Why Can't the Government Create Money? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#181
Report 4 years ago
#181
(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?
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#182
Report 4 years ago
#182
(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?
0
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#183
Report 4 years ago
#183
(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.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#184
Report 4 years ago
#184
(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?
0
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#185
Report 4 years ago
#185
(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.
0
jamesthehustler
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#186
Report 4 years ago
#186
because the masterful rothschilds would lose their multi trillion dollar unpublished fortunes as the control the world's central banks
0
cole-slaw
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#187
Report 4 years ago
#187
(Original post by Quady)
So when do I get my interest on the debt?
You don't. Debt doesn't always come with interest.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#188
Report 4 years ago
#188
(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...
0
newpersonage
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#189
Report 4 years ago
#189
(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.
0
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#190
Report 4 years ago
#190
(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.
0
cole-slaw
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#191
Report 4 years ago
#191
(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.
0
newpersonage
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#192
Report 4 years ago
#192
(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-
0
Polymath0
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#193
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#193
(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?
0
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#194
Report 4 years ago
#194
(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'.
0
Polymath0
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#195
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#195
(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?
0
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#196
Report 4 years ago
#196
(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.
0
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#197
Report 4 years ago
#197
(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?
0
Polymath0
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#198
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#198
(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?
0
Polymath0
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#199
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#199
Money, as a means of payment, must be decoupled from the debt-based credit system.
1
BigItch
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#200
Report 3 years ago
#200
(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.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (150)
24.79%
Pop (146)
24.13%
Jazz (26)
4.3%
Classical (35)
5.79%
Hip-Hop (106)
17.52%
Electronic (42)
6.94%
Indie (100)
16.53%

Watched Threads

View All