, ruing the lost opportunities for a better life for all, because I sat on my arse"
My latest effort:
The treasury rather than borrow itself into more debt why doesn't it:
Offer a 100% secure govt savings account that offers low interest interest BUT has a double platinum titanium guarantee on it, the panicky public will love this more than the low interest deters them.
By ignoring EU competition laws they can use the already nationalised Northern Rock as the vehicle for this.
Use the new savers money as a deposit and then fractional reserve it to 9 times this amount.
Lend the fractional reserve money to the commercial banks to free up their liquidity.
Charge the commercial banks interest at a higher rate than offered to savers. (does it need to do this, as the fractional reserve money is free and 9 times as abundant, could it lend the money cheaply and still make a profit?)
Use the interest to pay off the National debt
And save the nation!!!!
The protection limit for commercial banks should gradually be lowered and that of NR gradually increased to allow a steady trickle rather than a flood of those transfering.
Most would transfer there money digitally, The treausry/NR could stipulate it must be electronic. The banks would therefore not face a hard cash run and could continue to limp along with there own operations for businesses etc.
The faster payments system exists and could be used to transfer money from commercial banks to NR instantly.
No banks crash, savings are safe, the treasury is in control.
Then make arrangements for the commercial banks to be wound up over time. Reduce there fractional reserce ratios till it is one2one etc.
From then on all commercial banks are illegal, one publicy owned state bank is all that remains. All profits from the activity of banking are spent by the government on public services.
fortysixandtwo
09-10-2008, 09:06 PM
I've been reading a lot about banks being nationalised.
Can someone please give me a brief explanation of what this means, and what the consequences are?
spiritist
09-10-2008, 09:08 PM
Big respect 1694 and I understand where you are coming from, but the monetarist stuff is getting a little complicated.
We need clear goals. And the only clear goal we can give is to start a completely new system of living which serves everyone, except the greed-riddled.
If we create an administering body in this country, based on spiritual lines, that conveys clear simple aims, then the people will rush to our cause, but only if we keep it simple.
There's no point in trying to influence the current system, because to do so is to continue pay homage to their economy god.
We start making strides towards a new reality now, our way, not theirs.
So I say again, we meet somewhere, set out our aims, use all communication tools at our disposal and kick the controllers out.
Nationalised, the state owns it, profits are owned by the people of the nation. Normally the treasury is incharge of this, like how it devides up our taxes. If it owned a profit making bank of it's own it could run all commercial banks out of business still provide the banking services people require and the profits would go to public spending. With the government making money itself it would not need to tax so much.
If politicians fuck with the bank in a manner which we don't like, we vote them out. Preetty soon the effeicent, and in tune with the wishes of the people running of the state bank would be the governments prority
lu tze
10-10-2008, 12:22 AM
The saying that it is better to get what you need than what you want is never more appropriate than here.
I find the idea of a national bank owned by the government sinister and disturbing and I assure you that in the cold light of day it is that last thing any of us really want. There is an old saying. Be careful what you want because you might just get it.
In principle the idea of the people owning the national bank by way of the government sounds good and noble. The idea that the national bank makes money which pays for the national budget almost sounds plausible but in reality it most certainly is not and must never be allowed to happen.
I think it is just a Utopian dream brought into being by the present global crisis. Like the atomic bomb seemed a way to end all war and was brought about by idealists with only the best intentions, it has the ability to destroy everything that is good if in the wrong hands.
The ideas knocking around here seem to contradict each other.
On the one hand there is talk of a national saving bank that takes deposits and lends to commercial banks to make money that pays off the national debt and for social spending.
On the other there is talk about running down the commercial banks and having just a single nationally owned bank.
The two can not happen simultaneously and what will in fact happen will end up being something close to communism.
The preferential advantage of being the biggest player in town will in fact put the commercial banks out of business. If they are not going to make any money, these guys will indeed just get out of town so there will be no alternative to the national bank.
The leverage out of the market of commercial banking would be for the owners of the national bank, the government, to determine legislation that would skew the market in their favour - A law banning commercial banking would be the most obvious but I don't thing they would be so blatant in intent.
Initially the advantage to savers would be great. the masses would pour their funds into the coffers of the national bank because of the better rates it charges. A rate that it would be able to offer by subsidising the bank from tax revenues. These would raised by levying huge tax burdens on the competition to put them out of business and against those who refuse to participate. Put your cash in the bank and we give you a tax break!
Eventually as the national bank became the only player in town it would stand unopposed an behave like all monopolies do and abuse its position.
The most awful aspect would be that there would be no recourse of action to fall back on. The people running the bank are the ones making the laws. If their actions stray outside the law just make these actions legal. If the masses complain just make complaining illegal. Look what happened when the truck drivers took it upon themselves to protest about the cost of fuel just like the Europeans have been doing for years by blockading roads and refineries. They made downing street sweat so much that the government made it illegal to blockade roads and refineries. When the bikers rose up and protested the cost of fuel earlier this year by having a go slow around Manchester the route had to be agreed with the authorities before hand so to prevent it causing too much disruption and when they decided that they wanted to carry on into the centre of the city they were all threatened with arrest so they ended up sending them for a big ride around a large industrial and business park in Salford Quays. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7437144.stm Forgive me if I am wrong but wasn't disruption the idea? When the masses marched in London to protest the illegal war in Iraq they made it illegal to protest outside Parliament without permission - Imagine that. "We don't like what you are doing and we want to protest". "Sorry we wont let you and if you do we will prosecute you for protesting without our permission!"
Imagine the consequences of what you are suggesting
Income tax across the board would effectively be at 100% as all of your income MUST be paid into the national bank as there is no other. If you insist on being paid in cash then I have news for you. A cashless society is just a single law away when the only player in town is a national bank. Why would you need cash when all money originates from and ends up in the national bank? The biggest problem facing any financial system is all that unaccounted for cash in the mattress and coins in the Jar. Fraud is not the only reason we keep getting new bank notes, its all about controlling the amount of cash in circulation at any one time. You have no choice but to take your cash to the bank every once in a while to exchange it for new notes as the old notes go out of circulation and are no longer legal tender. If you doubt this try spending an old £5 note with the duke of wellington on the back today. The wording on the note has hardly changed on all the versions of the £5 note in all the years since the duke of Wellington version was issued so in principle it represents exactly the same promise to pay the bearer that it always did but it is no longer legal tender so its only worth something to someone who collects them and if you can not find someone who does then it is just an interesting piece of paper. If you refuse to get your notes changed you loose your money.
The last thing a national bank would want would be to have a large surplus of cash swilling about the country that it has no control over.
If you want to buy a house you go to the government bank for a loan and a government employee will tell you whether you can afford it or not. If you get the loan the government will own your house until you pay off the debt. If you don't get the loan you rent your home and the government is your landlord. In both cases a government employee has the ultimate say over the home you can live in.
Thanks to petty bureaucrats the government uses laws designed to prevent terrorist atrocities to prosecute people who drop litter, let their dogs crap in the park or put their bins out a bit early or leave them out too long. Hell the other month one council had employees creeping around back alleys with a set of ladders and climbing into peoples back gardens to confiscate the extra wheelie bins they found if the home owner had more than one. I think they made history by being the only council employees in recent memory who would actually voluntarily set foot on your property to collect a dustbin. What makes you think that the petty jumped up government official at the other side of the desk in the bank managers office is going to be even handed and fair and sympathetic to your dreams. The record to date has been that when you give these little Hitlers the merest whiff of power they take it to the limit and abuse it. You only get your mortgage or loan if you are not overly ambitious. If the prick in the government suit does not like you and says no there is nowhere else to go. Welcome to an age where every bank manager is like the one on the nationwide advert. Pricks like that get weeded out with the present system because with a fucktard like that in charge of the branch the branch looses customers to the competition and the bank fires his arse to keep the money rolling in. When there is no competition there is no reason to get shut of these little Hitlers and you are stuck with them. Why do you think so many end up in local government? Its hardly as if you have a choice in who you pay your council tax to. Your local authority is your local authority and that is the end of it. You might elect the councillors but the pricks you deal with down the town hall and at the council office are employees and are unelected. Councillors come and go in short order but these pillocks rise through the ranks over many years honing their particular talents for pettiness and belligerence and like a limpet stuck to a rock are all but impossible to remove.
If you can not trust them to not sift through your rubbish you wouldn't want to trust them with your ambitions.
The power of protest would be wiped out over night. If your credit card company can refuse to allow you pay for services that it does not agree with imagine what a government can do when it disagrees with you supporting a particular cause or having particular views. They don't need to burn books when they can just remove your ability to buy them.
Our friend David Icke has a great ability to rub those in power up the wrong way or at the very least come out with stuff that they certainly do not agree with. He runs a web site - you may have noticed - and I am quite sure that all that band width and hosting is not free. A look at the news page is evidence of this as at least half of it is adverts for stuff that I am sure he gets a percentage of to help him fund his ventures. Now imagine if the one bank in town owned by people who don't like David a great deal decides that it is not going to allow you to give any money to David to run his web site. In fact lets assume that it is not going to allow anyone to give any money to David full stop. Take that a bit further. Lets assume that it isn't even going to let you or anyone else give money to anyone that offers services or assistance to David. David's web site is going to vanish pretty sharpish. In fact as David can not pay for anything or be paid for anything he is going to also vanish pretty sharpish.
Top this off with the fact that the people who don't like David also know exactly who support him through their attempts to financially support David or buy his products. Pretty soon they will have a list of exactly who opposes them and the means curtail their activities simply by cutting off their financial transactions or confiscating their assets. remember the national bank will know exactly what assets you have because they provided the means for you to pay for them and in the case of your home they either technically own it if you have a mortgage or they actually own it if you rent.
If you do not believe me then here is an example of what I am talking about -
I believe that it was not too long ago that the US government made certain aspects of Internet gambling unlawful for companies based within the US and as a result credit card companies based in the US refused to allow you to use your credit card to pay for services on web sites that offered INTERNET gambling services regardless of were in the world the gambling site was based. A US citizen would therefore not be able to gamble on a European gambling site even though the company owning the web site was breaking no laws in the jurisdiction in which it was based as the activity was considered illegal in the US - in fact there cases where the people who owned these European web site were arrested and charged as they got off planes in the US for breaking this new law even though they broke no law in their own country or any other country.
Think of the privacy and security aspects and the potential for massive fraud. You are honestly calling for the government to have direct access to all of your financial information, access to every transaction you make and every penny you think is yours. The UK government has made it its single mission and unswerving goal to at some point loose the confidential and sensitive records of every man, woman and child in the nation through one security breach or another. They have already lost the personal details of every child last year so one down and just two to go. If your present bank fucks up with a security breach of such magnitude you move banks pretty sharpish and take action to recover any losses. If there is only one bank were do you move your money to? Who is going to make good any losses. You are through your taxes.
If this model was repeated the world over what is to stop one country simply bankrupting another and buying the assets for a song. In Britain we sold off the nationalised utilities under the Thatcher government and now they are all owned by anyone but the British. Hell a French conglomerate now owns the British Nuclear industry. We now get to keep the lights on at night if the French decide to invest in the nuclear power stations that our government says we should now build. We better not piss off the French or we are going to all be sat in the dark telling stories of empire and how we kicked off the industrial revolution to be the pre-eminent power on the planet.
What is this thing we all harp on about the New World Order and a one world government with the few elite super rich ruling the penniless masses. Yes single national banks. That should get the job done.
Another aspect of putting the commercial banks out of business would be what would happen to all those super rich bankers. That much talent is not going to go to waste especially when there is an old boys network in place.
If there is only one bank in business in the country then there is only one employer for these guys. If you think they are going to end up in McDonald's serving burgers you are sadly mistaken.
As for the government. Do you really think the people in power are YOUR choice? These pillocks in Parliament are all elected even though it is often hard to believe. How do they get elected? Well that is easy. First they get selected. Who does the selecting. Well its their good buddies down at the local labour / conservative / liberal club. The masses get to choose from the Muppet's that are selected while many a good capable would be candidate gets handed a box of leaflets to put through letter boxes in their ward to campaign for the fucktard in favour
No My friends, The last thing we want is a single state owned bank because when the state owns the one bank in the country the state owns everything you thought you owned and that means they own you.
When the prize is control over all the money and every asset in the country and an unopposed ability to do just as they wish with the power to silently suppress all dissent then the biggest crooks will fight tooth and claw to be the king of the hill and get their arse kissed by all the greedy pigs that want a taste of the sweet riches in the trough that he can offer in return.
Let the banks fail. Every industry eventually swells to the point that the limited resources and limited customers become so thinly spread out among all the players that nobody makes any money and the least prepared and the most reckless go under. The industry consolidates and the strongest, the best and the most able of the hour survive. They mop up the competition and go on to make a fortune but at the same time they leave gaps in the market for smaller start-ups who creep in living off the crumbs left behind by the big boys growing stronger swelling the industry until it all goes crunch once more and the cycle starts once again. Mostly its the small guy who gets crushed in the crunch but one or two of the big boys, the household names will fall. It happens every time. Its always shocking but its always inevitable. Its happened before, its happening now and it will happen again.
I started with an apt saying. I will finish with one.
The king is dead. Long live the king!
Fuck.
I was aware of the power paradigm. What can we do, leave the power in the hands of private bankers who profit off our enslavement or shift the power to the hands of an all powerful national government.
I think I might get into banking....marry a Rothschild.... and enjoy it.
What about if we make the banks cash in there fiat money for silver. Then make all the banks offer there own silver backed money or actual silver and make interest illegal.
Or what about the mint printing more money and telling banks they have to increase there reserve ratios in proportion to the amount of new money until they are one to one.
The muslims don't have interest do they or any of this? They have more sun, and there women don't argue (easy now!), thinking of moving now. America can't afford to keep running over to fight them any more either.
Rather than borrowing for this bailout, why doesn’t the mint print more money and spend it on public services into the economy BUT at the same time raise the fractional reserve requirements of banks in proportion to the new printing to soak up any inflation. As the banks reduce there ratios to 1 2 1 with the new money the system stabilises and we won't be able to reach this position again.
After that over printing by the government, printing more than the value of public sector work will raise inflation and the government will face a negative vote as a consequence.
FFS this is the solution at the end of "Money Masters"..we all knew this all along.
lu tze
10-10-2008, 01:48 AM
Rather than borrowing for this bailout, why doesn’t the mint print more money and spend it on public services into the economy BUT at the same time raise the fractional reserve requirements of banks in proportion to the new printing to soak up any inflation. As the banks reduce there ratios to 1 2 1 with the new money the system stabilises and we won't be able to reach this position again.
After that over printing by the government, printing more than the value of public sector work will raise inflation and the government will face a negative vote as a consequence.
Raising the fractional reserver requirements over time to a 1 to 1 ratio presupposes that there is actually enough money or assets to cover the money issued by the bank.
The fractional reserve can not really be money, it has to be a tangible asset of some sort or description with a value in the real world or there is nothing to stop the banks from magicing a heap of money into existence by going on a lending spree and then banging all the new magic money into the central banks as their fractional reserve. This would achieve nothing and would in effect dilute the fractional reserver ever further away from the 1 to 1 ideal.
It is only in exceptional circumstances such as the ones we are experiencing right now that the central banks even consider with the most hardest reluctance, accepting bonds based on debt such as the repackaged debt from the US sub prime market that has caused all this grief as collateral for borrowing money.
Throughout this entire crisis as a result of the numerous money auctions and liquidity funds the fractional reserver has actually been increasing as banks use their bad bonds as assets in order to get cash out of central banks.
Ideally as it sounds, the 1 to 1 fractional reserve would stagnate the economies of the world and in effect limit the amount of money in the world entirely to the assets and resources available.
I am sure you are aware that as people paid off their debts such as mortgages, the assets held by the banks as collateral would pass from their ownership and result in them having less money to lend. As a direct reaction this would result in an increase in interest rates so lengthening the amount of time it take for you to pay off the dept. This only hurts the borrower.
The system we have right now can be made to work even though it is far from ideal.
The course of action we should take should be to tax these super rich bastards out of existence and make then taste the consequence of their failures.
When a multimillionaire pays less tax in actual hard cash than their minimum wage domestic help because of all the tax loopholes and dodges at their disposal there is something spectacularly wrong. This must be addressed or the rich will just get richer and the poor poorer.
pricks in pinstripe playing at high stakes gambling on the money markets with other peoples money should be made accountable for their failures when they fuck up. They get a big bonus when they succeed, how about getting a bill when the fail. These fucktards will be a whole lot more reluctant to make wild gambles when they could loose their house. Its only fair when hard working people who trust these idiots with their hard earned cash are loosing theirs as a direct consequence.
As for share holders, they get a dividend when the company who issues the shares does well. How about getting a bill when it does not. I loved it when the Lloyd's names all got a mandatory demand for cash all those years ago when Lloyd's of London was in the crapper after a string of record insurance payouts. Shareholder revolt when the share price drops is ugly. Heads on a pike when shareholders loose money on the value of the shares and then get a demand for capital injection sounds like a wonderful spectacle. We could always introduce it as a new sport at the 2012 Olympic games. It would be a new slant on the high jump as bankers in bright red braces and pin stripe suits try to outrun a baying mob of shareholders looking for recompense.
This whole mess is the result of reckless behaviour on the part of the bankers and brokers that has borne them no consequence up to now. Now they don't trust each other and will not lend to each other which is wise as they are all a bunch of back stabbing bastards who would sell their own children for a percentage point on the stock market of they could so they would not think for an instant about dumping each other with a big pile of worthless debt for the highest price possible just to get the losses off their books.
This is not an easy one to work out and I fail to see how a solution would ever be worked out here.
Some people need to go to jail. Some people need to loose their houses. The people who have benefited all of these years regardless of if they got it wrong or not need to be directly accountable for their actions.
This goes for pillocks called Nigel and Jeremy in the square mile of London just as much as it goes for the mortgage brokers who sold unpayable mortgages to penniless people in the US
awakensong
10-10-2008, 01:54 AM
According to Icke and others who think similarly, this financial crisis was planned, manipulated and staged by the Rothschilds, so it isn't because no one at the top understands a better way, it's that THEY want it THIS way, for their own reasons. None of the PTB has our best interests at heart. It's just like with clean fuel; no money in it for them
"This is not an easy one to work out and I fail to see how a solution would ever be worked out here."
We can but try. If we do nothing we can only blame ourselves.
I'm lost as to how rasing the fractional reserve requirements dilutes the ration, the fractional reserve would be paper and coin that the bank had to get and then could not be used to create new loan money and couldn't be spent until an existing loan of the same value had been repaid. Is the risk that once the loan aginst which that paper money was secured was repaid, the banks would use the paper money to buy up assets and atain a powerfull position of loads of property etc. What if the public used the new money to buy assetts or kept it under the bed...then the banks would raise the interest rates on those of already in debt. Can we fix that with legislation?
Or is it fairer to let the borrowers (myself included) suffer for the sake of the savers? *Dons self preservation hat* Savers recieve interest as a reward for risk, do they deserve to be saved any more than borrowers. Maybe we just fuck it all off, back to 0 for everyone. Make interest and fractional reserve illegal. We trade whatever we can make or do for whatever another can. If its Brainfreeze who claims to be a good escort, she is in better stead than most of us.
With regard to stagnating economies, new money would be printed&minted by the government when public sector work was undertaken to an accurate value of the work. Though would this mean public sector workers demanding pay rises would get the money first and beat the inflation the rest of us face? Non public sector workers could check this by always voting for the party which offered no public sector pay rises.
Reserves of 1 to 1 would of course reduce bank profits, as they tried to increase interest rates to claw back their profits no one would borrow and prices would remain atainable. Could there be such wage disparity without fractional reserve?
"Ideally as it sounds, the 1 to 1 fractional reserve would stagnate the economies of the world and in effect limit the amount of money in the world entirely to the assets and resources available."
Isn't this the only sustainable way?
I appreciate your lengthy and well thought out responses.
lu tze
10-10-2008, 02:32 AM
According to Icke and others who think similarly, this financial crisis was planned, manipulated and staged by the Rothschilds, so it isn't because no one at the top understands a better way, it's that THEY want it THIS way, for their own reasons. None of the PTB has our best interests at heart. It's just like with clean fuel; no money in it for them
It certainly seems that way.
Planned or not it was most certainly planned for
I contend that the original premise of this thread, that the bad banks with bad debts as a results or reckless and bad investments should be allowed to fail is valid as I contend that the present woes are a natural consolidation of the financial market and a direct result of too little money and too few customers and too many companies trying to make endlessly larger profits.
In a rush to protect their savings, the masses will blindly accept their governments calls to nationalise the banks and financial institutions that hold these savings. We hear calls to guarantee savings greater than £50,000 but I ask you, do you know anyone with more than £50,000 in the bank?
Organisations such as councils who invest large quantities of tax payers money in foreign banks SHOULD have insurance against loss or get out of the money markets as they have no business putting our money there. We pay these people to empty the bins, keep the street lights working and maintain the parks etc and not to go speculating on international money markets.
This week has been unprecedented in the UK as our government ministers basically saddled every taxpayer with a £16,000 liability without even the briefest debate. The US government fell out in lumps for a week about their rescue plan and it only went through congress on its second reading after it was thrown out as unsuitable.
I contend that this rush to nationalise the banking and finance sector is a spectacularly bad thing and that governments should not be acting as bankers. I think I outlined this quite clearly on the previous page.
In a rush to protect their savings the man on the street will blindly accept what is going on and eventually will demand it as he is constantly told that "this is a good thing" and that "your government is doing this to protect your savings" when the exact opposite is true.
They are doing this to protect your debt and whats more they are transferring the liability for your debt from private ownership and underwriting it with public funds so that as the debts get to breaking point and more and more people default the losses are underwritten by the taxpayer.
Something sinister is going on. Why lend to individuals and have them default on you one by one when you can lend to governments who don't default because they have a bottomless pot of guaranteed tax payers money.
As a direct consequence of what has happened this week virtually every taxpayers tax bill in the UK has potentially doubled as in the last few weeks they have already pledged a sum of money greater than the UK national annual budget for this series of bail outs although they are only just hinting at that at the moment.
mightiswrong
10-10-2008, 02:37 AM
Money is all very nice? but what is it really worth?
You can't get the most fresh, healthy food with money
Money does not buy happyness or love.
Money can not buy good health.
Kin's domains are worth infinately more than money. They provide fresh healthful food, water and a space of love (http://www.traveluzion.com/discuss/index.php?topic=172).
Kill em all let God decide, and if there is no God well we killed em so they got what they desreved anyway.
There is no justice....Just us.
Take all your money out of banks electronically and put it in shares. Electornic withdrawels shouldn't collapse banks as the banks have the money in electronic form, only the hard cash reserve is a problem, so all the savers get their money back but in dividend paying shares? From companies that produce goods and services, rather than bank interest that just leaches of production.
lu tze
10-10-2008, 04:32 AM
"This is not an easy one to work out and I fail to see how a solution would ever be worked out here."
We can but try. If we do nothing we can only blame ourselves.
My contention that a solution would not be worked out here rests on the fact that we are very few with a rather tilted world view banging away on a public forum of a rather marginalised and somewhat fringe website compared to the ordinary man on the street who will blindly go along with what he is told in the mass media without questioning any of it.
I think I made this point quite eligantly yesterday when even here nobody questioned a very simple but grosely wrong calculation, even when we all had the means of checking it ourselves literally at our fingertips as what is a computer if not a rather complicated calculator. The figures we are talking about are so mind blowing that the man in the street has no frame of reference to judge them by. If the miscalculation in the quote had been a decimal place out in the other direction the liability for every man woman and child in the UK would have appeared to have only been about £800 and would have sounded a lot more reasonable. More like a monthly pay cheque rather than an annual salary as such a figure actually is for some people.
"I'm lost as to how rasing the fractional reserve requirements dilutes the ration, the fractional reserve would be paper and coin that the bank had to get and then could not be used for new loans and couldn't be spent until and existing loan of the same value had been repaid.
Using paper and coin is of little use when the banks can just mint more. The sums of money required are generated into existance by banks lending more so increasing debt overall and diluting the fractional reserve. Minting more paper money and coins simply gives this money a physical form. Here is an example (I will detail it in the most briefest of terms as the mechanism is well pubicised on the internet for those who wish to find out more and are prepared to look for it - my fugures are diliberately rounded off to the nearest large number and I am well aware thet they do not acurately line up exactly because i can not be bothered with all that 9.99% and £1,099 stuff but for the purpose of this illustration they serve to illustrate the magnitude of what is really going on):
I have £1,000 worth of gold and I put it in the BofE. as you know I can now lend that £1,000 to a borrower. With a 1-1 Fractional reserve that is the end of it but with the present 9-1 system I can effectively lend it out again and again though I lend smaller and smaller fractions of it each time, each one being no more than up to 90% of the previous loan untill what I have actually lent out is somewhere just short of £10,000. as in each case the person who has borrowed money has paid that money to someone else who has then deposited that payment back in my bank so i can lend it out again.
I issue the money not in gold, silver or precious assets but as promisery note (bank notes) or tokens (coins) which the mint knocks out for me
From my original reserve of £1,000 I have created around £9,000 of money into existance out of nothing. It exists as I expect £10,000 of repayments to be paid back to me and I expect interest on top of that too so in effect I will get more than £10,000 back. If I work my interest out right and the repayment terms are long enough my expected £10,000 worth of capital repayments could yield enough interest so that I expect to be repayed £20,000 at the end of it all.
What is more, because every thing i have lent out, I have lent out in the form of promsery notes and tokens (bank notes and Coins) and all of it has been deposited back with me for safe keeping I now have £1,000 worth of gold in the central bank and a vault in my own bank full of bank notes and coins.
If I then take these bank notes and coins and use them as additional reserve with the central bank all I have deposited there in addition to my original £1,000 worth of gold is the money I have magiced into existance by lending my original £1,000 out. There is no addition real asset in the central bank and if I was to lend out £9,000 for each £1,000 worth of bank notes that I have deposited I would eventually leand out just short of £100,000 from my original £1,000 deposit which puts the fractional reserve somewhere around 99-1
On the other hand if I used my £9,000 in bank notes to purchase £9,000 in gold and I deposited the £9,000 worth of gold as my additional reserve I could continue to lend out that £100,000 and retain a fractional reserve at 9-1
Banks CANNOT use paper and coin as their reserve as this paper and coin is the very physical form of the magic numbers that they summon into existence.
"Is the risk that once the loan aginst which that paper money was secured was repaid, the banks would use the paper money to buy up assets and atain a powerfull position of loads of property etc. What if the public used the new money to buy assetts or kept it under the bed...then the banks would raise the interest rates on those of already in debt. Can we fix that with legislation?
Or is it fairer to let the borrowers (myself included) suffer for the sake of the savers? *Dons self preservation hat* Savers recieve interest as a reward for risk, do they deserve to be saved any more than borrowers. Maybe we just fuck it all off, back to 0 for everyone. Make interest and fractional reserve illegal. We trade whatever we can make or do for whatever another can. If its Brainfreeze who claims to be a good escort, she is in better stead than most of us.
Once the loan against which the paper money was minted is repaid the paper money does not rightly esist. Its very existence devalues all assets secured by the paper money in existence until it is taken out of circulation and cancelled out against the repayed debt on the ballance sheet. This is why we change the design of our bank notes so often so that the amount of physical money in existance can be corrected as people bring their money in for changing or depositing in bank acounts where it once more becomes figures on a ballance sheet and not a physical entity. We dont just change the design to counter forgery.
The banks must purchase new assets such as precious metals to deposit as reserve. There is only so much of this physical asset in existence and somewhere in the system the paper money always gets cancelled out with the debt that is repayed. The knack is to keep the sum total of all debt growing so that you dont have to cancel the paper money out.
The savers are simply the other side of the coin so to speak. When bob takes out a loan money is created in the form of a figure on a balance sheet. Bob is a borrower. He gives that money to bill who puts it in the bank. Bill is a saver. to encourage Bill to put the money back in the bank he gets a slice of the interest that I am charging Bob. If Bill does not put the money in the bank then I can not lend any money to Ben who also wants a loan so he can pay Bert. I want Bert to put that money back into the bank so I give hime a slice of the interest I get from Ben so I can lend that out to Barney and so on.
If all of the Borrowers default the savers are fucked because I can not pay them their savings if they wanted to withdraw them. If all the savers withdraw their savings then the borrowers are fucked bacause I am going to need them to repay me in order to pay the savers withdrawals
This is the crux of the problem we face. Remember the example I gave above where I got £10,000 from £1,000. Well lets say that over a period of time when interest payments are factored in I should expect to be paid £20,000. Well lets say that I sold that £10,000 loan book on for £15,000 or even borrowed £15,000 from another bank and used my loan book as an asset. I make £5,000 instant profit in hard capital that I can now lend out or repay savers and the guy who bought it makes £5,000 by waiting for all the payments to come in and the loans to mature. Well when the borrowers start to default that loan book is only worth the assets it is secured against which is £10,000 so the bloke who bought it or lent out against it for £15,000 is going to make a £5,000 loss and he is not pleased. He isnt going to buy any more loan books off me or lend me any more money against my loan books so I can not raise capital to repay the savers or lend out to people so I am fucked if everyone suddenly wanted to withdraw their cash. This is essentially what happened to Northern Rock.
The banks will not lend to each other because they are all shit scared that the loan books (bonds) that they are securing the cash against are in actual fact not worth any more than face value or even less.
The government is buying up all the shite loan books and effectively guarenteeing that the loan book in my example is worth £20,000 when it eventually matures.
In theory that should get the banks lending to each other which guarentees that savers can withdraw their money and that borrowers dont suddenly get demands for full repayment.
"With regard to stagnating economies, new money would be printed&minted by the government when public sector work was undertaken to an accurate value of the work. Though would this mean public sector workers demanding pay rises would get the money first and beat the inflation the rest of us face? Non public sector workers could check this by always voting for the party which offered no public sector pay rises.
Reserves of 1 to 1 would of course reduce bank profits, as they tried to increase interest rates to claw back their profits no one would borrow and prices would remain atainable. Could there be such wage disparity without fractional reserve?
"Ideally as it sounds, the 1 to 1 fractional reserve would stagnate the economies of the world and in effect limit the amount of money in the world entirely to the assets and resources available."
Isn't this the only sustainable way?
I appreciate your lengthy and well thought out responses.
You would need to look at who is assessing the value of the work being undertaken. I put a new roof on my kitchen a few months back and it cost me around £200 but a builder would have charged me £1,200. Both are legitimate and acurate costs for the job even when the cost of my time is factored in but what would be an acurate value for the work caried out? Was the builder overcharging me? Did I make a big saving by doing the work myself? Is the real value somewhere in between?
The population would not vote for whoever offered the lowest public sector pay rises. The public sector workers would not vote for them for a start. The population would in fact vote for the party that got those fucking public sector workers who are back on stricke again back to work so they can get back to emptying the bins, the kids can go back to school and i can get seen by a doctor when I fall into a hole in the pavement that the council would have fixed if only the workmen were not stood outside their depot gates waving placards.
Never forget that government ministers and civil servants are also public sector workers.
We all have self preservation hats at the back of the wardrobe somewhere.
Getting to a 1-1 fractional reserve would be a long and painful process. Remember, up to 90% of the money in the world would have to be cancelled out. This is not something that would be welcomed. Would you accept a 90% pay cut? Would you be happy if your house was worth 90% less? I know that this is all relative as the value of EVERYTHING would drop by up to 90% but the man in the street has not a clue how money really works and I would put good money on the fact that if you asked the man in the street what the promise on the front of a five pound note means he would reply that it is a promise to pay the bearer of the note £5 worth of gold or similar precious asset when all it really means is that you promise to pay the bearer £5.
I appreciate replying to your informed and creative ideas
lu tze
10-10-2008, 04:43 AM
Take all your money out of banks electronically and put it in shares. Electornic withdrawels shouldn't collapse banks as the banks have the money in electronic form, only the hard cash reserve is a problem, so all the savers get their money back but in dividend paying shares? From companies that produce goods and services, rather than bank interest that just leaches of production.
Sorry my friend this would not work as if you withdraw your money in electronic form the money would not be in the bank electronicly or otherwise.
Banking is ballance sheets and nothing more.
Cash in the form of bank notes and coins is just a pysical representation of what is on the allance sheet.
The ballance sheet is secured against the capital reserve which can be as low as 10% of the ballance sheets loan book value and is deposited in the central bank This reserve is always a fraction of the money in the bank - electronically, virtually or otherwise.
I hear what you say about the goods and services thing and I understand it and how it all works its just that I just dont think I see how we can get there without unacceptable pain. There are just too many greedy bastards in the world who consider that they can do fuck all and that their inaction is worth more than someone who toils all day - that said there are some in this world that you would just pay to stop doing whatever they are doing right now because its fucking things up!:D
What about a frational reserve ratio of 1:<1, all money is paper or coin and when you deposit money in a bank to be lent, it phyisically passed it back out in paper or coin and your bank balance goes down untill you get the repayments back.
Only minted paper or coin are accepeted anywhere.
Just like when you lend a fiver to your mate, you cant spend it till he gives it you back. You are pysically poorer for it and you risk never seeing that fiver again.
Now people might start using the IOU contracts for the repayments as a form of money as this too is a promisary note. Make it statue that only minted paper and coin can be used as payment, all promisary notes are non transferable.
wellsyboy
10-10-2008, 10:03 AM
Having just caught up with the thread again (unlike some of you I sleep :)) it appears that we are no closer to a solution.
The suggestion to meet up and thrash out a potential solution seems like a good one. Perhaps before any sort of meeting we have 3 or 4 options to discuss, rather than a mass free for all, which would take forever!!
1694 - you seem to be leading this thread, therefore perhaps you could be the one to determine the options to discuss.
If we don't meet we still need to come up with an agreed plan of attack, otherwise this is all just hot air and cliched British moaning (no offence if anyone is not British)
One final point - I like the idea of flexing our muscles by putting our "savings" into the national bank, however we could always have a plan that we do this to either force the other banks and government to offer better offers and guarantees to us. At any point the plan could be to switch back to these other commercial banks, or a split between national and commercial banks. In the meantime we could protest for a fairer banking system. If we could create an independent group/not for profit organisation that is constantly working for the people, who is working with the government and banks, we could force this fairer system. Just an idea to create discussion!
Having just caught up with the thread again (unlike some of you I sleep :)) it appears that we are no closer to a solution
Trying to work out a solution for the world is actually taking it's toll on my health. (and now I feel like a prick for saying that)
The suggestion to meet up and thrash out a potential solution seems like a good one. Perhaps before any sort of meeting we have 3 or 4 options to discuss, rather than a mass free for all, which would take forever!!
Doing it on here is just as good, easier and probabaly more productive
1694 - you seem to be leading this thread, therefore perhaps you could be the one to determine the options to discuss.
If we don't meet we still need to come up with an agreed plan of attack, otherwise this is all just hot air and cliched British moaning (no offence if anyone is not British)
One final point - I like the idea of flexing our muscles by putting our "savings" into the national bank, however we could always have a plan that we do this to either force the other banks and government to offer better offers and guarantees to us. At any point the plan could be to switch back to these other commercial banks, or a split between national and commercial banks. In the meantime we could protest for a fairer banking system. If we could create an independent group/not for profit organisation that is constantly working for the people, who is working with the government and banks, we could force this fairer system. Just an idea to create discussion!
The risk of giving the governemnt all the money power nd all the legal power may lead us down the same path. What kind of people take jobs in positions of such power? Self interested megalamniacs in general. Eventually their self interest would cause a people V the government confilct to errupt.
.
micklemus
10-10-2008, 10:33 AM
Getting to a 1-1 fractional reserve would be a long and painful process. Remember, up to 90% of the money in the world would have to be cancelled out. This is not something that would be welcomed. Would you accept a 90% pay cut? Would you be happy if your house was worth 90% less? I know that this is all relative as the value of EVERYTHING would drop by up to 90% but the man in the street has not a clue how money really works and I would put good money on the fact that if you asked the man in the street what the promise on the front of a five pound note means he would reply that it is a promise to pay the bearer of the note £5 worth of gold or similar precious asset when all it really means is that you promise to pay the bearer £5.
I appreciate replying to your informed and creative ideas
Very interesting posts.
Isn't that the point though - money has no value now? It doesn't matter if prices drop by 90% along with wages etc; its all relative. They're just figures that we put against things. If it's all revalued we're still in the same place, relatively.
The simplest, most basic definition of money is that it is a medium of exchange. Whether revalued of not, surely its a good thing to return it to being just that? The whole problem of creating the "something from nothing" illusion of reserve asset/fractional ratio lending is it creates the meaningless house of cards that we have now - and the phenomenal inequalities that go with it.
I should add that in my view the time has come to recognise we need to move beyond money, but that's not the point of this thread really.
One thing's for sure, it seems to be common ground that no one would support the propping up of the existing system.
Very interesting posts.
Isn't that the point though - money has no value now? It doesn't matter if prices drop by 90% along with wages etc; its all relative. They're just figures that we put against things. If it's all revalued we're still in the same place, relatively.
The simplest, most basic definition of money is that it is a medium of exchange. Whether revalued of not, surely its a good thing to return it to being just that? The whole problem of creating the "something from nothing" illusion of reserve asset/fractional ratio lending is it creates the meaningless house of cards that we have now - and the phenomenal inequalities that go with it.
I should add that in my view the time has come to recognise we need to move beyond money, but that's not the point of this thread really.
One thing's for sure, it seems to be common ground that no would should support the propping up of the existing system.
Mate if you have an answere....My mentality is driffting to "Buy food, guns and lock the doors."
neptunemars
10-10-2008, 10:43 AM
I dont like the idea that the government took it upon themselves to go ahead and use our tax money to bail out the banks. Its like we have no say. At least in the U.S. there was a chance to vote against it. So my question, do we have any power to stop the government from taking our tax without us having a say?
wellsyboy
10-10-2008, 10:53 AM
There is no hard and fast answer. Thanks to the government agreeing to make 500 billion pounds available to the banks (with no single debate whatsoever in the house of commons) we are in for even harder times already.
There was no debate because ALL politicians are in the same club. This was yet another test to see how far they can push us.
Costing all UK taxpayers £16,000 each. Dolers, other benefit receivers and OAPs probably think they don't need to worry, trust me, they do!
We must unite to at least let these irresponsible politicians know that the British people have control of this country - that's if you still think we do...
I urge you all to think long and hard about how to resolve this CRISIS (caused by none of us). A simple step which is related to this is to contact your local papers news desk and ask them to run a story on County Councils investing council money into banks (the collapse of the Iceland bank is proof that they do). If they are investing all this money (so far a billion lost in Iceland so who knows how much more is invested elsewhere) why are we paying sooo much council tax. Why don't they use the money that they are investing elsewhere instead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK - forgive me for my naivety, but I am reliably informed that it IS standard practice to invest this year's budget in various banks (normally at the suggestion of the government), however I would like to be assured that this is actually this year's budget that has been lost!
The truth of the total corruption is unfolding right in front of our eyes and now is the time to expose them for who they really are. I'll let you know how I get on with my local paper and the county council when I speak to them.
neptunemars
10-10-2008, 12:48 PM
I have to agree, this is yet another way they are testing to see how far they can go by making rash decisions with out public consent. If we let them walk over us they can then make other laws with out public consent taking away our freedoms and rights but thats a whole different subject.
wellsyboy
10-10-2008, 01:11 PM
I think it is exactly the subject neptunemars, thanks for agreeing. Whether it is via a bank collapse, a phoney terrorist bombing, they are all methods to test the resolve of the British people and as you rightly say add more levels of controls to our lives.
I would like to correct a point I made previously about Russia bailing out Iceland. The news reporter on BBC mentioned very briefly 900 billion dollars, however it was in fact 4 billion Euros (a third of Iceland's GDP). Either way Russia would own Iceland effectively. Just wanted to get facts straight.
So are we any closer to a plan of attack to show Gordie and his GLOBAL friends that we are not willing to play ball??
mightiswrong
10-10-2008, 04:10 PM
The money system is to my mind an effect. It is not the cause of the problems. The cause is much more fundamental. It is our disregard for real value. The value of life, family, nature, love. If global capital can be redirected (which it can) to invest in life, family, nature love then it can be used to our advantage. Therefore the plan I do advocate is the promotion of the ideas outlined in the ringing cedars (http://www.ringingcedars.co.uk/) series. Precisely establishing kin's domains of 2.5 acres per family.
wellsyboy
10-10-2008, 07:54 PM
I have heard from a reliable source (ex-city broker) that following the G7 meeting the leaders of all major countries will close down ALL financial institutions until a plan to correct the problem is worked out.
Not entirely sure what the implications will be here on banks etc but I would recommend taking some cash out tonight, tomorrow or sunday just to be on the safe side!
tootrue
10-10-2008, 07:59 PM
II am slightly nervous about writing this as it could spark a revolution, all be it bloodless.
No, no revolution!
Just roll a spliff and take a puff, and all be fine :cool: :D !
ichi wa zen
13-10-2008, 12:07 PM
What ichi wa zen says is very enlightening and indeed seems to compliment what Benjamin Fulford has been discussing (in part). He (Fulford) has talked about an asian take-down of the NWO and this is what ichi wa zen reconfirms.
Yep, Asia has already won WWIII!!!!!! READ MY LIPS PEOPLE, WWIII HAS BEEN WON! T
I dont like Guru's but Benjamin Fulford is the definitely greatest of all time.
Why is this man being ignored? He doesnt talk about reptiles, bloodsucking satanic magic demongroupies, 5 sense conspiracies or atlantis fighting lemuria with hightech superweapons. He talks about reality, things that are happening now for all of us to see. No weird new age stuff.
In my humble opinion Benjamin Fulford version of the truth is the closest to the truth i have heard. If you want a Guru go for Fulford!
The Asians must have followed their warguru Sun Tzu's advice: "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
People, the N.W.O. is over, everyone lets quit posting on this site, no need anymore for it anymore :p
signalnorth
13-10-2008, 12:20 PM
People, the N.W.O. is over, everyone lets quit posting on this site, no need anymore for it anymore :p
I'll stop posting when:-
We have a society based on need not profit
We have a society which is aimed am exploting peoples potential , not people.
We have a society that is fully aware of the nature of reality and it's place in the universe
We have a society that promotes genuine free speech from all quarters
We have a society that honours and values not celebrities and royalty and the elite but everyone.
We have a society that is encouraged to think for itself without fear of ridicule.
We have a society where people are treated as informed intelligent individuals and not as children to be manipulated abused and discarded
ownedtbh
13-10-2008, 12:25 PM
Yep, Asia has already won WWIII!!!!!! READ MY LIPS PEOPLE, WWIII HAS BEEN WON! T
I dont like Guru's but Benjamin Fulford is the definitely greatest of all time.
Why is this man being ignored? He doesnt talk about reptiles, bloodsucking satanic magic demongroupies, 5 sense conspiracies or atlantis fighting lemuria with hightech superweapons. He talks about reality, things that are happening now for all of us to see. No weird new age stuff.
In my humble opinion Benjamin Fulford version of the truth is the closest to the truth i have heard. If you want a Guru go for Fulford!
The Asians must have followed their warguru Sun Tzu's advice: "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
People, the N.W.O. is over, everyone lets quit posting on this site, no need anymore for it anymore :p
it is over? if thats the case the world is just the same as it was and is no better off i would soon reather create another new world order then live in this shithole.
wellsyboy
13-10-2008, 01:25 PM
The New World Order, or the sick dream that it was, is over. A New World is beginning - how we "Order" this is entirely up to us.
At the moment the same greedy people are trying to salvage what they can out of the current carve-up!
The Western economy is the dying animal in the African plains, the Lion has brought it down but it is the greedy scavengers all around that are trying to take as much as they can from the free feed.
My biggest question is WHY did the economy come down??
Was it due to a wish for something better by our combined consciousness or through greed by the new growing countries (India, China, Russia etc)?
I hope it is the former, otherwise we are no further on!!!
The New World Order, or the sick dream that it was, is over. A New World is beginning - how we "Order" this is entirely up to us.
At the moment the same greedy people are trying to salvage what they can out of the current carve-up!
The Western economy is the dying animal in the African plains, the Lion has brought it down but it is the greedy scavengers all around that are trying to take as much as they can from the free feed.
My biggest question is WHY did the economy come down??
Was it due to a wish for something better by our combined consciousness or through greed by the new growing countries (India, China, Russia etc)?
I hope it is the former, otherwise we are no further on!!!
It had to. See: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38791
it covers the whole thing in great depth.
ichi wa zen
15-10-2008, 09:04 AM
"The Chinese 50 year plan looks forwards to a totally weak US surrendering our power without nuclear war. Since the US is DETERMINED to undermine our own security and industrial base, this is an admirable goal of the Chinese. They do NOT want WWIII. If we go off the cliff right when our military is at its strongest, we will lash out and attack China. So they want us comfortable, safe and childish so when they finally yank our chains and force us into bankruptcy, it will be after they dominate the moon, control outer space, control world markets and are very, very strong, militarily."
SOURCE: http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/
wellsyboy
15-10-2008, 09:16 AM
It is interesting to note that both Belgium (last week) and France (today) have stood up to their governments and gone on a NATIONAL STRIKE.
It is also interesting to note that during WWII, it was GREAT BRITAIN that ran to the aid of these countries, and it was our parents, grand parents and great grand parents who laid down their lives for "freedom".
It sits very uncomfortably on me to sit by and watch this so called freedom being taken away from us while we all just bend over and take it!!
So back to 1694's original idea of this thread - what are we going to do about our government screwing us over again for even more debt for us and our children??
P.S. I do hope the NWO is over (the abolishiment of 42 day detention plan is encouraging) but we still need to be able to prove we've got some BACKBONE!
deckard
15-10-2008, 09:51 AM
No, no revolution!
Just roll a spliff and take a puff, and all be fine :cool: :D !
Thats just how they want you, doped out to reality.
ichi wa zen
15-10-2008, 10:11 AM
what are we going to do about our government screwing us over again for even more debt for us and our children??
Lets strike! We will work no more till the banks are owned by our governments instead of private Rothschild scum et al. No more infinite debt out of thin air. No more interest over money which doesnt exist.
Come on yall, now we have a legitmate reason to do nothing and sit at home!