Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 29 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 16 Apr 2012 18:24:40 BDT
Today the WB is appointing a new president, but should they be scrapping it instead?

Apart from making fat cats out of its employees at taxpayers expense what 'good' has it done?

It has failed its terms of reference and should be dumped in Roon 101.

Posted on 16 Apr 2012 19:24:10 BDT
I find some strange sense of irony in that Nigeria's finance minister is in the running considering all my spam email (regarding multi-million fortunes from a miner who died in a plane crash etc) originate from there.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Apr 2012 19:31:07 BDT
Gordon.....is it not time to question ALL banks....their use....function etc?

Posted on 16 Apr 2012 19:39:04 BDT
gille liath says:
You'll be preaching to the converted on this forum; but to me, the basic concept makes sense. Like a lot of things, it all depends on the execution.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 09:00:07 BDT
But judgeded by its own terms of reference it does not achieve its aims.

The people who 'work' for it do very well however.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 09:01:46 BDT
OK Simon, will you explain this?

Posted on 17 Apr 2012 12:39:02 BDT
The World Bank and the IMF only serve in furthering the debt of the countries they claim to assist.

They are pretty much criminals. As the OP said they fail wholesale in the aims they themselves set out.

They pretend that a rise in GDP is a reflection of a country's ascent towards prosperity yet in real terms countries who take their loans and help only end up worse, with the poorest getting poorer.

Posted on 17 Apr 2012 13:08:59 BDT
A recent study of 116 countries showed that their GDP per head grew 3.1% a year with 1960-80's interventionist policies, but only 1.4% with the post-1979 Thatcherite policies. The World Bank and the IMF impose conditions that they say will ensure that `good governance' aids economic growth, but good institutions are the result, not the cause, of economic development.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 13:33:54 BDT
How can I explain a question?...I am asking what "use" are banks...do we need them....could we have a 'state' bank that holds the people's money....and creates no interest loans?.....

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 14:21:50 BDT
Simon,

'We' could but it would be a disaster:

If you want people to save some of their income, (so that the gov has something to lend), you need to pay them a return for foregoing current consumption...interest

You need a mechanism for deciding what/whom will get to borrow the limited funds available...interst.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 14:43:51 BDT
Gordon....why?...what "is" money....who creates it....if Gordon gets a loan for £5,000 where did the money come from and how was it brought into being?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 15:28:31 BDT
Money is a way of holding over debt from past service.

If you create a pot, and james needs a pot, and james is a baker, but you don't eat bread. James bakes bread, and that service is useful to some people, they give him an IOU for the amount of service he has provided. He trades that IOU to you for some pots. You can now use the IOU to employ some of the people who it James's bread.

By allowing our debts to be delayed in payment and paid by other people we increase the value of work done for all people.

Posted on 17 Apr 2012 15:54:18 BDT
TomC says:
Money As Debt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 18:04:27 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Apr 2012 18:05:10 BDT
Yes you could.

America did it. Look up the Greenback.

In reply to your second post, money is created by banks, either be it central ones in the initial instance, or commercial banks to inflate the money supply.

To use the example of a mortgage; when you go to your bank to borrow this money, it is a common belief that this money is lent from other customers deposits or from the porfits made from the banks other activities.

However, this money is nothing more than a virtual entry into the ledger. They literally create it out of thin air and charge you interest. Read about Fractional Reserve Banking.

The flaw to this system is that when the bank lends the money, thus creating money, it only adds the principle to the money supply. The interest you have to pay back is never added thereby making the total amount of money in the world far, far less than the total owed.

So, it's inevitable outcome is massive unrepayable debt which serves as a means to enslave people.

To bring it back to the WB/IMF, they use this system to entrap countries. In return for the "loans" they ask for things in return as they know full well that the money will never be paid back for they know it never can be.

They ask for such things as control over resources or votes in the UN.

Money can be created and subsequently regulated by our Governments interest free with out problems. It's a falacy to think otherwise.

The Germans did it also before WW2 and whilst the regime was abhorrent their success in turning around the countries fortunes after the huge hyperinflation under the Weimar is clear.

There are plenty of examples of countries doing this.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 19:27:51 BDT
Randal, you said banks "literally create it (money) out of thin air"...if that's the case why did so many of them become inslovent?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 20:34:25 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Apr 2012 20:36:19 BDT
TomC says:
I really do encourage you to watch the "Money As Debt" video on youtube; it has a very clear explanation of Fractional Reserve Banking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

Just because they create "money out of thin air" doesn't mean they create it completely free. When a bank lends you £1000 it does indeed create your debt as a record in its computer, and it doesn't actually need to hand over the cash to you or even to have it in the vaults. What the bank does is to create an obligation on you to repay it; in essence you have mortgaged a part of your future working life to the bank. There is obviously a limit to this, since no bank will lend you more than you could possibly pay off in a lifetime using either your earnings or your assets.

As far as the bank is concerned, your promise to repay is represented on the books as an asset. It's as good as money, and in theory it can be used just like money; they can even sell the debt on if they wish. If you're good for the money, the bank's books balance. By the same token they can buy debts from other banks. Again, if the borrowers are good for the debt, the bank regards the debt they have bought as just another form of money.

The problems in the banking system arose because they started trading in debt which was not as sound as it appeared to be - the famous NINJA mortgages are the best known example. The banks found they had a lot of debt that was not secure; if a borrower can never repay, all you have is worthless paper. Their books no longer balanced, and they were headed for insolvency.

Although banks can create debt obligations on other people, they can only do so if they know the debt is secure. They can't just do it to get themselves out of trouble.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 21:52:31 BDT
I think Tom C answered this perfectly if you haven't already read it.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 21:56:03 BDT
Hi Tom,

What do you mean that the banks don't 'create it completely free'?

By creating the money in the way they do I don't see how they've incurred any costs at all?

Posted on 17 Apr 2012 22:15:32 BDT
Spin says:
Why is the "World Bank" so-called? Surely it should be named "The North American Bank"?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 22:43:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Apr 2012 22:46:12 BDT
TomC says:
"What do you mean that the banks don't 'create it completely free'?"

Sorry, I wasn't completely clear. What I meant was that they can't just create unlimited amounts of it. When they lend to you, they create the money, but they are limited in the extent to which they can do so by your future ability to pay; they can't - or they shouldn't - create more debt than what they believe they can recover from you. If they do, they end up with debt which looks like a substantial asset, but is actually worth far less than what appears on paper.

If the bank is in trouble, however, they can't just create assets for themselves; they need to borrow elsewhere, which means that they in turn will have to incur an obligation to repay the debt. That will show as a liability on the bank's balance sheet. Once the bank becomes over borrowed, existing creditors will put pressure on it to repay, and it will have difficulty in borrowing more. Eventually it will either collapse, or have to go to the lender of last resort, which is the government.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 22:54:25 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hello Simon,
What you are asking for exists, or at least it did years ago when I worked in the community. It's called ''Credit Union.''
A brilliant idea, hopefully remaining the same.
M

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 22:57:20 BDT
Pipkin says:
Wasn't it Lincoln who brought in the Green Back, and wasn't he assassinated becasue of it? And I seem to remember JFK proposing something similar.
M

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 23:01:21 BDT
Tom,

Well explained, however I doubt your audience are listening...it does not fit with their preconceived beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 23:07:08 BDT
MEP,

Credit unions do charge interest and pay interest however. They are non-profits so they don't pay tax on any surpluses and all the benefits go to their members.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Apr 2012 02:31:47 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Apr 2012 04:17:37 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Because laundered fake money is turned into real money, but there was no real money in the first place? They sell gold and silver on IOU's that doesn't actually exist, which is why some countries have demanded their gold reserves physically returned to them. The currency wars at present are in order to keep the price of gold and silver down and the price of the dollar up. It's all make believe, but we pay them for this make believe debt with our taxes, so we are giving them real money for fake money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vGaMOR8RHU
14/04/12
"Too Broke To Go Broke"
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  29
Initial post:  16 Apr 2012
Latest post:  19 Apr 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions