How credit cards & bank loans REALLY work - Learn, & this will change your whole life!!

[Stornoway]

There should be no bail out for the banks IMHO – once they are privatised completely we can start from scratch – this is one example where the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. Banks are run on pure greed and that greed is easily fuelled because the majority get infected with the same greed. The USA and the UK are the ones that will have to lead the way if there is ever going to be a change.

.

So you are basically a communist ? The banks have messed up in a big way but many of the management teams have been changed and risk appetite is going back to where it was 20 years ago. Personally I'd much rather have the existing banks remaining with much tighter regulation and new management than a banking industry run by Cameron or Brown.

[Stornoway]

I would like to see a not for profit banking system with lower government taxes and a realistic approach to manufacturing but it will take a radical shift in ideas – problem is the UK has ditched industry and built it’s economic policy on making money out of money – the housing market isn’t really the right ‘industry’ to build a country on - when you scratch the surface its not a real economic policy at all..

 

We dont have an economy based on the housing industry. in recent years we have built about a third of the number of houses built in Spain despite having a little under twice the population. The Spanish and Irish economies are much more reliant on the construction industry and consequently are much worse off now than we are. One of the reasons that we have had a house price buble in the UK is that we havent been building enough houses - partly because people are priced out the market and partly because our planning regulations are too strict.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Stornoway

[Stornoway]

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for individual wealth but one born out of real industry and real jobs not gamblers and fortune tellers otherwise known as bankers and investors. One persons (or countries) wealth should not necessarily mean another persons (or countries) misery.

The sad reality of life is that you cant have a strong economy without a strong banking system.

 

What we need is to make sure that the banks become more transparent, better regulated and more risk averse.

 

I will now jump off my soap box.

 

Me too ....

Edited January 17, 2009 by Stornoway

[atwozee]

either customer deposits or new equity or from profits.

 

No – they have been allowed to offer credit based on an amount much greater than the value of deposits - that bit I understand and that is why they can’t actually cover the loans. They might say that money is tied up in this and that but really that is the smoke and mirrors that we are supposed to swallow. Anywhere else that would be called cooking the books.

You are looking at a banks books as if it complies with any other businesses books – they aren’t run the same way – whilst I don’t agree that they produce money from thin air they do produce credit from thin air – only when the music stops i.e when they stop the line of credit – does it become a real issue.

[atwozee]

So you are basically a communist ?

Nope – I just don’t agree with the way things work at the moment.

 

The banks have messed up in a big way but many of the management teams have been changed and risk appetite is going back to where it was 20 years ago.

That's okay then - I feel much better now - not.

 

Personally I'd much rather have the existing banks remaining with much tighter regulation and new management than a banking industry run by Cameron or Brown.

 

Only when you remove greed from banking will it become what it should be - an easy way to make money transactions. Not a way of making money from a captive market - banks shouldn't be businesses fullstop.

[Right Bunch of Sharks]

As esteemed financial commentator Will Hutton said to a House of Commons select committee earlier this week.

 

" We need a Marshall Plan for the banking system and Nuremberg Trials for bankers."

[banker_rhymes_with]

The banks have messed up in a big way but many of the management teams have been changed and risk appetite is going back to where it was 20 years ago.

 

Spoken like a true banker!

 

2009 - 20 Years = 1989

 

So, that would mean we are still in the poo! The year 1989 was just before the last Recession. I remember the banks from then only too well. They were not as useless then as they are now, but they were still useless nevertheless.

 

They were just stupid and useless then, now they are greedy stupid and useless. I'd rather have something better.

 

We need to go back at least 500 Years! To a time before the bankers and economists really worked on their fairy story.

 

We need a stronger banking system like we need a hole in the head. The one we have got us into this mess, and it's hard to imagine a stronger banking system if you tried. Making them even stronger is about the last thing we need. They need castrating and decimating.

 

It's a massive sector of our economy that lives off everyone else. It mainly shuffles IOUs around and gambles on their future values. They like to dress it up and give this gambling complex names, but it's just betting. Most of the time they cock-up and lose, but they still pay themselves huge number money bonuses and gather real assets every Banking Bust Cycle.

 

The bankers and economists have never had more complex and sophisticated systems for predicting the future, and yet they never saw this latest Recession coming. Many other people did, but not the banks or the economists.

 

We let them run the show. They failed. Indeed, it would be hard to think of a more conclusive demonstration of their inability to get it right than the mess we are all in now.

 

Living on banking fairy stories and betting on the future by using complex models that assume we all have 2.1 kids and buy a standard basket of idealised goods, doesn't actually work.

 

In some ways, I hope the Recession is really deep and really dark, because this may be one of the best opportunities we've had in a long time to make us all realise how useless the current financial system really is. We do need something better than this, and some stronger politicians with the backbone and morals to give us what we need.

 

If we go back 20 years, we'll just go back to the same old banking cycles with regular Banking Booms and Banking Busts, and a regular transfer of assets to the banks after every Bust.

 

We need a Marshall Plan for the banking system and Nuremberg Trials for bankers.

 

I could not agree more. However, I fear our self-serving politicians will soon allow things to revert if they can get away with it. They have their own interests at heart, not ours.

 

I don't think we ever really recovered properly from the last Recession. If we don't fix a few issues this time around, we'll just recover enough to flounder along until the next banking induced Recession.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[kitchenboy]

Personally I'd much rather have the existing banks remaining with much tighter regulation and new management than a banking industry run by Cameron or Brown.

 

£17.5 billion wiped off the value of banks today, a further bailout of billions, I don't think we are going to have a choice.

[nuke em]

Bump. been away from the boards for a while, have much more info to upload in the next few days on this subject

Edited March 20, 2009 by nuke em

[nuke em]

Welcome to Stagflation UK style

 

Stagflation is the combination of recession with high inflation.

 

Stagflation is not a state that occurs often because recession reduces demand for goods (because people have less money to spend). Low demand usually leads to low inflation.

 

The word stagflation is a conflation of stagnation and inflation.

 

Stagflation occurred in the 70s and 80s. Economic theory prior to that time regarded the combination as unlikely, if not impossible.

 

Once stagflation occurs it is difficult to deal with. The measures a government would usually take to revive an economy in recession (cutting interest rates or increasing government spending) will also increase inflation.

 

Under normal recessionary conditions inflationary policies are acceptable, but given already high inflation, pushing inflation still higher is itself damaging .The Bank of England has now signaled creating £150 Billion of printed money which by the time it gets round the magic of "legal fraud" aka Fractional Reserve Banking it will multiply to £1.5 Trillion which will set off hyper inflation

 

So we now have deflation in real assets now, Houses, cars, big ticket items then we will have hyper-inflation by the end of the year

 

. WE ARE THE NEW ICELAND!!!

[charlie*]

One for Stornaway..... I hope you are not suggesting that the explanation of the creation of money (credit) is rubbish, because I can assure you it is not. I have friends who have attacked the banks on the basis of contract law - NOT the CCA statutes and have won - the debt has been struck off the books, irreversibly so.....

 

I also have on my desk photocopies of the actual paperwork from an American court showing how and why a couple who asked the Chase Mortgage Bank to prove that a valid contract existed.

 

On the day of the hearing, the bank/lawyers turned up and and as soon as the judge heard that they had not brought the evidence of a valid contract, ie the contract with them awarded the victory to the young couple ... with prejudice.

 

Of course, to use this method requires knowledge, it is not as simple as looking for mistakes in a CCA.... In contract law every single loan agreement written is invalid because they do not follow the principles of contract.

 

It would not surprise me if this was not why the CCA 1974 was written.

 

charlie*

[pt2537]

Sadly American courts do not give us a binding precedent though Charlie

[charlie*]

PT...

 

Trouble with UK courts is that the judges know nothing about the subject and can't be bothered to learn - far too busy with things outside their court rooms.

 

charlie

[pt2537]

PT...

 

Trouble with UK courts is that the judges know nothing about the subject and can't be bothered to learn - far too busy with things outside their court rooms.

 

charlie

Im not sure you grasp what you are saying here?

 

It is simple, a case which has been heard in another country does not bind our courts

 

in saudi you get caught shoplifting and they cut your hand off, are you implying that the UK courts should follow that lead?? its the same principle, the law in america differs greatly to that of this country

[Stornoway]

One for Stornaway..... I hope you are not suggesting that the explanation of the creation of money (credit) is rubbish, because I can assure you it is not. I have friends who have attacked the banks on the basis of contract law - NOT the CCA statutes and have won - the debt has been struck off the books, irreversibly so.....

 

I also have on my desk photocopies of the actual paperwork from an American court showing how and why a couple who asked the Chase Mortgage Bank to prove that a valid contract existed.

 

On the day of the hearing, the bank/lawyers turned up and and as soon as the judge heard that they had not brought the evidence of a valid contract, ie the contract with them awarded the victory to the young couple ... with prejudice.

 

Of course, to use this method requires knowledge, it is not as simple as looking for mistakes in a CCA.... In contract law every single loan agreement written is invalid because they do not follow the principles of contract.

 

It would not surprise me if this was not why the CCA 1974 was written.

 

charlie*

Not sure what this has to do with me ? But picking up your point about the creation of credit - the banks can create all the credit they want they but still have to have LIQUIDITY to be able to provide physical cash or phyiscal balances to customers. The banks could only do so whilst they themselves were able to expand their balance sheet by borrowing - they cant now do so because nobody is prepared to lend to them.

[Stornoway]

Welcome to Stagflation UK style

 

Stagflation is the combination of recession with high inflation.

 

Stagflation is not a state that occurs often because recession reduces demand for goods (because people have less money to spend). Low demand usually leads to low inflation.

 

The word stagflation is a conflation of stagnation and inflation.

 

Stagflation occurred in the 70s and 80s. Economic theory prior to that time regarded the combination as unlikely, if not impossible.

 

Once stagflation occurs it is difficult to deal with. The measures a government would usually take to revive an economy in recession (cutting interest rates or increasing government spending) will also increase inflation.

 

Under normal recessionary conditions inflationary policies are acceptable, but given already high inflation, pushing inflation still higher is itself damaging .The Bank of England has now signaled creating £150 Billion of printed money which by the time it gets round the magic of "legal fraud" aka Fractional Reserve Banking it will multiply to £1.5 Trillion which will set off hyper inflation

 

So we now have deflation in real assets now, Houses, cars, big ticket items then we will have hyper-inflation by the end of the year

 

. WE ARE THE NEW ICELAND!!!

 

The above is more scaremongering .....

 

From Wikipedia;

"Economists offer two principal explanations for why stagflation occurs. First, stagflation can result when an economy is slowed by an unfavorable supply shock, such as an increase in the price of oil in an oil importing country, which tends to raise prices at the same time that it slows the economy by making production less profitable.[5][6][7] This type of stagflation presents a policy dilemma because most actions to assist with fighting inflation worsen economic stagnation and vice versa. Second, both stagnation and inflation can result from inappropriate macroeconomic policies. For example, central banks can cause inflation by permitting excessive growth of the money supply,[8]"

 

So if we believe Wikipedia then we have 2 things to consider;

1. Oil price shock - unlikely given current economic situation

2. Excessive monetary growth - this being caused by the BofE pursuing Quantative Easing. QE is the BofE buying gilts or commercial paper (bonds) and thereby increasng money supply. The key thing about QE is that if / when it becomes apparant that inflation is becoming an issue the government simply starts selling the bonds / gilts that it previously bought thus reducing money supply once again.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Stornoway

[nuke em]

The above is not scaremongering, it will happen with in the next 12 months in the UK and no we dont always believe wikki on everything...also you are forgetting Fractional reserve banking - a Fraud!

 

We all know that major ticket items are falling in price, Houses, Cars,etc, We know that the Gov is totally scared of Deflation that's why it allowed/told the B of E to print money, ( which is currency inflation) but you can not cover the losses in the financial market which amount to a couple of Trillion pounds by printing more money, the net effect will be to kill the value of Sterling on the world markets, make all our imports way more expensive whist devaluing the pound at the same time.

 

Once the printed currency get through into the country , which can take 6+ months then watch for massive price inflation , Wiemar style as every pound we have is devalued by everyone they create.

 

A Gov minister, Paul Myners recently came "off message" ( only reported by 1 newspaper) and admitted that on October 10th 2008 England came very close to a financial collapse after major depositors attempted to withdraw massive quantities on money. The British treasury was apparently preparing for bank closures with all electronic transfers and cash withdrawls being prohibited when frantic behind the scenes activity averted what would have been seen as a true financial catastrophe.

 

There is only £800 Billion of Sterling Currency in existence, the banks declared Cash on deposit positions are way higher than this, but they don't have all the cash for all the customers, oops!

 

why would you keep any money in a bank apart from the bear min just to get by day to day????? Get your cash out of the banks in advance of the next big failure!

Edited March 23, 2009 by nuke em
typos

[nuke em]

Not sure what this has to do with me ? But picking up your point about the creation of credit - the banks can create all the credit they want they but still have to have LIQUIDITY to be able to provide physical cash or phyiscal balances to customers. The banks could only do so whilst they themselves were able to expand their balance sheet by borrowing - they cant now do so because nobody is prepared to lend to them.

 

Not True, The Bank of England lends to them at the Discount Rate, they dont lend out because they need to shore up their own liquidity, which is way out of wack. Also they dont lend out because it is too risky now, in a deflationary world of falling price values, why would any bank want to lend on falling asset values?

Edited March 23, 2009 by nuke em

[nuke em]

No. The banks cant magic up / create new loans without a corresponding entry on the other side of their balance sheet - either customer deposits or new equity or from profits. In recent years the new mortgages havent been going on their balance sheets because they have been parcelling them up into large securitisations and selling them to investors as loans. But ... the investors still have recourse to the banks because they have the right to get their cash back at some point in the future. Until recently that has been fine because there has been lots of new investors out there but now there are none and all the existing investors want their cash back. If they repossess they may not have enough to repay the securitisation investors and the shortfall comes out of their profits.

 

Stornaway, i dont know where you did your economic degree all those years ago but if you dont understand about Fractional Reserve Banking and how money is only created as debt then you've missed a major point...

Anyway from history, some quotes about central banks & bankers.

 

A number of reputable authorities have attested to what is going on, including Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. He declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing.

The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . .

Bankers own the earth

. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But,

if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit

.

Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in the Great Depression, wrote in 1934:

We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks.

Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit

. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve.

We are absolutely without a permanent money system

. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.

It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon

.6

Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged:

Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . .

Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money

.7

Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report:

[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan.

The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.

i have a couple of freinds who work for Barclays & Lloyds, they were shocked when i set them on the path of discovery abou this. The truth is that 90% of all bank employees dont understand the system, so what chance has the lay person on the street has i dont know.

 

The next quote is about the private for profit US Federal Reserve ( which is neither Federal or part of the US Gov), but the same applies to the B of E and the UK Pound , in the following subsitute the word "Dollar" for "Pound"

 

Theft by Inflation

M3, the broadest measure of the U.S. money supply, shot up from $3.7 trillion in February 1988 to $10.3 trillion 14 years later, when the Fed quit reporting it. Why the Fed quit reporting it in March 2006 is suggested by John Williams in a website called "Shadow Government Statistics" (shadowstats.com), which shows that by the spring of 2007, M3 was growing at the astounding rate of 11.8 percent per year. Best not to publicize such figures too widely!

 

 

 

The question posed here, however, is this: where did all this new money come from? The government did not step up its output of coins, and no gold was added to the national money supply, since the government went off the gold standard in 1933. This new money could only have been created privately as "bank credit" advanced as loans.

The problem with inflating the money supply in this way, of course, is that it inflates prices. More money competing for the same goods drives prices up. The dollar buys less, robbing people of the value of their money. This rampant inflation is usually blamed on the government, which is accused of running the dollar printing presses in order to spend and spend without resorting to the politically unpopular expedient of raising taxes. But as noted earlier, the only money the U.S. government actually issues are coins. In countries in which the central bank has been nationalized, paper money may be issued by the government along with coins, but paper money still composes only a very small percentage of the money supply. In England, where the Bank of England was nationalized after World War II, private banks continue to create 97 percent of the money supply as loans.9

 

 

Price inflation is only one problem with this system of private money creation. Another is that banks create only the principal but not the interest necessary to pay back their loans. Since virtually the entire money supply is created by banks themselves, new money must continually be borrowed into existence just to pay the interest owed to the bankers. A dollar lent at 5 percent interest becomes 2 dollars in 14 years. That means the money supply has to double every 14 years just to cover the interest owed on the money existing at the beginning of this 14 year cycle. The Federal Reserve's own figures confirm that M3 has doubled or more every 14 years since 1959, when the Fed began reporting it. 10 That means that every 14 years, banks siphon off as much money in interest as there was in the entire economy 14 years earlier. This tribute is paid for lending something the banks never actually had to lend, making it perhaps the greatest [problem] ever perpetrated, since it now affects the entire global economy. The privatization of money is the underlying cause of poverty, economic slavery, underfunded government, and an oligarchical ruling class that thwarts every attempt to shake it loose from the reins of power.

 

 

Understand the above and you will "get it", everything else is just noise

[TryingToGetEven]

One for Stornaway..... I hope you are not suggesting that the explanation of the creation of money (credit) is rubbish, because I can assure you it is not. I have friends who have attacked the banks on the basis of contract law - NOT the CCA statutes and have won - the debt has been struck off the books, irreversibly so.....

 

I also have on my desk photocopies of the actual paperwork from an American court showing how and why a couple who asked the Chase Mortgage Bank to prove that a valid contract existed.

 

On the day of the hearing, the bank/lawyers turned up and and as soon as the judge heard that they had not brought the evidence of a valid contract, ie the contract with them awarded the victory to the young couple ... with prejudice.

 

Of course, to use this method requires knowledge

charlie*

 

Tell me more - if you can please - is what you're writing about along these lines (from a post I made on page 1 of this thread):

 

While doing some debt busting searching I came upon this:

 

Why don’t credit card balances have to be paid and how have we already paid?

 

Well there is one simple reason, yet for you to truly believe it and get your head around to the idea, you will have to do a little research yourself and then start looking at the financial system of this world very, very differently. But if you are already in controversy with banks, building societies or any credit card corporations, which is causing you great stress, then there is a quick and lasting fix that will deal with these deceivers. It works, and will give you plenty of time to then research how and why it works as it does. There will be pointers towards the areas of where to research, and then the rest of your journey is yours! The credit card corporation will obviously black-list you for your decision to not let them commit fraud and deception on you anymore, but that is the price!

 

Now their simple yet brilliantly executed trick (con) is in the name, ‘Credit’ card! You (well your signature or tick in a box on a pc screen and maybe a signature a few days later possibly, but not always) are a co-creator of credit with the credit card corporation. There was NEVER a debt incurred by anyone or anything. Don’t believe it? Then write to the CEO of the credit card corporation and ask for the validation of where a debt was incurred. You will not get one because a debt/loss doesn’t, and never did exist! That alone will get the fraudsters off your back as you now have proof that they have, and continue to commit fraud!

 

If you want to know why the corrupt banks operate like this, simply investigate a thing called Fractional Reserve Banking, and you will soon discover why the world is in the trouble it is right now!

 

Now remember that when you get a phone call from the crooked corporation/s, do not give them your name or D/O/B. Inform them (politely) that you would be more than happy to assist them, and they should contact you by letter using recorded post and put any claim they believe they have against you on paper and signed by the corporations Chief Executive Officer (CEO). By the way, this won’t happen, as the CEO knows they are already committing a crime against public policy and would be committing commercial suicide if they even thought about it for more than half a second!

 

If they keep troubling you by phone with various threats…oh they do make us laugh bless them; simply write to the CEO using Recorded Post with something very similar to the example below in black bold:

 

Oh, and if you are worried about threats of Bailiffs, visit a great site that shows you how to deal with them very effectively, peacefully and lawfully. Bailiffs commit fraud, it's just you probably are not aware of that yet! Click here to be taken to Screw The Bailiff - Clamping Down on Bailiff Crime!

 

You will soon start waking up to who you really are. This is to assist you whilst you're waking up and becoming confident with the realisation that no man or woman has power over you, as you have no pwer of them! All are, and is, equal under whatever label you use to mean Source/Being/Divine...

 

************************* ***************

 

CEO (WHATEVER) BANK

Full Address of their Head Office

 

Date:

 

Sent Recorded Post

 

NOTICE REGARDING ACCOUNT # (whatever the number is)

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

 

I would be happy to settle any financial obligation I might lawfully owe as soon as I have received the following documents from you.

 

1. Validation of the actual debt (the actual accounting).

2. Verification of your claim against me (a sworn affidavit or a hand signed invoice)

3. A copy of the contract signed by both parties and therefore binding both parties.

 

I hereby give you ten (10) days to reply to this notice with a notice sent using recorded post, and signed by the CEO under their full commercial liability and penalties of perjury, assuring and promising me that all of the replies and details given to the above requests are true and without deception, fraud or mischief.

 

Yours truly,

 

By: ____________________(agen t)_Date: ____________

 

************************* ***************

 

In the world of commerce, get used to autographing and using (agent) in brackets after your autograph. This is because you are an agent for NAME in ALL CAPITALS, and the NAME is NOT you!

 

Now the banks cannot validate/prove the debt because they never sustained a loss and a debt never existed. They cannot verify any claim against you because you are not the NAME they are billing. They cannot produce a copy of the contract because one doesn’t exist; all that exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract, or what the banks refer to as ‘your contract with us’ and this is not a valid bilateral agreement, since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the credit card application. These are as follows:

 

1. Full disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature).

2. Equal consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose).

3. Lawful terms and conditions (they are based upon fraud).

4. Signatures of the Parties/Meeting of the Minds (corporations cannot sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

[kitchenboy]

This video explains it all well worth the watch.

 

Money As Debt

[nuke em]

good one, another one is Money Masters on google video, goes on for 2 hours, explains it all from 1640 to now

Edited March 24, 2009 by nuke em

[Stornoway]

The above is not scaremongering, it will happen with in the next 12 months in the UK and no we dont always believe wikki on everything...also you are forgetting Fractional reserve banking - a Fraud!

 

We all know that major ticket items are falling in price, Houses, Cars,etc, We know that the Gov is totally scared of Deflation that's why it allowed/told the B of E to print money, ( which is currency inflation) but you can not cover the losses in the financial market which amount to a couple of Trillion pounds by printing more money, the net effect will be to kill the value of Sterling on the world markets, make all our imports way more expensive whist devaluing the pound at the same time.

 

Once the printed currency get through into the country , which can take 6+ months then watch for massive price inflation , Wiemar style as every pound we have is devalued by everyone they create.

 

A Gov minister, Paul Myners recently came "off message" ( only reported by 1 newspaper) and admitted that on October 10th 2008 England came very close to a financial collapse after major depositors attempted to withdraw massive quantities on money. The British treasury was apparently preparing for bank closures with all electronic transfers and cash withdrawls being prohibited when frantic behind the scenes activity averted what would have been seen as a true financial catastrophe.

 

There is only £800 Billion of Sterling Currency in existence, the banks declared Cash on deposit positions are way higher than this, but they don't have all the cash for all the customers, oops!

 

why would you keep any money in a bank apart from the bear min just to get by day to day????? Get your cash out of the banks in advance of the next big failure!

This is like banging my head against a brick wall.

 

Once the printed currency get through into the country , which can take 6+ months then watch for massive price inflation , Wiemar style as every pound we have is devalued by everyone they create.

!

.... there is no new printed money - they are increasing money supply by pursuing Quantative Easing which is buying gilts and bonds

 

There is only £800 Billion of Sterling Currency in existence, the banks declared Cash on deposit positions are way higher than this, but they don't have all the cash for all the customers, oops!

 

Unless I'm missing something banks exist to take customer deposits and then lend the money to other customers so how could they possibly have all customers balances ready and sitting in cash. Also not everyone in the country would want all their money under the mattress at the same time so why should it all be in physical notes ?

 

... the net effect will be to kill the value of Sterling on the world markets, make all our imports way more expensive whist devaluing the pound at the same time.

!

so the pound devalues, imports become more expensive, Britain starts to import less, manufacture more, export more and tourists flock to the country from the continent because its so cheap - and the problem is ?? My point being that after a period the status quo would be found again.

A Gov minister, Paul Myners recently came "off message" ( only reported by 1 newspaper) and admitted that on October 10th 2008 England came very close to a financial collapse.

I'm sure you mean Britain came very close ...

 

Nuke em, everyone is fully entitled to their opinion but you've made some very sweeping statements that are scaremongering;

1. Britain is the new iceland - no its not.

2. Interest rates will hit [17+%] - no they wont

3. We are going to have stagflation - I dont think so

[nuke em]

This is like banging my head against a brick wall. ok you will get there in the end

 

 

.... there is no new printed money - they are increasing money supply by pursuing Quantative Easing which is buying gilts and bonds. read this and learn about what the mainstream media wont tell you

 

Bank of England Ignites Quantitative Inflation :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website

 

 

Unless I'm missing something banks exist to take customer deposits and then lend the money to other customers so how could they possibly have all customers balances ready and sitting in cash. Also not everyone in the country would want all their money under the mattress at the same time so why should it all be in physical notes ?

 

That what people think banks do, but they dont. The money they take in as deposits represent a tiny fraction of what they are about. They create money as debt, gamble on stock markets, take out risky financial bets, ( which they have lost ), indulge in overnight swaps to fudge their liquidity ratios and all sorts of financial skulldugerry. Thats why are bank are so bust, they dont have the assets to back up their liabilities. They are bust, our Gov giving them our money is like injecting morphine ito a corpse. Pointless in the long term.

oh yes it might create a small "rally", Brown will sacrifice the long term future of this country to get himself re-elected if he can get away with it

 

We have lost revenues from North Sea Oil ( it has all but run out), we rapidly losing the revenues from the City of London/financial sector . What do you suggest we use to replace them as the 2 key drivers of UK GDP ?

 

Housing? going down by the day

Tourists? - yes they might come, but buying three extra ice-creams wont help

Manufacting?, - all gone to China and we can't compete on price with them.

 

so what is left? all the bailout money is going to Zombie banks instead of small busineses who traditionaly are the lifeblood & employers of any new/growing economy

 

 

so the pound devalues, imports become more expensive, Britain starts to import less, manufacture more, export more and tourists flock to the country from the continent because its so cheap - and the problem is ?? My point being that after a period the status quo would be found again.

 

We have lost all our manufacting base, it has exported to the far east, how do you think we can compete with workers in the far east earning $5 a day? How can we afford to re-tool and buy equipment from other countries that wil cost us more with a weak £.?

 

Also our debts/mortgages/loans have to be paid back in £'s, the debts do not devalue just the assets that lie behind them, how do we pay them back. if you think a few tourists are going to save us, then god help us......

 

I'm sure you mean Britain came very close ...

 

Yes i do mean Britain, not just england

 

Nuke em, everyone is fully entitled to their opinion but you've made some very sweeping statements that are scaremongering;

1. Britain is the new iceland - no its not.

2. Interest rates will hit [17+%] - no they wont

3. We are going to have stagflation - I dont think so

 

Are you a bankster? or do you work in the financial sector?

 

1. If we have our currency debased , we will be the new Iceland

2. i dont remember saying we will have 17% interest rates, but if i did then a revision is needed here., We willl have double digit interest rates by the end of 2010, we will need them to try and keep the then currency inflation under control.

3. Yes we will my friend, and the Gov knows it, there are 2 reports circulating about potential civil disorders/riots this Summer 2009. One is by the Met Police and the contingency plans they are drawing up to "deal" with it. We are heading for a massive financial metdown the likes of which we have never experienced before.

 

UPDATE - did you see Panorama tonight, at the end of it, Labour MP Frank Field talked about it potential upcoing civil disorder to to the financial crisis.

Edited March 23, 2009 by nuke em

[nuke em]

More info as reported...

 

'Run on UK' sees foreign investors pull $1 trillion out of the City - Business News, Business - The Independent

 

 

 

Also this

 

A perverse new law went into effect in early March. It is too bizarre to justify. A new British anti-terrorism law went into effect that effectively bars photographers from taking pictures of police or military personnel, whether the shutterbug is a tourist or native. Serious protests were prompted outside the Scotland Yard headquarters. Although the measure aims to prevent terrorists from taking reconnaissance shots in preparation for attack, opponents argue with good reason that the law could be misused to limit pictures being taken involving police abuse during demonstrations. ( in preparation for upcoming civil disorder and the reporting of it ?? )

 

Britain has come under fire in recent years for several measures that erode civil liberties. In 2005, another law prohibited demonstrations around Parliament. The new act makes it a crime to ‘elicit, publish, or communicate information’ about British police or military personnel. Britain's Home Office said in a statement that the law is designed to protect police officers on counter-terrorism operations. Photographers who refuse to stop taking pictures after a warning face arrest, up to 10 years in prison or unspecified fines. Hard to believe, but freedom will be the victim on an increasing basis. See the Yahoo article

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Think-twice-before-snapping-apf-14372170.html

Edited March 23, 2009 by nuke em