The first demand of just about every serious socialist programme since 1848 is that banking should serve the economy and democracy and not the private interests of a few. It can only do that if it taken out of the hands of the private financiers who over the last thirty years have used it to create gazillions of counterfeit claims on social wealth through their credit bubble turned Ponzi Scheme and bought into public control.

The staff, estates and deposits of the bankrupt banks need to be taken into administration and used for form a People’s Bank with a monopoly of credit so that the privateers can never again rob the world blind by creating money out of thin air. This bank should lend at base rate to small business and facilitate the social investment we need in accordance with a democratic and environmentally sustainable plan.

gazillions of counterfeit claims on social wealth through their credit bubble turned Ponzi Scheme and bought into public control.
—-

You mind explaining Exactly how they did that? Cheers

Part 1: Exploring
This is where you learn the wiring under the bonnet of the global financial system. You’ll see the circuitry of investment banks, commercial banks, institutional investors, hedge funds, and private equity funds, and explore investment processes, trading culture, and much much more as well.

Part 2: Jamming: This is the part where we learn how to bend the circuits of global finance. I cover how to destabilise investment cases in damaging projects, how to uncover information in opaque corporate structures, and how to design your own subversive hedge funds of dissent.

Onbe: `You mind explaining Exactly how they did that? Cheers’

Yeah, no probs. What they did to start with was lend the same money twice, thrice, four times and so on. Next they started lending to people who could never afford to pay it back sometimes whether they like it or not. Finally they turned all these loans into Bonds, sub-prime bonds, and sold these bonds so they could lend the money they got from these bonds to more potless people so they could make more bonds. In the end the UK banks had created and sold £6.7 trillion of bonds all offering juicy annual interest. These lendings and bonds were backed by no more than a couple of 100 million of actual capital. That is why they went bankrupt. But foolishly our politicians decided that they would honour these counterfeit claims on wealth rather than throw the culprits and their corporate and billionaire speculator creditors in jail. So when little Timmy with the bad lungs can’t get his medicine because of austerity you now know why. By the way the US banks went under with over $35 Trillion owing to their creditors in bonds. The US Fed prints $85 billion a month to cover them as they mature which means its not just austerity that is being used to bail out the banks but inflation too.

The author has passion I like that, just had a read around at some of his writings, sadly I can find no clear message or intent, I hate hearing something when a lot is said but nothing was actually…said:

An example of subverting from within is the development of innovative ‘hybrid’ social and environmental finance models. It could be the development of a stronger whistleblower culture. It could be the development of models that explictly build in ecological constraints. It could anything the challenges stagnant and dominant modes of thought. It could be assisting progressive movements with technical issues that they don’t understand but wish to campaign against. ~

Etc

4 ~ Cheers.

1. Baton Rouge

The first demand of just about every serious socialist programme since 1848 is that banking should serve the economy and democracy and not the private interests of a few.

And by serving the interests of a few, they have served the economy and democracy by making the West wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice for workers in the past. By concentrating on private ends, they have enriched the public to an extent that past generations could not have imagined. So the social democrats should go down on their knees and thank whatever God they do not believe in that they did not get their way.

It can only do that if it taken out of the hands of the private financiers who over the last thirty years have used it to create gazillions of counterfeit claims on social wealth through their credit bubble turned Ponzi Scheme and bought into public control.

It is ironic that anyone would look at the Ponzi scheme that is the welfare state and decide this is the model we should follow for the banks.

The staff, estates and deposits of the bankrupt banks need to be taken into administration and used for form a People’s Bank with a monopoly of credit so that the privateers can never again rob the world blind by creating money out of thin air.

The creation of money is inherent in any banking system and will not disappear if the banks are nationalised. As they do not profit from it anyway. But, OK, the Soviet system used to have People’s Banks. How did that work out for East Germany? Oh right, they were poorer than Mexico. Spain has People’s Banks. How is that working for them? They are leading the collapse of the system. As are Germany’s People’s Banks.

No sane person can think a return to the corrupt idiocies of the 1970s is a good idea.

This bank should lend at base rate to small business and facilitate the social investment we need in accordance with a democratic and environmentally sustainable plan.

So you and your mates should control everything we do?

Right. As I said, no sane person.

I don’t think it’s the purpose of the banks to serve the people or the economy. It’s the purpose of a bank to serve its owners and its clients.

But it also isn’t the purpose of the people to bail out or support banks.

Let banks do what they want, protect deposits of private citizens up to a certain limit, and let them go bust if they mismanage or miscalculate. Easy peasy.

Thatcher privatised the money supply in 1986 with her City Big Bang amongst other measures including creative accounting replacing double entry book-keeping that allows you to lend the same money ten, twenty, thirty times. The private financiers, we were assured by the monetarists, due to something called `enlightened self-interest’ would, unlike the politicians, keep the supply and demand for money in equilibrium. Result: the ransaking of the global economy by a gang of robbers in the City and Wall St via a truly enormous 30-year credit bubble turned Ponzi Scheme by which they created trillions and trillions of counterfeit claims on social wealth. Whilst Thatcher started it New Labour, with their `dodgy growth’ theory supercharged it removing all remaining pretence at City regulation asking only that as they got rich they `paid their taxes’. Not only are we lumbered with making good all those counterfeit claims on wealth owned in the main by billionaire and corporate speculators who bought into the banksters Ponzi Scheme through austerity and the debasement of the currency but the state, which became dependent on the tax from this global heist has lost that income too. Capitalism has bankrupted mighty states and is liquidating the wealth of nations to bail out bankers whilst giant global and national corporations add to the economic contraction heading for depression by hoarding the super-profits of their monopoly death grip.

SMFS: Why do you come here? This is a left wing(ish) site not the Daily Mail. You are simply trolling and not engaging with points made.

Why do you come here? This is a left wing(ish) site
—-

This is a place for discussion & debate.

9. Baton Rouge

Thatcher privatised the money supply in 1986 with her City Big Bang amongst other measures including creative accounting replacing double entry book-keeping that allows you to lend the same money ten, twenty, thirty times.

How many wrong claims can you fit into one sentence? This takes the cake. You do not understand how many is created by the banking system as a whole. Thus you fail to note what the impact of Thatcher’s reforms were. She did not privatise the money supply. The money supply depends on what you define as money but if you use a restrictive definition like M1 – the money supply is all the currency in circulation plus all direct demand bank accounts, then each and every one of us increases the money supply when we put money in the bank. Notice Thatcher did not allow banks to print money. Nor did she force anyone to deposit money in the bank.

Double entry has not been replaced.

Banks may not lend the same money twenty times.

The private financiers, we were assured by the monetarists, due to something called `enlightened self-interest’ would, unlike the politicians, keep the supply and demand for money in equilibrium.

It is not the job of banks to keep supply and demand for money in equilibrium. Never has been. The demand for money is determined by consumers – which is influenced by interest rates. Which at the time were still controlled by the Bank of England and hence the British government.

Not only are we lumbered with making good all those counterfeit claims on wealth owned in the main by billionaire and corporate speculators who bought into the banksters Ponzi Scheme through austerity and the debasement of the currency

Well no. You have not understood the crisis either. We have been lumbered with defending the depositors – small little depositors in the main. That is what we are paying for. Mums and Dads. Little children. What happened with something like Northern Rock is that they took ordinary people’s money and lent it to people to buy houses in the midst of a boom. Those people got their houses – and they were not billionaires as a general rule – but some then lost them. The shareholders have been wiped out in a dozen British banks. Those who lent the banks money are being wiped out, depending on the bank. Anyone who lent to the Greeks has pretty much lost everything.

Capitalism has bankrupted mighty states and is liquidating the wealth of nations to bail out bankers whilst giant global and national corporations add to the economic contraction heading for depression by hoarding the super-profits of their monopoly death grip.

I love this Trot nonsense. We are not yet bankrupt and the main costs are not bank bailouts but welfare. If we could get some parasites back into work all would be well. Meantime we are richer than we were in the 1990s much less the 1980s or 1970s. Monopoly death grip? Wow. That sounds so cool.

Why do you come here? This is a left wing(ish) site not the Daily Mail. You are simply trolling and not engaging with points made.

I am kicking your point, such as they are, to death. Not that you have any. Just some trite cliches. You should be thanking me for the free education.

@11. So Much For Subtlety: “I love this Trot nonsense.”

I don’t agree with Baton Rouge’s analysis either.

“We are not yet bankrupt and the main costs are not bank bailouts but welfare. If we could get some parasites back into work all would be well.”

The majority of welfare spending in the UK goes on predictable things: pensioners, NHS etc; variable things (unemployment and under employment benefits) have risen.

But the big change is bank bailouts. Governments still don’t know how much citizens will be paying for bailouts. Governments don’t know how to convince people who have capital to lend it.

Well known Trots like Angela Merkel and George Osborne have borrowed money on behalf of governments to keep economies ticking over. Permitting banks to go bust was an option a few years ago (it may still be an option in some parts of the EU), but not in the UK today.

“Meantime we are richer than we were in the 1990s much less the 1980s or 1970s.”

Most of us are richer than we were in 2000. Not all, but most.

To keep things going, we need to move from 0% GDP growth to 2% with low consumer price inflation. Which is not happening.

12. Charlieman

The majority of welfare spending in the UK goes on predictable things: pensioners, NHS etc; variable things (unemployment and under employment benefits) have risen.

Which is interesting but irrelevant. 100 years ago Britain took vastly less of everyone’s income. Everyone’s income was vastly smaller as well. But the government was solvent, it met most needs, and ran a third of the world’s landmass. We now have trouble managing Britain alone, we have ever increasing “needs” and we are getting closer to bankruptcy all the time. It is welfare spending and the lobbies it creates that has done it. Nothing else.

But the big change is bank bailouts. Governments still don’t know how much citizens will be paying for bailouts. Governments don’t know how to convince people who have capital to lend it.

You put a man into water up to his bottom lip and the smallest wave can drown him. It is not the wave’s fault.

Well known Trots like Angela Merkel and George Osborne have borrowed money on behalf of governments to keep economies ticking over.

Indeed. But is it going to work? It does not seem to so far. Either way it is irrelevant to this topic.

To keep things going, we need to move from 0% GDP growth to 2% with low consumer price inflation. Which is not happening.

And we have no reasonable expectation it will. We can’t borrow and spend our way out of this without offering some long term hope for a structural adjustment. What we will do is drift, with the government unwilling or unable to confront any major vested interests in Britain (like the welfare community) until the IMF or someone else has to step in, or someone else creates enough growth for us to get by on.

`I am kicking your point, such as they are, to death. Not that you have any. Just some trite cliches. You should be thanking me for the free education.’

Yuck! What a fuc king arsehole.

`This is a place for discussion & debate.’

You are deluded chum. This SMSF prat is a troll. He doesn’t engage with the discussion or the points made but simply contradicts them as if that is sufficient which of course for most people drowning in bourgeois empiricism and prejudice it is. It’s not an argument it’s a series of contradictions as Monty Python might say.

Baton Rouge ~ you have failed to respond to a SINGLE point he made.

@13. So Much For Subtlety:

Me: “The majority of welfare spending in the UK goes on predictable things: pensioners, NHS etc; variable things (unemployment and under employment benefits) have risen.”

SMFS: “Which is interesting but irrelevant.”

Yep. How UK government spends money in year 2013 is irrelevant when considering UK economy in year 2013…

“100 years ago Britain took vastly less of everyone’s income. Everyone’s income was vastly smaller as well. But the government was solvent, it met most needs, and ran a third of the world’s landmass.”

Have you heard about the First World War? During the build up to WW1, defence amounted to ~40% UK government expenditure, which ate up all of the capital.

Which is interesting but irrelevant. 100 years ago Britain took vastly less of everyone’s income. Everyone’s income was vastly smaller as well. But the government was solvent, it met most needs, and ran a third of the world’s landmass

Yeah, coz Empires is all about sending money outwards innit.

Funding overseas jobs out of the goodness of our hearts.

17. Charlieman

Yep. How UK government spends money in year 2013 is irrelevant when considering UK economy in year 2013…

You are not talking about how the British government spends its money in 2013. You are talking about changes in how it spends money. Which is interesting but has nothing to do with anything I said. Nor has it anything to do with this thread. Which is not about how the UK government spends its money.

Have you heard about the First World War? During the build up to WW1, defence amounted to ~40% UK government expenditure, which ate up all of the capital.

So we now spend more than we did in the midst of WW1 and somehow this is not damaging to our economy? Even though it was then? Interesting.

We were a major power when we were spending that much. We have bled to death through a million little cuts – and all because we do not have the courage to say no. It has nothing to do with the bank bailouts but the on going welfare mess.

Shatterface

Yeah, coz Empires is all about sending money outwards innit. Funding overseas jobs out of the goodness of our hearts.

That is a clever little comment, but it is irrelevant.