Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 23:36:41 GMT 1
So why don't they just magic up more money to make more profit? The treasury can pump made up money into the economy in the form of quantitive easing, banks however can't just make money out of thin air. They are. Wow. Better buy shares in banks then. What a perfect business. You can Magic money out of thin air. Yeah right. Step away from The Guarduan and think for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Grandfather Berty of Cleck on Apr 6, 2015 0:13:04 GMT 1
I have known four Labour prime ministers, and no, I can't say I have ever felt micromanaged. That'll be with you being related to the Queen, Berty.  Well, not known them personally, but there HAVE been four Labour prime ministers while I have been alive though. After a bit more research, I have discovered an even closer tie to the queen than the first one. |
|
|
|
Post by Grandfather Berty of Cleck on Apr 6, 2015 0:14:42 GMT 1
That'll be with you being related to the Queen, Berty. They were all present at that orgy that Joan Jett and the Blackhearts took him to None of the Blackhearts were involved |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 6, 2015 0:21:20 GMT 1
Whats this 3 year waiting list? I had a kidney operation in 96, the year before new Labour got in, and the time between seeing the consultant and having the op was 4 weeks. Three years was an average, some were quicker and some longer. Personally I would have let the young kid in the next bed have the kidney if it had been me Thats simply not even close to being true though is it. In 1997 the average waiting time was 23 weeks with an absolute maximum of 18 months. pages 3 and 4- www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/wp179.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 6, 2015 0:24:52 GMT 1
What era do you imagine it wasn't like that? Until Gordon Brown relinquished control of the BofE to start the house price boom, house prices had remained fairly stable for about a decade. Then they doubled, tripled, quadrupled or more in a very short space of time. If you owned property when Blair's government won in 1997, you were laughing. If you didn't own property by the end of the following year you were screwed. To answer your question, I imagine it wasn't like that early in Tony Blair's tenure, or during John Major's. it was though, even in the periods between property price booms, it is still a challenge to save up the money to get on the property ladder. Always has been always will be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 0:30:33 GMT 1
Wow. Better buy shares in banks then. What a perfect business. You can Magic money out of thin air. Yeah right. Step away from The Guarduan and think for yourself. When a bank lends money, do you think that is cash they have in savings accounts? I can assure you it isn't. It is a perfect business model; right up until the point people can't pay back the money you just created. That's how the sub-prime crisis happened. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 0:37:04 GMT 1
Wow. Better buy shares in banks then. What a perfect business. You can Magic money out of thin air. Yeah right. Step away from The Guarduan and think for yourself. When a bank lends money, do you think that is cash they have in savings accounts? I can assure you it isn't. It is a perfect business model; right up until the point people can't pay back the money you just created. That's how the sub-prime crisis happened. Oh, of course, banks just make money out of thin air then lend it to people. If they ever go bust in the future, they can just Magic more monies... Ffs. If you just make the money up, who gives a sh1t if you ever repay it? It didn't exist in Walter Ballsack world anyway... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 0:37:30 GMT 1
Marcus and his Guardian bashing again. Jesus wept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 0:43:15 GMT 1
When a bank lends money, do you think that is cash they have in savings accounts? I can assure you it isn't. It is a perfect business model; right up until the point people can't pay back the money you just created. That's how the sub-prime crisis happened. If they ever go bust in the future, they can just Magic more monies... Ffs. If you just make the money up, who gives a sh1t if you ever repay it? It didn't exist in Walter Ballsack world anyway... That is exactly what happens. Where do you think money comes from? Do you believe there is just just a finite supply of it? This might help you www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/ |
|
|
|
Post by Grandfather Berty of Cleck on Apr 6, 2015 0:43:27 GMT 1
Three years was an average, some were quicker and some longer. Personally I would have let the young kid in the next bed have the kidney if it had been me Thats simply not even close to being true though is it. In 1997 the average waiting time was 23 weeks with an absolute maximum of 18 months. That is true, if you choose to ignore the fact that the figures were 'routinely fiddled' to hide the patients waiting longer than the 18 months. And what do you know, waiting lists are climbing again under the cons. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 0:52:19 GMT 1
Thats simply not even close to being true though is it. In 1997 the average waiting time was 23 weeks with an absolute maximum of 18 months. That is true, if you choose to ignore the fact that the figures were 'routinely fiddled' to hide the patients waiting longer than the 18 months. And what do you know, waiting lists are climbing again under the cons. They certainly are, without going into too much detail I am waiting for an appointment that hasn't been made yet. The clinic concerned will send me a letter when I can make that appointment, the three week wait I was promised for that letter is now a week overdue. No doubt my appointment when I am allowed to make it will be months down the line. PS. We aren't talking treatment here but initial consultation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 0:57:37 GMT 1
Oh, of course, banks just make money out of thin air then lend it to people. If they ever go bust in the future, they can just Magic more monies... Ffs. If you just make the money up, who gives a sh1t if you ever repay it? It didn't exist in Walter Ballsack world anyway... That is exactly what happens. Where do you think money comes from? Do you believe there is just just a finite supply of it? This might help you www.positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/If money is a magical "Walter Ballsack" imaginary made up thing, why didn't banks just make more up when their reserves ran low? I'm going to start a bank so I can invent money out of thin air. This time next year Rodney.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 1:06:29 GMT 1
If money is a magical "Walter Ballsack" imaginary made up thing, why didn't banks just make more up when their reserves ran low? I'm going to start a bank so I can invent money out of thin air. This time next year Rodney.... What reserves? Did you read the link - it's from The Bank of England, not The Guardian? Are you aware of hyper inflation? What do you think sub-prime crisis was? I ask again, how do you think money is created? Don't worry, I don't expect you to attempt to answer any of those questions, far easier to just throw a few insults (surely you can mange better than Ballsack) than try and debate an issue you seem to have little understanding of. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 1:16:02 GMT 1
Has anyone let Dean know that money can just be made out of thin air?
The Bank of Hoyle could just make imaginary money to pay for transfers this summer. Alrernatively Mr Ballsack may just have fallen for the Guardian, Grr right wing bankers, school of political grr bankers right wing, grr bankers politics. Grr... Because bankers just make money up and charge the poor Union members to borrow non existent cash.
Grr bankers again...
Or alternatively, he has little real understanding of economics. Grrr bankers and their imaginary money.
Remind me again, how banks go bankrupt when people don't pay back this imaginary, made out of thin air money...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 1:25:57 GMT 1
Has anyone let Dean know that money can just be made out of thin air? The Bank of Hoyle could just make imaginary money to pay for transfers this summer. Alrernatively Mr Ballsack may just have fallen for the Guardian, Grr right wing bankers, school of political grr bankers right wing, grr bankers politics. Grr... Because bankers just make money up and charge the poor Union members to borrow non existent cash. Grr bankers again... Or alternatively, he has little real understanding of economics. Grrr bankers and their imaginary money. So you don't know how money is created or how the banking system works? Apologies if you do, but your posts come across as someone who hasn't got a clue and doesn't want to admit it - what has the Guardian got to do with it, the piece I linked to is from the BoE. Seriously, how do you think money is created and what do you think the sub-prime crisis was? Actually, are you drunk? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 1:39:56 GMT 1
Remind me again how banks go bankrupt when people don't pay back this made out of thin air money, which never really existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 9:14:52 GMT 1
Remind me again how banks go bankrupt when people don't pay back this made out of thin air money, which never really existed. Marcus, I'm not going to give you a GCSE economics lesson. Did the financial crisis pass you by? Why do you think Lehmann Brothers collapsed, or why the UK government had to bail out the likes of RBS and Northern Rock? I've asked you a number of times for your explanation on how money is created (I don't need it, I know) and you've ignored the question. You seem to have a lack of understanding on this subject, but are attempting to blindly debate it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 6, 2015 9:31:03 GMT 1
Thats simply not even close to being true though is it. In 1997 the average waiting time was 23 weeks with an absolute maximum of 18 months. That is true, if you choose to ignore the fact that the figures were 'routinely fiddled' to hide the patients waiting longer than the 18 months. And what do you know, waiting lists are climbing again under the cons. Is this how you decide who to vote for? Chose a party, then randomly invent figures that show you are correct to vote for them. The 3 years claim is bollocks. If you're going to pick a figure off the top of your head, you need to at least make it believable to some degree. And heres some more stats about current waiting times you can dismiss as fiddled because they don't fit in with your choice of party. www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/data-and-charts/waiting-times-hospital-treatment-england |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 10:14:22 GMT 1
Remind me again how banks go bankrupt when people don't pay back this made out of thin air money, which never really existed. You genuinely don't understand how banking works do you? Do a bit of research. c***. |
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Apr 6, 2015 10:17:13 GMT 1
No need for the C bomb I m o
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 10:17:58 GMT 1
Do you understand how a mortgage works captain? its just a ponzy scheme for the banks. Say i go and take out a 100k mortage, put down 10k and then pay back over the course around 250k. Some banks only have to hold around 5% on what they can lend so basically most of the money they lend me is magically created when i sign up, they never had the money but yet i go to work for the rest of my life to pay them it back! No risk for the banks if i stop paying they own the house plus my 10k plus whatever i have payed in payments. Theres a war going on, there always has been its the really fucking rich against the rest. All this immigration/benefits/terrorism etc is just a nice distraction. Just remember the government doesn't make mistakes. Do you understand how business works? The banks are a business and lending money and making a profit on it is how they do their business. Yes I do captain....I just really don't agree with it. We live in a society that has been created so that some people can live off of others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 10:18:42 GMT 1
No need for the C bomb I m o Sorry mate...couldnt disagree more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 12:05:07 GMT 1
Remind me again how banks go bankrupt when people don't pay back this made out of thin air money, which never really existed. Marcus, I'm not going to give you a GCSE economics lesson. Did the financial crisis pass you by? Why do you think Lehmann Brothers collapsed, or why the UK government had to bail out the likes of RBS and Northern Rock? I've asked you a number of times for your explanation on how money is created (I don't need it, I know) and you've ignored the question. You seem to have a lack of understanding on this subject, but are attempting to blindly debate it anyway. Remind me again how banks go bankrupt when people don't pay back this made out of thin air money, which never really existed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 12:11:06 GMT 1
Remind me again how banks go bankrupt when people don't pay back this made out of thin air money, which never really existed. You genuinely don't understand how banking works do you? Do a bit of research. c***. Thanks for just confirming your level of ignorance. So, let's get this straight, banks can just magic up an infinite amount of non existent money to lend to customers. It does make me wonder why the government pump more money into the economy via quantitative easing, when the banks can just magic more money into the market at will. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 6, 2015 12:17:09 GMT 1
Do you understand how business works? The banks are a business and lending money and making a profit on it is how they do their business. Yes I do captain....I just really don't agree with it. We live in a society that has been created so that some people can live off of others. Everyone makes their living off other people, either dirtectly or indirectly. Even people on benefits have that due to the taxes paid by people who live off other people. Its how the modern world works and if you open your eyes you'll see we all have a very good standard of life because of it. Not sure what the alternative is that you fancy. Communism? Something like they have in North Korea- all working for the collective and living in our squalid little state owned slums? Maybe we're better off how it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Apr 6, 2015 12:21:11 GMT 1
No need for the C bomb I m o Sorry mate...couldnt disagree more. Who do you think looks the bigger c***? Him because you called him one, or you because you called him one? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 12:28:43 GMT 1
You genuinely don't understand how banking works do you? Do a bit of research. c***. Thanks for just confirming your level of ignorance. So, let's get this straight, banks can just magic up an infinite amount of non existent money to lend to customers. It does make me wonder why the government pump more money into the economy via quantitative easing, when the banks can just magic more money into the market at will. Banks have always lent many times their deposits; it's practically the definition of a bank. They also went bust for centuries until the Dutch invented the concept of the central bank to socialise their losses and prevent catastrophic interruption of the money supply. Fractional reserve banking is in the top three reasons why the West has been so dominant in the last four centuries. QE is just designed to enlarge their deposits held and in theory force a boom in lending, but the effects have been subdued due how overexposed the banks were in 2008. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 12:42:27 GMT 1
Thanks for just confirming your level of ignorance. So, let's get this straight, banks can just magic up an infinite amount of non existent money to lend to customers. It does make me wonder why the government pump more money into the economy via quantitative easing, when the banks can just magic more money into the market at will. Banks have always lent many times their deposits; it's practically the definition of a bank. They also went bust for centuries until the Dutch invented the concept of the central bank to socialise their losses and prevent catastrophic interruption of the money supply. Fractional reserve banking is in the top three reasons why the West has been so dominant in the last four centuries. QE is just designed to enlarge their deposits held and in theory force a boom in lending, but the effects have been subdued due how overexposed the banks were in 2008. Strong feeling you're wasting your time trying to explain this to him. He hasn't a clue how the banking system works or how money is created, but isn't letting that stop him trying to debate it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 12:47:00 GMT 1
Thanks for just confirming your level of ignorance. So, let's get this straight, banks can just magic up an infinite amount of non existent money to lend to customers. It does make me wonder why the government pump more money into the economy via quantitative easing, when the banks can just magic more money into the market at will. Banks have always lent many times their deposits; it's practically the definition of a bank. They also went bust for centuries until the Dutch invented the concept of the central bank to socialise their losses and prevent catastrophic interruption of the money supply. Fractional reserve banking is in the top three reasons why the West has been so dominant in the last four centuries. QE is just designed to enlarge their deposits held and in theory force a boom in lending, but the effects have been subdued due how overexposed the banks were in 2008. True, but to try and make out that high street banks can just magic money out of nowhere is plain wrong and an ignorant view shared by many socialists. Only the central bank, so for the UK, the Bank Of England, can produce money out of thin air as in quantitative easing. In QE the central bank electronically makes some new money and uses it to buy bonds from either the government or other financial institutions, therefore increasing cash in the banking sector and lowering interest rates. It is this process which puts money into the financial system, not because high street banks can just produce money at will. The earlier comment about there not being a finite amount of money is also wrong. There is unless the government/central bank pump money into the economy via QE. That's why we have interest rate fluctuations. It's modern politics, the left lay all the blame at the door of the nasty bankers and the right on benefits scroungers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 12:57:00 GMT 1
Banks have always lent many times their deposits; it's practically the definition of a bank. They also went bust for centuries until the Dutch invented the concept of the central bank to socialise their losses and prevent catastrophic interruption of the money supply. Fractional reserve banking is in the top three reasons why the West has been so dominant in the last four centuries. QE is just designed to enlarge their deposits held and in theory force a boom in lending, but the effects have been subdued due how overexposed the banks were in 2008. True, but to try and make out that high street banks can just magic money out of nowhere is plain wrong and an ignorant view shared by many socialists. Only the central bank, so for the UK, the Bank Of England, can produce money out of thin air as in quantitative easing. In QE the central bank electronically makes some new money and uses it to buy bonds from either the government or other financial institutions, therefore increasing cash in the banking sector and lowering interest rates. It is this process which puts money into the financial system, not because high street banks can just produce money at will. The earlier comment about there not being a finite amount of money is also wrong. There is unless the government/central bank pump money into the economy via QE. That's why we have interest rate fluctuations. It's modern politics, the left lay all the blame at the door of the nasty bankers and the right on benefits scroungers. How much reserves they hold, and what multiple of their reserves they can lend is a political decision though. It's flexible in that regard. I believe in a mixed economy, and on this issue that means tighter state control of the banks and their lending criteria. That said, I can understand why the government chose not to do it in the last five years - in reality, politicians have very few tools to encourage economic growth, and an easy money supply is one of them. They were hardly going to clamp down on the conditions by which the banks can lend when the economy is in effective crisis. I hope it will be looked at in the medium term; the real risk is that we will remain in an "emergency" economic situation forever. Your last line has always been true one way or the other. Look at the preposterous battles over the Corn Law tariffs that brought down Wellington's government. |
|
