illegaltobepoor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
There is so much talk about how all welfare goes to the underclass. I thought i would turn this idea on its head and show you who the real scroungers are.

This is what TSR Tories do not want you to hear because there is a good chance their parents have benefited from this.

We all know that the Conservative party represents the most wealthy people in society right. What would you say if I told you that speculators in our country & abroad received the total amount we spend on social security for 2 years from 2009 to 2013.

The amount of money was 375 Billion. To give you an idea of how much this is think of the whole pension scheme payments over 5 years.

Tories will tell you that this was Labour's fault. What they won't tell you is that the Government received no money at all. The Bank of England is a state institution and the members are chosen by the chancellor of the exchequer. The catch is once elected these members of the committee don't have to fear the chief whip of the political party who put them into power.

.... They can make decisions based on individual gain if it suits them. All they need to do is convince parliament.

This means every MP that votes for QE stimulus into the financial markets is responsible! It doesn't apply to political parties.

So basically 375 Billion pounds was given to the richest people who speculate on the market in the form of stimulus to financial assets on the London Stock Exchange.

This boosted financial assets by 20%.

40% of these assets are owned by the richest 5% of our population.

In monetary units one could say these people got 150 billion over 5 years. That is 30 billion a year. This figure is similar to the annual cost of Tax Credits.

So if you want to know why Tax Credits had to be cut its because the richest people in our country received a huge welfare boost at the worst time in our countries financial history.

We where told this would trickle down. Well only 8p out of every £1 spent trickled down into the real economy. Mean while the inflation this caused in energy prices and food prices over the previous years stopped around 2014 when prices finally started to go down.

We need to bring this up whenever the TSR Tories start bring up comments about how people on welfare are living the dream at tax payers expense.

We also need to scream out loud when the Bank of England decides to do QE again because if this money is put in the financial markets we are going to see prices increasing while getting nothing in return.

Its either peoples QE or no QE at all!

QE for council housing, clean energy, low cost university education, super fast broadband, zero-tolerance on all types of extreme poverty and a nationalized rail service etc.

NO WELFARE FOR THE RICH!

TRICKLE DOWN DOESNT WORK!

4
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
Name:  piggy.gif
Views: 154
Size:  106.7 KB
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
QE appears to be designed primarily to funnel money into non-bond assets, so it's absolutely inevitable that it will boost asset prices across the board in areas like the equity markets and everything from top of the range cars to art works and multi-million pound houses. The Bank knows this each time it prints money and so does the government. They also know that it will keep interest rates for ordinary savers like pensioners at rock bottom.

It really is quite sinister and I think probably reflects the stranglehold that international bankers and their friends have over our governmental system now.
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
QE appears to be designed primarily to funnel money into non-bond assets, so it's absolutely inevitable that it will boost asset prices across the board in areas like the equity markets and everything from top of the range cars to art works and multi-million pound houses. The Bank knows this each time it prints money and so does the government. They also know that it will keep interest rates for ordinary savers like pensioners at rock bottom.

It really is quite sinister and I think probably reflects the stranglehold that international bankers and their friends have over our governmental system now.
Its not just that its the fact that the banks can just simply create electronic money out of thin air as long as they have a liability to put on their balance sheet. But what if the liability is just a phony bank that has a balance sheet of spirals of black hole debt?

Now people often think a liability might be a worker who has a constant wage coming in but can it be anything that is perceived to hold value. This is where bankers get creative.

To be fair if you ain't part of the monetary scam or if you don't have assets which are either safe from speculation or go up with speculation you are a SLAVE!

Here is my great example. I haven't done this so don't get ideas.

=====================================================================================
If your rich in this country all you need to do is create some company, inflate its stock and then go to the bank and get a big loan. The bank makes its interest or fee and it doesn't care about the consequences of risky speculation. Banks will often jump for big juicy corporations. So here I am Mr Pump & Dump. I've got a massive loan and I decide the next day I am going to some how create a method where the company's assets get liquidated while all money ends up in productive capital in another company that isn't obligated to pay anything back to the bank.

Company goes bust. I have limited liability. My personal assets aren't touched. I walk away with the banks loan money along with the liquidated cash from the previous company. Lots of workers loose their jobs and end up taking Government welfare but what I do care? I've just benefited from the magic money tree. I don't care that I've also caused my share of inflation as well.

You gotta love financial terrorism.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
Its not just that its the fact that the banks can just simply create electronic money out of thin air as long as they have a liability to put on their balance sheet. But what if the liability is just a phony bank that has a balance sheet of spirals of black hole debt?

Now people often think a liability might be a worker who has a constant wage coming in but can it be anything that is perceived to hold value. This is where bankers get creative.

To be fair if you ain't part of the monetary scam or if you don't have assets which are either safe from speculation or go up with speculation you are a SLAVE!

Here is my great example. I haven't done this so don't get ideas.

=====================================================================================
If your rich in this country all you need to do is create some company, inflate its stock and then go to the bank and get a big loan. The bank makes its interest or fee and it doesn't care about the consequences of risky speculation. Banks will often jump for big juicy corporations. So here I am Mr Pump & Dump. I've got a massive loan and I decide the next day I am going to some how create a method where the company's assets get liquidated while all money ends up in productive capital in another company that isn't obligated to pay anything back to the bank.

Company goes bust. I have limited liability. My personal assets aren't touched. I walk away with the banks loan money along with the liquidated cash from the previous company. Lots of workers loose their jobs and end up taking Government welfare but what I do care? I've just benefited from the magic money tree. I don't care that I've also caused my share of inflation as well.

You gotta love financial terrorism.
QE is a central bank thing, so it doesn't affect the balance sheets of individual banks per se, although of course central banks are increasing the funds available to ordinary banks in some cases.

The sort of scheme you lay out in your second part is supposed to be outside bank ethics and against regulation, but there have been lots of suspicions about individual cases in the past. One long-running saga highlighted regularly in Private Eye involved Barclays business managers using their knowledge of SMEs to topple them once they had secured large guarantees on directors properties. The banks often seem to be much more interested in speculative assets like houses than they are in business lending now. The money from ordinary savers and small businesses that used to be the bedrock of the banks is now largely regarded by them as a source of refresher cash for playing the casino where their real profits are.
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
QE is a central bank thing, so it doesn't affect the balance sheets of individual banks per se, although of course central banks are increasing the funds available to ordinary banks in some cases.

The sort of scheme you lay out in your second part is supposed to be outside bank ethics and against regulation, but there have been lots of suspicions about individual cases in the past. One long-running saga highlighted regularly in Private Eye involved Barclays business managers using their knowledge of SMEs to topple them once they had secured large guarantees on directors properties. The banks often seem to be much more interested in speculative assets like houses than they are in business lending now. The money from ordinary savers and small businesses that used to be the bedrock of the banks is now largely regarded by them as a source of refresher cash for playing the casino where their real profits are.
Speculation is a hard habit to shake off to be honest. My position at the moment is playing it neutral but holding onto ultra safe assets. I am hedging basically but waiting for an opportunity for the herd of upper classes to trip up. I personally can't do anything at the moment though because I am on student loan but that won't stop me from advising my family to make decisions using money that we have stock piled. We will then go in like a wolves and short sell like crazy.

I dream of a day like when Lehman Brothers collapsed. Fat Plump Piggy ready for the slaughter.

I'll be honest with you most upper class people hate my guts. I get called vulture etc.
0
reply
demx9
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
The Federal Reserve gave 16 trillion dollars to save the banks after 2008.. It really is printing money to save the rich.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by demx9)
The Federal Reserve gave 16 trillion dollars to save the banks after 2008.. It really is printing money to save the rich.
How do you figure that out? It's the minority of the population who don't have money in banks?
0
reply
United1892
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by demx9)
The Federal Reserve gave 16 trillion dollars to save the banks after 2008.. It really is printing money to save the rich.
So you think we would have been better off letting everyone lose their savings?
0
reply
Sinatrafan
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
In terms of actual GDP growth QE would have been massively more effective if they literally gave that money to every citizen rather than pumping it into the banking sector. Citizens then spend the money and as GDP is largely driven by spending it would have risen GDP massively. Instead it got pumped into the banking sector and shoved in the pockets, bank accounts and stock portfolios of the very wealthy.

Cheap QE has blown a massive bubble in the stock market, having trebled it since the low of 2008. Like all bubbles (e.g. stock market bubble at the turn of the century) it is going to burst and the come down is going to be extremely hard. The availability of cheap money (ZIRP and QE) always results in bubbles being formed.

The bottom line is that QE should never have been allowed to happen. The too big to fails should have been allowed the fail. That is the whole premise of capitalism, the healthy competitive businesses survive and the unhealthy ones go under. It would have allowed the market to naturally restructure itself rather than being artificially kept alive, which includes artificially keeping the unhealthy businesses floating. Free market capitalism doesn't work if the market is interfered with and is not free.

Would it have been painful, businesses going under and people losing their deposits? Yes, of course it would have. But the problem has been made much worse by QE and bail outs. The inevitable crash that should have happened in 2008 was not allowed to happen, and the crash will be much worse when it comes in the future. We've just delayed the pain and added a whole lot more debt to the problem.

We were robbed of a natural market correction that would have paved the way for natural real economic growth. Yes it would have been a sharp and hefty impact initially, but the long term outcome would have been far better. As always politicians were short sighted and did the best for today at the expense of tomorrow.

The national debts of nations have effectively doubled since 2008, all for a few measly % growth in GDP which is mostly inflationary due to the printed money anyway. Old tired Keynesian principles have one again failed to deliver any real growth and have just created a wave of destructive and expensive debt which will come back to haunt us.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (96)
28.24%
No (244)
71.76%

Watched Threads

View All