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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Could you demonstrate the inflation?

    Japan is a happy swinging, free loving place then? Way better than the 80s?
    It isn't because of the asset grabs in the 80s. You have too big to fail risk-averse corporations and living space costs the earth. Through consolidation, the government the yakuza and the zaibatsu are all three heads of the same hydra. If the system had ossified in a less unequal way the Japanese people would be having a whale of a time and there would be fewer barriers to productivity.

    (Original post by Quady)
    But why wasn't it inflationary?

    How was it at the expense of the populace?

    Is someone who invests in NEST wealthy? :P
    Because the banks were given the money and used it to shore up their balance sheets by investing in non-productive assets rather than passing it into the economy. We should have given the money to the people, that would have got the economy going because people spend money, unless they're vanishingly rich.

    Pension funds are just a way to ensure the general populace has some skin in the game. No wonder it's all auto-enrol...

    And a pension is not a voluntary investment, it's not like people have some spare money burning a hole in their pocket and they invest in a pension for ****s and giggles.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    This doesn't tell me anything, with all due respect. It's just confusion compounded by confusion.
    Excessive creation of money is already being caused by private banks, inflating asset prices such as in the housing market, resulting in ordinary people, the upcoming generation, being priced out of the market.
    Has this devalued the currency? No. Is it good for the economy? No. Is debt-based money freeing people from taxation, high prices and high levels of private debt? No.
    Why would the currency debase if money is created at the same rate as private loans are being repaid and spent into the real economy?

    It is productive work which gives value and meaning to money. Money is simply a creature of law.
    That confused you? Try to understand it. It makes sense. Perhaps because it doesn't fit with your assertion, you chose to not make sense of it...

    If you increase the money supply, the currency looses value. If you decrease the money supply, the currency gains value. If you maintain the money supply, the currency maintains its value.

    Money is only valuable because people believe in it.

    Erm...the government can create the money but ideology stops them. Okay? Money creation has been privatized since the inception of banks, 99% of the time.
    Offline

    17
    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.
    Producing more physical money to use to spend on things reduces the worth of the currency globally and within the country leading to huge inflation and uncertainty e.g. the struggles Zimbabwe face over their currency. This destabilizes the economy further and because your money is worth less you need to charge more for things (inflation) and so there was mute point printing new money as you're achieved nothing but an even more unstable economy.
    It's pretty simple really
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    It's not true. This is blatant propaganda by the mainstream. Money creation can't automatically lead to an inflation of prices if it is created in line with rates of inflation, at the same pace as private loans are being repaid (under a full reserve system, of course.)

    I would like to gently point out that you are wrong and I am right.

    : Problems of Inflation
    Many often ask why government’s don’t print more money to deal with the problem of National debt. The reason is that printing more money doesn’t increase economic output in any way – it merely causes inflation

    Suppose an economy produces £10 million worth of goods. e.g. 1 million books at £10 each.
    If the government doubled the money supply, we would still have 1 million books but people have more money. Demand for books would rise and firms would push up prices.
    The most likely scenario is that if money supply was doubled. we would have 1 million books sold at £20. The economy is now worth £20 million rather than £10 million. But, the number of goods is exactly the same.
    We can say that the increase in GDP is a money illusion. – True you have more money, but if everything is more expensive, you are not any better off.
    In this simple model, printing more money has made goods more expensive, but hasn’t change the quantity of goods.

    Why is inflation such aproblem?


    1. Fall in value of savings. If people have cash savings, then inflation will erode the value of your savings. £1 million marks in 1921 was a lot. But, two years later, your savings would have become worthless. High inflation can also reduce the incentive to save.
    2. Menu costs. If inflation is very high then it becomes harder to make transactions. Prices frequently change. Firms have to spend more on changing price lists. In the hyperinflation of Germany, prices rose so rapidly, people used to get paid twice a day. If you didn’t buy bread straight away, it would become too expensive. This destabilises an economy.
    3. Uncertainty and confusion. High inflation creates uncertainty. Periods of high inflation discourage firms from investing and can lead to lower economic growth

    Have a read through this article:http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/63...rinting-money/


    Edit: If you did History GCSE and learnt about the great depression/ the wall street crash it will help your understanding. Also having a look at Economics will help too because it is never good to be ignorant


    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Cash Rules Everything Around Me...Quite simply it boils down to CONTROL. Debt based currency forces people into labour because they have to have some means to pay their way...New Slaves.

    Anyone who thinks the puppet (or rather muppet) David Cameron is running the show is deluded. The the elite put him in his position.

    Gadhafi wanted to make a currency backed by gold and that is why he was killed off.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Creating money is the most idiotic concept ever. If you doubled the money supply everything would just cost............. double as much!

    You can't print wealth.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So Quantitative Easing didn't happen then? Was QE2 as myth as well...?
    You are talking to a deep money expert. City of London high paid consultant.

    You are confused. QE 1 2 3 4....... Etc is obviously not a myth. Do you understand that QE means buying treasury securities (debt bonds) from the market with newly created money with the intention of doing reverse QE later but this never happens.

    The process of creating the new money is the same as for ordinary money except the money is not being loaned to anyone at interest. (Government & banks). It is basically a market manipulation tactic to keep interest rates low (so mortgage payers don't go caput), create an additional market for government securities and keep money in the pockets of debt ridden citizens so they can spend and stimulate the economy. We are not in a good place.

    Going back to the original point, the central bank gets to charge on lending out what is basically a hypothetical asset. When you think about it, it's ludicrous.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    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.
    Haven't read other posts but it seems like you're confused.

    A) The Bank of England is nationalised.
    B) The money spent on the Public Sector on things like highways, the civil service, GIB etc is debt free. The government doesn't charge interest on this. Governments fund public spending through 3 ways either they raise taxes which collects tax rev, borrow from a third party i.e. IMF or create the money. Each issue has its positives and negatives.

    I'll go on by clarifying the issue you raised about debt.

    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.

    Not all money is debt based. As I've previously stated government spending is not debt based. Depending on the climate this is also the case. If you remember the recession and subsequently how the Government 'bailed out the bankers' a term this generation growing up is probably familiar with. It wasn't in the interest of the government to let banks default. In the long term, and this applies with Government investment in the public sector, we assume that the return on the money lent out will have a greater final effect over the period. On the basis of the contribution financial services make to UK GDP could you imagine if the government had not bailed out the banks? It would have been disastrous.

    Also and I think you mentioned about Bonds and private banking cartels. There is no collusion or generally anything dodgy about the Bank of England trading with commercial banks. BOE borrows money > BOE pays back interest at some point in the future > BOE sells the debt for money in the short term.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    You are talking to a deep money expert. City of London high paid consultant.

    You are confused. QE 1 2 3 4....... Etc is obviously not a myth. Do you understand that QE means buying treasury securities (debt bonds) from the market with newly created money with the intention of doing reverse QE later but this never happens.

    The process of creating the new money is the same as for ordinary money except the money is not being loaned to anyone at interest. (Government & banks). It is basically a market manipulation tactic to keep interest rates low (so mortgage payers don't go caput), create an additional market for government securities and keep money in the pockets of debt ridden citizens so they can spend and stimulate the economy. We are not in a good place.

    Going back to the original point, the central bank gets to charge on lending out what is basically a hypothetical asset. When you think about it, it's ludicrous.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As you are a deep money expert and high paid City of London consultant why did you say only private banks can create money?

    Can I ask again who owns the shares in the BoE?
    Offline

    18
    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.
    First I want to congratulate you on not being a Sheep. There are many Sheep on this forum and they all go Baaa Baaa Baaa.

    Okay in response to your general question:

    I have no argument with you because everything you have said is 100% truth. You are a threat to the establishment. And so am I.

    I guess the question we should ask the rest of the forum is that is it acceptable that we squeeze the workers & underclass into more higher levels of poverty for the resilience of our national currency.

    What I am saying is it acceptable that we make British Sterling more attractive in the terms of speculation at the cost of normal everyday peoples living standards.

    Everyday the private Banks print money out and inflation does take place. Those who say it doesn't are nothing more than puppets who absorb all the spin from their sold out corrupt economic professors and cannot think for themselves.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    As you are a deep money expert and high paid City of London consultant why did you say only private banks can create money?

    Can I ask again who owns the shares in the BoE?
    Name me a non private bank in the UK or US.

    It is not publicly disclosed who owns the shares in the Bank of England. They are bearer shares. Whoever holds the share certificates owns the shares like banknotes. They were issues this way so that the ownership of the shares is confidential.

    The Companies House company check will not show shareholders of Bank of England Nominees Ltd. but it will show the Directors. The history shows that the Director seems to change every year or two and the current director is Andrew Bailey, ex BoE Chief Cashier.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    Name me a non private bank in the UK or US.

    It is not publicly disclosed who owns the shares in the Bank of England. They are bearer shares. Whoever holds the share certificates owns the shares like banknotes. They were issues this way so that the ownership of the shares is confidential.

    The Companies House company check will not show shareholders of Bank of England Nominees Ltd. but it will show the Directors. The history shows that the Director seems to change every year or two and the current director is Andrew Bailey, ex BoE Chief Cashier.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well the Post Office was until recently. As was Northern Rock - but that was a bit different, likewise RBS is majority pubically owned.

    It is publically disclosed:
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...isc091106.aspx
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by German123)
    Also having a look at Economics will help too because it is never good to be ignorant
    Economics is a religion with equations. Perhaps you should pay attention to the following that I've already repeated several times: money can be created in line with inflation rates.
    You've been attacking an argument I haven't even made. A straw man.

    What is the qualitative difference between the private banks creating money and the government creating money?

    The intuitive answer would be that the nation is not indebted with the latter at the helm of money creation.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Do the words "Germany" and "hyperinflation" ring a bell...?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure if someone has already said this before but anyway.

    1. Read a £10 note, it states that the queen owes the bearer the sum of £10 worth of gold, this is because in the UK money is regulated by the amount of gold held by the bank of england.
    2. The reason we do this is to regulate and control economic changes.
    3. If the government were to create more money than we have gold it would throw the whole system off.
    4. If we pump more money into the country it will cause inflation rapidly causing an economic crash (Prices would go up faster than the inflation of peoples pay, therefore people would start to struggle to survive which would also cause small businesses that sell things at higher prices to go out of business as no one would use them, the, major companies would raise there prices as they wouldn't have the competition).
    5.Even if number 4 was not to happen that fast and people pay caught up, the whole issue would start again as everyone would have more money but everything would cost more and thus money loses it's value.

    Money in the UK is regulated by gold to avoid economic hardship that comes with inflation and we just pass around IOU notes from the queen.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 105263)
    Haven't read other posts but it seems like you're confused.

    A) The Bank of England is nationalised.
    B) The money spent on the Public Sector on things like highways, the civil service, GIB etc is debt free. The government doesn't charge interest on this. Governments fund public spending through 3 ways either they raise taxes which collects tax rev, borrow from a third party i.e. IMF or create the money. Each issue has its positives and negatives.
    Actually, you are deeply confused.

    A) I am aware. Which is why the Sovereign Money proposal can work.
    B) The government levies taxes because the public sector is funded with debt which must be paid back with interest by the taxpayer. To whom? The private banks. If the government created money free of debt, what need would there be for the income tax, or any of the other forms of taxes? The government would simply distribute a small tax levy to regulate aggregate demand, or through other technical methods.

    Question: why does the government have to borrow in the first place? What is the reason for why the government (via the central bank) can't create money in line with inflation?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    Do the words "Germany" and "hyperinflation" ring a bell...?
    I refer you to POST #20.

    Please do not repeat this non-argument.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    I refer you to POST #20.

    Please do not repeat this non-argument.
    Jeez, sorry for not reading the entire thread. Who spat in your cereal?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calum.McManus)
    1. Read a £10 note, it states that the queen owes the bearer the sum of £10 worth of gold, this is because in the UK money is regulated by the amount of gold held by the bank of england.
    That is a remnant of history still visible on the banknote. But we are no longer on the Gold Standard. If you want to protest to the contrary you require evidence, as I requested at the start of this thread.

    3. If the government were to create more money than we have gold it would throw the whole system off.
    Why is the spectre of inflation always everyone's starting assumption? I've stated clearly that money can be created in line with rates of inflation, but free of debt​. What is the problem?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    Jeez, sorry for not reading the entire thread. Who spat in your cereal?
    I don't want you to get the impression that I'm shouting at you. I'm merely emphasising so that no one repeats the overused, and false, examples of Germany and Zimbabwe. It simply impedes the entire discussion for no reason.

    Also, I don't expect you to read the entire thread. Just my posts, at least.
 
 
 
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.