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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    I want to emphasise first and foremost that I don't belong to any particular sociopolitical ideology. I am a free thinker. I believe that there is an element of truth in every persuasion of thought, and that information ought to be gleaned in order to arrive at any given truth. It is all about reading between the blurred lines so as to connect the dots.

    On that basis, I kindly request that you resist the temptation to respond with an ideologically charged opinion. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are certainly not entitled to your own facts. I want the discussion to flow with the facts and lead wherever it may.
    This is just to lay the ground rules, which are hopefully reasonable enough for adherence.

    As to the main discussion...

    The Bank of England released a quarterly bulletin last year, in March, entitled "money creation in the modern economy." It states, clearly, that the private commercial banks have a monopoly over the creation of money. It is the process of lending which creates a new deposit of money, and the bank does not borrow from savers in order to lend to customers.

    I want to know the reason why the money supply can't be nationalised so that the government can be the sole issuer of money, provided checks and balances are in place. I will discuss the checks and balances that can be applied at a later stage. Note that I am not advocating the nationalisation of the private banking cartel. That is not the problem. Commercial banks can be stripped of the power to create money and simply serve as an intermediary between savers and borrowers, which is already perceived to be its usual business.

    The problem is that all money in the economy is debt-based. If we want more money, it necessarily has to come with a corresponding debt. If we want less debt, we necessarily have to suffer with less money. Such is the bipolar nature of the current system. I am advocating a way to separate debt and money from each other.

    I have a proposal in mind, but I will reveal it in a piecemeal fashion so that every point can be fully digested. If there is uncertainty in some area or a need for clarification, do enquire.

    In principle, what is the problem with the state creating and issuing money free of debt in order to finance public services and infrastructure projects? Why is it perceived as a natural state of affairs that the government has given a private banking cartel the privilege to create money and must borrow from the same banking cartel (through the issuance of gilts), when it can easily create money on its own without needing to go into debt?

    If a government can issue a bond, why can't it issue a bill?
    The obvious benefit is that most forms of taxation (income tax, council tax, etc.) can be abolished and there would be lower levels of private debt as a result of a greater amount of debt-free money circulating the economy.

    I want to receive factual objections. Thanks.
    Some governments have done this by using quantitative easing there are some problems with it. One of the problems being that if you print too much it devalues money this is because it manufactures inflation which was never there to start with.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The only thing stopping Government from taking back control of our money supply is the whole American Military. London is basically the money laundering capital of the world. If we where to take power away from our Banks we would also be sanctioned right away by the US.

    If you have any idea how Putin was raised to power your realize he kicked out all our the oligarchs who had huge wealth in Russia. As a consequence of doing so Russia was branded as the big bad monster.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigItch)
    Some governments have done this by using quantitative easing there are some problems with it. One of the problems being that if you print too much it devalues money this is because it manufactures inflation which was never there to start with.
    I've recieved this type of response throughout the thread. The problem is that it has zero explanatory power. You mention that there are some problems with creating and issuing money debt-free, then go on to mention only one problem which is highly abstract and barely original in content. The government could flood the economy with money, but that money wouldn't necessarily cause inflation if it is spent on a whole range of public projects, infrastructure and services that stimulate aggregate demand, since money spent on productive activities increases supply alongside demand. The only constraint on government spending that there ought to be are the physical constraints of nature, of human capital and of raw material; and the electorate can then exercise their democratic right in voicing their wishes and needs for funding, whatever that may be.

    The creative power unleashed by the ability to simply create and issue money without a corresponding debt is extraordinary; a near utopia would be absolutely possible. The primary obstacle is the private banking industry who create money in the form of debt through their lending practices and cause asset-price inflation in the speculative property and financial markets. National governments have been completely subordinated to the private banking industry, when in fact the power ought to be in the reverse.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Hyperinflation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stemmery)
    Hyperinflation?
    I depend what the money is spent on and if it goes into the real economy.

    A good example of hyperinflation arguably by private banks and what not to do is house prices. Who basically throw money at a limited resource.

    If you spend the money on something that will generate a demand in the economy for example infrastructure for example if we have a large scale nuclear power program which are my favourite example we can create a product everyone wants - electricity this increase the real economy mean the money does not change the value of each pound so it isn't inflationary.


    Have a look at how money works:

    http://positivemoney.org/how-money-w...-create-money/


    The question I believe this forum (at the minimum) is asking is why does the government borrow money from banks which create it out of nothing but charges us for interest for essentially what are IOUs. When the government can do exactly the same as the banks but without the interest. Then if their is a real problem with inflation it can take money out of circulation via taxation.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Who owns the shares?



    I thought there was only owner of the shares - the Treasury Solicitor.

    The Rothschild family.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    The Rothschild family.
    *yawn*

    No other jewz?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigItch)
    Some governments have done this by using quantitative easing there are some problems with it. One of the problems being that if you print too much it devalues money this is because it manufactures inflation which was never there to start with.
    Weird how inflation is so low then...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Weird how inflation is so low then...
    if you print loads of money it will make money worthless and bump up inflation you're a cretin if you think otherwise
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Weird how inflation is so low then...
    He refers to asset-price inflation in the financial markets, which is where QE was aimed.

    I've come to realise that the term inflation is just a buzzword employed by those who either lack understanding of the current monetary system (which actively creates asset-price inflation) or ideologically choose to avoid rational discussion.

    The following post is a perfect example.

    (Original post by BigItch)
    if you print loads of money it will make money worthless and bump up inflation you're a cretin if you think otherwise
    Not only does he opt not to respond to my explanation, but continues ideologically to repeat the same line rote learned from an incredibly abstract summary of how inflation works, devoid of any understanding comprising real economic functions and the monetary system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    He refers to asset-price inflation in the financial markets, which is where QE was aimed.

    I've come to realise that the term inflation is just a buzzword employed by those who either lack understanding of the current monetary system (which actively creates asset-price inflation) or ideologically choose to avoid rational discussion.

    The following post is a perfect example.



    Not only does he opt not to respond to my explanation, but continues ideologically to repeat the same line rote learned from incredibly abstract summary of how inflations works, devoid of any understanding comprising real economic functions and the monetary system.
    It can only be limited though it will cause inflation if you keep doing it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It can and it does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigItch)
    It can only be limited though it will cause inflation if you keep doing it.
    What can only be limited? Who can limit it? What is "it?" Keep doing what? It would be helpful if you could express yourself clearer and more precisely. Otherwise there's no need for you to enter the thread.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    It can and it does.
    I kindly refuse to take seriously such a display of assertion in the absence of argument or evidence. I assume you haven't even taken the effort to read the opening post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    What can only be limited? Who can limit it? What is "it?" Keep doing what? It would be helpful if you could express yourself clearer and more precisely. Otherwise there's no need for you to enter the thread.



    I kindly refuse to take seriously such a display of assertion in the absence of argument or evidence. I assume you haven't even taken the effort to read the opening post.
    I have as much rights as you so I will tell you politely to start with if you don't like what i post you know where to go
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    He refers to asset-price inflation in the financial markets, which is where QE was aimed.
    Like oil and gold huh?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigItch)
    if you print loads of money it will make money worthless and bump up inflation you're a cretin if you think otherwise
    Can you explain the lack of inflation right now?

    If not, you're calling yourself a cretin.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    because of this:

    printing more money = inflation = money devalues = more money printed = inflation etc
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolCavy)
    because of this:

    printing more money = inflation = money devalues = more money printed = inflation etc
    Only in extreme cases. Inflation is not inherently bad.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by United1892)
    Only in extreme cases. Inflation is not inherently bad.
    true, it isn't bad for savers and investors but for the average person the excess printing of money would be a problem
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoolCavy)
    true, it isn't bad for savers and investors but for the average person the excess printing of money would be a problem
    How is inflation not bad for savers and investors?

    Inflation hits their return.

    Its good for borrowers not savers.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.