February 17, 2011

Bankers, Or Gamblers? You Decide.



Before I watched this video I would have said "Leave the private bankers alone. They are basically good people, and we should not interfere in private business. By all means, cut the bonuses for the bankers running the banks WE own, but the rest are none of our business".

My mind is changed.

Watch the video. If it doesn't piss you off, watch it again. It comes from here. Go look. Sign the petition.

We don't seem to care about our liberties being eroded, day by day, we don't seem to care about giving away our sovereignty to a gollum in Brussels, we certainly don't care about being captured on CCTV 300 times a day, and nor do we care that the police kill over 100 of our countrymen in their holding cells each year.

We all seem to care a great deal about money though.

Will this video motivate, agitate, or stir people in action?

I hope so.

CR.

Tip of the beret to Mescalito for this brilliant find!

12 comments:

Ampers said...

Hmmmm... This seems more like a political broadcast for the Labour Party.

I mean, it was all the banks fault and not the Labour Government? Really?

If we destroy the bankers, then our taxes would go up even more and public spending will be cut even deeper.

10% of our GDP is supplied by the banks, and 1% of top earners, mostly bankers, produce 24% of our income tax, bordering on 25%. If you took all that away, where would the Government find that huge hole. Why, from us of course. They have nowhere else to go.

Ampers

FireballXL5 said...

Yes it did sound like something from the Socialist Workers Party, surely we've all known for some time about the money from thin air scam?

We don't need to be cutting real essential services we just need to cut out all the non-jobs and waste, massively reduce benefit payments and cancel all foreign aid. It's not a case of "if they can't get the money from the bankers they'll come looking for us" the government should simply downscale it's expenditure by getting out of our lives to the point where it needs only, say, 10% of our earnings.

The government could issue it's own non-debt currency and so cut out the banking scam and easily afford all the hospitals and aircraft carriers it needs in addition to freeing us all from debt slavery.

Non of this will happen of course, so I have taken the path of giving the state absolutely nothing and defaulting on my credit cards (no 42" plasmas). As of now everything I earn will be mine to keep and I will no longer be feeding either the government or the banking beast. This is no different to what Ireland and other countries in similar straits should have done instead of propping up the european banking cartel.

Captain Ranty said...

Ampers, the main thrust of the clip shows that they (the publicly owned banks) are taking bail-out money and gambling it.

I understand that this is what banks do to maximise profits.

What galls me is that the profits never seem to come back to us, the bank owners.

Maybe it was just a wake up call for me on the true nature of banking.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

FB,

You are singing my song.

It's the waste that gets my goat. That and the made up jobs.

From where I'm sitting, it all looks deliberate. It isn't just mismanagement, it is criminal. To what end though?

To become completely dependent on the EU for money, law, and ultimately, for them to control us absolutely?

Or is there another game afoot?

CR.

William said...

Here is my ideal of small but useful government.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=04

Oldrightie said...

"To become completely dependent on the EU for money, law, and ultimately, for them to control us absolutely?"
That's the plan and it's going very well. After our humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan in a few years time, our forces disbandment will be completed and "defence" the remit of our glorious EU. Of course the "defence" will be of the EU elite with an army of such disparate troops, quelling the masses will be a doddle.

William said...

Here is my ideal sort of small but damned effective government.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=04

econyonium said...

The video is a gross misrepresentation and the usual Socialist propaganda promoting the idea that wealth just appears and can be consumed without the need to replace it..

Money is a means to accumulate and exchange wealth - saves going tothe crossroads with a sheep and bartering it for some cooking pots and bread.

It is central reserve banks that print money on licence from Governments, not individual private banks. This essentially allows the Government o live way beyond its means - actually the taxpayers means - as they can print money to buy back its own debt via the central bank, cause infaltion to devalue the debt and fund projects such as the NHS which is a wealth consumer and money pit, which cannot be sustained by taxation alone otherwise it would soak up all the Nationa's wealth faster than it could be genreated and the UK would then be like Zimbabwe.

The alternative would be to go back to the gold standard - some argue the desirability of this - and then Governments would have to manage the finances properly and spend no more than tax revenues provided.

What the video characterises as "printing money" is in fact fractional reserve banking. This means if you deposit £1 the banks may re-loan it multiple times.

The original depositor has no control over this.

It supposes that everyone who thinks they own the £1 will not all ask for it back at the same time. When that happens, there is a run on the bank since the bank cannot pay everyone, so first come first served, and the bank goes belly up.

Supposedly a bank should keep enough in reserve to cover a significant portion of its liabilities.

In recent times, the likes of Gordon Brown turned a blind eye (no pun intended) to the fact the reserves of some banks were too low.

Some argue that there should be a proper ownership contract for money on deposit, so a depositor allows their money to be loaned for a fixed period of time, and it can only then be loaned once.

The money banks receive, comes from its depositors and is used to fund business enterprise, which permits wealth creation.

Of course banks could channel the money to hospitals etc which create no wealth and make no profit just use money up.

OK. So where would that money come from?

By the way banks pay tax of 28% on profits and bankers pay upwards of 50% tax and Ni on their bonuses.

Substantial amounts then are already leached out of the banks to fund Government profligacy.

William said...

2It is central reserve banks that print money on licence from Governments, not individual private banks"

But those central banks are private bank cartels are they not?

will said...

exactly what econyonium said!

everyone knows fractional reserve banking is a problem.

why does this SWP propaganda vid keep emphasising the term 'private banks' the implication is that nationalised banks are better. the commies also assume that schools, hospitals and transport can only be provided by the state. the real plan b is to allow a free market in the provision of all 3 and then you would instantly see banks queuing to pump money into schools, hospitals and transport.

as an anarchist (and not a deluded socialist one either) i dont want to tax the bankers to pay the bricklayers' medical bills but equally i dont want to tax the brickies to pay for corporatist legal environments that protect dodgy dealing. the financial sector is so melded into the state that it can no longer be described as private business.

westcoast2 said...

Econyonium suggested:-
Money is a means to accumulate and exchange wealth - saves going tothe crossroads with a sheep and bartering it for some cooking pots and bread.

It is central reserve banks that print money on licence from Governments, not individual private banks.


My current understanding of money is it has three functions:
1 - A Means of Exchange
2 - A Unit of Account
3 - A Store of value.

Central banks print fiat currency, which many call Money, but it can only do 2 of the 3 functions. It fails as a store of value. All fiat currency eventualy fails and of course Inflation erodes value.

Weimar and Zimbabwe are often cited when speaking of hyperinflation, it is worth looking as Yougoslavia as well.

Money as debt (search UTube) gives a good explanation of fractional banking. Who is the 'depositor' when the Benank (Fed Reserve) creates FRNs for QE? Indeed in the UK the Mervyn King is also using QE, who is the depositor?

FireballXL5 makes a good point about governments issuing debt free money to provide infrastructure.

The video is along the right lines, though if it was devoid of the politics it might be more effective.

Captain Ranty said...

Some great comments here from all concerned. Thank you for that.

Westy is right: the underlying theme is what I saw too. I ignored the overt political message.

Fiat currency can only end badly for all of us.

CR.