It is quite an important question though - who do we and other countries owe all this money too? The money we have to close hospitals etc... to find.
You owe it too the people who own U.K. Govt debt. Lots of bank but also just about every pension fund. It not like "we owe it to China" although in sure plenty of Chinese institutions hold U.K. debt.
China does own some, and much more of US debt but not the most. Much of the National Debt is owed to private banks who control our central bank, the Bank of England. This is due to the fractional reserve monetary system which perpetuates by creating a society of debt out of nothing. Money is created on a computer, this is a crime for you or me but not a banker, and when it is in the system it can be re-lent up to 9 times its original value. This de-values the money and leads to inflation. Crucially interest is charged to the government on this created money (the original loan if you like). This interest goes to private banks.
Another question. How much of the tax we pay is going straight into these banks pockets? The big question is, why are we in this type of system when there are alternatives that are far better for UK citizens and the world? When you look at the complete lack of meaningful action against banks over the last 200 years you might find the answer. A very small few stay powerful and wealthy (not the people who earn 80k or 300k or even footballers!) We are the ones that keep them in that position through our ignorance and subservience.
Corbyn isn't the solution to this on his own by the way. They are more powerful than nations but the solution lies in more and more Corbyns across the globe fighting their power.
China does own some, and much more of US debt but not the most. Much of the National Debt is owed to private banks who control our central bank, the Bank of England. This is due to the fractional reserve monetary system which perpetuates by creating a society of debt out of nothing. Money is created on a computer, this is a crime for you or me but not a banker, and when it is in the system it can be re-lent up to 9 times its original value. This de-values the money and leads to inflation. Crucially interest is charged to the government on this created money (the original loan if you like). This interest goes to private banks.
Another question. How much of the tax we pay is going straight into these banks pockets? The big question is, why are we in this type of system when there are alternatives that are far better for UK citizens and the world? When you look at the complete lack of meaningful action against banks over the last 200 years you might find the answer. A very small few stay powerful and wealthy (not the people who earn 80k or 300k or even footballers!) We are the ones that keep them in that position through our ignorance and subservience.
Corbyn isn't the solution to this on his own by the way. They are more powerful than nations but the solution lies in more and more Corbyns across the globe fighting their power.
Well now you're conflating who the U.K. government borrows money from to fund it activities, and the multiplier effect on the money supply.
All governments borrow money and, in principle, it needs to be repaid. That their borrowing money adds to the multiplier effect doesn't eliminate their need to borrow, unless they are borrowing to stimulate the economy by boosting spending.
If you want to get away from that, then the gold standard is where you want to be. Or not, unless you want to see the worlds economies collapse.
Privitisation - Wasn't the idea behind privitisation that things like railways and utilities would be run more efficiently. Why then are most of our utilities owned by nationalised companies - only these are foreign nationalised companies. Why If competition shows that the best companies to run Britain's privatised railways and utilities are state-owned railways etc... from other countries, what does that say about the justification of privatisation? And what does it say about what privatisation has done to Britain? How did we get to the point where this country's railways, power stations and postal service were ready to be taken over by foreign versions of British organisations that our own government, claiming patriotism, systematically took to pieces?
Why are they more expensive and why are they heavily subsidised by us - through our taxes and excessive prices?
Fractional reserve banking is simply a bank that takes money in as deposit and loans it back out again, if it didn't do that how do you think you'd get a mortgage or a car loan? In this respect a bank is really just acting as a middle man between savers and borrowers, most often people like you and I. Of course they can also loan it to the government, just like you on your borrowing interest will be paid.
Hence why if all 'savers' tried to withdraw all their money at once the bank wouldn't have it, remember Northern Rock?
The UK Government debt is owed to many people and companies/countries. I have some government debt in my pension and they pay me a good rate for lending them the money, my father in law is a trustee of a friendly society, they own about £12m of government debt, anyone who owns gilts or treasury bills is holding government debt, the bank of england owns a load thanks to quantitive easing, pension funds all around the world own some, banks buy them, companies buy them. Anyone got any premium bonds or NS&I savings? thats effectively government debt as you are loaning them the money.
So the only money going straight into the banks pockets is the interest they are paid by the government on the money they have lent them. In turn they (if you are a saver) pay you some interest.
So how do you suggest we run the banking system so you can either save money (and earn interest) or borrow money. Don't tell me, we have only state owned banks...... that of course is an option, and one we already have for inwards money to the government by way of NS&I.
But on that basis you'd have no private businesses in this country, just everything be state run from banks to printers and pay everyone a flat average salary. Or is it only the most successful business that should fall under this?
No, why do you over put words into my mouth - not the only money. You can't have a debate with somebody by telling them what they have said. It seems to be how you operate on every post.
There is a balance that is skewed far too much on one side. Their power needs weakening - we do need banks but they have to be less greedy and controlling.
It was the taxpayer that bailed out the greedy banks and the Conservatives who blamed the problem on public spending.
I am ok with debt as long as it isn't used to enslave us.
No, why do you over put words into my mouth - not the only money. You can't have a debate with somebody by telling them what they have said. It seems to be how you operate on every post.
There is a balance that is skewed far too much on one side. Their power needs weakening - we do need banks but they have to be less greedy and controlling.
It was the taxpayer that bailed out the greedy banks and the Conservatives who blamed the problem on public spending.
What words have I put in your mouth?
What are the alternatives that are better for the UK that you speak of?
What power needs weakening?
Please explain how these banks have created a society of debt out of nothing?
Shall we give back to Lloyds the 900m we made out of the the buy v sale price?
So you agree we need banks, but only on your terms, if you don't like them then don't give them your money and don't take any from them, you don't have to play their game that you seem to dislike so much.
What next, we need printers but only on our terms and not the printers
I'd forgotten about the marching season in Ulster. Now that will be an interesting stone for the conservative middle to swallow. A bizarre right of ultra fanatical Ulstermen to march into neighbouring Catholic communities to make a huge 'fuck you Feinians' gesture. Having attacked their traditional voters this time, will the Tories really allow this small radical group the chance to return to flaming sectarian hatred again. And the Mail claimed it was Labour who would drag the UK back to the seventies.
I invite people to research and find out for themselves - I would have to write a book on the subject. A good place to start would be the Rothschid family and see where it takes them.
We already need printers on our terms - it my company's job to meet those terms.
I invite people to research and find out for themselves - I would have to write a book on the subject. A good place to start woukd be the Rothschid family and see where it takes them.
We already need printers on our terms - it my company's job to meet those terms.
All this debt we owe, America owes $440 bn - who do we owe it to?
Not sure where you're getting your figures from - the US owes about $17tn.
In terms of who it owes it too, obviously the owners of Treasury bonds (myriad of central banks, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, individuals etc.)
Yes a myriad of central banks and they want to own more and more of it. The poiltical system is currently weighted to make that happen. I haven't got a problem with there being banks - they benefit the economy. But they have to balance their own interests with serving the interests of the world. That balance is not there, partly because they have political control. That control ultimately has to be severed.
I invite people to research and find out for themselves - I would have to write a book on the subject. A good place to start would be the Rothschid family and see where it takes them.
We already need printers on our terms - it my company's job to meet those terms.
I did wonder if this is what you had been driving at through this topic, the conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family and others, i'll give it a miss if you don't mind, many view this in particular as simply stemming from antisemitism (not saying that is your intention BTW) and some have some very extreme views (IMHO) of how to deal with this and these people. I've looked through all this before, you are probably right to not to make too many comments about it on a public forum.
Well they are your thoughts and now I understand your posts on this thread in particular, good luck to you, if you are supporting Corbyn as you feel he has these beliefs also then thats a very worrying thought for a potential leader of this country.
I can assure you that I am no anti-semite. And I do not have extreme views of how to deal with the issue - just stand up to them and take some power away from them so the economy is more about the people who live and work in it, not for the benefit of bankers and corporations.
The reason I said start with the Rothschilds is because it is easier to see the effects 200 years ago and trace to today. There is a balance and the important thing is that it doesn't swing too far in either direction. At the moment it is too far in the direction of the elite.
I would like to pose a couple of questions - not tell people what to think but invite people to ask these questions and decide what the answer is themselves. Why are the banks that were too big to fail after the financial crisis now bigger and richer than they were before the crisis they caused? And secondly, why are the people who bailed them out poorer and on top of that why has them wanting good public services become the reason for the state of the global economies rather than the banking crisis? Has this distortion been arrived at without influence?
Yes a myriad of central banks and they want to own more and more of it. The poiltical system is currently weighted to make that happen. I haven't got a problem with there being banks - they benefit the economy. But they have to balance their own interests with serving the interests of the world. That balance is not there, partly because they have political control. That control ultimately has to be severed.
Who else do you propose we sell the debt to? If central banks or any other entity are willing to lend the UK money for 10 years at <2% why would we turn it down?
We shouldn't. I have been advocating borrowing. But we do need to curb their powers. I was making the point earlier that the money loaned to us was created from nothing - it didn't exist. We have to undertsand that and ensure the banks - which we need - work for us responsibly rather than against us. It is about balance and curbing greed.
We shouldn't. I have been advocating borrowing. But we do need to curb their powers. I was making the point earlier that the money loaned to us was created from nothing - it didn't exist. We have to undertsand that and ensure the banks - which we need - work for us responsibly rather than against us. It is about balance and curbing greed.
So we should massively increase borrowing, whilst reducing the power of banks who purchase this debt.
We should look at banks pursuing policies that benefit people - Quantative Easing is an example - rather than print money and sit on it/keep it - why not put it in people's pockets by spending on infrastucture? Make the money work and enrich society.
The European Central Bank is dipping its toe in these waters right now. It is quietly buying the bonds of the European Investment Bank, an EU public body that chiefly finances infrastructure. While it may not care to admit it - for fear of fresh lawsuits at the German constitutional court - it is in effect "printing" money to pay for fiscal stimulus.
Corbyn is proposing something similar, using Quantative Easing from the Bank of England to fund a National Investment BAnk.
We shouldn't. I have been advocating borrowing. But we do need to curb their powers. I was making the point earlier that the money loaned to us was created from nothing - it didn't exist. We have to undertsand that and ensure the banks - which we need - work for us responsibly rather than against us. It is about balance and curbing greed.
On this thread you have really made me reconsider and change my views on austerity, but on monetary economics I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about :-)
I will be wrong on lots of things - I link monetary policy with austerity. I am only a small business owning Charlton fan - but I have been making some big statements because I want to encourage people to think and have debate - It is no good me writing a book on here with my views, but I am inviting people to question and find their own answers. I don't want to see the collapse of the banking industry, but I want it to start having a positive effect as for the past few decades it has been solely about creating more wealth for itself and sod everybody else. Greed doesn't have to pervade all. And when greed and more greed causes a crisis, we bail them out! And they carry on as they were heading for another crisis beacuse making more and more money is all there is and the safety net is us. We are still paying for the crisis, the banks are richer than they were before it!
There is a story from the US in the 70s when the government was approached to provide aid to a company that claimed it was too big to fail, the Secretary of Treasury advised: “get smaller!”
I think one of your critiques of the Labour party is that is is against people earning £80k and £100k etc... but it isn't. If we have a fairer society and people get richer in it, it is capitalism working at its best.
Just wondering which effigies the Conservatives would like to see their political allies burn next month. Gerry Adams and Jeremy Corbyn are probably a given, but is there anyone else?
Banks own but a small proportion of the UK debt (if you exclude the BoE being a bank and their quantative easing programme), pension funds/insurers own more, individuals own some, local authorities, even unions and other institutions.
very roughly (as it changes all the time) the debt is:
BoE 25%, Pension & Insurance 30% UK Households 3% Other Corps/financial Institutions 7% Banks & Building Societies 10%
So circa 75% is owned effectively by UK Citizens and UK Institutions, 25% roughly is held overseas for which no records are kept as to the types of companies but it's probably not unreasonable to assume a similar split as above.
So where is this 'much of the debt is owned by private banks' and all that interest? Looks to me like substantially more goes to you and I.
All this debt we owe, America owes $440 bn - who do we owe it to?
We basically owe most of this money to ourselves!
It's like eating your packed lunch on the way to work. You then know that at some time during the day you'll probably have to go out and buy yourself some food. Once you've done that you have paid off the "debt" to yourself.
My view is that if you're hungry on the train you should eat your bloody lunch and not be too lazy pop out to the shops later. If sick people need hospitals we should build them now and not worry about the fact that we may have to do a bit of work in the future to catch up.
All this debt we owe, America owes $440 bn - who do we owe it to?
We basically owe most of this money to ourselves!
It's like eating your packed lunch on the way to work. You then know that at some time during the day you'll probably have to go out and buy yourself some food. Once you've done that you have paid off the "debt" to yourself.
My view is that if you're hungry on the train you should eat your bloody lunch and not be too lazy pop out to the shops later. If sick people need hospitals we should build them now and not worry about the fact that we may have to do a bit of work in the future to catch up.
Comments
Another question. How much of the tax we pay is going straight into these banks pockets? The big question is, why are we in this type of system when there are alternatives that are far better for UK citizens and the world? When you look at the complete lack of meaningful action against banks over the last 200 years you might find the answer. A very small few stay powerful and wealthy (not the people who earn 80k or 300k or even footballers!) We are the ones that keep them in that position through our ignorance and subservience.
Corbyn isn't the solution to this on his own by the way. They are more powerful than nations but the solution lies in more and more Corbyns across the globe fighting their power.
All governments borrow money and, in principle, it needs to be repaid. That their borrowing money adds to the multiplier effect doesn't eliminate their need to borrow, unless they are borrowing to stimulate the economy by boosting spending.
If you want to get away from that, then the gold standard is where you want to be. Or not, unless you want to see the worlds economies collapse.
Why are they more expensive and why are they heavily subsidised by us - through our taxes and excessive prices?
Hence why if all 'savers' tried to withdraw all their money at once the bank wouldn't have it, remember Northern Rock?
The UK Government debt is owed to many people and companies/countries. I have some government debt in my pension and they pay me a good rate for lending them the money, my father in law is a trustee of a friendly society, they own about £12m of government debt, anyone who owns gilts or treasury bills is holding government debt, the bank of england owns a load thanks to quantitive easing, pension funds all around the world own some, banks buy them, companies buy them. Anyone got any premium bonds or NS&I savings? thats effectively government debt as you are loaning them the money.
So the only money going straight into the banks pockets is the interest they are paid by the government on the money they have lent them. In turn they (if you are a saver) pay you some interest.
So how do you suggest we run the banking system so you can either save money (and earn interest) or borrow money. Don't tell me, we have only state owned banks...... that of course is an option, and one we already have for inwards money to the government by way of NS&I.
But on that basis you'd have no private businesses in this country, just everything be state run from banks to printers and pay everyone a flat average salary. Or is it only the most successful business that should fall under this?
There is a balance that is skewed far too much on one side. Their power needs weakening - we do need banks but they have to be less greedy and controlling.
It was the taxpayer that bailed out the greedy banks and the Conservatives who blamed the problem on public spending.
I am ok with debt as long as it isn't used to enslave us.
What are the alternatives that are better for the UK that you speak of?
What power needs weakening?
Please explain how these banks have created a society of debt out of nothing?
Shall we give back to Lloyds the 900m we made out of the the buy v sale price?
So you agree we need banks, but only on your terms, if you don't like them then don't give them your money and don't take any from them, you don't have to play their game that you seem to dislike so much.
What next, we need printers but only on our terms and not the printers
We already need printers on our terms - it my company's job to meet those terms.
In terms of who it owes it too, obviously the owners of Treasury bonds (myriad of central banks, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, individuals etc.)
Well they are your thoughts and now I understand your posts on this thread in particular, good luck to you, if you are supporting Corbyn as you feel he has these beliefs also then thats a very worrying thought for a potential leader of this country.
The reason I said start with the Rothschilds is because it is easier to see the effects 200 years ago and trace to today. There is a balance and the important thing is that it doesn't swing too far in either direction. At the moment it is too far in the direction of the elite.
I would like to pose a couple of questions - not tell people what to think but invite people to ask these questions and decide what the answer is themselves. Why are the banks that were too big to fail after the financial crisis now bigger and richer than they were before the crisis they caused? And secondly, why are the people who bailed them out poorer and on top of that why has them wanting good public services become the reason for the state of the global economies rather than the banking crisis? Has this distortion been arrived at without influence?
That'll work.
The European Central Bank is dipping its toe in these waters right now. It is quietly buying the bonds of the European Investment Bank, an EU public body that chiefly finances infrastructure. While it may not care to admit it - for fear of fresh lawsuits at the German constitutional court - it is in effect "printing" money to pay for fiscal stimulus.
Corbyn is proposing something similar, using Quantative Easing from the Bank of England to fund a National Investment BAnk.
There is a story from the US in the 70s when the government was approached to provide aid to a company that claimed it was too big to fail, the Secretary of Treasury advised: “get smaller!”
I think one of your critiques of the Labour party is that is is against people earning £80k and £100k etc... but it isn't. If we have a fairer society and people get richer in it, it is capitalism working at its best.
very roughly (as it changes all the time) the debt is:
BoE 25%,
Pension & Insurance 30%
UK Households 3%
Other Corps/financial Institutions 7%
Banks & Building Societies 10%
So circa 75% is owned effectively by UK Citizens and UK Institutions, 25% roughly is held overseas for which no records are kept as to the types of companies but it's probably not unreasonable to assume a similar split as above.
So where is this 'much of the debt is owned by private banks' and all that interest? Looks to me like substantially more goes to you and I.
It's like eating your packed lunch on the way to work. You then know that at some time during the day you'll probably have to go out and buy yourself some food. Once you've done that you have paid off the "debt" to yourself.
My view is that if you're hungry on the train you should eat your bloody lunch and not be too lazy pop out to the shops later. If sick people need hospitals we should build them now and not worry about the fact that we may have to do a bit of work in the future to catch up.
For me austerity is just collective laziness!