Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    ..You can knock sterling DEBT down like that (a painful way to do it too) but not a DEFICIT. Sterling devalued 30% against the dollar and 20% against the Euro and it did pretty much nothing to the deficit.

    CPI inflation was hitting 3.7% in 2010 rising to 5.2% in 2011, its hardly like we weren't doing inflation then...
    The interest on the debt could be substantially reduced in real terms. It costs about £50 bn a year at the moment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...bn-a-week.html

    Four years of 7% wage inflation would have saved 20 bn per annum and adjusted earnings upwards relative to other sources of income. I am not advocating such a course of action in itself, I am pointing out that this course of action was not available. There are other possibilities such as hidden tariffs against German manufactures (which are anomalously competitive due to Germans not paying social costs of Euro). None of these are possible in EU.

    (Original post by Quady)
    You realise we can ignore the commission right? We did in 2006...
    The Lisbon Treaty introduced Qualified Majority Voting in November 2014. The veto has gone. It is no longer possible for the UK to simply veto EU Council decisions without ending up in the European Court of Justice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Yes, otherwise it would be a worthless circular lump of metal.Its only value comes from the fact that you can exchange it for goods and services. Surely you see that. Money IS debt. If you have £1000 in money, you effectively own £1000 of government debt in its most liquid form.
    So when do I get my interest on the debt?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The Lisbon Treaty introduced Qualified Majority Voting in November 2014. The veto has gone. It is no longer possible for the UK to simply veto EU Council decisions without ending up in the European Court of Justice.
    So how come we haven't ended up in court for our 14/15 deficit?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So when do I get my interest on the debt?
    Presumably you get 0% interest because it has 100% liquidity. As opposed to say a bond where the government gets the principal to spend until the bond matures, and you get coupon payments to compensate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Presumably you get 0% interest because it has 100% liquidity. As opposed to say a bond where the government gets the principal to spend until the bond matures, and you get coupon payments to compensate.
    Debt with 0% interest and no redemption date huh?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Debt with 0% interest and no redemption date huh?
    Well yes. This marries quite nicely the two perceptions of what it is that we have ITT.

    "No" redemption date being the same thing as an immediate redemption date - best effected by just giving you the banknote.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    because the masterful rothschilds would lose their multi trillion dollar unpublished fortunes as the control the world's central banks
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So when do I get my interest on the debt?
    You don't. Debt doesn't always come with interest.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    You don't. Debt doesn't always come with interest.
    Sure, but it has either that or a redemption date...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So how come we haven't ended up in court for our 14/15 deficit?
    The warning was given in May 2015. The EU works slowly. Provided the UK has policies that are headed in what they believe is the right direction the Commission and Council will not act. These policies are known as "Austerity" and, as part of EU membership, are supported by all the pro-EU parties. Greece and the UK are not that different, it was only having our own currency that saved us from the total disaster experienced by Greece. Sterling allowed the UK to devalue and to independently raise loans.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The warning was given in May 2015. The EU works slowly. Provided the UK has policies that are headed in what they believe is the right direction the Commission and Council will not act. These policies are known as "Austerity" and, as part of EU membership, are supported by all the pro-EU parties. Greece and the UK are not that different, it was only having our own currency that saved us from the total disaster experienced by Greece. Sterling allowed the UK to devalue and to independently raise loans.
    So it doesn't apply to the warnings given in 2006 or 2009 and not been acted on then?

    How did devaluation help us? :/
    It didn't improve out exports nor narrow our current account deficit.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sure, but it has either that or a redemption date...
    Not at all. I could easily lend you £1 and never charge interest or ever set a date by which you had to pay it back.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So it doesn't apply to the warnings given in 2006 or 2009 and not been acted on then?

    How did devaluation help us? :/
    It didn't improve out exports nor narrow our current account deficit.
    How can you be sceptical that the EU works exceeding slowly when the Greek crisis started 7 years ago and has still not reached end-game?

    Devaluation helped the UK by reducing imports. The balance of payments deficit with the EU would have been well over the current, extraordinary £100 billion per annum if the pound was worth 35% more.
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bop/ba...ries--Table-C-
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You claim to be an objective free thinker but usage of terms like scam and cartel make it clear you've already made your mind up on this topic.
    I'm open to substantive, and constructive, counter arguments as to why terms like 'cartel' and 'scam' are wrong or misleading. So far I've received none.

    Why is everyone distracting from the main issue of this thread?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    I'm open to substantive, and constructive, counter arguments as to why terms like 'cartel' and 'scam' are wrong or misleading. So far I've received none.

    Why is everyone distracting from the main issue of this thread?
    They're loaded terms with negative implications. By all means reach that conclusion as the end of a discussion but to enter into one with that mindset is not impartial 'free thinking'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    They're loaded terms with negative implications. By all means reach that conclusion as the end of a discussion but to enter into one with that mindset is not impartial 'free thinking'.
    No one is impartial. But one is able to have humility to listen carefully to the counterarguments and engage with them in a constructed, meaningful way.

    You still haven't come up with anything resembling an argument.
    Private banks create the money supply as debt when it could be created debt-free. Therefore, I maintain that it is a scam. Are you going to engage with this argument or will you continue with the irrelevancy?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    They're loaded terms with negative implications. By all means reach that conclusion as the end of a discussion but to enter into one with that mindset is not impartial 'free thinking'.
    The use of 'scam' has negative connotations but cartel accurately describes the banking system, it is an officially sanctioned cartel because of the clearing function that binds the participants, as structured it lends itself to rate rigging because of the limited number of participants. Stable banks have historically been able to trade profitably at a spread of 0.5% so the minimum bank rate could be 0.5% (the State making as much as the bank?). The banks lowest possible lending rate would then be 1%. At present the bank rate is 0.5% but the banks’ average interest rate spread (excluding the 'teaser' rates) is about 3.5% (seven times the rate in a stable situation). About 3.5% is the spread which the cartel have decided appropriate to restore their balance sheets (at their customer's and the taxpayer's expense). With the present spread In a genuinely competitive environment sound bank's could 'clean up'. The cartel is vital to the existance of our version of banking if one goes they all go so there will be no breaking of ranks in the interest of a 'free' market in money. If our system is not fit for purpose then our legislators could change it. If the system is a 'scam' then its a legal one.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    No one is impartial. But one is able to have humility to listen carefully to the counterarguments and engage with them in a constructed, meaningful way.

    You still haven't come up with anything resembling an argument.
    Private banks create the money supply as debt when it could be created debt-free. Therefore, I maintain that it is a scam. Are you going to engage with this argument or will you continue with the irrelevancy?
    It is not the fact that private (plc) banks create 97% of our money supply but the fact that it is international plc banks that create liabilities for the pound in an international (7.3billion) market that are covered by the UK taxpayer (30 million). Would it not be prudent to remove their ability create the UK's money supply and vest it in domestic plc banks that cannot invest outside the UK?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    It is not the fact that private (plc) banks create 97% of our money supply but the fact that it is international plc banks that create liabilities for the pound in an international (7.3billion) market that are covered by the UK taxpayer (30 million). Would it not be prudent to remove their ability create the UK's money supply and vest it in domestic plc banks that cannot invest outside the UK?
    How do private banks currently loan newly created money to foreign entities? Can you elaborate on this?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Money, as a means of payment, must be decoupled from the debt-based credit system.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.