Should private finance continue to create national money, a public good?

Watch
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Why cannot the government, through the Treasury, maintain a monopoly over money creation using the National Savings and Investment Bank?
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#2
The government cannot normally create money today because the Royal monopoly of that privilege was legislated away in 1694 to the private BoE (It should have been more aptly named the Bank Of London). The debt/credit system adopted by the BoE promoters is described in J.E.T. Rodgers 'The first Nine Years of the Bank of England', ' They (the goldsmith's) had been attacked or criticised when their custom of giving bills on deposit had become familiar, for the earliest system of English banking treated the goldsmith's bill as long as not presented for payment [ie. was only used in transactions between third parties], as the equivalent of the money deposited on it, and thus allowed the banker to make so much use of his customer's balances as his experience taught him was not necessary for the calls made on him from day to day. It was this practice avowed and recognised, which distinguished the theory and habit of banking in England from its earlier types in foreign countries'. The use by the BoE of the goldsmith's financial alchemy (engineering in present parlance - fraud in bygone days) introduced in the C16th/C17th was not enforceable at Common Law because nothing of equivalent value had changed hands, only a promise, the Promissory Note Act of 1704 made the promise enforceable even though even before the Act both the goldsmiths and the BoE were collecting interest on bills whose face value was several times the value of the specie they held (a fraud before 1704). As Charles Dickens observed; 'it is a system operated by a person who can't pay, who gets another person who can't pay to guarantee that he can pay'.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
From polymath 11/08/19. Check out this research report by the Economic Research Council, led by the Rt. Hon. Lord Beeching, published in 1981 on the counterproductive nature of the debt-based monetary system in the context of public finance. Great read. [ Must read for anyone wishing to begin basic research into the ramifications of the goldsmith's alchemy for national economies].

https://www.financialreform.info/f_r...t_creation.pdf
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
A little history may illuminate the need for a national public institution to have the monopoly of money creation. From July 1694 the BoE was receipt of £100,000 p.a. (£96,000 interest (8%) + £4000 - management charges) for the £1.2m subscribed by the proprietors of the BoE which was expected to cover government debt and BoE bills issued as loans in the commercial market, as they were presented. Only £0.72m in specie made it onto the bank’s balance sheet (from BoE’s own history) the remaining £0.48m was composed of ‘tally sticks’ government debt held by the proprietors of the BoE (which the government could not honour) 40% of the BoE’s equity was unredeemable (at the time) wood but the note issue remained at £1.2 million. By November, 1696, despite government specie payments of £250,000 and BoE note issue reaching £1,657,996 (of which £893,800 had been redeemed) earning £17,876; specie in hand now amounted to no more than £35,664 a twentieth of the value of the notes outstanding and there were still tallies and government bills to be issued and redeemed by the BoE on demand. As an emergency measure in 1697 the government issued £5 treasury notes to pay its debts direct to the public (to cover the shortfall in specie at the BoE) without the intervention of the BoE or finance houses. The notes were not backed by gold but were legal tender for the payment of taxes which made them negotiable (the government had effectively issued its own currency). This situation arose because of hostile withdrawals of deposits from the BoE (by the goldsmith’s) and mismanagement of the BoE, the dividend was suspended in December.

A capital injection was urgently required but there were insufficient numbers willing to deposit specie in the bank (in fact there was a ‘run’ on the bank). The bank’s original and new investors had to deposit (not invest because the dividend was suspended) £200,000 in specie in order to invest £200,000 of debt that they held as creditors of the bank (which relieved the bank of a liability to pay out) then another £240,000 in specie (against £800,000 of government debt held by investors) to tide the BoE over. The BoE had to earn more money which meant increasing its ability to issue bills (lend). £200,000 of its own debt was turned into equity and £800,000 in government debt (more wood - at this time unredeemable - now formed 55% of the banks equity) was invested in the bank which allowed the BoE to issue an additional £1 million in bills against a loan to the government of £1 million (for which it paid 6% interest to the BoE). Payment of £1.28 million in government debt was deferred whilst it was invested the BoE, £200,000 of bank debt was similarly eliminated (the holders became investors in the bank by depositing a equivalent value of specie). The bank’s investors were the government’s major creditors holding tally sticks as proof of the debt they were encouraged to invest them in the bank for favour of a restored dividend if they had also deposited desperately needed specie. The BoE balance sheet now featured £1.28 million of government debt for which it was being paid £86,400 p.a. out of the total of £160,000 p.a. being paid for loans totalling £2.2 million the origin of our national debt and the start of the rentier economy that plagues us to this day. The people who ran the State (aristocrats and plutocrats) had now a perverse incentive to keep the government short of money because they could lend it theirs whilst opposing tax increases (which only they could afford to pay) that would eliminate government debt.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
“Banking was conceived in iniquity [the need to exchange one person’s wood with another person’s specie and off-load the resulting liability onto the nation] and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again [because there’s uncounted millions out there who don’t want to save for anything, generations to whom debt-slavery is the price they are willing to pay to live well right now]. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery [by assisting them to convert bank credit (invented State money) into bank money (real money) through the agency of borrowing], let them continue to create money.” A quotation attributed to Sir Josiah Stamp (UK, C20th) sometime director of the Bank of England (in the early C20th the second richest man in the UK).

Sir Basil Blackett (another C20th Director of the BoE) pointed out, "When it is remembered that kings and governments have throughout the ages insisted with jealous care on their prerogative of issuing money and controlling currency within their jurisdiction it is somewhat strange to find ‘modern’ States accepting as axiomatic a limitation of their sovereignty in the sphere of money, so far-reaching in its effects on their own powers and on the daily lives of the citizens as is involved in their agreeing to conform in all circumstances to a standard of value over which they have no control."

The previous governor of the BoE Sir Mervyn King observed, "...it is hard to see why institutions whose failure cannot be contemplated should be in the private sector in the first place"- they remain solvent thanks to accountant’s alchemy and persist in their present form because national monetary policy is mobilised to support a nation’s wealthy not the wealth of the nation (astronomic private debt is accepted as a public liability). The case for a domestic financial power independent of international bankers to create national money has long been recognised by non-partisan bankers who have no friends in the political establishment (of whatever hue).
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
325 yrs of banking history is evidence enough that the banks are incapable of regulating themselves under the present system and that the future of capitalism is not safe in their hands. With the amounts of money involved in the financial markets the State can never pay any regulator enough to police them (the regulatory system is overawed by the finance sector). Nor is the state willing to protect and/or reward any of the several ‘whistleblowers‘ who have brought banks and rich individuals alleged wrongdoing to their attention over the years (as have the police). It is the banking system based on C17th goldsmith’s alchemy that is at fault not the actual existence of banks, as the London Rothchilds observed in a letter to business colleagues in 1863, "The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.". We need banks it is the system of fractional reserve banking the ‘vampire squid’ adopted in 1694 whose tentacles surround and whose maw feeds from banks (the vital organ of capitalist civilisation) that needs consigning to the dustbin of history.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
To reclaim for the State the monopoly of money creation requires a domestic central bank with a MPC and a governor. The BoE is the international bank’s bank and as such should be separated from domestic banking by extending the NS&I Bank’s remit. It would act as a domestic central bank which would set any additional money creation as a universal fixed (but annually adjustable) percentage of any domestic financial institutions reserves held at the bank (the % would be determined by the MPC in collaboration with the treasury as would the level of transaction tax to cover it). Domestic banks would have to conform to a reserve policy stipulated in their banking licence but they would not have to lodge reserves at the NS&I Bank (in which case they would not be able to borrow from it), they would be banks of deposit covered by a FSCS. All domestic bank licences would restrict lending to the UK or some territorial division of it so people could save to invest in an area they wish to support. The NS&I Bank would take over the consolidated fund (government revenue) and distribute it for a fee instead of the BoE which would remain the point of contact for foreign or British international banks. The BoE nominees would, as they do now, manage the funds of rich individuals and corporate entities besides a sovereign wealth fund. The international banks would become banks of deposit, unable to create GBP they would have to sell financial products and canvass deposits in order to lend within or without the UK, they could contribute their surplus cash to the BoE reserves, they would not be covered by a tax-payer backed FSCS. Members of the public could then choose the destination (and use) of their savings by saving in a domestically restricted bank or an internationally orientated one.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#8
Rothschild informed us as to the object of private finance “Give me control of a nation’s money supply [the ability to create liabilities for State money without restraint]. I care not who makes the laws“. His contemporaries and his successors benefited from successive governments acquiescence in the primacy of privately owned financial organisations as the overwhelming form of financial institution available for the citizen to save in, invest in or borrow from but more importantly for privately owned banks to convert the fixed assets of the capitalist into invented national money which allowed the capitalist to retain the asset whilst acquiring the wherewithal to purchase other assets by the artifice of a promise (not money) from their bankers a promise that they will find the money from somewhere to satisfy the capitalists creditors up to the level of the promised amount. The inevitable result of a system in which ‘someone who can’t pay gets someone else who can’t pay to guarantee the he will pay’ is the consolidation of economic gains into fewer and fewer hands and the proliferation of money which inevitably loses purchasing power for the general public which is of no concern to those who create it because they take their profit at the start of the process which accounts for the scramble for short-term profit. Bank loans are not made with money it receives from shareholders, depositors, bondholders, savers or earned money as the general public erroneously believe the banks practise minimally collateralised speculation (leverage off fractional reserves) covered by repayments and borrowing not intermediation between savers and borrowers. In ‘Freedom Evolves’, Daniel C. Dennett (C21st, US) writes, ’Institutions and practices based on obvious falsehoods are too brittle to trust. Few people will be willing to wager their futures on a fragile myth that they themselves see the cracks in’. Fractional banking should then go down in history as THE fragile myth swallowed by millions for centuries based as it was on the obvious falsehood that a paper liability ostensibly redeemable in commodity money, gold, up to 1931 (UK), 1968 (US) can be created out of nothing (invented money – bank credit) and that this piece of alchemy leads to secure prosperity, it actually led to a monotonous succession of ‘booms and busts’ for the majority a ballooning national debt (posterity’s problem) and evisceration of the value of money. Deposit banking together with the ability of a domestic central bank to supply loans, covered by a transaction tax, to the domestic banking sector will facilitate order in place of the anarchy of our present financial system.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
The form of a nation's banking system should be the major political question for any community that wishes to control its destiny. The Government, not directly but through State institutions, should initially generate and disperse all national money to domestic banks to increase the stock of money, satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of generating and issuing money is the ultimate prerogative of government it is the government's greatest advantage one that in 1694 was gifted to avaricious bankers.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
The corporate finance community have privileged access to the possibly the most compliant legislatures money can buy (fortunately for the financiers most politicians don’t have to be bought, their ignorance of the workings of the financial system or their ideological predisposition is sufficient protection). The credit international banks create in the UK today is denominated in GBP, national State money, the national currency, the credit of the nation not the credit of the banks. It is not a Barclays, HSBC, HBOS or Lloyds’ pound, no one would accept them if they tried to circulate them, not so long ago they wouldn’t even accept each others bank credit (they thereby concede that bank credit is not equivalent to the real bank money that they settle interbank differentials with). The banks realise that there is grave danger in equating bank credit (virtual money) with bank money (real money) unfortunately the difference between collateralized and uncollateralized money is not something that general public care much about.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
The value of State currency depends on the confidence its society and the outside world affords it, a fact that aroused Ricardo's ire against the issue of circulating bills by a private corporation, the Bank of England and prompted him to demand that the issue of paper money be made a monopoly of the state. To accomplish Ricardo’s stipulation required a division to be made between domestic and international banking; between a domestic central bank, in today’s world the NS&I bank (by extending its remit) and an international central bank, the BoE. The monopoly creation of money has to be the sole prerogative of the NS&I Bank governor otherwise privileged private individuals can profit from creating a liability for a national public good, as the promoter of the BoE William Paterson declared, ’The bank hath benefit of interest from all the money that it creates out of nothing’. There was disquiet at the time the BoE was formed and it has never ceased (though now it revolves around the ability of privately-owned international banks to create liabilities for GBP without restraint). A public good is a singular provision that is characterised by a need of universal access, in civilised societies money is such a good its creation should always be within the public, not private, domain if the destination of national money is to be controlled by the individual national and not an international private cartel.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#12
Any sovereign money system requires restraints in place in order to preserve a semblance of national and individual sovereignty over the disposal of national money. The Control of the quantity of money available must be outside the immediate control of the authoriser. The authoriser's incentive is to create as much money as possible in order to reap the benefit of interest charged on it or the acquisition of assets purchased with it. In the interest of maintaining a stable currency the stock of money in the system must be managed skilfully, excessive issue of money reduces its buying-power but insufficient issue stifles social policy, infrastructure development and trade. Private corporations are still allowed the privilege of creating the most important public good imaginable - money - their irresponsible custodianship of the national economy spans 325yrs and was accomplished because the most important public good could be authorised and created by private interests rather than a public official removed from private or government interests but cognisant of the public mood through representations made to it by an popularly elected government, representations it could ignore unlike the situation in the private sector where the opportunities to create money by fair means or foul are grasped in order to aggrandise bank CEO’s and senior staff.
0
reply
yaboy75
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Cool
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#14
In order to avoid government involvement in its affairs by accepting taxpayer’s money in 2008 Barclays Bank raised cash to shore up the bank's capital and it did so by ostensibly acquiring £7.3 billion in new equity from Persian Gulf investors. The deal was not all it seemed £1.5 billion cash was paid by Abu Dhabi but the £5.8 billion put up by Qatar was made with money lent them by Barclays, money (invented GBP) created out of nothing. With this Barclay’s bank credit the Qatar’s ‘investors’ purchased newly created Barclays shares (also out of thin air) with the bank credit (Barclays didn’t have £5.8 billion to lend, but it could create it for a borrower!). After creating money it didn’t have for the ‘investor’ to buy shares invented by the bank the ‘investor’ then ‘reconsidered’ the deal allowing Barclays to take back the shares and cancel the £5.8 million credit line that was used to buy them. The Qataris didn’t pay for the period of time they had the bank credit on the contrary they received a ‘fee’ of £322 million from Barclays as a consideration for their part in Barclays scheme to raise its capitalisation and avoid using taxpayers’ money (which would have put government nominees on the board who may then have needed to do something about Barclays banking practises). These proceedings contravened the Companies Act 2006 (Section 678, Prohibition of assistance for acquisition of shares in a public company) but regulators overlooked this transgression at the time (later the CEO Bob Diamond was removed). Sir Josiah Stamp (UK, C20th) sometime director of the Bank of England (in the early C20th the second richest man in the UK) observed, 'The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery [by assisting them to convert bank credit (invented State money) into bank money (real money) through the agency of borrowing], let them continue to create money.” Sir Josiah Stamp is one of a long line of senior bankers who having made their fortunes from banking went on record to point out the absurdity of a nation allowing its government to hand over to private interests the means of controlling its destiny.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#15
The use by the BoE of the goldsmith’s financial alchemy introduced in the C16/17th was not enforceable at Common Law before 1704 because nothing of equivalent value had passed between the each of the parties to it when the unsecured (by the bank) credit note or bill was issued as a loan. To enable the banks to legally pursue the borrower in civil court the Promissory Notes Act of that year gave legal backing to the physical manifestation of an asymmetric contract between the holder of an unsecured note or bill and the bank (which had not supplied anything of intrinsic value, just a promise) it did undertake to settle on demand with the bearer the amount of specie stated on its paper, however the law did not stipulate that it had to be able to meet the demand from all the holders of the notes it issued, the lack of that restriction allowed the banks legally (illegally before 1704) issue as many notes and bills as it calculated would remain in circulation (which was dependent on the state of the economy) before some were presented for payment and prosecute people for reneging on repayment of money the bank didn’t have but expected to get as long as everybody didn’t ask for its notes to be redeemed at the same time (which before the 1704 Act constituted a fraud at Common Law because both the goldsmiths and the BoE knew they didn’t have the ability to honour all of the notes they were collecting payment on).

The Common Law recognised fully collateralised banking at the point of loan approval that is the bank transferring its fungible money borrowed or received from investors, bondholders, depositors, savers and earnings - fungible real bank money - that the majority of the world’s population erroneously believe usually happens when banks make a loan; C21st banking involves the creation of liabilities out of nothing but a promise then borrowing other peoples’ money to settle them. Bankers are involved in substantial intermediation between lenders in the money market and their borrowers’ creditors, not savers and borrowers; if they were it would restrict the securitisation and hypothecation practised by fractional reserve banks and induce a more circumspect level of lending because finite capitalisation (from investors and savers) would limit bankers ability to lend unless they borrow the public’s, corporates’ or the State’s money (if they couldn’t attract enough investors and savers) paying dividends to their investors and interest to the depositors (private or the State) - acting as an intermediary with finite funds (but extendable by a superior authority whose money they presently create out of nothing) instead of a speculator with minimal restrictions on credit issuance; the willingness of borrowers to allow banks to make money out of bank credit rather than bank money, and of capital lenders in the money market to meet the demand from borrower’s creditors in excess of banks total loan book repayments (which in C21st banking are already spoken for - they've been securitised against borrowing by the bank.).
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#16
The present financial system is constructed to disproportionately favour subordination to pre-existing wealth, the antithesis of a free market economy which wealthy incumbents don’t see the necessity of transiting to since it threatens the extractive ability of rent-seeking holders of assets. The top tier of the financial system is where the greatest profits can be realised because a high proportion of the ‘solid’ assets they control can be made ‘liquid’ by the ability of the fractional banking system to invent money for them as a ‘deposit’ (actually just a promise) it is their privileged point of access to the economy, the structural arrangements and the intelligence available from it allows access to money that neither they nor the bank have. A deposit banking system is the only way to check the consolidation of the world’s income producing assets into fewer and fewer hands because banks would be required to have the money to hand in order to lend it. They would no longer be able to left-shoulder their losses onto the tax-payer and those stakeholders in the businesses subject to mergers and acquisitions they facilitate with asset-backed securities (the asset being the entity being taken over). It is the divine right of uncollateralized (by the bank) credit creation that fuels the ever widening gap between the 1% and the 99% and the fact that international financial institutions have been licensed by national governments to create liabilities world-wide for national currencies without restraint. Deposit banking will circumscribe their ability to indulge speculators and a national central bank, the NS&I Bank, will replace them as the source of new money in the domestic economy restoring national sovereignty to GBP instead of persisting in the gifting of its issue to those international rent-seekers who both milk and bleed the British economy.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#17
“….a central bank is no democracy taking powers away from every single parliament and having a single currency, monetary policy and interest rates which take all political power away from us.” a quote from Margaret Thatcher’s final speech to Parliament 1990 (referring to the ECB). If she fully understood that those who control interest rates and informed monetary policy for domestic currency also take away all political power away from any parliament she would not have deregulated the private banking sector during her premiership, as Reginald McKenna (CEO of the Midland Bank and C20th director of the BoE) asserted in the 1920‘s,’ I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money and they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.’ The inability of politicians to create an independent domestic central bank to manage national money creation takes all meaningfull political power away from them and by default leaves it in the hands of Reginald McKenna’s successors
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#18
Adoption of a sovereign money system requires that;

A) No individual or financial institution or any affiliate of them trading inside or outside the national jurisdiction is allowed to create the nation’s money as credit uncollateralized by the individual or institution in order to ensure that the nation retains sovereignty over its stock of money. Individuals and institutions will source their funding from their industry or other private individuals or organisations or the State through the National Savings and Investment Bank (NSIB).

B) Domestic territorial and international financial institutions within the national jurisdiction are only allowed to lend out existing bank money (shareholders’, depositors’, bondholders’, borrowed and earned) while maintaining a minimum amount % reserve amount (fixed by the treasury) at the domestic central bank (NISB). Bank borrowing from the State could only be conducted through the NSIB (domestic) or the Bank of England (international), it would be on the basis of a running average of their reserve holdings held by themselves at the NSIB (domestic) or as determined by BoE MPC (international).

C) All institutions reserves at the NSIB would be deposited in the government consolidated account (the repository of all government income presently at the BoE) at the NSIB. The NSIB would be able to create interest bearing loans to institutions based on a fixed (but annually adjustable) % of the reserves they have held on deposit at the NSIB (the annualised average of reserves held at the NSIB will determine the banks entitlement) the interest from the loan being retained by the NSIB the principal being paid into the consolidated account. Institutions can draw down any amount of their reserves held at the NSIB that are greater than the minimum amount required to qualify for a licence to trade in national money.

D) The NSIB would become the conduit through which the national payment system operated. Everyone would have account which their bank could access and check its state before authorising a transaction (the NSIB would be a non- retail bank). All bank customers account details would remain at the customers’ bank (territorial or international) which would act as an agent for the customer by accessing a record of their balance at the NSIB and updating it as necessary.

E) The BoE would become the point of contact between domestic and international money system. It would licence international banks operations within the UK. To obtain a license they would have to maintain a fixed level of reserves at the BoE, deposited in a sovereign wealth fund which they could subsequently increase, the surplus funds being immediately redeemable and covered by an immediate loan to the BoE (chargeable to the sovereign wealth fund - SWF) from the NSIB. The surplus from the SWF would pay the BoE’s running costs and contribute to the consolidated account at the NSIB conversely any surpluses at the NSIB would be available to invest in the SWF.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#19
Banking presently consists of the creation of liabilities for a nation’s money by a licensed institution restrained only by its ability to source borrowing from the holders of the currency it is required to access in order to settle the liability for money that it has created out of nothing. The incentive for the banker is to prudently lend as much as possible in order to arbitrage the difference between their lending interest rate and the rate they pay for borrowing, a ‘spread‘ the banker fixes at a level the market for loans will stand.

Banks do not require savers except as an adjunct to earnings from the liabilities they create out of nothing, their business model is to borrow ‘short’ to lend ‘long’, that means they are vulnerable to the vagaries of interest rate fluctuations in the money/capital markets which they mitigate by holding reserves of cash or easily ‘liquidised’ securities and encouraging deposits from savers when the money/capital market is ‘tight‘. This system is known as fractional-reserve banking as the reserves they hold are only a fraction of their liabilities which is why the system is unstable.

Since its widespread adoption during the C18th it has delivered persistent boom/bust national and global economic development the miseries of which were disproportionately deposited on those least able to bear them, whether in boom or bust. The privilege enjoyed from this system were regularly abused by bankers and thousands over the past three centuries drove their institutions into bankruptcy in pursuit of the rewards obtainable from money created out of nothing. Over three centuries of banking history is evidence enough that the banks are presently incapable of regulating themselves and that the future of capitalism is not safe in their hands.

The ‘crash’ of 2009 resulted in bankers being bailed out with tax-payers money (after several bank bankruptcies threatened to destroy the entire fractional system through contagion; bank liabilities to each other) but since then nothing substantive has changed the politicians too supine to effect legislative change that would address the abuses of the fractional banking system that it has been prone to since its inception, by creating a 100% collateralised deposit banking system in which the creation of national money is the sole prerogative of an independent national bank.
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#20
Banking crises are a ongoing manifestation, of over three centuries standing, of the banking fraternities inability to make a fragile fractional system work for the populations who carry the main burdens inflicted by the disproportionate distribution of the benefits brought by it. The latest crisis (2007-9) resulted from the same circumstance that all fractional bank crises emanate from, excessive money creation by bankers. Capitalist economies are not doomed to frequent instability because of any innate flaw in capitalism but because of an innate flaw in the banking system - the ability of international private banking corporations to create liabilities for national money out of nothing. As the founder of the system we presently labour under William Paterson put it in 1694,’The bank hath benefit on all the money it creates out of nothing’. The inevitable result of the ability of international private corporations creating a national State’s money without restraint (with government permission) is that their profligate issue of loans creates liabilities for the national currency outside the control of the national treasury with the result that the destiny of all national governments' policies have been ceded to the ’masters of the financial universe’ whose object is profit for exceptional individuals and corporations not the promotion of national wealth. The issue is not whether exceptional individuals and corporations can acquire wealth it is the manner in which they are allowed to do it under the fractional banking system. Nations need to adopt a system of banking licenses that removes the ability of domestic and international bankers to invent national money in their customer’s accounts, and create a just financial system. Territorial licensing and a domestic (NS&I Bank) and international central bank (BoE) will fulfil the need of a just banking system and solve the problem of the national tax system being accessed by bankers when their domestic and international speculations ‘crash‘.
Last edited by landscape2014; 1 year ago
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

How do you prefer to get careers advice?

I like to speak to my friends and family (8)
9.64%
I like to do my own research online using careers specific websites (54)
65.06%
I like speaking to the careers advisors at school, college or uni (12)
14.46%
I prefer to listen watch videos or listen to podcasts of people in my chosen career (8)
9.64%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (1)
1.2%

Watched Threads

View All