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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    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.
    Okay, it's just that your post came across as a little aggressive. I realise that it wasn't meant that way.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    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
    Yes I beg your pardon, there has been some government ownership of banks during the 2008 bailout process as you mentioned e.g. UCAR intervention with Northern Rock taking over the bad bank and Virgin Money taking over the good bank, RBS state acquisitions, Fanny & Freddie in the States etc. etc. but this was just a temporary measure to stabilise a mess. There is no long term intended solution for state ownership of banks of any type including central banks in this country.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    There is no long term intended solution for state ownership of banks of any type including central banks in this country.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The central bank in the UK is state-owned. That it has private shareholders is irrelevant.
    The commercial banks are privately owned. Whether these private banks should be nationalised is a discussion to be had. But the problem at the root of the financial system is that the private banks can shackle both the private and public sector by debt. This is an irrational, if not corrupt, system.
    The Sovereign Money proposal has been explained in painstaking detail by the think tank, campaign group Positive Money in their book Modernising Money. I haven't finished reading the book yet, but the basic gist is that deposit money can be safely stored at the BoE and the commercial banks can work within a full reserve system. The BoE would then be able to fund public spending free of debt, using the data and statistics which measure inflation rates to determine how much money can be created. Money would be created at the same rate as private loans are being repaid so as to ensure a constant supply of money. The interest rate mechanism would be abolished, and the interest rate would be determined by the market. Money would eventually overpower debt.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    Yes I beg your pardon, there has been some government ownership of banks during the 2008 bailout process as you mentioned e.g. UCAR intervention with Northern Rock taking over the bad bank and Virgin Money taking over the good bank, RBS state acquisitions, Fanny & Freddie in the States etc. etc. but this was just a temporary measure to stabilise a mess. There is no long term intended solution for state ownership of banks of any type including central banks in this country.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Post Office wasn't part of the bailout process.

    As per my link, the BoE is publically owned and has been since 1948.
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...isc091106.aspx
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Must read:
    http://www.positivemoney.org/2011/11...-money-system/
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    The Post Office wasn't part of the bailout process.

    As per my link, the BoE is publically owned and has been since 1948.
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publi...isc091106.aspx
    The post office is irrelevant to this conversation they are not a bank, they just act as an intermediary / reseller for some banking services.

    Please see this Freedom of Information request:

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...attach/2/D.pdf







    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MKultra101)
    Please see this Freedom of Information request:

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...attach/2/D.pdf







    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thats says BOEN is a wholey owned subsidary of the Bank, as such, I don't see how you think BOEN owns the bank...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    It is apparent that most people are completely oblivious to the fact that all money in the economy is debt.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    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?
    Stop acting butthurt. You asked a question where you stated the Bank of England is privatized organisation..

    And I don't have a clue what you're on about. If the government created money free of debt we'd all be living in hyperinflation. That is basic demand and supply. Surely you've learnt this on your Economics syllabus.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 105263)
    Stop acting butthurt. You asked a question where you stated the Bank of England is privatized organisation..
    No where in this thread did I claim that the Bank of England is a private institution, I stated the exact opposite.

    And I don't have a clue what you're on about. If the government created money free of debt we'd all be living in hyperinflation.
    I find it hard to understand how you think a mere assertion has any explanatory power. Are you going to admit ignorance about the debt-free sovereign money proposal and make meaningful enquiries? Or are you going to make blanket assertions without making any effort to explain what you mean?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Thats says BOEN is a wholey owned subsidary of the Bank, as such, I don't see how you think BOEN owns the bank...
    That's the whole point. BOEN is exempt from company reporting so we don't know the financial footprint. They are just reporting zero or some nominal value like £100.

    If there is a company structure that contains 100 widgets, and the company has a subsidiary, unless the details of the subsidiary are reported, how do you know if the subsidiary has 1 widget or 99 of the widgets.

    The subsidiary is privately owned, and unreported, that's all we know.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    No where in this thread did I claim that the Bank of England is a private institution, I stated the exact opposite.



    I find it hard to understand how you think a mere assertion has any explanatory power. Are you going to admit ignorance about the debt-free sovereign money proposal and make meaningful enquiries? Or are you going to make blanket assertions without making any effort to explain what you mean?

    Are you going to stop using phrases like 'explanatory power' 'meaningful enquries' you're obviously trying too hard to sound clever.

    Pretty hilarious calling me ignorant. You seem to be under the grand illusion you've made a contribution to the field of Economics. The real fact of the matter is you're argument is deeply flawed. And if you need me to elaborate on my 'mere assertion' you must be clueless and have no idea about basic Macroeconomics.

    And please allow me to close this thread by saying that regardless of whatever opinion members give - you will try your best to find a flaw even it if it is not there. And on that note, you had better get used to TSR.

    /
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    It is apparent that most people are completely oblivious to the fact that all money in the economy is debt.
    My mum gives me a five pound note.

    Where is the debt and when/how is it paid back?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    My mum gives me a five pound note.

    Where is the debt and when/how is it paid back?
    Your purchasing power is reduced since the input costs of goods and services include high servicing costs on borrowed money, and also includes a levy cost.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 105263)
    Are you going to stop using phrases like 'explanatory power' 'meaningful enquries' you're obviously trying too hard to sound clever.
    Why do you have a problem with effective communication?

    Pretty hilarious calling me ignorant. You seem to be under the grand illusion you've made a contribution to the field of Economics. The real fact of the matter is you're argument is deeply flawed. And if you need me to elaborate on my 'mere assertion' you must be clueless and have no idea about basic Macroeconomics.
    All I got from that was:

    "Your argument is deeply flawed because I know I'm right, but I don't have the humility to explain why."

    Thanks for playing. Bye.

    And please allow me to close this thread by saying that regardless of whatever opinion members give - you will try your best to find a flaw even it if it is not there. And on that note, you had better get used to TSR.
    Not at all. If they have a valuable objection with the requisite evidence then I can clear any misunderstanding or reevaluate my assumptions.

    The only thing you've brought to the debate, I'm afraid to say, is obnoxiousness and arrogance.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polymath0)
    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.
    Well if you say so . Anyway the matter of the fact is that the Government will not print more money so having a rant about this or wanting to know the reasons why they can't wont help the situation(just saying)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I may be understating it here but I thought it was simply so the government couldn't just do it out of political self interest (ie making people feel richer before an election) rather than out of what the economy needs. In the UK and US especially, I wouldn't put it past the governments to do things simply for their party's power and not for the good of the country. On top of this, private(ish) firms like the BoE and banks in general would try to do what's most efficient and what they genuinely believe would have the most positive effect in order to profit maximise.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamespaine)
    I may be understating it here but I thought it was simply so the government couldn't just do it out of political self interest (ie making people feel richer before an election) rather than out of what the economy needs. In the UK and US especially, I wouldn't put it past the governments to do things simply for their party's power and not for the good of the country. On top of this, private(ish) firms like the BoE and banks in general would try to do what's most efficient and what they genuinely believe would have the most positive effect in order to profit maximise.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's why the power to create money would be transferred to the politically independent and accountable Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) at the Bank of England. The politicians who acquire the mandate to govern would only spend and allocate the debt-free money credited to them.

    The private banks would legitimately earn profit within a full reserve system.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calum.McManus)
    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.


    Id like you to go and try get the gold you supposedly think your owed.
    The vaults are empty Gordon sold Gold on the low.
    Its not backed by anything
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H.N.I.C)
    Id like you to go and try get the gold you supposedly think your owed.
    The vaults are empty Gordon sold Gold on the low.
    Its not backed by anything
    You are just repeating other replies. This is not something I spend my time researching every day, nor is it something I willing to waste my time doing.

    Although I find it interesting how everyone ignored the other points I made.

    The making money and pumping it into the public sector is the same as pumping money into the private sector because that money has to go into someone's pocket. this will always cause inflation no matter which way you looks at it. Sure give local councils money to build a new Youth Center for the community, but, a private company is going to build that and that money is going straight to them and then suddenly you have all this extra money going into circulation.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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.