Banks don’t actually need any capital base at all, they can make money up from the thin air at will (setting aside the dictates of the BIS which is biased on the side of the banks) and gift it or loan it at .01% interest to deserving business and so promote the creation of wealth. It’s the natural way of doing things. We’ve been bought up with a set of beliefs themselves entirely artificial and wholly against our interests so that an artificial economic elite may be created and sustained. This is what’s causing the the current poverty and this is what’s going to have to end. We are witnessing a global banking dynasty, its very existence unsuspected by the majority, in its death throes. I don’t know what the immediate future might hold but I’m sure of one thing; it ain’t gonna be pretty 🙁
The phrase ‘fractional reserve banking’, together with a reference to banks lending more money than they actually have, has finally appeared in a UK mainstream paper. Edmun Conway in the Telegraph recently penned the following:”Capitalist societies chose some decades ago to have a “fractional reserve banking” system – where banks lend out more cash than they have in their vaults – because this helps provide money for companies and households to invest.”
Well. that does change things, doesn’t it…. its a first so far as I know. Good stuff – the more these things are bought out into the open and properly discussed, the sooner we can end the banking oligarchy and get community banking set up and bring wealth back to the people who earn it. More please!
Here’s former financial services minister Paul Myners in the house recently, attacking the government of which he was a part;
“There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation…” he says and goes on to criticise Labour’s economic policies as “flawed economic thinking”.
Um. Would consistently spending money created out of nothing either by quantitative easing or fractional reserve banking and using it to fund business endeavours, the kind large and small that at the moment are either never getting past the conceptual stage or being starved of funds into administration, that would be regarded then by the great Lord Myners as nothing progressive? I think that for a time at least it’s exactly what this country needs, an alternative money supply to the private banks, one readily available and quite prepared to lend cheaply to foster business creation and support until businesses are bringing in enough mony (and so taxation) for the stimulus to be withdrawn or reconsidered… bring it on, I say, and the sooner the better. Such a shame there’s no discussion of this in the House…
I’m watching David ‘Dave’ Cameron live on TV at this moment, earnestly (and quite rightly) explaining how the interest we pay on loans to the government are overwhelming us. True enough, and the subject deserves an airing. However, I note he isn’t pointing out that much of the National Debt is to banks, banks who haven’t actually loaned money they already had to the government but instead have loaned money created out of thin air using their authority to do so granted to them by that same government. This doesn’t get a mention, where the National Debt actually comes from. The banks conjure money from the air under license from the government, loan it to the government at interest and we, the taxpayers, have to find real money out of our pockets to pay it back with. Nice work for the banks, you might think, and it is – but what about us the electorate – aren’t our politicians supposed to be working for our interests, and not the banks? Shouldn’t all debts created under this Alice In Wonderland system be voided in full? Where’s the discussion about why we, or any nation, should have such a thing as a national debt in the first place???
Sainsbury the supermarket are in the news boasting Huge Stonking Great Profits today, and their spokesman is stoutly proclaiming that even in these straightened times Sainsbury are creating jobs! Their workers are paying taxes! This is presented as if it were some kind of laudable effort where in reality it illustrates how badly Britain’s doing. Paying taxes Sainsbury as a whole may be but how much of it will be in Britain, going to our Chancellor to be redsitributed here and how much will be shuffled discreetly off to anonymous tax-havens? What good does this do Britain? If the supermarkets are doing well, they’re doing it by putting local companies out of business together with their advertising oulets, local accountants and vehicle servicers, etc. Huge, huge knock on effects all bad for the country. They act like giant wealth siphons on any area where they’re allowed to settle, sucking the wealth out of it and away to foreign parts, never to be seen by this country again. Consumers commute to work in other areas and return to their domicile to spend their earnings, but when they go to a local supermarket those earnings don’t go towards enriching the locality as they otherwise might. Supermarket prosperity is thus very bad news for the rest of us. Oddly, this aspect isn’t highlighted, or even mentioned, in the conventional media, all of which, we must remember, is corporate-owned – just like supermarkets – and is unlikely to be presenting a point of view sympathetic to the interests of the consumer. Instead, we read about the ready availability of cheap food. I don’t think this is cheap. I think we pay a terrible price as wealth earned and bought in by the residents of a community is promptly sucked out of it, not redistributed locally as it could be thus enriching communities. I can’t see any place in a community-oriented culture for supermarkets at all. Probably worth mentioning in this context that the Grand Poobah of Tesco and so all supermarkets by association is Sir Terry Leahy, who was plain old Terry Leahy till he was knighted by Tony Blair. When you understand the damage that supermarkets actually do, when you begin to grasp the deleterious effect they have on communities and see the praise they get from those elected to represent the interests of those communities you realise that neither politicians nor corporations are really on our side in anything at all.
On investing, I’d just like to add that venture capitalists, mutual funds et al only have money that’s in circulation because someone, somewhere borrowed it from a privately-owned bank. If the private banks withdrew all their loans, our current civilisation would have no money in its accounts or its pockets. In fact, all the private banks have to do to cripple civilisation is to not renew the loans they have existing and slowly the money supply contracts. This is a ludicrous situation when we have governments with sovereign right to create money themselves and also one they should never have allowed to develop, not if they genuinely worked on behalf of the electorate. We need public money in circulation, not private money. Good grief – they only make the damn stuff up anyway!
The point of encouraging greed is, as the Roman invaders here knew and understood,
if you create an aspirational society and you control the money
supply by monopoly, you bring into being a machine that makes you
wealthy. If you have a society where everyone wants to “get on” and
you define what “getting on” means, and they need money to do it and
they have to come to you to get it, you rule. Every time they trade,
which they need to do to “get on”, they need money and they can only
get it from you. You let them have it cheap (as we’ve had here in
recent years) the money supply grows and everyone prospers. You make
it expensive or, as currently is the case, largely unavailable, and
people starve, as we’re seeing. When you see people using expression
like greed is good, it’s banker thinking, the bankers having the
effective monopoly today of the money supply. It’s not pointless or
ridiculous, the point is it make money for the people who run the
economy, not the people who have to live in it. We live under an
imposed cultural model, one which has been imposed upon us to further
the interests of the imposers, not we who live under it. It was never
intended to be benign and you shouldn’t think it’s silly or irrational
because it isn’t, you just mistake it’s intentions.
Banks or their equivalent can’t be allowed to make a profit at the expense of the rest of the community. This has been recognised for thousands of years. Old-time religions are recorded as being against it. I suspect there was wisdom behind this thinking, it was better understood then that within a community you cannot have one small section effectively running the rest because then you have two societies, the morlocks and the elois, effectively. We’ve grown up in a culture where that awareness has not so much been lost sight of but comprehensively buried. We’re taught nothing of this in our so-called education but it influences every facet of our lives. Everything we buy is loaded with a huge premium that consists of nothing but profits for the banks, profits on loans consisting of money not garnered by prudence and thrift but made up out of thin air. We’ve been had, and we continue to be had.
I’m reading The Ascent Of Money by Niall Ferguson. A few pages in he makes the mistake of referring to what we live in as, ahem, civilisation. Has he not read Roman historian Tacitus; “In their ignorance they call this civilisation, when in reality it’s but part of their servitude”? Ferguson refers to the Medicis (bankers, if you didn’t know) and their part in the Renaissance. That wasn’t civilisation, that was a prison culture. The Romans spread it all over Europe and encouraged the population to consider it civilisation so they’d be less trouble to handle. Who suceeded in subjugating the Britons where others failed? Agricola, because whereas his predecessors tried to enforce behaviour, creating resentment, he instead suggested modes of behaviour, encouraging it by competition. which took the place of compulsion. It fell apart when the Romans let it all slide in the early 5th century. When the Medicis helped bring about the Renaissance, it signalled a return of the same societal model, one where a ruling elite (formerly Romans, now bankers) ruled by virtue of effective monopoly of the money supply in a culture money-dependent. What happened in between, misnomered The Dark Ages, was probably in reality the Age of Light for Europe, we’re just schooled not to think of it that way because it suits the banks to have us consider our lives of indebted servitude to be the only civilised way of life.
I suspect I will find much in this book to dismay me…
OK, I got it. You have investment banks (casino banks) and you have the kind of banks we typically associate with the High Street where you make deposits and withdrawals and so on. Narrow banking means the two remain separate, see Glass-Steagal, an act bought in after the Great Depression to separate the two banking systems, recently repealed. This has greatly contributed to our current economic woes. If the casino banks are tied up with the high street banks, when the casino banks make a bad bet and they fail, because the’re tied in with our high street banking system they bring the entire economy down with them, hence the expression, too big to fail. Obviously it’s in the communal interest that Glass-Steagal or something similar be reinstated, which is why it won’t happen or even be discussed at any senior level. I keep trying to explain to people that what we live in isn’t run for our benefit any more than a battery farm is run for the benefit of the chickens inside it. Here’s yet more evidence to support my point of view.