The debt time bomb that is Britain

In the past, some countries used to have established forgiveness of debt dates and it helped to reset everything and give everyone a fresh start (individually and nationally). I don't see a good reason for having abandoned the practice other than greed. And part of the practice was that people would only lend because they had more than they needed, so if it wasn't paid back there was no real loss, only gain in helping a fellow human being out, leading to greater individual and societal bonds, respect, appreciation, etc. They weren't forced to lend and they could choose whom to lend to. Money-lending as a profession, on the other hand, has always caused problems. It's funny about Jesus isn't it? He's not recorded as having laid his hands upon anyone (save to heal) except the money-lenders, whom he whipped.

I know of three examples of this type of forgiveness of debt. There may be more. The first is from the Bible and it was actually two things that took place. There was the "Year of Release" every seven years, when debts would be forgiven, and also the "Jubilee" (the original one, not the queen's b-day which is a mockery of the real McCoy) every 49/50 years. Rome practiced something similar for a time, and I believe there may have been something like it for a time around Glastonbury (my memory of what I read about the latter regarding this is vague).

The movie "The International" has a great little scene where a character explains debt from a banking point of view and why some people want individuals and nations to be in permanent debt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJZUIUrT_f0

Also, the video series called "Money as Debt" provides plenty of food for thought. Money isn't as simple as I used to believe it was. I was bamboozled for a long time at the hands of money-magicians. Still am now and then, because I'm no expert. But here's a bit of what I've learnt:

For example, one of the means through which new money is created is when a bank gives a loan to somebody, or a company. Say it's £1,000. So a £1,000 is printed at the central bank and passed to the local bank who then provides it to their customer. But where is the money to pay the interest that the bank then charges? It hasn't been created. So the customer then takes part in the giant game of musical chairs that has been orchestrated, and has to somehow obtain money from the existing national/global money pool, in order to pay the interest to the bank (the debt). In doing so, if he is successful, this customer is removing from the national/global money pool the amount that someone else required to pay their own debt, and ensuring that the bank takes their possessions, unless they can get yet another loan to pay back interest on the first loan, which will further increase the overall debt problem and competition/strife. It's like gladiators being sent out to do battle in an arena, blindfolded, while the organizers enjoy the spectacle (and the proceeds of those who pay to watch).

When political parties talk about taking measures to cut down on spending and the national debt, without addressing the root issue causing it (the fiat banking system), the debt still continues to increase and the only result is that more people's purchasing power is diminished, allowing the few to gain even more possessions at a lower cost. This is born out by several reports I've come across over the past few years that indicate how the wealth of the top 10% has actually increased considerably since 2008 while everyone else's (generally speaking) has either remained static or decreased, at a time when it is believed that "everyone has had to tighten their belt". Not so. Not everyone. It's not that the system doesn't work. It does. But only for some, intentionally. Imagine what would happen if everyone was well-off. Who would want to do the dirty work? Why work as a janitor, a cleaner, a secretary, a clerk, etc? This is what it comes down to. This is why it's never "fixed". Because the fix is already in. Inequality has to be permanent, in order for the present way of life to "work".

For as long as the majority don't want to go "back" to a way of living whereby the majority have their own land and farm and stuff, and provide for themselves independently, then it can't be any different to what it is now. The only way it would be slightly different is if the politicians and bankers were honest about it, instead of keeping people in the dark about it, promising everyone change and health and wealth and that yes, they really, really mean it this time. But the system would remain the same.

The magnitude of the task of shifting to an alternative way of life, is daunting for me, despite my dislikings of the present one. I imagine it's the same for others, if not all. We are in a construct that few love wholeheartedly but can't see a (practical) way out of yet. Perhaps with less lies and more truth, man will come to see a better path clearly enough. One where nature and technology, morals and money, freedom and responsibility, etc are balanced out, step by step.

But that sounds way too hopeful. More likely though, it'll just carry on until.... boom. :p

If the government nationalized all the banks, and took back the authority to create money, then there'd soon be no national debt, because the central bank (which is an association of private banks*) wouldn't lend money to the government at interest, as they do now (and then the government bills the tax-payers). That's one thing that now needs to be totally nationalized, because it has become the prime basic need in today's world, where everything (or just about everything) is "owned" and bought or sold. Food? Owned. Bought. Sold. With money. Water? Owned. Bought. Sold. With money. Etc etc. Therefore, having become the prime basic need with which the true physical basic needs are acquired, there should be no room for profit in that sector. Just wages paid for those who serve in those jobs, plus investment in infrastructure etc. If no profit was made from banking, you'd also see a huge chunk of the national debt gone. Because much of the national debt represents the profit that some fat bankers have made over all these years from how money is created/issued at interest. When you see the national debt go up and up and up, that's about how much money some are making (or intend to make), while driving the rest of the nation into more and more debt. It's the figure "owed" to them, you see.

Sure, this is just a very basic outline of how it all works and it's probably not entirely accurate, and it surely omits a multitude of other factors. But that's what I see right now, and how I see it right now, so that's what I can share. :D


You ask the question, Who Owns The Bank Of England? to one thousand Britons, and I kid you not, all of them will say that it is owned by the Government.

They would be wrong.

The Bank Of England was originally a private bank, which contracted to lend money to the British Government in a financial crisis. It was privately owned at its foundation and remained so until the post-war Labour government nationalised it in 1946.

So it is owned by the government?

No.

Here is how Wikipedia explains it.


In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited, (BOEN), a private limited company, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are:- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”

Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.” The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act.

In other words, you and I are not allowed to know who the shareholders are who own the company which carries out Central Banking in the UK. Some people say that Mandelson's buddies, the Rothschilds are major shareholders. Also the Queen. But the information is secret. We are not allowed to know.

But what would surprise everybody is that the Bank Of England, which is entitled to issue cash, then lend it and charge interest to the government, is still essentially a private business.

What would also surprise people is so is the Federal Reserve of America a privately owned bank, and all central banks of the world, including the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland, which is the Central Banks' clearing house.

http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/who-owns-bank-of-england.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;25404091 said:
Well no, some people would be 'more poor' as one persons debt is another persons asset on a balance sheet.
Click to expand...

Not really just reset everything to zero, start again capitalism has failed anyway:p
 
What we need to do is find out who has been lending us all this money and make them "disappear"

Either that or if Scotland decides to go independant just pass it off to them :D

If you need any more economic advice feel free to get in touch ;)
 
As long was we have control over our own economic policy, it shouldn't get as bad as Greece here. It's more to do with having better acess to solutions rather than less problems.

I reckon if we had been in the Euro zone we may be in a lot more trouble than we are. Our last Government was wasting lots of money, just like the PIIGS were.

Even in 400BC they new that bad years followed good so you need to save up. In 2000AD its spend it while you have it, let the next Government deal with the problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom