The Noble Lie - Revealed.

[UGagain]

Childish for asking you to explain your system? How so? You keep moaning that the rest of us miss the point - try educating.

You're being utterly disingenuous again.

It isn't 'my system'. It is the system that we have.

Deal with it without the childish debating tactics.

So, in the fiat money system, how can a government print as much money as it likes (a misleading term but one commonly used) without penalty. Im assuming you mean a long term increase in available finance not short sharp bursts like QE.

Come on, stop stalling. How would it work?

The government creates as much money as it wishes by spending into the economy by marking up numbers in private bank accounts.

QE creates no money. You are utterly confused. This has been explained to you before but clearly you have ignored it.

You keep saying 'would' as in how 'would' it work.

It is the way the system works now.

You've just fallen for the lie. That's the point of the piece, remember?

Nobody is stalling here so don't carry on with that.

[Sandydragon]

You're being utterly disingenuous again.

It isn't 'my system'. It is the system that we have.

Deal with it without the childish debating tactics.

So, in the fiat money system, how can a government print as much money as it likes (a misleading term but one commonly used) without penalty. Im assuming you mean a long term increase in available finance not short sharp bursts like QE.

Come on, stop stalling. How would it work?

The government creates as much money as it wishes by spending into the economy by marking up numbers in private bank accounts.

QE creates no money. You are utterly confused. This has been explained to you before but clearly you have ignored it.

You keep saying 'would' as in how 'would' it work.

It is the way the system works now.

You've just fallen for the lie. That's the point of the piece, remember?

Nobody is stalling here so don't carry on with that.

Strangely, its widely reported that banks created the majority of new money through loans. Not the government. The government prints paper money, but this is just a representation and is a tiny % of what is actually in circulation.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/

[Sandydragon]

A government could in theory flood the market with new five pound notes, but that does risk inflation or worse hyper inflation. Just look at Zimbabwe.

[UGagain]

So, in the fiat money system, how can a government print as much money as it likes (a misleading term but one commonly used) without penalty. Im assuming you mean a long term increase in available finance not short sharp bursts like QE.

Come on, stop stalling. How would it work?

The government creates as much money as it wishes by spending into the economy by marking up numbers in private bank accounts.

QE creates no money. You are utterly confused. This has been explained to you before but clearly you have ignored it.

You keep saying 'would' as in how 'would' it work.

It is the way the system works now.

You've just fallen for the lie. That's the point of the piece, remember?

Nobody is stalling here so don't carry on with that.

Strangely, its widely reported that banks created the majority of new money through loans. Not the government. The government prints paper money, but this is just a representation and is a tiny % of what is actually in circulation.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/

Banks create bank credit pegged to and redeemable for pounds sterling. Only the government can create the pounds i.e. only the government can create net financial assets. Bank credit nets to zero.

[UGagain]

Godwins Law - economic collary

It looks to me that there is a economic collary to Godwin's Law arising:

"As an online economic discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic approaches one."

There are good posts that explain the situation, if you want to know more about Zimbabwe or Weimar.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you just lost the debate.

http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2010/09/godwin ... llary.html

[Sandydragon]

The government creates as much money as it wishes by spending into the economy by marking up numbers in private bank accounts.

QE creates no money. You are utterly confused. This has been explained to you before but clearly you have ignored it.

You keep saying 'would' as in how 'would' it work.

It is the way the system works now.

You've just fallen for the lie. That's the point of the piece, remember?

Nobody is stalling here so don't carry on with that.

Strangely, its widely reported that banks created the majority of new money through loans. Not the government. The government prints paper money, but this is just a representation and is a tiny % of what is actually in circulation.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/

Banks create bank credit pegged to and redeemable for pounds sterling. Only the government can create the pounds i.e. only the government can create net financial assets. Bank credit nets to zero.

Are you suggesting that loans issued by banks correspond to savings?

[UGagain]

Strangely, its widely reported that banks created the majority of new money through loans. Not the government. The government prints paper money, but this is just a representation and is a tiny % of what is actually in circulation.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/

Banks create bank credit pegged to and redeemable for pounds sterling. Only the government can create the pounds i.e. only the government can create net financial assets. Bank credit nets to zero.

Are you suggesting that loans issued by banks correspond to savings?

No. You have no reason to believe that I said that.

I said banks create bank credit.

[UGagain]

Strangely, its widely reported that banks created the majority of new money through loans. Not the government. The government prints paper money, but this is just a representation and is a tiny % of what is actually in circulation.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/

Banks create bank credit pegged to and redeemable for pounds sterling. Only the government can create the pounds i.e. only the government can create net financial assets. Bank credit nets to zero.

Are you suggesting that loans issued by banks correspond to savings?

The so called 'national debt' corresponds to savings. To the penny.

[UGagain]

Strangely, its widely reported that banks created the majority of new money through loans. Not the government. The government prints paper money, but this is just a representation and is a tiny % of what is actually in circulation.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/

Banks create bank credit pegged to and redeemable for pounds sterling. Only the government can create the pounds i.e. only the government can create net financial assets. Bank credit nets to zero.

Are you suggesting that loans issued by banks correspond to savings?

I seem to remember you refusing to speak with me anymore for stating that banks aren't middle men between savers and borrowers.

So you've made some progress I suppose.

[Sandydragon]

SO I found this quote from Cullen Roche, which is part of his overview on how the modern financial system works:

In many market based systems such as the USA, the money supply is essentially privatized and controlled by private banks that compete to create loans which create deposits (money). Contrary to popular opinion, governments in such a system do not directly control the money supply nor do they create most of the money.

IN his article, 90% of money is created privately.

When looking at the downside, the risk isn't insolvency, but inflation and foreign currency risk.

If a society spends money in excess of a nation’s underlying productive capacity it will devalue this money and generate destructive inflation. This would result in too much money chasing too few goods leading to a potential decline in real living standards.

He points out further that just because a government that controls its own currency can't go bankrupt, it dies have constraints. High inflation or a currency crisis are real concerns.

Obviously, confidence is key and if the government is seen to harm confidence of the system then people may look to use other forms of payment which would be damaging. Uncontrolled flooding of money int the market could cause such a shock.

[UGagain]

SO I found this quote from Cullen Roche, which is part of his overview on how the modern financial system works:

In many market based systems such as the USA, the money supply is essentially privatized and controlled by private banks that compete to create loans which create deposits (money). Contrary to popular opinion, governments in such a system do not directly control the money supply nor do they create most of the money.

IN his article, 90% of money is created privately.

When looking at the downside, the risk isn't insolvency, but inflation and foreign currency risk.

If a society spends money in excess of a nation’s underlying productive capacity it will devalue this money and generate destructive inflation. This would result in too much money chasing too few goods leading to a potential decline in real living standards.

He points out further that just because a government that controls its own currency can't go bankrupt, it dies have constraints. High inflation or a currency crisis are real concerns.

Obviously, confidence is key and if the government is seen to harm confidence of the system then people may look to use other forms of payment which would be damaging. Uncontrolled flooding of money int the market could cause such a shock.

So what? It's not actually progressing your argument.

The government has no financial restraint. It has real constraints.

I said a few weeks ago that the government can't 'control the money supply'.

Confidence is not the key. Taxation is.

[UGagain]

The Red Pill it is.

You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.

Well my fellow Britons, it seems that I doubted you. I hope you will forgive my weakness, but with the entire propaganda arm of the ruling class desperately trying every spin trick in the book, it was easy to get despondent.

So now we have a job of work to do. To eject the Internationalist Authoritarians and replace them with a progressive alternative that actually speaks to the voters.

Let's remind ourselves what this referendum has taught us:

Open borders is finished as a concept. People want nations for the same reason they want family and not just friends. People like their friends but want to live with their family - behind their own front door. Demonising nations is like demonising family, and needs to stop.
Basic Income kills people. If the state ignores its obligation to find people something to do, the extremists will step into the gap and find them something to do. If we want to stop more extremist murders and violence, then we have to ensure everyone is engaged in society - supported by appropriately staffed Social Care.
The Single Market is largely irrelevant to the UK - and likely dangerous. Its purpose is regulatory harmonisation. But regulatory differential is how you control globalised operations - force them to be different in every nation so that they can't get power over the nation from economies of scale.
We now need politicians that actually represent the voters in their constituency. It's very clear watching the excellent John Harris videos on The Guardian, that the views of the MP differed markedly from the view of the voters. And even when that was demonstrated clearly to the MP the MP carried on with their own viewpoint like a true zealot. This is all a result of intersectionality, identity politics, quotas and the rest of the Regressive Left machinery. All of that has to be jettisoned if we are to make progress for ordinary people.
International socialism is dead, and if we are to avoid the resurgence of national socialism we need to put an attractive alternative in the gap.

So we need a National Contained Capitalism. One where markets are contained in the same way as nuclear reactors and for the same reason. We want the power without the boom.

So we
reveal the Noble Lie
stop issuing Gilts and go back to the Ways and Means Account.
give banks a list of what they can do – what serves the public purpose – and ban them from doing anything else
Use National Savings as the vehicle for delivering pensions.
draw up the new management processes for floating rate exchange systems and realise that one of our main exports is Sterling Savings.
put in place an appropriate visa system - as used by every other advanced civilised nation outside the EU.
initiate a Job Guarantee - More Money, Less Tax, More Tolerance, Less Sneering
change the political conversation so that £s are never mentioned. Healthcare outcomes, for example, should be discussed in terms of the people available to deliver those outcomes - where are they, what are they doing now, etc.
Look towards a policy of Zero Net Migration - which I believe is the only morally defensible position for a nation.
The latter point perhaps needs some expanding. An excellent article in the Guardian (Brexit is not the property of the political right. The left is disenchanted too - which I recommend reading in full) spelt the issue out:
High rates of immigration into Britain are driven by a British growth model that favours expanding the labour force in place of more intensive forms of growth aimed at boosting productivity.
Both main UK political parties have taken the easy way out for too long. That is now over. We must concentrate on public investment in productivity that the private sector can then exploit for maximum domestic output.

When a business cries 'skills shortage' we should see it for what it really is: 'business investment and training shortage'. Do more with what we have has to be the mantra - not just for the UK, but for the world.

I want to see new governance systems developed here that we can export to the rest of Europe and the world. The last time we stepped back from Europe and looked out to the wider world, we kicked off the Industrial Revolution and the greatest increase in living standards in history.

In an era of climate change and global threats, Britain has to do that again and lead the world in driving progress and necessary change.

It's time to put the Great back in Britain.

http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2016/06/the-re ... it-is.html

[jared_7]

Strangely, its widely reported that banks created the majority of new money through loans. Not the government. The government prints paper money, but this is just a representation and is a tiny % of what is actually in circulation.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-work ... ate-money/

Banks create bank credit pegged to and redeemable for pounds sterling. Only the government can create the pounds i.e. only the government can create net financial assets. Bank credit nets to zero.

Are you suggesting that loans issued by banks correspond to savings?

Bank loans create money but are offset by an equal and opposite liability in the reserve account. Net financial assets is zero, a horizontal transfer within the non-governmental sector. Only government spending, which is not offset, can create positive financial assets in the non-governmental sector.