The banks get fined. But by whom? An organisation funded by similarly plundered public funds.

 

So the money sloshes around between the same people.

 

And none of it goes to the people, for the benefit of the people.

 

FX has always been a corrupt piss take. Every person working within it admits this.

 

So what's these fines all about?

 

Pretence at normalcy? A show of faux decency?

 

You couldn't make it up. And as its headline news, the sheeple believe it without thinking.

Was actually thinking the same thing earlier this week RS. Its difficult to see where things will change because, as you point out the money stays within the same circles. Depressing as fuck if you only look at it on the surface, but I think times are changing. People are mobilising, people aren't accepting that.things are the way they are because that's the way things are. I'd even go as far to say the SNP are an example of it with their attitude in the commons. People shouldn't accept. Someone said to me the other day that we shouldn't always question, I queried why not . the way I see it, the day we stop questioning is the day we stop learning and may as well accept ourselves being slaves.

One of the biggest issues I had with the independence campaign, was the lack of discussion on currency (believe it or not). Currency was used as a battering ram by both sides, but never fully debated. The role of banks in our society is a far deeper issue than just a Libor or Exchange fraud too. They control the entire direction of our economy and - subsequently - us.

 

The key is the power to create money. If you control that, then you control the economy. And you control democracy (i.e. we're not a democracy). Over 97% of the money in our system was created by the banks, and there is no required reserve ratio in the UK banking system at present. When you go to get a loan, the bank just creates the money at that point, and gives it to you - contrary to what the economics text books say, which is that banks use savings to fund loans (a blatant lie). What this results in is socialism. For the rich. Our entire banking industry, despite its free market mantra, is a big socialist experiment where the tax payer socialises the risks of the banking industry through bailout and QE. The only thing that can be absolutely certain is that it's not possible to avoid another banking crash. When it'll happen is anyone's guess. Fiat currency is a pyramid scheme, essentially, where regulation is essentially irrelevant.

 

The thing is, do we even need banks? I don't believe so. One of the "radical" ideas that was hugely ignored in the independence debate was the creation of a new currency. It was just dismissed as ridiculous by an ignorant media and repeated by the hordes (a bit like the immigration "issue") without investigation. There was (and is) an opportunity to work in a dual currency system, with an electronic currency (think state bitcoin) created by an independent (from government) Scottish Monetary Committee and only issuable by this committee. As long as taxes are collected in this currency, then it will hold value. Traditional banks for this currency are replaced by servers, as there is no physical item, just a number. Peer to peer and bank lending can continue as normal and banks can choose whether they provide that service or not (i.e. a free market). With no creation of money by banks, then there will never need to be a bailout of that currency (the bailout wasn't a banking bailout per se, more a GBP bailout - we were saving the currency, because the banks created too much of it). Banks would be optional, as they should be. Money exchange would be free - as it should be.

 

In the above system, new money is no longer created as debt, but is spent into the economy. The various political parties present a picture of how they would spend tax receipts, as well as how they would approach the money issuer to request funds to be spent into the economy (created). The people vote for that plan. That would be democracy. Instead we get bluster and lies about "growing the economy" and various other balls that our government - Tory, SNP or Labour - have absolutely fuck all control over.

One of the biggest issues I had with the independence campaign, was the lack of discussion on currency (believe it or not). Currency was used as a battering ram by both sides, but never fully debated. The role of banks in our society is a far deeper issue than just a Libor or Exchange fraud too. They control the entire direction of our economy and - subsequently - us.

 

The key is the power to create money. If you control that, then you control the economy. And you control democracy (i.e. we're not a democracy). Over 97% of the money in our system was created by the banks, and there is no required reserve ratio in the UK banking system at present. When you go to get a loan, the bank just creates the money at that point, and gives it to you - contrary to what the economics text books say, which is that banks use savings to fund loans (a blatant lie). What this results in is socialism. For the rich. Our entire banking industry, despite its free market mantra, is a big socialist experiment where the tax payer socialises the risks of the banking industry through bailout and QE. The only thing that can be absolutely certain is that it's not possible to avoid another banking crash. When it'll happen is anyone's guess. Fiat currency is a pyramid scheme, essentially, where regulation is essentially irrelevant.

 

The thing is, do we even need banks? I don't believe so. One of the "radical" ideas that was hugely ignored in the independence debate was the creation of a new currency. It was just dismissed as ridiculous by an ignorant media and repeated by the hordes (a bit like the immigration "issue") without investigation. There was (and is) an opportunity to work in a dual currency system, with an electronic currency (think state bitcoin) created by an independent (from government) Scottish Monetary Committee and only issuable by this committee. As long as taxes are collected in this currency, then it will hold value. Traditional banks for this currency are replaced by servers, as there is no physical item, just a number. Peer to peer and bank lending can continue as normal and banks can choose whether they provide that service or not (i.e. a free market). With no creation of money by banks, then there will never need to be a bailout of that currency (the bailout wasn't a banking bailout per se, more a GBP bailout - we were saving the currency, because the banks created too much of it). Banks would be optional, as they should be. Money exchange would be free - as it should be.

 

In the above system, new money is no longer created as debt, but is spent into the economy. The various political parties present a picture of how they would spend tax receipts, as well as how they would approach the money issuer to request funds to be spent into the economy (created). The people vote for that plan. That would be democracy. Instead we get bluster and lies about "growing the economy" and various other balls that our government - Tory, SNP or Labour - have absolutely fuck all control over.

 

Fractional reserve banking isn't exactly a new thing and I am pretty sure the EU rules mean that banks have to have 3% of total lending in reserves.

 

Also online cryptocurrency is not the future. It's far too complicated to use, far too easy to be scammed and far too easy to lose your funds when they are stored exclusively electronically. The only reason for bitcoins atm is to be anonymous for illegal activities. For everything else normal currency is just so much easier and better to use. And in the end if you have to store the currency in a central system, like a lot of people do atm, will we not just end up with more instances like Mt. Gox? I'd rather have my money in the bank than some dodgy bitcoin company that could steal all my money tomorrow.

Fractional reserve banking isn't exactly a new thing and I am pretty sure the EU rules mean that banks have to have 3% of total lending in reserves.

 

Also online cryptocurrency is not the future. It's far too complicated to use, far too easy to be scammed and far too easy to lose your funds when they are stored exclusively electronically. The only reason for bitcoins atm is to be anonymous for illegal activities. For everything else normal currency is just so much easier and better to use. And in the end if you have to store the currency in a central system, like a lot of people do atm, will we not just end up with more instances like Mt. Gox? I'd rather have my money in the bank than some dodgy bitcoin company that could steal all my money tomorrow.

 

There is no fractional reserve (required reserve) in the UK. In the EU, 3% doesn't include money loaned to governments (e.g. Argentina) either, so banks in theory can have up to  1000 times as much cash on loan as they do reserves. Although it's irrelevant, as I'm talking GBP. That fractional reserve isn't new doesn't make it right. It's safe to say most people aren't aware of how it works. Banking crashes aren't new either, and they're entirely related to the issue of too much currency by banks. It's a flawed system.

 

There's nothing inherent about crypto currency that makes it complicated to use. Simply that those crypto currencies are set up badly. A properly created system would make currency exchange simple. Far more simple than currently exists. And far, far less expensive. Banks are getting paid for having a software system. Usually a shiite one. Mt Gox. was the failure of a private company (like a bank) holding people's bitcoins for them. There would be no private company holding your money, it would just be a free system that exists. Crypto currencies by nature are entirely transparent. However, the crypto currency piece isn't essential (just the quickest and easiest way to create a new currency, which can prevent the issue of new currency by anyone other than the state), the fact is that we have to remove the power of banks to create new money. You may be happy with your money in a bank, but that has to be weighed up with the fact that the majority of the people in this country have more debt than savings and every tax payer in this country will be charged again when the next banking crash happens. We will never, and can never pay down the debts of our country without changing the system. It's ludicrous that we've chosen a small group of financial institutions to be entirely free from responsibility in their investments by allowing them to print currency and have that currency backed by the tax payer.

Money is the route of all evil. There's a quote somewhere that says "If everyone fully understood the banking system there'd be a revolution overnight". I can't even think about it because it boils my piss so much because it's basically legal corruption. You pay back £1.80 for every £1 you borrow with a mortgage and the frustrating (putting it very fucking lightly) thing is that that money does not, has not and will not ever actually exist. It's just numbers on a computer.

 

The Venus Project (Jacques Fresco) is a fucking interesting alternative.

There is no fractional reserve (required reserve) in the UK. In the EU, 3% doesn't include money loaned to governments (e.g. Argentina) either, so banks in theory can have up to  1000 times as much cash on loan as they do reserves. Although it's irrelevant, as I'm talking GBP. That fractional reserve isn't new doesn't make it right. It's safe to say most people aren't aware of how it works. Banking crashes aren't new either, and they're entirely related to the issue of too much currency by banks. It's a flawed system.

 

There's nothing inherent about crypto currency that makes it complicated to use. Simply that those crypto currencies are set up badly. A properly created system would make currency exchange simple. Far more simple than currently exists. And far, far less expensive. Banks are getting paid for having a software system. Usually a shiite one. Mt Gox. was the failure of a private company (like a bank) holding people's bitcoins for them. There would be no private company holding your money, it would just be a free system that exists. Crypto currencies by nature are entirely transparent. However, the crypto currency piece isn't essential (just the quickest and easiest way to create a new currency, which can prevent the issue of new currency by anyone other than the state), the fact is that we have to remove the power of banks to create new money. You may be happy with your money in a bank, but that has to be weighed up with the fact that the majority of the people in this country have more debt than savings and every tax payer in this country will be charged again when the next banking crash happens. We will never, and can never pay down the debts of our country without changing the system. It's ludicrous that we've chosen a small group of financial institutions to be entirely free from responsibility in their investments by allowing them to print currency and have that currency backed by the tax payer.

 

But then if there is no central company holding the bitcoins on their server then everyone would have to have their bitcoins saved on computers, usb sticks etc. which would then have even higher risks then storing money as cash, no? And in the free system why do people still hold bitcoins in centrally controlled companies? I am not all that clued up on bitcoins but I like the idea of them from a libertarian stand point but not sure how practical they are outside niche markets.

The current system of banking has occurred during unprecedented growth in GDP and living standards. This isnt a coincidence. Fractional reserve banking is needed so companies and individuals alike can tap into future wealth in the present.

The current system of banking has occurred during unprecedented growth in GDP and living standards. This isnt a coincidence. Fractional reserve banking is needed so companies and individuals alike can tap into future wealth in the present.

 

No, it really isn't. They are tapping into future debt, because money is issued as debt. In order to be useful, we have to leave future generations with an asset in return, which we absolutely haven't. We've used half of the world's resources in order to raise those living standards, with a gargantuan level of waste. Value for money? I dinna think so. Don't get me started on GDP as a measurement of anything, at all - politicians measurement to excuse being a cunt.

 

 

But then if there is no central company holding the bitcoins on their server then everyone would have to have their bitcoins saved on computers, usb sticks etc. which would then have even higher risks then storing money as cash, no? And in the free system why do people still hold bitcoins in centrally controlled companies? I am not all that clued up on bitcoins but I like the idea of them from a libertarian stand point but not sure how practical they are outside niche markets.

 

The key here is "companies". I'm suggesting state controlled currency (controlling the issue of it, not the spending), via a BoE style independent (of the government) entity. So it'd be held on BoE servers (multiple). Money isn't stored as cash - only 3% of the current system is backed by cash, so there is no security other than by holding under your mattress. What we have just now is money - mostly debt - held on bank servers and backed up by the tax payer when it always goes tits up. From a libertarian standpoint, fractional reserve doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. With the internet, the velocity of money can be maintained by peer to peer lending and online transactions. Fractional reserve is the antithesis of the free market. It possibly did have a function 20-30 years ago, but not today. Ironically, the last 20-30 years has seen the explosion of new money.

 

 

Money is the route of all evil. There's a quote somewhere that says "If everyone fully understood the banking system there'd be a revolution overnight". I can't even think about it because it boils my piss so much because it's basically legal corruption. You pay back £1.80 for every £1 you borrow with a mortgage and the frustrating (putting it very fucking lightly) thing is that that money does not, has not and will not ever actually exist. It's just numbers on a computer.

 

The Venus Project (Jacques Fresco) is a fucking interesting alternative.

 

Nicholas Biddle I think. Venus Project has got some fuckin cool hoose designs too. The glaring omission of the Venus Project is how to transition to that point. My opinion is that our basic public services should be provided for free (shelter, food, health, education, communication and travel), and everything above that is left to the free market. That puts everyone on the same starting point and gives everyone the opt out that capitalism doesn't. We're nearly at a stage where it would be possible to automate the creation of housing and the provision of communication and travel. At that point, why should anyone be able to profit from it? If there are no labour costs, and no on-going maintenance costs, then the state should provide it. I think we should move to a collaborative goal-oriented solution rather than capitalism. For example, a goal for Aberdeen could be to create a city-wide unmanned transportation system that can be run on renewable energy (no on-going cost) and allow every area in the city to be reached from the centre within 15 minutes. Create targets for society, rather than shouting "economic growth" from now until eternity whilst pishing our actual resources up against a wall.

Nicholas Biddle I think. Venus Project has got some fuckin cool hoose designs too. The glaring omission of the Venus Project is how to transition to that point. My opinion is that our basic public services should be provided for free (shelter, food, health, education, communication and travel), and everything above that is left to the free market. That puts everyone on the same starting point and gives everyone the opt out that capitalism doesn't. We're nearly at a stage where it would be possible to automate the creation of housing and the provision of communication and travel. At that point, why should anyone be able to profit from it? If there are no labour costs, and no on-going maintenance costs, then the state should provide it. I think we should move to a collaborative goal-oriented solution rather than capitalism. For example, a goal for Aberdeen could be to create a city-wide unmanned transportation system that can be run on renewable energy (no on-going cost) and allow every area in the city to be reached from the centre within 15 minutes. Create targets for society, rather than shouting "economic growth" from now until eternity whilst pishing our actual resources up against a wall.

 

As much as I'd love mankind (the race, not the wrestler) to break free from the shackles of the all mighty dollar  I don't think the Venus project is the way to go. As well as a transitional period which seems which seems next to impossible to me there's the small matter of humans, by nature, being greedy cunts. This would lead to resentment and I just don't think it would work. I think they're going on the right lines there though. I don't profess to have all the answers but the system we have's days are very much numbered.

Basic income is the answer.

Basic income is the answer.

 

Totally agree like. But I reckon they should look more at what that basic income is for (food, shelter etc). Try to provide those for free, and effectively reduce the basic income as and when the service is provided instead.

 

For example, you pay everyone £30K per year to over food, shelter, travel etc. Once you provide free travel, take the value down to £25K. That way we're reducing the size of the state at the same time.

 

At some stage soon we're going to face a quandary where a company is charging for providing a resource that they don't actually put any physical labour into as it's all done by machine - so it's just a case of who owns the machine.

Totally agree like. But I reckon they should look more at what that basic income is for (food, shelter etc). Try to provide those for free, and effectively reduce the basic income as and when the service is provided instead.

 

For example, you pay everyone £30K per year to over food, shelter, travel etc. Once you provide free travel, take the value down to £25K. That way we're reducing the size of the state at the same time.

 

At some stage soon we're going to face a quandary where a company is charging for providing a resource that they don't actually put any physical labour into as it's all done by machine - so it's just a case of who owns the machine.

 

Fair enough but I don't see free transport as a priority at all. In my ideal society local communities would set up the free transport and would fund it via the community acting as equity holders with a dividend of free travel. You miss out the state entirely and it can be continuously funded through charging non equity holders. Basic income would still provide enough money for food, shelter and hospital care and all the state would have to do is the police and the courts.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough but I don't see free transport as a priority at all. In my ideal society local communities would set up the free transport and would fund it via the community acting as equity holders with a dividend of free travel. You miss out the state entirely and it can be continuously funded through charging non equity holders. Basic income would still provide enough money for food, shelter and hospital care and all the state would have to do is the police and the courts.

 

Aye, that option would certainly be a vast improvement. My only thought is that transport (food production aside) is probably the most inefficient and resource hungry process we have in the world right now. It's one where none of the current solutions being used is workable, and if we continue to pursue them I think we'll hit an abrupt end. It's also something that could be easily managed without human interaction. I kind of see the equity holders thing just adding unnecessary admin and bureaucracy - a waste of human resource I suppose. It's something that everyone benefits from, so just let everyone benefit from it.

So, I'm a Greek, of a minority who pays his taxes and like the majority in my country, I keep my savings and receive my earnings into my bank, in my case the Bank of Greece Principal branch on Appollo Street, Athens.

 

All this stuff going on doesn't affect me surely? They're going on about billions loaned TO my government and how Germany and other rich nations are wanting their money back.

 

I'm not allowed to take out 50 or 60 Euros a day and now they're saying the cash will run out this week. Where did my money go? Who stole my money? Should I report this to the police?

So, I'm a Greek, of a minority who pays his taxes and like the majority in my country, I keep my savings and receive my earnings into my bank, in my case the Bank of Greece Principal branch on Appollo Street, Athens.

 

All this stuff going on doesn't affect me surely? They're going on about billions loaned TO my government and how Germany and other rich nations are wanting their money back.

 

I'm not allowed to take out 50 or 60 Euros a day and now they're saying the cash will run out this week. Where did my money go? Who stole my money? Should I report this to the police?

 

When you deposit your cash in a bank, all you get is an IOU (current account balance) from the bank. Nobody has stolen your money, that cash - and it's a minimal portion of the created balance in existence - has been circulated around the system. You accept that IOU as soon as you deposit your cash in any bank I'm afraid. You should have known. That's just the way it is.

 

Speak to Goldman Sachs. There's a fair chance they've got it. Or if they don't, they'll loan you some other currency at a great rate, and then when it collapses they'll invoke onerous interest payment terms and other ludicrous conditions meaning that you'll struggle to pay any of your other debt. The people you previously thought were your friends will then go onto Facebook and slate you for having a lavish lifestyle where you bought food and other luxuries instead of paying your debts like other hardworking people. They'll tell you to sell your car, your house and your kids or they won't let you be part of their group any more. You want to be part of their group, you really do, but you've grown quite attached to your kids. In the end, they'll let you back in the group, because they need you to pick them up from the parties that you're no longer invited to.

 

Speak to Goldman Sachs. There's a fair chance they've got it.

 

Was speaking to a mate about this the other day.

 

Germany want their money back but Greece is fucked because they don't have it.  Britain is billions in debt.  The African nations have always been up to their knees in debt.  China's stock exchange is taking a massive nose dive.  The oil price is bankrupting companies in the UK, US, Russia, etc.  Even poorer members of OPEC are pennyless.

 

So where the fuck is the money, somebody must have it?

 

Or are we all spending money that doesn't exist?

 

 

Was speaking to a mate about this the other day.

 

Germany want their money back but Greece is fucked because they don't have it.  Britain is billions in debt.  The African nations have always been up to their knees in debt.  China's stock exchange is taking a massive nose dive.  The oil price is bankrupting companies in the UK, US, Russia, etc.  Even poorer members of OPEC are pennyless.

 

So where the fuck is the money, somebody must have it?

 

Or are we all spending money that doesn't exist?

 

Pretty much how I've always thought it has worked on a national level. There are some very rich people / companies out there that sitting pretty.

Was speaking to a mate about this the other day.

 

Germany want their money back but Greece is fucked because they don't have it.  Britain is billions in debt.  The African nations have always been up to their knees in debt.  China's stock exchange is taking a massive nose dive.  The oil price is bankrupting companies in the UK, US, Russia, etc.  Even poorer members of OPEC are pennyless.

 

So where the fuck is the money, somebody must have it?

 

Or are we all spending money that doesn't exist?

 

Yep, that's exactly what we're doing. That's how the system works. The money doesn't need to exist in order to lend it if you're a bank.

 

As part of the Basel II (or is it III? canna mine) agreement, banks were to be forced to have a certain (increased) percentage of reserves held against their lendings. However, that figure didn't include loans to nations/states. In theory, a bank could hold 1000 times loans as it does savings (including loans to states) banking on countries not defaulting on their debts.

 

Like UK debt, Greek debt isn't as a result of benefit cheats and state spending, it's a mixture of non-productive financial derivatives, credit swaps (aye, Goldman, we ken), bailouts and quantitative easing. The best thing they could do is turn on the cryptoDrachma and tell the Eurocunts to go and fuck themselves.

Personally, I would only proclaim on subjects I know.

 

Those who speculate fill the atmosphere with hot air.

Personally, I would only proclaim on subjects I know.

 

Those who speculate fill the atmosphere with hot air.

 

But that's what our financial system is - speculation. Given that economic textbooks don't even give the appropriate description of how money is created, and the majority of politicians don't know either (71% in a poll done by Positive Money) - and money creation really is central to the whole system - then it's fair to say that the financial system is essentially hot air.

I think the only banks through all the shit to make money was the Australian banks.

Our PM at the time gave everyone 400 pounds into their bank accounts to keep everything going.

It worked... Funny as that seems..

But now, with a far right government... We are fucked.

The man in charged is the scum of this earth. And that's nothing to do with my political standing.

He thinks wind farms are way more a blot on the landscape that coal powered power stations....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgnut6MpsK0

 

At a Geneva restaurant for lunch a couple of days ago, we found ourselves next to some bankers at the outside tables. They were four guys mid to mid-late 20's and had already finished dining by the time we arrived. After an hour and a half during which we had an excellent meal, three courses and lots of drinks - white port is lovely by the way, as I discovered this trip - they were still there. Given the fact that their drink was going down, their lips got looser and they spoke with truth. Their truth of course, the reality according to their frames of reference.

 

One of the four was Swiss, the other three English expensive educations. Interesting homo-eroticism possibilities going on between the Swiss and the one diagonally opposite but these cunts were unreal. The pink striped shirt gave the table his philosophy of business management. He said that "the way I manage is to pick on them at every opportunity, to wear them down and destroy their self-confidence". This was considered acceptable, just his way of doing it. Sad fact is, pink shirt was the most likely to be a virgin to the female sex. Just a horrible small man with a plummy accent.

 

These people have been institutionalised to be the "ruling classes", going to the right schools to get the easy high paying jobs in the nicest of locations. The world's fucked up when these poofter losers get to think they're in charge. Sad fact is, they are. At present.

But then, that's nae any different to a manager at a car sales firm, or even the traditional bank branch manager (not yer classic banker, of the bonus variety). To be honest, it's probably the case in manual labour jobs too. I've seen the occasional apprentice being spoken to like shite because their boss could, and he seemed to enjoy it. So I don't necessarily think that the public-schoolness of those cunts made any difference to their attitude toward their staff, but it probably did shoehorn them into the banking/finance industry. The only difference between banking and other industries is the function of bailout (i.e. the rules of the industry they work in). Socialising the risk of failure promotes a pretty care-free, confident attitude that permeates that industry. If banks were allowed to go bust - as they should be - then these incompetent little fucks would be a lot less confident, and a lot less willing to sit around getting cunted during the day because they fortuitously met their daily gambling targets by 11am.