Jump to content

MikeG

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About MikeG

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks. Not many signatures it's true, but the point of the petition was to get a debate in Parliament and that was acheived. Primarily it turns out to be an education problem: most people believe 1) that banks lend out Granny's savings 2) that either only the Govt creates money, or that the Govt is in control of how much is created We haven't seen sufficent change so far because based upon a recent poll of MPs, 2/3rds fit into the above category. So the most useful thing anyone can do today is get their MP to the discussion this Thursday 20th. It's about time that the Govt gets adv
  2. Well, in-spite of opposing vested interests, it seems there is a ground-swell of opinion that thinks the banking industry should put in its place. Steve Baker MP has tabled a debate 'Money Creation an Society' so that Parliament can discuss whether money should be created by private banks for the purposes of their profit, or whether, as I think, it should be under Parliamentary control for the benefit of the people. Money is a man-made concept and Parliament can - as it did last time - change the rules. You can help: just ask your MP to attend the debate; that's all! It doesn't matter which
  3. Pros and cons. The very people who won't give an address to the Gov't, who state in the epetition process that adresses are not published but used to confirm UK residency and prevent multiple votes, also have an account with Yahoo, Google, Facebook or a Tesco Clubcard. I'm more concerned about the latter: at least HMG can be changed democratically. Banks can't though, which is why we need to get an organisation who outranks them (in some areas) to reign them in before they create the next crash, which is inevitable as so far the legislation just made them step one pace further from the clif
  4. So here's my experience: back in 1988 and about 19 minutes before the property crash, I paid a licenced acredited professional more than a month's worth of discretionary salary to carry out a full structural survey and valuation of a flat. He said 'in the current market conditions ... valuation £70k' and on that basis I bought my first property. At the time I had one engineering degree, but had not spent time analyzing the ratio of prices to average salaries, the past 20 years history of house prices or the creation of money. Interest rates hit 15% the next year and one person I worked with
  5. By the end of next year your mortgage payments may be double. But that's OK, because the value of your house has gone up, right? 10% over the last year. From Nationwide: But did your standard of living go up, or did you return to the same house as yesterday? If you think about it, what's actually going to happen is your standard of living will drop. So why is this happening? Well, imagine you're a bank manager and the political pressure is on you to lend. You could loan to a business that makes things and employs people, the productive economy; but that's risky. Far safer
  6. Yes, actually it is correct when it comes to banks. I thought it was actually a great description of the flaws in the system. Here's my version: Joe the High Street Banker lends £10 to Mike; then another £10 to Fred; then another £10 to George, again and again, ten, twenty, thirty times. In the pub he’d need a magic wallet that refilled every time he took £10 out, but instead he's a Banker with a computer and puts ‘10’ into each of their accounts. They think it’s money because they go to the cashpoint, draw it out, and spend it at places that use Bank of Joe. Then Joe gets to lend
  7. This from a debate I am having with someone in financial services. Does he have the description right? If so, what are the implications?
  8. It seems you are right. It's unfortunate, because the issue is serious. An example: if houses were subject to normal inflation and not bank created money inflation, the average house today would cost £85k (referenced to Nationwide index start of 1983). I think this would make a big difference to the number of people struggling to pay the mortgage, the number of reposessions, and the ability to get on the property ladder. For information to those who haven’t signed an e-petition before, then you have to provide your name, address, and an email. That information does not get published:
  9. Thanks. 1200 views and virtually no signitories. Do you folks not believe this is how money works, or maybe think it's unchangeable? I would really like to know! As an example, of £375bn QE, only 8% found it's way out of the financial system and into the productive economy. If the benefits of creating money went to the public not to private companies, that could have been a massive infrastrucure injection, flood defences, schools, hospitals, not needing to cash in the Royal Mail plus HS2 thrown in for good measure. Isn't this worth a signiture?
  10. Cudos to Martin Wolf, leading UK economics commentator for FT: the warning is of the repeat crash that will happen unless we do something. Indeed, specifically something like this: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050 Title: "Strip private banks of their power to create money" "The giant hole at the heart of our market economies needs to be plugged. Printing counterfeit banknotes is illegal, but creating private money is not. ... It could – and should – be terminated." ... "Banks create deposits as a byproduct of their lending. In the U
  11. Cheers Filrobbo, don't forget to tell your friends Nice to see the Financial Times getting behind the campaign. Or at least identifyiing the issue, the problems it causes, and slightly 'warning' their customers of the solution. Thanks! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f000b18-ca44-11e3-bb92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30PY2Lbn2 I will put up highlights when I have more time, for those who don't want to register with FT; but the clue is in the title: "Strip private banks of their power to create money"
  12. Well, about 35M people bought an overpriced house because the banks inflated the property market. Then there's anyone with a loan, and anyone with debt. No, I don't think a petition will stop it, but it will raise the level of understanding and start the conversation. Most people just don't beleive that banks "print" electronic money from nothing, and I'm not surprised because it's not their everyday experience of working for money. If people have thought about it at all, they believe that the Bank of England is in control of the money supply, whereas the graph clearly shows they are not:
  13. Good point, I also find it disgusting that they had to be bailed out by the taxpayer because they acted recklessly, then feel they deserve billions in bonuses just a short while later. However, the banks paying themselves huge bonuses is just one symptom of the way money works, which is why the petition addresses the cause. Easily the most profitable activity in the world today is just playing with numbers in a computer. This is not an industry that adds value, they just make the numbers in their accounts worth more and the numbers in your accounts worth less. The graph shows just how effec
  14. The two biggest forums on CAG are Banks and Debt, with over a million posts each. Clearly money is a big issue in the UK. What is the root cause? The answer is that money is created by private companies (banks) simply by typing figures into a computer. It’s a great business model, isn’t it? You apply for a mortgage, the bank types numbers into your account and then charges you interest on them, many thousands of pounds over many years. This was not some pensioner's savings: it was new money created out of nothing by the bank. But don't take my word for it: here it is explained by the B
  15. No confusion here, I'm discussing this on a practical basis because I think that's most helpful. Lack of actual evidence of driver does not stop the summons for speeding: it's part of the intimidation. Generally, when dual charges are laid, they are improperly treated as alternative charges. Whilst in theory they are independent, one exists because of the other and treatment is interelated, as is the evidence trail. In this case the OP is in the situation where he could actually manage to get convicted of both, by admitting to the speeding. The best path would be to get the CPS to c
×
×
  • Create New...