We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
It has been interesting to read the various perspectives posted on this thread.
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the contents posted here acknowledge that it is the control of this stuff called credit or money that is at the core of our problems. After all, there really is very little difference between the physical resources of people, lands, buildings, equipment and machinery before and after this so called crisis. he only shortage is in the thing controlled by the illusion of fiat currency.
When we begin to examine what has enabled this it leads us back to times before the writing of the Old Testament. What we must now is to disenfranchise the centralised control that it seems is quite purposefully transferring both material and the living into the dominion of corporate controllers along with the stink tanks and seminars that if you look, are planning an even more dystopian reality in the very near future.
If what has transpired within the USA in terms of dispossessions and evictions of people from their homes and businesses now accelerates here (and it is!) then all this rhetoric and theorising will do NOTHING to prevent yet more victims suffering. Urgent action is demanded now.
It is our creative and industrial capacity that is being destroyed by this process. Only this week, I have been watching as so called consumer goods are dropping in value because of a lack of currency. The wealth of a nation comes from what it produces and the plain fact of our industries speaks volumes in this. What pray is being made here that benefits the people? Yet it is our promissory notes, our signatures that enabled the issuance of monies. But by this deception, many are left without any possibility of repaying, whilst even more perversely, the entire system is effectively bankrupt and thus turns its revenue collection against the us all. Thus it is and perhaps will be our own contracts with others that provide the source of a solution.
For more than two millennium, we have been subjected to the self same system. A system of so called civili that regards all but a few as chattels of the state and slaves to its controllers. Yet it is we that grow the food, manufacture or fabricate those things that improve the quality of life, the builders and tradesmen, the craftsmen and women.
I look forward to a time when our money, is once again issued by each of us, free of the control grid and free of these statutes and judgements from the priests and temples. The minster and halls, the corridors of power and the malignancy that resides in the mentality that we must all compete with one another to feed out children.
Banking if required at all should be nothing more than an accounting service provided for a reasonable fee just like your book keeper. What we have is something very different and its design quite specifically aimed at increasing the hegemony over economics and the flow of money.
We are told that this is the legal tender demanded from government in the settlement of its demands (most of which are entirely unlawful), Perhaps then what we will begin quite naturally to manifest, are systems of exchange that do not use the monopoly money that is the weapon being deployed (amongst others) upon us.
The government and controlling powers as Roger Lewis has stated merely use the human resource to raise borrowing in order to perpetuate an agenda. That agenda is now causing this global crisis and the impoverishment of many millions if not billions of people not only within these islands but throughout most of the world.
To suggest that precious metals do not continue to hold value flies in the face of the earning capacity of every scrap dealer around, the biggest of which are now government sponsored. Ultimately the times we are entering into and perhaps are already in, are one whereby those that pay the piper are calling the tune. Economic activity it seems locally to me at least is plodding along but the money being spent is sourced too much from central government. It has become something far more powerful in the ways it retains compliance. In Greece, two thirds of the population were dependent on government employment (direct or indirect) or on benefits. Thus if they were to rebel, the life blood as they perceive it is removed and they are disenfranchised, just as too many people are here when they fall foul of the banks and the agenda.
Now take a close look at the relationship between the finance sectors and banks with government, especially the likes of Satandern and the organisation that goes by the name of Matrix (check out Common Purpose). What you find is a regime in play. And based upon what, a system where the obligations towards banks have been conjured into existence as debt, but where those that created these instruments of slavery (for unpaid toil to satisfy a never ending ever deepening cycle of debt is exactly that) but who actually brought nothing to the table other than a piece of paper.
If we gave the power over to these banks by our signatures, should it not logically follow that we can remove the power from them in exactly the same way, especially since it is now proven that the system is in terminal failure (bailouts and quantitative easing). Government speaks of addressing the deficit, but in truth they are seeking to re-address it to you and I. And to do what exactly? what is being built in its name, what edifices will stand as its legacy to future generations? One only has to look at the citadel to see.
The demands being made upon people through these statutes and judgements that came into existence thousands of years ago are rising in the face of harsh times (austerity) that are part of the construct.
If money represents our time and energy along with the resources that we can work with, then it is perhaps time that we assert that these lands cannot belong to any one, that most people have an inbuilt desire to help people around them and are less driven by avarice and materialism, but most important of all, if our time is to be given, then it should be on the bass of improving things and not cow towing by continued compliance with a system that is so obviously either incompetent or malignant in its intentions.
If sustainability and the efficient use of the resources around us really does reside at the core of all this (which I doubt~) then a benign system of government would be enabling and encouraging positive evolution towards a future where people are not driven like livestock by fear.
Thus each of us still have the capacity (given sufficient education and knowledge as to what is being done) to make contract and each of us should now do so based upon ethical and moral principle rather than a system of statutes designed from the arch of control.
"I promise to pay" and a signature, but pay what? A pound is a unit of weight, the dollar derived fro the dole. Why pay for a thing that is for whatever reason (malign intent or incompetence) doing such a shoddy job.
Issuing debt free legal tender, the very opposite of the slavery system enshrined in usury, is the first step. Forget about the claims that the world will end if such things occur, it will not and its resources will be found to be more than abundant.
Well thats it for now folks, my time is increasingly short, you see I work more now with the natural world rather than the fictional and nature demands that I go and tend the gardens.
Loving this idea of podcasts - informative listening to the different viewpoints out there. I would suggest in a few months time when PM has bedded down more and is more financially secure looking at the idea of doing a page or two page monthly news sheet with PM concepts explained thru plain english and graphics, and distributing it even if a small number of copies to the morning or evening commuters like metro or evening standard etc. Hopefully will help in the spread of PM's ideas to a much wider audience.
Hi Richard,I assume that your comment is of historic and academic interest alone. Clearly as there is absolutely no modern connection between our money supply and any precious metal anymore the last such correlation ended in 1971 when Nixon was forced to end the illusion of a Dollar backed by Gold. Our Debt money if it is based on anything it would be government bonds ( Gilts) which are based on the governments ability to extract Taxes from we plebs. Most of the money or means of exchange in circulation is electronic and created in arcane double entry book keeping. Money is an elaborate illusion a confidence trick licensed by Government. I hope that doesn't come as a shock to you you seem locked into a vein of juicy quotes of the honest money school of thought, so I am sure it will not.Best Wishes,Roger
i find it quite hard to believe that a professor thinks that gold and silver - rare metals - are used simply because they are 'pretty metals'. they are used because it gives someone - who is not necessarily the issuing authority - to control the amount and therefore the money supply, which is a very great power indeed
this is what establishes as a commodity rather than a medium as exchange
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Here is a link to the Bank of North Dakotas Web site. I think it looks like a very impressive operation with a long interesting historyIt will take me a few weeks to go through it in fine detail but I like what I have skimmed so far.
"I’d like to see anyone walk into William Hill and demand to be able to place a bet on the same horse to win and to lose in the same race."
Actually that is possible...kinda.
Back it at WH, lay it on Betfair.
And you are correct gentlemen. Trading on The London Stock Exchange and Wall Street is virtually no different than making a living on Betfair trading sports bets. I can vouch for that personally.
The only real difference is that i use my own money, and there are more trades done on Betfair than the LSE and WS put together!
I'm happy to have a go with your money though if you wish? ;) (A potential dishonest banker in the making lol)
In a past life I hung out with quite a few eurobond and various other Forex types including some guys trading what they called cableDollar/Pound. Now those guys lived to Gamble and its called spread betting at William hill , there is very little difference between Spreads in hedge funds and spreads on Football scores, Horse racing or Two flys on a shit house window famously recounted by Spike Milligan in his famous war memoir.Do you remember Stewart Wheeler
Hedging, spreadbetting, Vig, Juice numbers racquets, protection racquets to many uncomfortable parrallels, Banking is a thoroughly dishonourable business more so now than ever before.
You are absolutely on the money, so to speak.
Hedge funds that bet for and against are perfect examples of rigging the market, but they prefer to call it prudence. I'd like to see anyone walk into William Hill and demand to be able to place a bet on the same horse to win and to lose in the same race. I think the door is the first thing that they will be shown!
The only way hedge funds can afford to do this is because, firstly as you rightly say, the market is rigged, and secondly the fractional banks will give them as much money as they like since they cannot lose.
Couldn't agree more keeping it simple is a very good idea the so called investment banking and derivatives stuff is an artifice of very little use futures are far from advances on the following seasons crops or factoring of debts a function Professor Mellor also touches on in the interview here regarding early development of money / banking systems.
I don't believe anything I have linked to or suggested is anything except a bog standard straight forward Credit based means of exchange system , International Trade admittedly adds complexity due to Terms of Trade factors but even that isn't rocket science in fact none of this is not even the Algorithims and economic models you mention with a lot of this stuff all it takes is a little time and concentration to work through the information that is available so much of banking and modern life is buried in the small print, hidden in plain sight. Banking gains an edge by having faster links to the electronic exchanges as well as insider knowledgeI have no doubt the whole system as it currently exists is rigged. If people want to bet money in a rigged casino let them but don't let them do it with our money represented by future Taxes and also with the ability to create the money to stake at the casino out of the means of exchange the rest of us rely on to work and tally in the real economy.
Whatever solution we eventually adopt, preferably by choice, but ultimately by necessity, the one that will ultimately work should be simple and straightforward.
One of the main problems in banking is actually understanding how it works, and a veil of ignorance exists that allows bankers to invent whatever financial products they like, using complex algorithms that only computers can decipher, and then sell them into a market that hasn't a clue what its buying. The Emperor's new clothes. Sub-prime was a perfect example of this.
Let's make sure if we change things that we change them in away that everyone will understand. Let's keep it simple!
I have put my reply to your comment on my blog for now as it seems unable to go up here.
Fantastic interview by the way. Well done I am going to try and get as many people I know to listen to it as I possibly can.Thanks, very inspiring.
Also, if the cause of the objection is that banks charges government interest - the way round this is to get local and central government to borrow directly from BoE. Something we call print money or Quantitive Easing. There is no need for additional layer of complexity and overhead with another 'regional bank'. The trouble with that is how you can stop them from printing too much (and MMT doesn't work in real world).
(Bank North Dakota is constrained by the amount of money they have at the Federal Reserve because if they make too much loan and the too much money is transferred out of BND to say, Wells Fargo, it will go bust).
Isn't Bank of North Dakota practises Fractional RB and make loans in the 'In God We Trust' green back that looks exactly the same as those issued by Uncle Ben? And NO, Bank Of North Dakota is not allowed to print the "In God we Trust" green back and if it starts to print BND IOU, it won't go very far either.
Funds at Bank North Dakota are guaranteed by state of North Dakota which has unfunded pension liabilities of $(oh yes, the same as uncle ben's $) 280 odds millions (though not bad, the state pension is 80% funded BUT it assumes as 8% growth - good luck to that).
Also, BND also guarantee students loans (another bubble about the burst).
The problem is not the banks, it is the people who run the banks who are given perverse incentive to take risks with other people's money.
Suggestion Fully Nationalise and regionalise RBS and Llyods and have them issue a currency similar to North Dakota in the US.For more interesting information see Ellen Browns articles on her book Web of Debt.
here is some encouraging stuff happening in the US the Bank of North Dakota I am sure you will be aware of these other initiatives are very encouraging.
I posted the link to my Facebook with this thought.https://www.facebook.com/l....
This is the stuff, come on get some of the local councillors who hopefully are not up to their necks in Westminster back scratching toady BS to push for some of this. Nationalise Llyods and RBS regionalise them into divisions by counties and launch their own credit money if needs be call it the peoples pound.The old one Stirling Currency can be called the pound of flesh they certainly have had their pound of all our flesh ( Good Old Shakespeare, Merch of Venice)
You are right, the credit rating agencies are a total joke. They appear to provide ratings according to doing as little harm as possible to the big players and not on the basis of a real risk assessment.
Perhaps they should be held accountable when they get it so wrong, especially in the case of such an obvious bubble like sub-prime.
I'd like to see your presentation Herman.
The trouble is of coruse that a banker can always blame Moody when investing lots of other people money in AAA subprime mortgages or Greek Bonds.
The only way to ensure prudence is when bankers will not walk away rich if something goes wrong under their watch. Just include that in the condition of the banking license - probably doesn't even require a law change. As long as there isn't any real 'skin' in the game - regulations or reforms are pointless as those can be got around.
Charlie Munger said that there is no need to gain market shares in undesirables activities - and I agree. The banking we needs are those that facilitate real world transactions - and can't see how they can offshore those. Gambling banks won't like those rules and will go elsewhere, and that should be encouraged.
SORRY - bad linksI’ve set up downloads for this proposal at the following:
Feel free to browse the rest of the site as well if you like!
I've set up downloads for this proposal at the following:
I'll set up the documents on an ftp zone on my website and publish the URL on PM. That way anyone who wants a copy to critique get get hold of one.
I think that there are already plenty of laws that could be invoked to prosecute director who break the laws, the main problem being the international nature of banking and jurisdictional issues.
But yes, if sequestration of assets was a possibility, I agree, this would probably result in a lot more prudence.
Do you have an open email - I won't want to publish my here. Or if it is open, can you put in on Scribe etc?
USSR - heem...communism? Think the overpromised government of the United State of America and those of Western europe shall be next in line to default on their pension promises. Over promise is the problem here I would think.
Yes - need balance between prudent and efficiency (you call it risk taking). The problem here is of course actors in banking system bares no risk after they collected their bonuses.
Therefore, I would also advocate that banks directors will have all their renumeration above £150k ring fence in a special fund for 5 years (the fund will pay interest that is inversely proportional to the leverage). If they have to use the BoE overnight facilities, there will be a 50% charge on that fund each time.
You raise some very interesting points here.
In terms of state or government, the USSR was neither, since it was a group of countries involuntarily forced, by military and political occupation to become a notional nation, hence, once the break-up started in 1989, most of the USSR states couldn't wait to become independent again. It's really nice to see so many now becoming part of the European Union. The overarching factor was neither state nor government, but communism, and the reason that the USSR fell apart was that communism was unable to fix the problems, since it had become far too corrupt.
The issue with private banks, similar to the link between state and private finance organisations in the West has the overarching common factor of capitalism which is also now rife with corruption. So, it becomes apparent that no matter whatever system is adopted, corruption or undermining its principles is what brings it crashing down.
In capitalism a fine balance needs to be wrought between 'prudence' and 'risk-taking', which in alternative words could probably be renamed 'conservatism' and 'innovation'. We need to establish a balance that will permit both aspects of capitalism to co-exist, but also to be able to moderate the excesses of each other.
On the prudence side Full Reserve is obviously the way to go, but on the other hand there are those who say, possibly with some justification, that Fractional Reserve is responsible for driving innovation, and much of what we have developed in the west, particularly on the technology front, is a result of fractional risk-taking (fractional) investment.
It is my belief that the way to solve this is to allow two basic 'principles of capitalism', choice and competition, to become the drivers for change and for moderation, by enabling a dual approach to banking that I have named DLRB or Dual Linked-Reserve Banking.
DLRB introduces and second tier within the Central Banking clearing structure, the second tier being Full Reserve. This would create the option for account-holders to decide whether they seek safety and low or no interest returned on their bank balances or if they will accept a higher risk with the possibility of higher returns. The first milestone would be that of establishing competition as the monopoly that Fractional Baking currently has would be broken. However, the funding for risk based innovative investment would still be available, but without the government guarantees. The dual reserves would allow money to flow from one reserve to another (an internal BoE accounting operation), but the disciplines on both systems would work in favour of the account-holder who would be able to effectively be able to move money from one reserve to another dependent in their prevailing confidence in the market.
It's all better explained in a document and powerpoint presentation I have produced, which I will be happy to pass you a copy of if you supply me with your email address.
The other thing I really don't like about current RWA regime is that lending to AAA rated parties and to government are zero rated for capital calculation. So, in theory, I can setup a bank and lend the government 100000000000000000000000000000 and that is totally allowable under current scheme even though I only have £1 of capital (though when the government try to pay suppliers using other banks, I will run into liquidity problems and have to borrow from BoE).
For mortgages, it used to be half of the amount lend. So, in effect, our banks are leverated maybe 20-30 times to £1 of capital without the RWA adjustmenets.
That was how the entire eurozone banks get into trouble with the PIGS government bonds...
Discussion on FRB must also distinguish between the RWA scheme (as in UK/Europe) and the Frational Reserve scheme (£1 deposit, lent £x pounds, as in China).
To answer the points you raised:
(a) The state is indeed different from the government. But the people/state will have to bear the often thoughtless promises that the 'government' makes on their behalf. When the government is as big as it is, then the state and the government becomes more and more synonymous.
The USSR (Was that the state or the government? Or were they the same) made lovely promises to its people, but many now live in poverty. With a privately managed funds, the people are subjected to the Darwinian - those who are financially educated who fare well and those who don't will suffer. With this, I advocate making financial education compulsory in schools.
(b) The issue with private banks is of course the FRB underwritten by the BoE. The solution to this is to reduce the leverage allowed and to make the bank directors lose everything (or put them in prison) if the banks goes bust under their watch. There is also a need to put leaders of FSA/BoE to be joinly liable for the banks actions (in a way similar to the Consumer Credit Act s75) and Mr King and Mr Sants and the Chancellor would have behaved infinitely more conservatively.
(c) With modifications made in (b), private banks should continue to be allowed to create bank credit. This is nothing new about this as we have fractional jet, time shares, car rental etc. The 'thing' can be lent out as long as not all try to claim it at the same time. If they overdone it, (b) would be educate remedy.
There is a lot of ranting about what the problem going on, but not much in the way of solutions being suggested.
It would be interesting to hear what members might replace the current system we have with, and how they would put it in place.
I should also note that i emailed the Professor directly on Thursday 19th and asked her a few questions, including an invitation to respond to this thread.
No response as yet.
Love it David.
And is it not fact that the largest holder of gold is indeed the Vatican bank?
I must at this point thank "Barb" for he post to me personally, and the information contained within.
Whilst i don't necessarily agree with a "rational system for issuing money which does not carry interest." we can perhaps agree it would certainly be a better option than going back to a gold standard lol!
Barb goes on to say that "the important thing is that all participants in whatever system agree that it measures real value within the economy where it circulates, and facilitates trade in that value."
Well, what happens when individuals don't agree on value? And you can bet that will happen!
Wouldn't a simpler system of ensuring our needs are met free from all forms of barter or trade be vastly more civilized?
It is always difficult to consider things out of our "frames of reference."
Just because we have all been brought to understand a specific form of anything, doesn't necessarily mean we cant change it completely....does it?
Aside from one aspect of what Mary has said here I agree very much with and am pleased I was able to take the time to listen.
In relation to gold and silver I would only suggest that Mary might want examine the mythos surrounding gold and its uses other than in the form of money. In truth, gold is far more important in its uses both ancient and modern which is why it continues to figure centrally within the VATican as well as both the Egyptian and Aztec civilisations along with many others. Silver too carries with it healing and protective traditions that are ancient. Both are sensitive to electromagnetic resonance and conducive to their flows.
I suspect that some of the societal programming of children's minds into the pursuit of gold treasure becomes embedded as children's tales of piracy, how very pertinent is this to the deployment of civil statutes of fleet.
And where is the gold so much despised today. Who holds it and what in heavens name do they hoard it for? How many have been slaughtered in its acquisition?
True wealth creation comes from what is produced and built in terms of the quality of life it bequeaths to the people of future generations.
What an odd position to take where you would rather trust private banks over the 'state' - the definition of the state being society in general, or whatever we vote it into being through the electoral process.
I think what Mary Mellor was vocalising was the fact that with a crash and recession on average every ten years, combined with inflation, coupled to an artificial overheating in the economy caused by a surfeit of debt cash, the chances of confidently predicting that the stock market investments you have through your pension company are going to consistently rise by 5% each year in compound interest is pushing the bounds of belief way beyond its ability to deliver.
Myself, I would rather put my faith in my fellow man than in an organisation that has consistently failed to deliver for more than half-a-century, and created a world where you either need to be filthy rich and not need state help, or be destitute on retirement in order to qualify for full state aid - with little or no middle ground.
It is rapidly becoming the situation where to save and be frugal is to be stupid, whereas to borrow and spend for as long as you can is the sensible thing to do.That situation has been brought about by our debt-driven banking system and our pension companies are a complicit part of the mechanism.
The state and the government should not be mixed up as being the same thing!
Something else that struck me to be a little odd was the Professor's point of view that there is no "security" in saving or investing money for the future, in pensions and alike. She stresses that as we simply do not know what the cost of things will be in 40 years time, that gives us no security. But if the state says that they will ensure to feed us in 40 years time, that is more secure.
To my mind there are 2 problems with this.
Firstly, pensions and saving plans are supposed to rise above inflation. Sure there is obvious risk involved, but that is how they are supposed to work.
Secondly, and this is simply my own opinion, i wouldn't trust the state as far as i could throw it!
However, i also have to say that i wouldn't put any of my money in pensions or saving plans also!
OK - so professor Mellor is in favour of issuance of debt free money. The problem with that is that if you get someone like Gordon Brown or Mugabe than the amount of money issued with be totally out of control. To tax it back is easier than said because:
(a) Those who benefit from the issuance are probably quite resourceful in avoiding handling the tokens back so the squeezed middle class will be the one who have to be taxed to controlled the number of money in circulation.
(b) When money gets into the hand of other sovereign such as OPEC, Chinese government etc, it will be impossible to tax other sovereigns.
Full reserve banking with fixed public issuance fixed at estimated economic growth rate of 2% is the way to go.
@Jon Stevenson: The ridiculous commodity theory of money has to be exploded. There are a lot of otherwise sensible financial commentators out there who advocate going back to the gold standard as though that will solve anything but improve the position of those who already have gold while everyone else goes to the wall. What they should be advocating is a rational system for issuing money which does not carry interest. When you look at proper histories of money (based on modern archaeology/research into the ancient world and not parroting the John Law/Adam Smith myth - the collection of essays 'What is Money' ed. Smithson is a good place to start, and Zalenga's massive tome 'The Lost Science of Money' develops this theme) gold started to be used as a money token because it was relatively abundant and easily got at compared to other metals with no other practical use besides adornment. Interest started as a percentage tithe on loans of productive necessities (like cattle or grain) and the problems really started when it and taxes started to be demanded in metal. People have historically used all kinds of things as money tokens, the important thing is that all participants in whatever system agree that it measures real value within the economy where it circulates, and facilitates trade in that value. Great podcast.
I also disagree that Gold and silver are "just pretty metals."
Gold and silver, along with platinum, rhodium, palladium and copper are industrial metals and therefore would always have a value based on their relative abundance and usefulness. They have intrinsic value.
It is certainly not a european or western view that gold and silver are valuable either. There is a massive market for these metals around the world, most notably in Asia.
Prof. Mellor's final comments about the corrosive effects of the present system are telling : the widespread disdain for the poor and disadvantaged-encouraged by this government-will compound the inequality which is ruining so many lives.http://www.guardian.co.uk/c...
That was a very interesting podcast, and one that illustrates very succinctly how our banking system has been corrupted from its designed purpose of being a benign assistant to societal growth and development, to being an agent of slavery and division.
Jeeze, have i had a "misunderstanding" regarding how money came into existence all this time?
Can the professor provide some evidence to back up her opinion please? Or anyone for that matter.
"Gold just a pretty thing and no different than shells?" And "we gave it value?" I was of the opinion that scarcity, whether real or perceived is what gives it value.
The rest i kinda agree with...it would be widely beneficial if Government went back to issuing free money instead of it being into a borrowed into existence by banks. But if you are looking for a more complete answer for humanity, (and the professor touches on this) then again you going to need a different financial system. But this could certainly be a step in the right direction.