Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Fire Tablet Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit

Customer reviews

4.7 out of 5 stars
33
4.7 out of 5 stars
Format: Paperback|Change
Price:£14.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 12 February 2015
Everybody should read this book. The current system that rips off every person in this country must be changed and this is the best solution, the sooner it is implemented the better. I would stand for parliament on this ticket in order to raise the profile of the issue.Why this issue has been ignored for so long astounds me. The principles explained in the book and the website are simple and easy to understand with little jargon.
I always thought the whole country was working for the benefit of the banks, now I know my guess was correct so I feel quite smug about it.
Lets hope the main stream press pick it up, and debate the issue before the election.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 31 January 2013
A most interesting read ; a book I have been waiting for as a follow up to the previous book "Where Does Money Come From?" which explained how commercial banks control the money supply.

This book goes the whole hog and provides a worked out solution; but not one set in stone.
It reviews the current UK monetary system explaining what is wrong with the current role commercial banks play in UK economic system through to what needs to be done to correct the short comings and how to make the transition .

It is a book which deals in outline and in depth ; so it is easy to grasp the outline and with some worthwhile effort to understand the details; even for non economists like me. It deals with every day operation of a commercial bank as well as how they interact with the Bank of England and other banks; and the services that the Bank of England provides to the commercial banks .

It is a must read for anybody interested in the UK's current economic state and of course anybody involved in commercial banks , the Bank of England and Governments Treasury and MPs of all shades of economic thinking and but not least, the members of "The Independent Commission on Banking" to shake up their thinking and understanding!
0Comment| 13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 February 2013
Everyone knows that something is profoundly wrong in our (UK) society: welfare benefits withdrawn, a whole generation unable to buy a home, a fearful outlook for energy, trains being the most expensive in the developed world. Though government debt is bad enough, it is dwarfed by household debt that has reached the equivalent of ten years' worth of income tax revenue. And people blame politicians.
This book shows how the problems lie deeper than this or that policy, being caused by a faulty money system ensuring that any economic growth is accompanied by yet more debt. It is not party-political. It shows how both government and personal debt can be drastically reduced, how welfare and infrastructure can be afforded, how inflation can be avoided and how sterling can become the most stable currency in the world. It is written in thorough detail both for economists and lay people. I am left with a feeling of hope. And it is a MUST read for all decision makers.
0Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 31 January 2013
Modernising Money is a thoroughly researched and very timely investigation into the way money is created, managed and circulated by our commercial banks. Unlike many analyses of what is wrong with the current system however, it also offers very well thought through and workable solutions. As the Governor of the Bank of England is quoted as saying in October 2010 (quoted in the introduction) "Of all the many ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today."

To know what needs to change in our current system requires us to understand how it is operating today. Since the world of finance is highly complex and seemingly beyond the grasp of ordinary mortals this is no easy task. But, as this book demonstrates every detail of the way money is created and circulated can be easily understood. This book explains in simple language how money is created and who controls it.

In tracing the historical development of money and banking from classical times right up to modern Britain, the authors present a very clear picture of each new step that was taken. They describe how and when the Bank of England was established, what its original remit was in the 17th century and how this gradually evolved during the course of the Industrial Revolution and beyond.

The working of the current banking system is clearly described as are the problems that it causes. The idea that banks simply lend out what other customers deposit is shown as being very far from the truth. In granting a loan the bank simply notes a debit and a credit entry on their balance sheet. The money given out is recorded as a liability, the agreement to pay back the loan as an asset. In other words money (and debt) is created in that moment. Money supply increases when loans are agreed and reduced when they are paid back. This also means that the money I put in the bank becomes the property of the bank. In return I have the bank's promise to pay me an equivalent amount on demand - a subtle but vital distinction.

Another important phenomenon is that of seignorage, the difference between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it. The authors describe how up until about forty years ago a good percentage of the money in circulation was produced by the Bank of England and the seignorage went to the Treasury. Today 97% of all the money in circulation is created as debt by the banks and the seignorage profit goes to them. The result is that between 2000 and 2009 the state has foregone more that a trillion pounds in revenue. How many public services could that have funded?

Having carefully analysed and assessed the problems in our banking system in the first half of the book, the authors then offer a series of credible and relatively easy to introduce reforms that would radically alter the way banks operate by addressing the following six objectives:

Create a stable money supply based on the needs of the economy.
Reduce the burden of personal, household and government debt.
Encourage investment in the real (non-financial) economy.
Re-align risk and reward.
Provide a structure of banking that allows banks to fail.

To achieve these aims some simple reforms are proposed that can be implemented without starting completely from scratch. These are described in a step by step and easily understandable way. For example a major problem occurs when those who create the money also determine its use or when those who should be brokers have an interest in the money itself. It is vitally important that these functions are separated. After the reform the Bank of England becomes the organ that creates money(not just cash as at present but electronic money too). The commercial banks then lend out money that has been created elsewhere. This keeps the activity of money creation and loan arranging clearly distinct. In practical terms this means that individuals will have direct access to debt and risk free money via Bank of England accounts. If they can then also open investment accounts with commercial banks and have a share in the risks and benefits.

Each of the clearly defined objectives are addressed in turn down to the smallest detail. Given the political will the whole reform could be easily and immediately implemented.

As well as offering real solutions to current problems this book promises to be an important and easy to read textbook on economics that deserves to become a key resource work for all students of economy.
0Comment| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERon 13 October 2014
I loved reading this book. It was a breath of fresh air. Despite the young age of the authors (or perhaps because of it) the first four chapters (pages 1 to 154) are as good a primer on the history, purpose, inner workings and current failings of banking as I've ever read. Perhaps it's the best I've read. If a friend asked me for one book to read about money and one book only, I'd order this book, tear out the first four chapters and give them to him.

There are ideas there that had never occurred to me and I've spent 23 years in banking. Example: kings who minted new coins made sure the new currency became "legal tender" by only accepting payment of tax in the new coins. Example: the 1974 oil embargo was mainly about reacting to the fact that the dollars the Arab states had accumulated over the years were no longer convertible into gold, much as these days we ascribe the formation of OPEC to political events in the Middle East.

The book is chock full of insights of this nature. A bit like Tarantino's first proper movie had every funky piece of dialogue he'd ever dreamt of, "Modernizing Money" is packed with everything the authors know, from an appendix on the recent economic history of Zimbabwe to a fantastic description of how an economy will react to fiscal and monetary measures and an unmissable extension to Irving Fischer's MV=PX that goes a long way toward explaining how QE is only really pushing up assets (p.119 onwards) . It's great stuff.

From chapter 5 onward, however, it gets very naïve.

Scandalized by the discovery that most money is created by banks (coming ten years after their parents told them how babies are made, give or take) the authors next attempt to design a banking system that will end boom and bust. Their main idea is that the general public will have two choices when it goes to the bank. Either (i) stick the money in a 100% safe piggybank that the bank gives up to the central bank, while retaining (and charging for) its basic administration, such as giving its clients access to a debit card, cash machines etc. or (ii) stick it in fixed time deposits that pay an interest because the bank can lean on the time deposits to make loans to the real economy. These accounts would not be guaranteed by any type of deposit insurance and would be the only source of "bank credit" to the economy. No time deposits, no loans.

The authors do brilliant work in terms of taking the reader through the intricate accounting repercussions of moving to such a system and provide a step-by-step sketch of how we'd move from the current system to the new one. Much as I was shaking my head throughout this bit, it was a fantastic mental exercise. I truly enjoyed going through it.

Bottom line, however, the authors fail to recognize that what we have here is a problem with human nature rather with the banking system. This is not to say our banking system is flawless. Far from it! If you had to design the banking system from scratch you probably would not design it the way it looks now. With no doubt, today's banking system evolved from a set of historical circumstances that are no longer relevant. But the problems we face are of our own doing. The banking system is not where I'd start, especially if there was a twenty year transition period to be negotiated.

So the authors mention somewhere that fully 69% of UK households own their dwellings. But they think it's the fault of the banking system that there is a housing bubble. Erm, no! In a system called democracy the majority will attempt to elect itself rich, impossible as that sounds. And it will use the banking system to enforce its will. The counterfactual can be observed in countries where ownership is below 50% (Germany and Switzerland spring to mind) where there is no housing bubble, because no politician thinks he'll benefit from hare-brained ideas like "help to buy."

The authors also mention Hyman Minsky's favorite aphorism that the "fundamental instability of capitalism is upwards," but have the arrogance to think they can design a system that works around this problem. It can't be done. Whatever system we design will next be watered down by politicians as they succumb to the will of the electorate.

The US, for example, did once have a system with separate banking and investment banking, current accounts that paid no interest, capped interest on time accounts, banks that could only operate in a single state and thus never become too big to fail, a Fed that wilfully brought about a double dip recession in 1980 and 1982 to fight inflation, a system, in short, with more than half of the things the authors would like to see. My BayBank card did not work in New York and my Citicard did not work in Boston and neither bank would grant me credit, let alone allow me to punt stocks.

But Don Regan (Ronald Reagan's treasury secretary and former CEO of Merrill Lynch) gave us the right to bank out of our stockbroking account, Bob Rubin (Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs) helped us get rid of that annoying Glass Steagall act, Angelo Mozilo singlehandedly changed everybody's home into an ATM, Alan Greenspan underwrote the value of the stock market and so on and so forth until a short thirty years later the entire legal, regulatory, operational and business landscape has become totally unrecognizable. To say nothing of the shadow banking system, which has grown to be larger than the banking system.

So to say that there is something we can do to change everything shows naivete of the highest order. The way this gets fixed is through a proper crash of the kind nobody can contain. Then we'll get serious, make all the necessary reforms, perhaps even adopt some of the authors' ideas, and of course get back on track toward instability. That's how it works.

There are some further technical points I feel need to be made here:

1. The authors assert that money is not a means of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value as per all economics texts out there, but is first and foremost a number that appears in your bank account when you get a loan. They mention at least ten times in the book and on the back cover and on their website than 97% of all money arises in this fashion from loans banks make; they make this sound like some sort of betrayal. Does not bother me, personally, one bit, provided somebody out there is counting all this money, keeps an eye on the total and tells them to cease and desist when they have hit some type of limit. Call it a leverage limit, call it a reserve ratio, call it what you like. If this failsafe is in place and if it's enforced, you're cool. And if it's not being enforced, more importantly, don't blame the system. Blame human nature.

2. The authors don't like the fact that the central bank holds government bonds against the money it issues. Why not? Government bonds are a claim on future tax. Indeed, a claim on future tax that can only be paid in the currency of the state in question. I cannot think of a better asset for a central bank to hold. If the government is in charge it will collect tax. Unlike gold, whose quantity is exogenously determined, the tax a government can collect is a straight function of GDP. That's what I call full faith and credit. Moreover, if a country has its budget under control and invests for the future it will find that it's exporting goods and services that make its currency desirable relative to other currencies, further underpinning the value of this debt. And vice versa, obviously, but that's a good thing!

3. Others have pointed out to the authors (and they admit as much on page 197) that banking is about maturity transformation: we all stick our overnight cash in the bank, but since my purchase of a car from the car dealer merely moves deposits from my account with Megabank to his account with Microbank, the banking system as a whole is A-OK and they can sort out their imbalances with interbank loans. Therefore, the banking system as a whole can turn around and lend this money for term. Why we would ever want to restrict this miracle to the amounts people specifically allocate to risky time deposits is totally beyond me. It really sounds like an unnatural distinction. Once upon a time, when the system was healthy, we had vigilant central banks that kept the lenders on the straight and narrow via (i) enforcement of reserve ratios (ii) the threat of higher interest rates that would move old loans into the red (iii) restrictions on risky activities. These and other measures meant depositors enjoyed deposit insurance without imposing a risk on society and could go about their daily business without the whole population being mini credit officers. It's called division of labor and it's a very good idea.

Despite these criticisms, I will repeat that I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It was written with passion. It kept me entertained, it taught me lots and it made me think. But the main argument is far too flawed and regrettably I can't recommend that you lend it to a gullible friend, lest he reads past page 154. And that's a shame.
1313 Comments| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 March 2013
How many times do you hear that the government is massively in debt, and that there are only two options - either (a) increase taxes, or (b) cut government spending?

This story, which is repeated endlessly by policitians, economists and journalists is a fiction. And Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson's excellent book explains why. The real problem is that governments have handed the power to create the nation's money supply to the commercial banking system. And those banks are responsible for creating 97% of the money in the UK system. They create that money "out of thin air" when they make loans. And then they charge everyone - individuals, businesses and governments - interest on those loans.

My own calculations back up the claims made both in Modernising Money, and in the Positive Money groups's previous book "Where does money come from?" (also highly recommended). Since 1995, the UK goverment has paid over £495 billion in interest charges on government debt. That's a substantial proportion of the £1.1 trillion in public sector debt. And these payments have been going on for decades. Indeed for most of the 1960s and 1970s, the government was paying around 3.5% of GDP to the banks in the form of interest charges, reaching a peak of over 4.5% in 1981-2.

What Jackson and Dyson demonstrate is that those payments were totally unnecessary, because there is absolutely no reason why the nation's money supply needs to be created as interest bearing debt by commercial banks. The Bank of England could, and should, be creating the money supply. And it should be providing that money supply to power the economy free of interest charges.

The usual argument trotted out by the defenders of the Banks right to create the money supply is that if governments were to be given control of the money supply, they would be tempted to increase the money supply too fast, and the result would be hyperinflation - we would end up in Zimbabwe, or the Weimer Republic.

But Jackson and Dyson calmly demolish these arguments. In an appendix, they demonstrate that the Zimbabwe/Weimar Republic arguments are phoney. They also demonstrate that, left to the commercial banks, money creation is done in a way that follows only one objective - maximising bank profits. And that is why a vast amount of the newly created money has gone to fuel house price inflation - with the result that working families are now priced out of the housing market.

But the real killer is that they don't propose to hand over the keys of the money creation mechanism to the government. No, they propose that money creation for the economy should be the responsibility of an independent, yet publicly accountable "Money Creation Committee" whose job would be to regulate the supply of money in the economy. I find this argument absolutely convincing, and it completely avoids all the usual counterarguments to monetary reform.

Putting the money creation process in the hands of people who have nothing to gain from excessive money creation would end the boom and bust cycles that have plagued economies since the dawn of banking. It's a point that was also demonstrated in a recent publication by two IMF economists who used state of the art economic modelling to show that taking the money creation power away from commercial banks and using what is known as Full-Reserve Banking would be extremely beneficial ("The Chicago Plan Revisited").

To make one last point, consider the following. Since 1983, the UK banking system has been increasing the total money supply (measured by M4) by an average of 10% every year. Even if you take into account inflation, you still get a net increase of 7% per year. But since the financial crisis in 2008-2009, the banks have effectively been removing around 7-8% of the money in the economy every year. That's because everyone has been desperately trying to pay back their debts. And when they pay back the money they owe to banks, that money actually disappears. That is why the economy is in crisis.

The commercial banks not only have the power to create money out of thin air when they create loans, they have the power to destroy in when those loans are paid off. Indeed, if we all tightened out belts, eliminated all our debts, and the government slashed all public spending to pay back all the "money" that it has borrowed from the banking system, there would be no "money" left.

That is why the system needs to be fixed. The money supply should be in the hands of a publicly accountable central authority, and it should be injected into the economy debt-free. That is what Jackson and Dyson are proposing. And they are absolutely right.

Everyone, but everyone, should read this book. If you hear a politician, economist or jouralist saying that tax rises and cuts in public spending are the only options, you can tell them that they are completely wrong.
1111 Comments| 22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 8 February 2013
The book is easily accessible for people with different levels of financial knowledge, but what you read you may not always like!! The authors do, however, present a viable alternative to our banking system which would help us move away from the current boom/bust cycle and stop the general public being susceptible to bursting of financial bubbles.

Once you get your head around it, it really makes sense.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 31 January 2013
It is a terrific read and seems very thorough. Would be a good crash course on banking for a student even if they never went as far as the second half. As a lay person it was just at the limit of my understanding which is just as it should be.
A couple of comments:
How would a big international bank based in say America run it's operation with such a different system in place?
It would have been good to include a survey of similar literature or at least refer to it.I am thinking of 'New money for a new world' by Bernard Lietaer et al, which is another book I have great respect for. Also .[...]. It should be helpful to be pulling in the same direction!
Congratulations for your great achievements in 2012. May 2013 be even better
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 24 July 2013
This book explains, in painstaking detail, just how badly the current economic system serves ordinary people (and how well it serves the very rich). It shows very clearly that booms and busts, inflations and deflations, feasts and famines in money and credit availability are all man-made phenomena, and that all these instabilities CAN BE ELIMINATED given the political will to do so.

My only complaint is that the book has no index! It is very frustrating to know that something is said somewhere but to be unable to find it later - especially in discussing or arguing the merits of the proposals with others, so I really hope that future editions will include a comprehensive index.

As the book so clearly explains, at the heart of the problem are commercial banks that mislead politicians and public alike into believing that they 'lend' money (i.e. take existing money from somewhere else in order to lend it), when in truth they 'create' money by simply writing it into the account of a borrower in return for a promise to repay. What they are doing is a modern version of what fraudulent goldsmiths did hundreds of years ago - they issued more (many more) receipts for gold than the gold that they held, lending out the receipts at a lucrative rate of interest - a very nice and thoroughly dishonest not-so-little earner. The public used these receipts for trading purposes as they thought they were backed by gold and were much more convenient than carrying around gold itself. Rather than stamping out this process, successive governments around the world have colluded with the banks, first by setting up central banks and then ever more regulations of increasing complexity to try to contain the inherent instabilities in the system. Their conspicuous lack of success in this regard is very clearly illustrated by the current world recession - which is just the latest in a long line throughout history.

Some of the devastating effects of the current system, which operates throughout the world, include the following:-

1) In developed countries there is continuous transfer of wealth from ordinary working people (people who suffer from debt) to the rich (people who benefit from debt), making wealth inequality ever wider, eventually risking civil unrest.

2) In developing countries there is continuous transfer of wealth to rich countries, causing deep poverty, widespread death (especially of children and infants) and immense human misery.

3) The fact that banks create money by simultaneously creating debt, and additionally charge interest on that debt, means that the amount of money in circulation is always exceeded by the amount of debt, which must be serviced at great cost by the debtors.

4) Massive subsidies are enjoyed by banks in the form of loan interest payments from individuals, businesses and even governments, who allow banks to create money for them and then borrow it at interest, payable from taxation.

5) The need for ordinary businesses to service high levels of debt (and pay their workers enough to service their debts) necessitates their having to compete fiercely in the marketplace, so that societal concerns such as global warming; pollution; biodiversity; conservation of energy, water and other scarce resources and so on are all subordinated to the imperative of staying in business and making money.

During economic booms banks create ever more money (and debt) to fuel both the boom and their own profits, whereas during economic busts like we have now banks destroy money (by absorbing more repayment of debt than creation of new money) thereby deepening the busts. In effect banks provide positive feedback to the economy (i.e. they provide more money when there is already too much, and remove money when there is too little), which is the very reverse of what is really needed, and it is this that causes severe instability in the system. Unfortunately the inflation caused during booms doesn't show up in measures such as CPI or RPI because of banks' preference to lend for the purchase of existing assets like land, property and the stock market, on the security of those assets, rather than to business enterprise, on the security of (less sure) future income streams. Hence such assets inflate considerably, while growth of GDP is not helped at all.
The book explains very clearly that there really is an answer to all these evils, and it's not complicated or even painful. It also explores the various objections to the reform proposals and shows, again very clearly, that they are either completely without foundation or have very minor effects. The reforms will stop the subsidies to the very rich, so they are bound to be fought ferociously if they ever become a real threat. As yet they don't seem to be, but the more that ordinary people and politicians who are fired with a genuine public spirit (are there any?) understand and back them, then the more the momentum for change will build.

Well done Andrew and Ben, you have created a tour de force.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 31 January 2013
Why is money so important in our lives? Well, it underpins pretty much everything we do and everything we are! However we feel about it, whatever we think about it, money is crucial to our everyday living and being. While it should be a faithful servant that works for us - after all, that's why we invented it - money is being used more and more as a control-weapon to exploit and abuse us. So where does it come from? How is it created? And very important, who benefits the most from it?

Let me start at a beginning: what is a bank? A bank is a business that deals in money and provides other financial services. We use them mostly for their current and savings accounts. But these services are free, so where is their profit? The answer lies in what banks sell - their product: banks sell debt. So business as usual for a bank is finding as many ways as possible of getting as many people as possible into as much debt as possible! The real business of banks as they exist today is to sell debt. Got it?

And where do the banks get their product from; this money that they lend? From nothing, for nothing ... through an exercise in plain sight of sleight-of-hand digital accounting deceits! And here's the kicker: It is this type of money - out of thin air, keyboard-created, kiss-my-pixel, virtual-stuff - that now makes up 97.4 per cent of all money used in the economy (from Where Does Money Come From?: A Guide to the UK Monetary & Banking System ). Having created their own base product - brand spanking `never-existed-before-now' money - they proceed to lend it to us for interest; not just simple interest mind you, but interest-on-interest. What we call compound interest.

We all know what rent is ... payment in exchange for usage. We live in a rent-an-economy; we pay the banks to use the economy that they create ex nihilo i.e. for diddly-squat, own and control. In short, their economy. We hire their economy from them! In effect then, the non-bank sector must `rent' the entire money supply from banks, resulting in a constant transfer of wealth from the rest of the economy to the banking sector (through interest payments). No wonder bonuses are, er, on the high side.

To put this into actual money numbers, in 2011 the Bank of England calculated that banks earned just under £109 billion in interest a year. Before the Bank of England lowered interest rates in 2008, banks earned just over £213 billion in interest payments alone. This is money that is transferred from the honest and productive non-bank to the suck-my-screen banking sector. Bear in mind that this is a charge for something that could be provided at almost no cost by the state, that is to say the government as voted in by you and me.

Let me offer you two further little horrors from Modernising Money: 85% of the British public's money is held by just 5 banks; and, in the 5 years running up to the financial crisis, the banking sector's gross lending to households and individuals alone came to a total of £2.9tr whilst total government spending was less at £2.1tr.

Banks aren't `too-big-to-fail'. As things stand at the moment, they are `too-essential-to-be-allowed-to-fail'. So who rules, who are the masters of the universe ... our political representatives in Westminster or the unaccountable banksters of the City? That's a nobrainer: moneypower rules, okay!

Why do banks do this? Just the usual ol' human-nature stuff; you know: profit, power, prestige.

And how do they get away with this? Because we the voters in our ignorance allow them to!
What, then, is the root of the problem? Very simple: We, you and I, have given away the power to create money to private interests. Through our nescience - our not-knowing - we have supported their power to create money out of thin air for their own exclusive, short-term profit ... which is in direct conflict with our best interests and well-being!

How can we change this? Very, very easily. If - IF - the political will is there, the necessary legal and technical measures will be a toddle. But let's be quite clear: supplying a nation with its money must be completely separate from the activity of banking. So, in effect, under the reforms of Modernising Money, neither the state (government) nor a bank could borrow a single penny. Monstrous - mountainous - UK debt will have peaked.

And you and me? What about us? We would be able to borrow as usual. Because our financial position would be much improved, we'd probably have less of a need to take on debt. When we did, with real competition, the rates would likely be considerably lower.

So, dear reader, do you want to know why we are all plagued with personal money worries and constantly struggling with debt and interest payments and good businesses can't get loans while the powers-that-be are obsessed with economic growth? How can it be that we seem to be able to afford an elite high-speed rail line at £4,000,000,000 (before time and cost overruns) but can't find £40,000 to keep the existing local library open?

What's going on? Do you sense that something is drastically wrong but you don't know quite what or why?

If you lack knowledge, want explanations and need to understand, I strongly urge you to absorb Modernising Money. You won't need to borrow for this one. You, as ever, supply the interest but this time you owe it to yourself."
0Comment| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)