The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Banks deposits no longer secure after G 20 meeting.

Banks deposits no longer secure after G 20 meeting.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
After the last G20 meeting bank deposits will not longer be insured and will be considered to be just part of bank investments,just as at risk as bank shares.

As a depositor you are defined by the bank as an unsecured lender. I thought the banks would have to have legislation passed to secure "bail in", but by eliminating any bank deposit insurance,this makes our deposits part of bank investments.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/11/16/the-money-in-your-bank-account-was-stolen-this-morning/

http://cecaust.com.au/releases/2014_11_13_Bail_In.html
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 17 November 2014 5:50:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Arjay,

The links you provided are already interpretations of something that presumably happened at the G20. The first link is American anyway, so it has nothing to do with us; and the second only threatens those who employ fund-managers for their superannuation, not ordinary Australian savers who keep their money in the bank.

Could you please first point us to the dry facts - to what actually occurred at the G20 that prompted those alarms?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 17 November 2014 12:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu the banking system is all integrated. J P Morgan, Citibank and HSBC have 40% share holdings in all our banks.

Try this link to Aussie banks. Here is the evidence for "Bail in". http://cecaust.com.au/bail-in/

If our banks are so secure, why do they need a Cyprus style confiscation of bank deposits ?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 17 November 2014 4:06:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, the CEC is a lunatic fringe political party who think everything's a British conspiracy. Do you have any information from a credible source?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 17 November 2014 5:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://cecaust.com.au/ Yuyutsu after the CEC put a full page ad into the Australian and sent letters to every pollie here about "bail in" our bankers have a new plan.

Our banks are now going to offer new bank bonds for our pension funds which will shore up their gambling in derivatives. We have $1.8 trillion in pension funds which they can loot to cover their gambling losses. The foxes are in charge of the henhouse.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 17 November 2014 5:23:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://barnabyisright.com/2013/11/01/boe-says-g20-nations-to-enact-bank-deposits-within-12-months/ Aiden the CEC tell the truth and there are many others warning us about "bail in".

Their new scam is to offer our pension funds bank bonds that will be worthless when their derivative ponzy schemes collapse.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 17 November 2014 5:43:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, I don't think the term "credible" really applies to a site dedicated to supporting the ridiculous claim that Barnaby Joyce was right about Australia's debt.

You say the CEC tell the truth. Do you think they were telling the truth when they claimed that Obama's a British agent and so was Gorbachev?
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2011_12_13_Hillary.html
ISTR they've also accused more than one of Australia's PMs of being British agents, though I can't be bothered to find the link to that at tthe moment.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 17 November 2014 7:03:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://usawatchdog.com/felons-in-charge-of-our-largest-financial-institutions-professor-william-black/

Aiden Prof William K Black used to be bank regulator and did put these criminals in gaol until Bill Clinton abolished the Glass Steagall Act. Now there are no rules.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 17 November 2014 7:25:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, the answer is very simple. If you don't want to use a bank to look after your cash, then don't use a bank to look after your cash.

The concerns you have on this issue are just another complete misunderstanding of basic finance, as usual.

>>As a depositor you are defined by the bank as an unsecured lender<<

What did you imagine you were? Banks have not been simply a vault in which to stash your ready for a very long time. They invest it. That's how they get the extra bits to pay you interest. If it just sat there, you'd need to pay for renting the space in the vault, someone to guard it etc. etc. So why the sudden gasp of surprise, to discover that you are an unsecured lender?

>>If our banks are so secure, why do they need a Cyprus style confiscation of bank deposits?<<

Banks have been going bust, taking depositors money with them, for centuries. Look it up if you don't believe me. Here's a start:

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-bank-failures-in-the-united-states.php

The new rules on how banks measure their assets (that is, the security behind the deposits you make) are actually tougher than before, providing a greater sense of security to everyone except dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy nuts.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 November 2014 7:27:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ive known about bail-in measures being discussed at the G20 at least since mid last year though I'm certainly no expert on it.

>>If our banks are so secure, why do they need a Cyprus style confiscation of bank deposits ?<<

I think they're taking measures to provide protection for banks (at our expense) when the US dollar collapses.

Aiden.. I don't know anything about the credibility of CEC but on first glance their seem to be some interesting articles you wouldn't find in the mainstream media and they might actually be a political party worth voting for.
You suggest that Barnaby Joyce is wrong about Australia's debt.
You must belong to the group of deluded individuals who prefer to compare debt as a percentage of GDP and pretend everything's rosy.
Now that the mining boom is over (and even then the budget surplus was abysmal) just exactly how are we going to pay back 700 billion dollars + interest, taking into account manufacturing is dead and we sold off our assets.
If you say he's wrong tell me how we can pay that back? How?
- Obama being a British agent, I don't know the truth of it, but it truly wouldn't surprise me.
Here's why I think its possible.
http://youtu.be/9oYKMJkatzI
As for Gorbachev I don't know for sure either, but its also possible, Try these links
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/mikhail-gorbachev-surprise-visit_n_4535427.html
http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/15079
Notice one of the links mentioned Khrushchev, who gave Crimea back to the Ukraine, (without consulting the Duma if my memory is correct)
I also found this, but I have doubts whether or not it's true.
http://www.interpretermag.com/khrushchev-gave-away-not-only-crimea-to-ukraine-but-alaska-to-us-as-well-moscow-commentary-says/
I heard many of our PM's have had connections to British bankers, though I'm not sure about this and will have to look more into it.

You guys think Arjay's conspiracy theories make him a crackpot, (I agree with many things he says) but its you guys (sheeple) relying on a one-sided MSM that only gives half-truths.

Take this about rising C02 from the CSIRO for example.
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
And we all get told the increase in C02 is a bad thing.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 17 November 2014 9:38:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Critic,

<<Now that the mining boom is over (and even then the budget surplus was abysmal) just exactly how are we going to pay back 700 billion dollars + interest, taking into account manufacturing is dead and we sold off our assets.>>

By halving the salary of public-servants. Those who don't like it can leave and we all shall be relieved.

Also, by closing government departments and selling off the land and buildings they occupied.

---

Dear Arjay,

The links you supplied are still opinions, rather than raw information. I can form my own opinions, if only I had the raw information, which I don't in this case.

You say that "J P Morgan, Citibank and HSBC have 40% share holdings in all our banks." - so what? If share-holders collapse, then they have to sell their shares to others at a fraction cost. The only ones affected would be the other share-holders, not the company itself whose shares are traded (in this case Australian banks).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 17 November 2014 11:07:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair,

Nobody is proposing Cyprus style confiscation of bank deposits. And nor is the US dollar in danger of collapse. It may well devalue a bit, but it exports far too much to be in any danger of collapsing.

I first found out about the CEC before an election (as I always vote below the line, I usually check out all the parties running). You might read a couple of their articles and find them interesting, but any more than that and it's the same three themes over and over and over again: they think everything's a British conspiracy, they support protectionism, and they don't value the environment. They're certainly not worth voting for (though last election they didn't even run a candidate in my state anyway).

I don't just suggest that Barnaby Joyce is wrong about Australia's debt, I am 100% certain on it – and it's nothing to do with it being low. There is also zero chance of Japan running out of money and having to default.

Since the early 1990s, the Australian government has sonly borrowed in Australian dollars. Australia will always be able to borrow Australian dollars, as it owns the Reserve Bank which creates them. And much of the money it borrows from banks which borrow it from the RBA anyway. It would actually make more sense to borrow more of the money direct from the RBA; we don't do that mainly for historical reasons but also to support bank liquidity requirements.

Although our bonds must always be honoured, we will never need to pay off our debt.

It's quite amusing how you refer to "sheeple" while demonstrating a complete lack of critical thinking yourself. It's not just American presidents who are descended from that king, it's most of the population of Britain, Ireland, the USA, Canada and Australia! It doesn't make them any more likely to be British agents.

You have a lot of very low quality information that doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 2:11:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After 300 yrs of counterfeiting our money criminals likes the Rothschilds have almost total control of our Govts. How is it the least productive of so called free markets have to be saved at the cost of our total economy have almost no money to function? The markets are not free but controlled by these criminals using derivatives.

Bill Still reports that the UK Parliament will debate money creation for the first time in 170 years. This will be a closed shop the bank owned media won't report on.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/14/global-house-cards-paul-craig-roberts/ The ex assistant secretary to the US Treasury knows the truth. It is a Global house of cards held up by faith and little productivity.

People should know the truth about their plans to steal from the public because they have too much faith in MSM who give us a litany of lies,deceptions and omitions.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 5:22:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Henny penny, the sky is falling!
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 9:13:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay the global house of cards hypothesis is a myth. The ¥ has fallen not because of QE but because of the trade imbalance caused by energy imports since they shut their nuclear power stations down.

BTW derivatives give rather less control than you might imagine. You lose a lot of money very quickly if you use them to take the market where it's not already going.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 10:18:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay is right, but----
Step back a bit; In 2012 the G20/IMF body called Financial Stability Board acted for
the first time when it seized about most of the deposit money of the two Cyprus banks.
The money was used to pay out holders of Greek Government Bonds purchased through
the Cyprus Banks. The Cyprus government bank received the left overs and the Cyprus
private bank was left bankrupt and its shares were given to the deposit holders.

This happened in December 2012. In February 2013 the G20 met in St Petersburg and
agreed on the process the FSB should use in future. Wayne Swann signed Australia up
to the agreement.
Later in 2013 a Portuguese bank, called Banco Espírito Santo was also raided by the FSB.

The Brisbane G20 was scheduled to affirm the agreement and cross a few Ts and dot a few Is.
As I said before the G20, you won't hear a whisper about this.
Despite what some say this is different as depositors have had their priority changed.
What I have not heard is do depositors rate above shareholders anymore ?

An amusing sidebar, depending on your perspective, is that the Russian Oligarchs,
who had lots of money invested in Cyprus, got wind of what was going to happen.
In the night they went into the Moscow Branches of the Cyprus banks and using the
computers there withdrew their funds.

Oh well never get between the Russian oligarchs and their money.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 1:45:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles said;
>>As a depositor you are defined by the bank as an unsecured lender<<

Yes, I agree but my understanding is under the new agreement the depositor is the first
to be seized and bond holders and perhaps shareholders take first dips.
This is why interest rates were low because our risk was considered low.
Perhaps the banks should now put a few more percent onto deposit rates.
Haa hummmm, I think not !
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 2:06:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden said;
the ridiculous claim that Barnaby Joyce was right about Australia's debt.

Hmmm well Barnaby was right after all.
As he said, "Manage your debt or your debt will manage you !"
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 2:11:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, you misunderstand what the Financial Stability Board does. It did not seize any money from Cyprus – that was done by the Cypriot government in agreement with the Europeans and IMF. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–13_Cypriot_financial_crisis for more details. Personally I think that was a very bad decision and Cyprus should've sought help from Turkey instead (monetary union with Northern Cyprus being a logical step towards reunification).

To see what the Financial Stability Board ACTUALLY does, read its charter:
http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/r_120809.pdf?page_moved=1

To see GENUINE concerns about the way it operates (rather than nutty conspiracy theories) see: http://fsbwatch.org/

What protections there are for depositors if a bank collapses remains a matter for national governments. The Financial Stability Board's role is to reduce the chances of a collapse appearing in the first place. And I'm pretty sure there's no country in the world that would enable banks to pay their shareholders without honouring their obligations to their depositors.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 3:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, I have read the document that sets up the FSB and its procedures.
You are right in that it was the Cyprus government that performed the function because
the FSB was not approved or authorised or whatever till February when the G20 & IMF
met in St Petersburg.
When the G20 saw how well it went the leaders approved its rules and Brisbane should
have signed and and sealed it. Haven't heard a peep have you ?

I know that the FSB's day to day function is to be a watchkeeper over the banks and try
to keep their finances in order. They have made the rules on their ratios of loans to
deposits etc etc.

Anyway, if it is so benign I wonder what the Cypriots and Portuguese have to say about it ?
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 3:42:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, if you've read the document, why do you keep making baseless claims that contradict it?

Banco Espírito Santo depositors did not lose any of their money, so I don't know why you think that supports your claims – surely it refutes them?

And seriously, how can you say Barnaby Joyce was right? His argument relies on the assumption that Australia has limited credit like Greece. But it's a false assumption. Australia has unlimited credit in Australian dollars because it owns the Reserve Bank. Our chance of being financially unable to pay our bondholders is zero. Not one percent. Not one in a million. Nor one in a billion or even one in a trillion. ZERO.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 4:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again, Arjay, you show yourself up by cut'n'pasting stuff that you don't actually understand. One of your conspiracy-buddies has said it, so you repeat it as if it somehow has meaning and relevance...

>>The markets are not free but controlled by these criminals using derivatives.<<

Every part of that statement is nonsense.

The proof - if it were needed - that the market is free is in the very existence of derivatives. Since you don't actually know what a derivative is, this will of course go right over your head, but if you did know, you would realize that a free and open market is the only possible environment in which a derivative can be traded.

The markets are not controlled. If they were, they would behave substantially differently to the way they actually do. They exist on the presence of both willing buyers and willing sellers. Once someone imposes control over a market's actions, this equilibrium is lost.

Finally, it is not criminal to use derivatives. They are a perfectly legal, and extremely valuable, source of market stability. Unfortunately there are those ignoramuses who insist on adding together the puts and the calls to arrive at a number they describe as "exposure", and run around saying the system is unsustainable. (Hi Barnaby, is that you...?)

You do know the difference between a put and a call, don't you?

Ah, well, there's your problem, right there.

But as always, please feel free to provide examples where I'm wrong on any of the above.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 4:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, the document was quite clear that the FSB could transfer the funds of the
depositors. It was quite unambiguous. I might even still have it here. I will look.

As far as Banco Espirito Santo was concerned, from memory they were not completely
siezed, but I think they got shares in the bank in lieu.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 4:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah yes Aiden, you said;
Australia has unlimited credit in Australian dollars because it owns the Reserve Bank.

Thats right the RBA can generate pixel money until Barnaby's cows come home.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 5:00:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really can't understand what they are trying to do.
Posted by watermark1079, Tuesday, 18 November 2014 5:26:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz Aiden is trying to write it off as conspiracy theory but it is all there in writing by the Financial stability board. The Cyprus Govt is controlled by the banking system an so it was this system who confiscated deposits.

As stated previously because of the advertising of the CEC and them sending letters to every senior bureaucrat and politicians in our country, they cannot say they did not know. So the bank's plan now is to go after our $1.8 trillion superannuation by offering bank bonds to our funds and saying they are safe.

Remember our bank's shares are underpinned by money printing. Since 2006 USA Corps have borrowed $4.3 trillion to buy their own shares so CEO's can pay themselves huge bonuses.

They don't want to believe it Bazz and don't realise that bankers own our Govts.

Just as an aside to the G20. Why did not one boat approach the Russian ship? Well in the Black sea recently the Russians totally disabled the USS Donald Cook. They buzzed the Cook 12 times and the Cook became a lame Duck.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 5:45:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James Rickards rightly says that our monetary system is coming to an end. In the 1960's $1 debt produced $2.40 of growth. Today $1 of debt produces 3 cents of growth. The debt has now outstripped growth and all possibility of paying it back.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW5OGWfqJc

Tony Abbott thinks a free trade deal with China will solve our problems but when inflationary money gets expressed as debt we have no chance. The real rate of inflation is 7% pa and this far outstrips growth of 3%.$1 in 1970 bought 20 times the goods we can buy today in terms of food and houses are many times more expensive as a ratio of wages.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 6:06:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aiden,
Posting what I did in a manner that seemed to support ideas like Obama and Gorbachev being British spies probably did more to discredit Arjay and myself, although I didn't actually say I believed they were. Maybe I go to far at times and I'll agree that you responded with some valid points. But this doesn't mean some of mine, Arjay's and others concerns on this or other topics are any more invalid than the ideas of other people who would put us down or brush our opinions off. And it's that basic concept I was defending.

Going back to the original topic, (bail-in) my main concern is that its generally accepted that its ok for countries to take on debt, and through mismanagement of their finances they put their citizens in a position where they risk becoming debt slaves. I'll admit that if one can borrow money at 5% and invest it to get a 10% return, then it does make sense to do this but doing so is speculative as you're exposed to risk. This may be ok for individuals to do but its somewhat foolish for countries to do, especially when its proven time and again that governments cannot run businesses properly. Its my opinion that credit-based monetary policies for countries are a bad idea, nobody knows what natural disasters or unforeseeable events may be just around the corner, and too many countries fall into crisis because of this. It makes countries vulnerable especially when other groups or countries may work through espionage and other tactics to undermine governments, which only ensures citizens become debt slaves.

Look at Ukraine for example, where US worked to undermine the old government to continue its expansion and influence in Europe and to further antagonise and close in on Russia, as well as helping to prop up the Euro.
Forcing Ukraine to borrow from IMF, stipulating war in the east, wasting that money on war, conscripting its citizens into giving their lives to fighting that war and making the population debt slaves, whilst American interests take the countries resources.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 10:52:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay if it's there in writing by the Financial Stability Board, why don't you provide a reference?

What makes you think the real rate of inflation is 7%?

Our money system won't come to an end, but it's likely to evolve so that less of its value is based on debt and more on fiat (and before you invent another conspiracy, that means taxation, not Italian vehicles). Either way, it will be business as usual.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, nearly everything's done on computer these days, but that doesn't make it less real. Each dollar of "pixel money" is worth a dollar.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 11:11:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyatsu, I agree that there are many ways that we could cut costs with minimal detriment.

Aiden, I'm sure you understand that demand for the US dollar is tied to oil purchases and the currency is now at risk, because other countries are now trading it in different currencies. You stated it may not collapse but instead devalue. But what happens to other countries economies when this happens? It could tip many other countries over the edge.

I'm not as knowledgeable as you and others when it comes to monetary systems. You say Australia owns the RBA and this confuses me because on this site, http://humansarefree.com/2013/11/complete-list-of-banks-ownedcontrolled.html it lists all banks owned by the Rothschilds, and RBA is included. Looking on their website, http://www.rba.gov.au/qa/role.html it states "The Bank is a body corporate wholly owned by the Commonwealth of Australia." I'm not exactly sure what this means, but if we really did own it, wouldn't they just say the bank is wholly owned by the Commonweath of Australia? Maybe someone can help me understand this better.
If we have full control and ownership of the RBA, why don't we just print $680bn wipe out the debt and save $20bn a year in interest? Of course there is going to be inflation, though I don't know how much or whether the inflation would be worse than the debt.

If current thinking is so critical of carbon emissions then why don't we put sanctions of China and India to force them to reduce emissions? This would increase the cost of Chinese goods, but make manufacturing more viable in other countries again.

Bazz, When Greece and Cyprus failed its my understanding that bankers were put in to manage the country. Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad thing before a country falls into financial crisis but I cant see how its at all any good for the citizens afterwards. This is the risk credit-based currencies take on. I agree that depositors should take precedence over shareholders.

Arjay, I completely agree that bankers rule governments.
If that wasn't true, the G20 wouldn't occur behind closed doors.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 12:01:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair, the answer's very simple: the page http://humansarefree.com/2013/11/complete-list-of-banks-ownedcontrolled.html is misinformation. They simply copied it off another conspiracy theory site.

"Maybe someone can help me understand this better.
If we have full control and ownership of the RBA, why don't we just print $680bn wipe out the debt and save $20bn a year in interest? Of course there is going to be inflation, though I don't know how much or whether the inflation would be worse than the debt."

Because debt isn't as bad as you think it is.

Government debt has five components:
1) Sovereign debt (debt in foreign currencies)
2) Money the government owes itself
3) Money the government has borrowed from banks who borrowed it from the government
4) Other money the government owes domestic banks and bondholders
5) Other money the government owes foreign banks and bondholders.

Category 1 is bad, but Australian government has, from the early 1990s, had a policy of not borrowing any money at all in foreign currencies, so it's insignificant here.

A country recoups all the interest it pays on category 2 debt, and most of it on category 3 debt. Category 3 is deemed desirable for bank liquidity reasons. Also, some people still believe the myth that category 2 introduces a hyperinflation risk. So Australia generally avoids category 2, though countries that have engaged in QE have lots of it.

Category 4 debt supports the population's desire to save, so Japan has heaps of it (along with significant amounts of categories 2 and 3). Categories 3 and 4 are in equilibrium according to how much people are borrowing and saving.

Category 5 debt requires foreigners to purchase Australian dollars, so (in the short term) it increases our dollar's value, and is therefore less inflationary than other forms of debt. IMO Australia has taken on too much of this type of debt over the past five years. How much category 5 debt we take on depends mainly on our interest rate relative to interest rates overseas, though there is probably some opportunity to reduce it by taking on more category 2 debt.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 1:18:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair, devaluation is no longer a disruptive process. The markets control the value of currencies and are continually adjusting their values. It won't tip anyone over the edge – its business as usual. It may increase inflation in (and exports from) those countries that tie their currency value to that of the US dollar, but it could instead encourage them to float their currencies which would be a good thing.

"If current thinking is so critical of carbon emissions then why don't we put sanctions of China and India to force them to reduce emissions? This would increase the cost of Chinese goods, but make manufacturing more viable in other countries again."
We don't need sanctions to force countries to reduce their emissions, we need global agreement. Right now we're not doing nearly enough to reduce our own, so sanctions would be hypocritical. And increasing the cost of Chinese goods would be a bad thing – it would increase inflation and force us to spend more on what we can't produce efficiently. Or if you mean tariffs, those would effectively impose the costs of a lower value currency on consumers and businesses, without giving our exporting businesses the benefits.

Eurozone countries are in the unfortunate position of not producing their own currency, so if they run out of money they're screwed. Their credit is limited, so they're not always in a position to be able to rescue failed banks, so their creditors can end up getting the final say. Financially sovereign countries like Australia do not have that problem.

BTW many countries do run successful public sector businesses.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 2:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair here is the evidence for "bail in" http://cecaust.com.au/bail-in/

Aidan is just here to confuse the issue. As I said previously, we have inflation created as debt which far outstrips growth, then the debt can never be repaid.

I support the CEC because they want the return of Govt banks that can create new money debt free as infrastructure and services. Anyone of intellect who is not feeding off this parasitic system can see it is doomed to fail. The RBA has just announced that interest rates will again fall because our economy continues to shrink.We would not need to sell off our resources and farming products for a song if we could create our own new money debt free from the private central banksters.

Russia rid themselves of the Rothschild Central Bankers and now they are demonised. Go figure
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 5:09:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a quote I could quickly find about the FSB being empowered to seize funds.
There is lots more detailed info.

http://tinyurl.com/m97c4kg

Now I know some will say it is all rubbish because it is on a site called Barnaby was right.
But so what, it is not Barnaby's web site, and some of it is quotes from emails from the
Bank of England Chairman. It is real and I am pretty sure the Cypriots that had their
funds seized would believe it is real.
Because the site is named after Barnaby Joyce the ALP computers will automatically
condemn it.

First, in the FSB press release of 4 Nov 2011 we are told that the G20 allegedly “asked the FSB to develop a policy framework to address the systemic and moral hazard risks associated with systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs).”

Next, in Seoul 2010, “G20 leaders endorsed this framework and the timelines and processes for its implementation.”

That framework is set out in the FSB’s “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions” (pdf).

In the preamble of that document, we learn that one of the objectives is to make it possible for “unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses.” Meaning, if your savings are not covered by some form of government guarantee or federal insurance (for all that is worth) – or if, as in Australia, the government bank deposits guarantee is limited to an amount significantly less than (ie, 1/10th) the total of actual bank deposits held by the public – then your bank account can be made to “absorb losses”. And as we will see shortly, this can be done entirely without your consent -
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 5:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Bazz. The majority think that it is too incredible to be true. Remember the Titanic was the unsinkable ship so life boat precautions were halved.

We currently don't have a 50% firewall against this present calamity. People will be lucky to have 10% of their super and savings left when the criminal parasites spring their trap.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 6:04:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, far from trying to confuse the issue, I'm trying to end the confusion by telling the truth to counter the lies you're spreading. A claim from a conspiracy nuts' website proves nothing, and you're totally unable to support the claim that "it is all there in writing by the Financial stability board".

Inflation is a rise in prices, not just an increase in the money supply. And if the money supply is increasing, surely that makes it EASIER to pay off debts? Unless you're referring to the total amount of debt — in which case it's a good thing, as we really don't want to be in the situation where there's nothing better to do with money than pay off debt.

You support the party that thinks everything's a British conspiracy because you've fallen for their lie that the central banks are in private hands. In reality they're all in public hands (with the arguable exception of the USA's Federal Reserve). All it would take is a change of policy (and legislation) to enable the RBA to issue money to the government debt free. But it wouldn't really make much of a difference anyway – the problem is fear of debt, not the debt itself.
______________________________________________________________________

Bazz, even the Barnaby Was Right site has backed down from the claim that the FSB can seize funds from account holders. And my objection to the site wasn't its political affiliation but the fact that it's raison d'être is based on ignorance of the way our financial system works.

Any changes to account holder liability are a matter for domestic legislation, not a matter for the G20 or the FSB.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 19 November 2014 10:32:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All central banks excluding those in Russia and China and 7 other countries are privately owned Aidan. Your statement is an utter falsehood.

Why do all our Govt Depts have ABNs ? This whole country has been illegally corporatized and is not longer in control of we the people. Our RBA takes instructions via APRA and the Bank of International Settlements another private bank makes the rules for APRA to function.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 20 November 2014 5:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here are a couple of thoughts for you, Arjay.

>>As I said previously, we have inflation created as debt which far outstrips growth, then the debt can never be repaid.<<

Since money itself has absolutely no value until it is used, what would you do with the money, if the debt were repaid?

Also, where would we be today, if the money hadn't been borrowed in the first place?

Don't spend too much time on the answers though, the effort might cause your brain to explode.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 20 November 2014 5:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles you are trying to confuse people. Money only has worth when people do something for it. Banks are non productive parasites sucking off real productivity.

Since 1970 the banking system has destroyed our $1 by inflation created as debt by 2000%. Our $1 is will only buy 1/20 th of what it bought in 1970. The real rate of inflation is 7% pa and average growth is 3%.

As James Rickards says $1 of debt will be soon negative in terms of growth. This system is a total and utter failure for the people and in reality a legalised counterfeiting scam for bankers.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 21 November 2014 5:18:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have obviously confused you, Arjay.

>>Pericles you are trying to confuse people. Money only has worth when people do something for it.<<

Money is money, whether you have worked for it or not. The money that young Packer spent in his early days came from his father, but it was still good enough to buy the odd Maserati or two. And that money went into circulation, some of it undoubtedly ending up with some guy buying potato chips from a corner store.

Until it moves, money has no value. If you store it underground instead of buying food, you will starve to death.

So, let's try those questions again.

Let's assume that the debts were all repaid, tomorrow. What would happen to the money?

And let's imagine that the money was not lent in the first place. What would have been the impact on our economy?

Lift your eyes out of conspiracy la-la-land for a moment, and try to fathom out a little bit about how money actually works.

>>Banks are non productive parasites sucking off real productivity.<<

Do you actually know what a bank does? It really doesn't sound like it. For instance, the headline for this thread when you started it was "Banks deposits no longer secure after G 20 meeting". This already demonstrated that you were unaware of one simple reality: bank deposits were not secure before the G20 meeting either.

What on earth made you think they were?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 21 November 2014 7:11:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, you currently believe, based only on the claims of nutty conspiracy websites, that all central banks excluding those in Russia and China and 7 other countries are privately owned.

What would it take to convince you otherwise?
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 21 November 2014 9:38:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh I'm a nutty conspirator. As George Carlin once said, as if a few extremely wealthy and powerful people would not get together and have a plan for their mutual benefit ?

Neither of you(Aidan and Clueless) have addressed inflation being created as debt by our private banksters. The growth is also created as debt to equal increases in productivity.

OK you two bimbos try and explain how it is good to have human productivity and inflationary money being expressed as debt by private banks. You can't and won't. Your emperor has no clothes. Perhaps Tony Abbott can find the answer in his suppository of wisdom.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 21 November 2014 5:19:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vladmir Putin and Russia knows what's happening. His advice is to get your money out of all Western owned banks immediately.
http://worldtruth.tv/russian-leader-warns-get-all-money-out-of-western-banks-now/
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 21 November 2014 6:41:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, you must really try to get a grip on yourself and do not believe everything you
read on the internet.
Want a clue as to whether that truth TV web site is dodgy ?
Did you notice the advert for the handheld device for testing if fruit is genetically
modified ?
Now such a thing is impossible and if they would let someone advertise that on their
web site shows their standards, anything goes.

Can you show me a ordinary news web site that reports the ultimatum to the Cypriot government ?
That I could believe but not from that website.
I believe it is one of your far out weirdos .

Your belief in these way outs is affecting your credibility.
It is a pity because some of the things you bring up are real but no one knows which
to believe, it is such a jumble.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 21 November 2014 9:51:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Arjay, you're not a nutty conspirator, you're a conspiracy nut. A nutty conspirator would actually be part of a conspiracy, whereas you're just spreading implausible rumours about conspiracies.

I'm not saying a few extremely wealthy and powerful people would not get together and have a plan for their mutual benefit. What I'm saying is that we wouldn't have the situation where the governments of most democratic countries would assist those wealthy and powerful people to keep it secret for more than half a century!

"Neither of you(Aidan and Clueless) have addressed inflation being created as debt by our private banksters. The growth is also created as debt to equal increases in productivity"
You're writing is so incoherent that any attempt to explain it requires me to guess what you mean!

"OK you two bimbos"
Is it my criticism of your sources, my refutation of your arguments or just my disagreement with you that makes you regard me as a bimbo?

"try and explain how it is good to have human productivity and inflationary money being expressed as debt by private banks."
Productivity has a deflationary effect – no matter how rich people were, they couldn't have bought anything with the functionality of an iPad in the 1980s. An economy dominated by deflation is a bad thing; it's generally recognised that a small amount of inflation is good for the economy because it motivates people to do something useful with their money and avoids the industrial relations problems that people being forced to take pay cuts would bring. Loaning money into existence is a good way to increase the money supply because it gets the money to those who have the best chance of using it profitably.

"You can't and won't."
You're claiming clairvoyance now?
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 22 November 2014 2:32:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz here is the same info from the EU times. No I don't believe every thing on the internet and certainly believe little on MSM.

The CEC is a reliable source. So is Paul Craig Roberts, Gerald Celente, Peter Schiff who advertises here, Max Keiser, Greg Hunter from USA Watchdog etc.

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/03/russian-leader-warns-get-all-money-out-of-western-banks-now/
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 22 November 2014 5:44:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is Aidan's lame attempt. He does not even address the question but goes off on a tangent on deflation. It is the banking system which creates inflation and inflation is the excess money above growth which depreciates our currencies and spending power. So first we lose out on currency depreciation. Then we have to repay the principal of that debt and lastly the interest on money that should be ours in the first place. Cognitive dissonance Aidan ?

My question.
try and explain how it is good to have human productivity and inflationary money being expressed as debt by private banks."

Aidan's answer;
Productivity has a deflationary effect – no matter how rich people were, they couldn't have bought anything with the functionality of an iPad in the 1980s. An economy dominated by deflation is a bad thing; it's generally recognised that a small amount of inflation is good for the economy because it motivates people to do something useful with their money and avoids the industrial relations problems that people being forced to take pay cuts would bring. Loaning money into existence is a good way to increase the money supply because it gets the money to those who have the best chance of using it profitably.

Loaning money into existence as debt with too much inflation due to QE, makes the debt far bigger than any growth prospects.We have a system failure. If you cannot see that Aidan then there is no hope for you.

The only answers you and Pericles have is ad hominem and no substance.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 22 November 2014 6:08:59 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
Had a look at the Aout link on the EU Times and found out nothing about it.
One thing that made me raise my eyebrows, there is a sidebar link with this wording;

US fleet flees in terror as Russian fleet nears Australia !

Really ? Do you really think two Russian warships would cause that ?
Is that the measure of EU Times ?
And that is on page one !

Look, Putin would say that, the Ruble is heading for the basement, the Russian economy
is becoming a basket case, but it can cause problems on a larger scale if Russia does
not stop pretending to be the Soviet Union.

I think a major problem is being generated by the pixel money and borrowings.
In that you are right, because the cost of energy is making growth impossible but the
dopey politicians are too pig headed to listen to what they are being told.
The economists are puzzled as to why both austerity and "Quantity Easing" have failed.

The answer is here;
If anyone thinks that growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world then he is
either a madman or an economist !
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 22 November 2014 7:00:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, as I said, you're writing is so incoherent that any attempt to explain it requires me to guess what you mean! So if my answer is unsatisfactory, can you please rephrase your question?
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 22 November 2014 10:36:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here it is Bazz from the EU Times.

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) “urgent bulletin” being sent to Embassies around the world today is advising both Russian citizens and companies to begin divesting their assets from Western banking and financial institutions “immediately” as Kremlin fears grow that both the European Union and United States are preparing for the largest theft of private wealth in modern history.

According to this “urgent bulletin,” this warning is being made at the behest of Prime Minister Medvedev who earlier today warned against the Western banking systems actions against EU Member Cyprus by stating:

Here it is Bazz from the EU times. Had no trouble accessing it.

“All possible mistakes that could be made have been made by them, the measure that was proposed is of a confiscation nature, and unprecedented in its character. I can’t compare it with anything but … decisions made by Soviet authorities … when they didn’t think much about the savings of their population. But we are living in the 21st century, under market economic conditions. Everybody has been insisting that ownership rights should be respected.”

Medvedev’s statements echo those of President Putin who, likewise, warned about the EU’s unprecedented private asset grab in Cyprus calling it “unjust, unprofessional, and dangerous.”
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 22 November 2014 10:54:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/14/global-house-cards-paul-craig-roberts/
PCR sums it up.
"The house of cards has stood longer than I thought possible. Can it stand forever or are there so many rotted joints that some simultaneous collection of failures overwhelms the manipulation and brings on a massive crash? Time will tell."

Japan is going into a hyper-inflation stage. They've been money printing for decades and still their economy collapses. The big question is whether the Rothschilds use their fortune to stave off this collapse or one day will the whole thing just collapse under its own weight.

QE to infinity is here and it is blowing up derivatives and the share market with little money going into real productivity.50 million on food stamps in the USA and real unemployment 24%.

There will come a time when all faith in the controlled markets will go and all the QE on the planet won't save them. This is why they need "bail in" laws and a way of stealing your super.

PCR and Gerald Celente thinks this is when they will take us to the last war and blame it on the Russians.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 22 November 2014 11:18:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Had no trouble accessing it"

Arjay, arjay, arjay... Always the distractions when there should be real conspiracies to worry about.

Did you click 'Source' below the EU TImes article to find yourself at:

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1669.htm

and notice the author credit below the headline to be:

"By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers"

Which is best described by Rationalwiki thusly: "Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. There is a high chance that "Sorcha Faal" is actually David Booth, the owner/operator of the website, or someone collaborating with him."

My search of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website returns 0, zero, zilch bulletins of any sort bracketing the reported date of 21 March 2013.

The same nil result when searching for the words 'divesting' or 'divestment' despite the purported quote and though the search for 'warning' yields 135 documents since 2001, for the period in question this word is found in the document of 18 Feb 2013 "Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation" then nothing until it appears on 28 March 2013 in an "Article of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “Russia’s Foreign Policy Philosophy” published in the magazine “International Affairs” of March 2013".

If you feel the aphorism "The truth can't hurt you" is insufficient for those who never seem to be able to recognise it, maybe Sorcha Faal's 'Picking up the Pieces: Practical Guide for Surviving Economic Crashes, Internal Unrest and Military Suppression' can further insulate you from the truth?
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 22 November 2014 12:41:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
You need to examine what you re reading more closely.
What is being published at the moment are regurgitations of the last years news.
This at the bottom of one item;

An amended bill that would have exempted deposits of under 20,000 euros in the bank was turned down by lawmakers Tuesday.

(AP)

Date created : 2013-03-21

The above was from an ultimatum to the Cyprus government LAST YEAR !
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 22 November 2014 1:03:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz The article being 12mths old does not make it any less true.

The challenge is to find a flaw in my arguments about the folly of creating new money as debt by private institutions. Our money has 20 times less value now than in 1970.Real inflation created by banks is 7% pa and growth is lucky to be 3% pa.

If you begin with $1 of debt money, within 10 yrs with inflation of 7% the debt has doubled. This is why we sell off all our resources for a song, ie the cover the debt. So what happens when we have nothing left to sell?

This is why Putin kicked out the Rothschild Bankers and nationalised energy/resources.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 22 November 2014 2:45:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Off course the timing matters;
>According to this “urgent bulletin,” this warning is being made at the behest of Prime Minister Medvedev who earlier today warned against the Western banking systems actions against EU Member Cyprus by stating:

Here it is Bazz from the EU times. Had no trouble accessing it.

We all know what happened in December 2012/2013 but you presented it as current news
not a rehash of history.

I understand what is happening in the world economy. Energy has got too expensive to
support growth and that simple fact is distorting everything that the gurus of the
financial world do. It has caused demand decline which has affected credit I gather,
and the major oil companies are spending up to double times normal on exploration and
development, but getting very poor returns.
The financial world is functioning just like all people do when faced with something
unpalatable, they much prefer to ignore it.
The effects of the end of cheap energy trickles down everywhere.
This is the first time it has happened and no one has any experience of it.

Statements like this in your post;
>Our money has 20 times less value now than in 1970.Real inflation created by banks is 7% pa and growth is lucky to be 3% pa.

Are becoming meaningless.
I understand the 70 rule but money is not working like it once did.
Those financial rules are losing their reality, not all at once but
step by step. This why economists do not understand why austerity or pixel money are
not working like they used to do.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 22 November 2014 3:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz -

Austerity NEVER EVER aided an economy's recovery. It always did exactly what it'd doing now.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Arjay -

What makes you think that real inflation is 7%?
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 22 November 2014 5:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Real rate of inflation is 7%. A beer and hamburger could be bought in 1970 for 25 cents. Today these same two products are well over $5.00. 500 divided by 25 = 20 times or 2000 %.Inflation like interest is compounding.Houses are over 100 times more expensive. Cars have halved in price but we spend the bulk of our money on shelter and food.

Using the compound formula for interest Aidan you get a compounding rate of inflation of 7%. Mathematically it is correct. Govt always lies to you. They exclude increased taxes to pay for debt from the inflation formula for good reasons. Try it Aiden, if you know some maths.

Bazz, logically I'm 100% correct on the wrongs of money being created as debt and don't give a stuff about what any of others think in terms of mute side points that distract from the bigger picture.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 22 November 2014 7:50:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, I never said money wasn't created as debt but whether it is wrong I am not sure.
Certainly it is a bit like magic, bits of paper and ink and poof money to buy a car.
Oh well people have been arguing about that since Roman times or earlier.
Anyway printing money will not fix the problem, business as usual is finished.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 22 November 2014 9:01:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

Even for your non representative sample of a beer and a hamburger, what the AVERAGE inflation rate was over the past forty years doesn't tell us anything about what the CURRENT inflation rate is.

Didn't you know that inflation in the 1970s was much higher than it is now?
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 22 November 2014 11:13:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the first time in 170 yrs the UK Parliament debates money creation. Very few parliamentarians turned up for this debate because they know who their masters are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBSlSUIT-KM
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 23 November 2014 6:29:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, you are quick to ask ridiculous questions...

>>OK you two bimbos try and explain how it is good to have human productivity and inflationary money being expressed as debt by private banks.<<

Since the question itself doesn't make any sense, being just a piece of conspiracy-nut verbiage, it is hardly surprising that you don't get any answers. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you yourself haven't a clue what your question actually means. That's what happens when you just cut'n'paste someone else's ramblings.

Meanwhile, you don't even attempt a response to the basic questions that are put to you.

But please, prove me wrong.

You waffle on about debt. So tell us:

If all those debts were repaid, in full, tomorrow, where would the money go?

And if the money hadn't been lent out in the first place, what would have been the impact on our economy?

Unless and until you make the effort to understand, just a little bit, the workings of our economy, you are doomed to continue to write rubbish.

>>A beer and hamburger could be bought in 1970 for 25 cents. Today these same two products are well over $5.00.<<

So tell me, how long did you have to work in 1970 to earn enough to buy a hamburger? And how long today?

I'll give you a clue: Average weekly earnings in 1970 were around $75...

As for this, you are so, so naive...

>>Vladmir Putin and Russia knows what's happening. His advice is to get your money out of all Western owned banks immediately<<

Think about it for a moment. Why have all those Russian oligarchs chosen to hide their money offshore in the first place? And what will happen to that money once it is repatriated into Russia?

Classic.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 23 November 2014 8:38:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is the UK Parliament debate on money creation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBSlSUIT-KM
Michael Meader notes that 97% of their money is created as debt.31% goes into the domestic property markets,20% goes into Commercial Property, 32% goes into the financial sector for speculation and less than 17% goes into real business growth and innovation.

Wonder why our economies are totally stuffed when markets are totally distorted by this monopolised system of debt money creation ?
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 23 November 2014 10:30:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I doubt you understood more than one word in fifty of that debate, Arjay.

>>Michael Meader notes that 97% of their money is created as debt.<<

The gentleman in question is Michael Meacher. The fact that you cannot even get his name right does not augur well for your comprehension of his words, which were:

"In effect, the banks have a virtual monopoly — about 97% — over domestic credit creation, so they determine how money is allocated across the economy."

This is patently not the same thing as "97% of their money is created as debt".

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141120/debtext/141120-0001.htm#14112048000001

You would do well to note how the discussion ended, too.

"I would like to leave my final words with Richard Cobden, the Member representing Stockport back in the time when this was also a big issue. He said: 'I hold all idea of regulating the currency to be an absurdity; the very terms of regulating the currency…I look upon to be an absurdity'. The currency, for him, 'should be regulated by the trade and commerce of the world.' I wholeheartedly agree."

It is really good that you are taking an interest in the real world for a change, Arjay. It would be even better if you understood just a teensy bit of what you are reading.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 23 November 2014 2:02:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Regulating currency as an absurdity?" The entire market is rigged and monopolised by the likes of the Rothschilds. The pollies are owned by the Bankers since they create all the money for the pollies to have this power over us.

They know this system has collapsed and this debate on money creation was done to placate the masses.

I'm suspicious of what Russia and China are doing with the BRICS Development Bank. Are they going to be the new king makers like the Rothschilds, or are they doing secret deals to share the power? One criticism of the CEC I have is that they are too eager to follow the BRICS without knowing what the rules are.

Money creation should stem from Govts that represent the people and not a few self appointed individuals who have abused their powers.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 24 November 2014 6:31:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy