The Political Thread

[Christov]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/04/george-osborne-misleading-crisis-claims

Osborne being a lying little scrote, sky is blue, water is wet, etc...

[House of Usher]

I don't get it. I'm not an economist. But presumably the point is that if you create new money someone has to underwrite the value of that money. If a government just started issuing more money it would devalue the currency, because it has nothing to back up that printed money with. Presumably the purpose of issuing bonds and borrowing the money (i.e. getting a third party to underwrite the value of it, and paying them back with interest) is that the third party has to be good for that money in a way that the government isn't or it wouldn't have to be borrowing it in the first place.

[Peter Wolf]

I don't get it. I'm not an economist. But presumably the point is that if you create new money someone has to underwrite the value of that money. If a government just started issuing more money it would devalue the currency, because it has nothing to back up that printed money with. Presumably the purpose of issuing bonds and borrowing the money (i.e. getting a third party to underwrite the value of it, and paying them back with interest) is that the third party has to be good for that money in a way that the government isn't or it wouldn't have to be borrowing it in the first place.

We underwrite the cash and then some which is why we are classified as collateral.We are bought and sold as collateral due to the fact we generate the interest on the cash   that is backed by nothing so in effect we are what is backing the cash.Taxation is servicing the debt and we are bought and sold as collateral.The average Serf/Slave is calculated to generate X amount of income to service debt during its working life.

Its the Slave/Serf standard.


If the FEDRES just starts printing more money then it devalues the currency and wether it is backed by anything or not makes no difference.

George Osborne is just doing what he is told to do by the central bankers who control the fiscal policy of every nation that was sold out to the G20.The UK Govt doesnt have the final say on fiscal policy and all the austerity measures are straight from the central bankers.This is what happens when your elected govt doesnt represent you.

Its all about centralisation and consolidation of control of the economy.

[The Legendary Shark]

Our currency is based on nothing, it is a fiat currency. This is not a bad thing at all.

The value of a £5 note is based entirely upon trust. That is, I give you this £5 note and trust you will give me £5 worth of goods or services in return. In short, money is only worth what society decides it is worth.

So long as you can pay your taxes with it, you can use whatever you want as money from sea shells to tally sticks to metal discs. Society underwrites the "value" of the money.

Of course, printing too much or too little money will harm any economy but existing economic and monetary mechanisms and safeguards are more than adequate to prevent such imbalances. It is the source of the money supply that needs changing (and a few other things such as fractional reserve lending) - the general public will notice little difference in the way things work except that  everyone's level of debt will fall dramatically.

Privatized central banks lend money into society.
Public central banks spend money into society.

It does take a bit of thinking about to get your head around, but it's like one of those magic eye pictures - as soon as you see it, it really jumps out at you. If you can read this and not find yourself seething with anger then either I haven't explained it properly or you haven't understood it.

Imagine money is milk, society is a primary school and the central bank is a farmer.

If the primary school owns a cow, all the kids get virtually free milk.

If the cow is owned by the farmer, the kids have to pay for their milk.

[Peter Wolf]

By the time all this is over everyone will wish that things were still like they were when things were really bad.

[The Legendary Shark]

The frustrating thing is that this whole economic disaster is so easy to fix. The politicians refuse to listen, the public refuses to think about it and all the while those thieving bastard bankers continue to steal all the value from our society - just like they stole from our parents and grandparents and just as they intend to continue stealing from our children and grandchildren
until one day we wake up homeless, penniless and futureless in the country our forefathers built for us and our politicians gave away.

I weep for us all, I truly do.

Not one of these government cuts or austerity measures is necessary. NOT ONE. This country could be completely out of debt in under a year. Please, please, please watch "The Money Masters" documentary I mentioned in an earlier post - it'll take a couple of hours of your life and I promise that it will open your eyes to a world of possibilities.

[House of Usher]

Taxation is servicing the debt and we are bought and sold as collateral.The average Serf/Slave is calculated to generate X amount of income to service debt during its working life.

Except, and even Marxists recognize this, in the capitalist economy, workers are formally free. I could, if I so wished, go and live in any country that will have me and pay my taxes there instead, or live in an offshore tax haven. There are limits to the extent I can literally be bought and sold - all any lender has a stake in is any future tax revenues that can be extracted from me so long as I choose to live in Britain and not elsewhere.

George Osborne is just doing what he is told to do by the central bankers who control the fiscal policy of every nation that was sold out to the G20.

You let George Osborne off too lightly. You make it sound as if the Tories didn't want to cut public spending for reasons that are predominantly ideological. The current financial troubles have provided the Tories the excuse they needed to bring in a whole raft of regressive policy measures, including completely doing away with council housing as we know it. Thre are no shadowy puppet masters making them do that - it's what they Tories wanted to do.

Furthermore, you make it sound as if the Tories have no choice in the matter. If George Osborne is doing what the central bankers told him to do, then why is George Osborne doing anything different to what Labour would be doing or the Liberal Democrats wanted to do? Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats had plans for the swingeing cuts the coalition has implemented.

If the primary school owns a cow, all the kids get virtually free milk.
If the cow is owned by the farmer, the kids have to pay for their milk.

You're talking about ownership of the means of production, which is elementary Marxism. I'm not sure the average Tory MP cares about who owns anything, including the economy, so long as their kids go to public school and the champagne never runs out.

[The Legendary Shark]

Yes, I'm talking about ownership of the means of production of this country's money supply. Should our money supply be created by private institutions (thereby requiring every penny plus interest to be paid back to those private institutions at a massive loss to society) or should it be created at virtually no cost by our elected representatives in government?

"...why is George Osborne doing anything different to what Labour would be doing or the Liberal Democrats wanted to do? Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats had plans for the swingeing cuts the coalition has implemented."

Exactly. No matter which party gets in, major fiscal policies rarely change. Lib Dems now support tuition fees, for example. They have been conned into u-turning on tuition fees because borrowing money to pay for education is expensive. This is entirely the point of the whole argument. Let the government create and control the money supply and all education could be paid for by society and not borrowed from private financiers whose sole goal is to make a profit.

Governments naturally serve whoever holds the power. Ideally, the people a government represents hold the power - but not in our case. In Britain, the Central Bankers and large corporations hold the power - therefore the government serves them first, not us. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

How many times have governments changed only for things to remain the same or be re-introduced under a different name or hidden away in a budget or defence spending review? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." If the people financing the change (the Central Bankers) don't want that change, they can simply blackmail the government into capitulating by threatening or causing a financial downturn. This is easy for them to do and requires only a reduction of the amount of money in the system, just as is happening right now. (That said, there is some indication that maybe the situation is even spiralling out of control of even the Central Bankers.)

Our system of government is basically a good one. In my view, all we need do is remove the unfair influence Central Bankers and large corporations have over it. The way to remove this influence is to strip the central banks of their ability to create money out of nothing to lend to our government, thereby freeing us all from their grip and allowing us to finally elect the MPs we deserve - not the MPs we can afford or whomever is the best of a bad bunch. I don't want to smash or overthrow the British Government, I just want it back in the hands of the People. Period.

[Peter Wolf]

Taxation is servicing the debt and we are bought and sold as collateral.The average Serf/Slave is calculated to generate X amount of income to service debt during its working life.

Except, and even Marxists recognize this, in the capitalist economy, workers are formally free. I could, if I so wished, go and live in any country that will have me and pay my taxes there instead, or live in an offshore tax haven. There are limits to the extent I can literally be bought and sold - all any lender has a stake in is any future tax revenues that can be extracted from me so long as I choose to live in Britain and not elsewhere.

Thats true in a way as you are not a prisoner of the UK but it doesnt really make any diiference if you moved and paid tax in any Western/developed nation as its all interconnected.

George Osborne is just doing what he is told to do by the central bankers who control the fiscal policy of every nation that was sold out to the G20.

You let George Osborne off too lightly. You make it sound as if the Tories didn't want to cut public spending for reasons that are predominantly ideological. The current financial troubles have provided the Tories the excuse they needed to bring in a whole raft of regressive policy measures, including completely doing away with council housing as we know it. Thre are no shadowy puppet masters making them do that - it's what they Tories wanted to do.

Furthermore, you make it sound as if the Tories have no choice in the matter. If George Osborne is doing what the central bankers told him to do, then why is George Osborne doing anything different to what Labour would be doing or the Liberal Democrats wanted to do? Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats had plans for the swingeing cuts the coalition has implemented.

Please do not mistake my comment as being an apology for Conservative spending cuts or Conservatives in general because it wasnt.The Conservatives are allowed a degree of autonomy to decide where the spending cuts will come from but ultimately if they are told there have to be spending cuts there will be spending cuts.Look at the spending cuts that are imposed on other nations that are traditionally more Socialist in nature like France.

The fiscal policies do come from the central bankers and i am not about to second guess what Labour or LibDems would have done but its possible that Labour would have continued spending and spending and spending with more Quantitative Easing which would have made this country even more worse off than it is already or they might have also cut spending because they were told to.Both are bad but more QE means more debt and if it continues like it is in the US then Bankuptcy is virtually guaranteed but the plan is not to totally bankrupt the UK.The plan is to take European countries to the edge of Bankruptcy and then reap the interest payments on the massive debt.There is no sense in totally destroying the UK Corporation cash cow.



Its quite possible that Labour would have promised no spending cuts or maybe they did.I cant remember what they promised but in any case their plans might well have changed once elected.Labour would have had to borrow more money to continue spending but the problem was that Labour despite 11 yrs of economic boom still managed to virtually bankrupt the nation instead of storing up a surplus of funds instead of a defecit which is what we got as Labour wasted all that cash*.The one thing i am glad about with Tory spending cuts is the scrapping of over 300 quangos that are serviced by taxpayers.

Why cant payments to the EU be suspended until this country is out of debt ?

Thats not politicking as its just fact and i havent got any time for tory/Labour mud slinging.

The frustrating thing is that this whole economic disaster is so easy to fix. The politicians refuse to listen, the public refuses to think about it and all the while those thieving bastard bankers continue to steal all the value from our society - just like they stole from our parents and grandparents and just as they intend to continue stealing from our children and grandchildren
until one day we wake up homeless, penniless and futureless in the country our forefathers built for us and our politicians gave away.

I weep for us all, I truly do.

Not one of these government cuts or austerity measures is necessary. NOT ONE. This country could be completely out of debt in under a year. Please, please, please watch "The Money Masters" documentary I mentioned in an earlier post - it'll take a couple of hours of your life and I promise that it will open your eyes to a world of possibilities.

No more denial.

[Christov]

The one thing i am glad about with Tory spending cuts is the scrapping of over 300 quangos that are serviced by taxpayers.

Even the UK Film Council?

I mean, it isn't like Jeremy Hunt's argument that 'oh, the executive salaries are bloated' really sticks, because they were due to send a recalculation of finances that cut them by almost half.

Even if you think Quangos are the height of beaurocracy, you have to admit that some of them actually did a good job.

[House of Usher]

It doesn't really matter what the quangos actually did, all that matters to the Tories is that scrapping them saves a few bob and is a good news story in the Daily Mail. Personally I would be happy if if the Quality Assurance Agency was one of the quangos getting scrapped.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

I look forward to the day when the populace rise up and remove the people in power!

Alas I think this is still a few years off 

[House of Usher]

I look forward to the day when the populace rise up and remove the people in power!

Alas I think this is still a few years off 

That won't happen except in the wake of a zombie emergency, sorry; after that we'll all be grateful for the jackboot heel of firm government anyway.

[Matt Timson]

I do smile at the notion that Labour wouldn't be making massive cuts now, just because they didn't make them before the election- in much the same way that I'm amused people that people think we've actually had much in the way of a change of Government at all.

The last one was rubbish and about as far removed from its origins as it could get without actually saying, "hey! We're the slightly more groovy Conservative party!" This Government is equally rubbish and whatever replaces them will, no doubt, be on a par- whatever side of the fence they claim to sit.

You may disagree- and that's fine.

[Peter Wolf]

The one thing i am glad about with Tory spending cuts is the scrapping of over 300 quangos that are serviced by taxpayers.

Even the UK Film Council?

I mean, it isn't like Jeremy Hunt's argument that 'oh, the executive salaries are bloated' really sticks, because they were due to send a recalculation of finances that cut them by almost half.

Even if you think Quangos are the height of beaurocracy, you have to admit that some of them actually did a good job.

Thats probably very true but i was generalising. 


I just want to say that i type long comments and i reply to others comments but i am not saying i am right and whatever anyone else says is wrong as i just try to present the facts.Some of it is off the top of my head and i said so but the point of my comments is to inform instead of wanting to start argumentative debates.

Politics is one of my main interests which is why i talk about it a lot.