The entire purpose of this blog is to ask you to think outside the box. It therefore cuts across the lines of dogma of any group, and is formed purely by my own independent thought. As I have frequently stated, if anybody agrees with every point I make, something is wrong.
This is going to annoy both left on Greece and right on banks, and my own party on the SNP and Labour. Here goes.
The citizens of the United Kingdom gave 45,000 pounds each, every man woman and child of them, direct to the bankers in bailouts. We will be paying off that money in taxes – with vast sums in interest to the same bankers, from whom we borrowed virtual money they did not have, to give to them as real money – for generations to come. Quantitive easing gives yet more money to the bankers, cash in place of risky bonds they wish to dump.
When you add it all together including interest, every man, woman and child in the UK will pay over 100,000 pounds each to the bankers, to bail out the bankers from the mess their own extreme greed had created. Indeed it is possible to argue rationally that the payment will be infinite, as the debt incurred will never be repaid but continually rolled over, and interest payments continue.
We did not have to do this. We could have let the bad banks go bust, started new ones, and boosted the economy by spending just 20% of the money we have given the banks on crucially needed public infrastructure works – railways, renewable energy, housing, insulation, hospitals, schools etc. But Gordon Brown and New Labour decided just to give money to the bankers instead.
In Greece, the people have actually given much less to the bankers for bailout than people in the UK. It is important to acknowledge that the causes of the Greek financial collapse are different. Greece was rather a recipient of bad lending, a country which received loans it could not possibly afford. Due to corrupt networks of elite collusion embracing both government and private sector, much of this money was simply siphoned out of the country into overseas accounts in London and Cyprus. The British people are suffering from the banking collapse through being forced to bail out the bankers. Greece is more in the position of somebody in a huge house who could not afford the mortgage – except for the vital distinction that all the people in Greece were paying the mortgage, but the large majority living in sheds behind the mansion.
I welcome Syriza’s victory as an indication that people are not content just to accept the narrative given them by the mainstream media and the parties in the pocket of corporations. I hope that they negotiate hard and force the banks to take a huge haircut on Greek sovereign debt. I acknowledge their commitment to social justice. But I do hope they will be realistic with both themselves and their people on the amount of blood, sweat and tears that is going to need to go in to building a productive Greek economy. An example of Keynesian stimulus is much needed by the rest of Europe.
Gordon Brown’s bank bailout was probably the biggest single gift any politician has ever given his corporate masters in the entire history of the world. It is worth reminding ourselves just how very right wing the Red Tories are. Not to mention the fact their front bench remains littered with war criminals. I therefore have grave reservations about Nicola Sturgeon’s weekend interview indication that the People of Scotland want a Labour Government with SNP support. I don’t. I am not going to elect somebody to represent me as chief bag carrier to a war criminal.
The SNP leadership remain infected by managerialism. It is easy to convince yourself you are doing good things while not changing anything fundamental, and at the same time building a very well paid career and a personal powerbase. I don’t want devo-max, I don’t want more powers, I don’t want something “as close to federalism as possible”. I want freedom for my country. I want independence. I want to live in a country which does not illegally invade other countries, collude in torture, carry out mass surveillance of its citizens, or possess nuclear weapons. The idea of running the Union a little bit better, making it a teeny bit more humane and competent, does not interest me. Nor does dulling the edge of austerity, when it is going to behead us anyway.
Besides which I am absolutely convinced the Tories will win the election, which will make all this jostling for position look rather foolish.
Habbabkuk, when is the United States going to pay of its debt?
Or even pay off.
Herbie
“Surely odious debt is much the same as the concept of duress in contract law.”
_________________________
Yes, Martin Jackson already made the same point : “In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.”
The point is, though, that odious debt is only a theory in international law whereas the concept of duress is actually part of contract law.
They are about crushing success, it’s part of a divided class based society that MUST crush others for there own criminal endeavours. To ‘distinguish’ themselves. They do everything to work against the well being of society at large. It’s really a fundamental western cultural meme. Screwed up values. A vicious and unfair society, wilfully continued.
Mr Goss
“Habbabkuk, when is the United States going to pay of its debt?”
__________________
Could you have the courtesy to answer my question about what you meant by “old currencies” and “old currency” in your post at 14h04.
My question was:
““As to Syriza and the debt it inherited, that debt is really owed by the bankers and financiers who have moved their money elsewhere. Greece’s solution is to start a New Drachma making the old-currencies worthless as a means of exchange, after paying Europe in old currency.”
_________________
What do you mean by the “old currencies” and then, further on and more puzzingly, the “old currency”?
I suppose by “old currencies” you mean essentially the Euro but also the GBP, USD, Japanese yen and so on? But if that is the case, your sentence is meaningless because those latter currencies will still exist and Greece will still be billed in those currencies for its imports from the countries in question.
And, as I asked, what is the “old currency”?”
****************
Are you just deviating, or don’t you know what you meant?
Excellent response from Anton:
“How so? The bank bailouts were not “gifts”, but a mixture of loans (to address liquidity needs) and equity stakes (to provide capital). Nor were these sums provided to “bankers” – a mendacious term in this context- but to institutions.”
Needed saying!
Craig was engaging in a mild (for him) form of emotive polemic (“gifts”, “bankers”).
I also have a bank ‘dept’. After they doubled the fees on an overdraft without a mention, so it goes over a few quid and before you know it it’s a few grand they are asking for as some kind of legitimate charges.
It’s criminal, these people are criminals. Trying to rob me again after robbing me already.
Guano
“So Habbabkuk was involved with the break-up of Yugoslavia.”
__________________
No, that was Resident Dissident.
I was the break-up of the Soviet Union and Kempe engineered the financial crisis.
We specialise, you see…. 🙂
“The entire purpose of this blog is to ask you to think outside the box.”
No it’s not. Otherwise your cybergoons wouldn’t delete comments and frustrate exchanges with selective pre-modding on certain commentators.
_ _ _ _ _ _
“We did not have to do this. We could have let the bad banks go bust, started new ones, and boosted the economy by spending just 20% of the money we have given the banks on crucially needed public infrastructure works – railways, renewable energy, housing, insulation, hospitals, schools etc. But Gordon Brown and New Labour decided just to give money to the bankers instead.”
You won’t need all of that infrastructure if you reign in your out-of-control immigration ponzi scheme.
Agreed.
Interesting how someone has suddenly turned into an expert in international law.
Whatever international law may or may not say, antropologist David Graeber persuasively argues in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (now in a new edition) that debt forgiveness is often a wise policy.
It’s funny that they can barely notify of critical fee increases. But when you fall in the trap they are notifying you on a regular bases, so easy and clearly, not just a note on the bottom of a statement but threatening letters constantly, I’m sure my experience is not unique.
“David Graeber persuasively argues in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (now in a new edition) that debt forgiveness is often a wise policy.”
++ seconded.
I can’t say for sure, but I don’t know how i’m going to react if they try to take my art materials away.
Sick bastards who run this society.
@Tony: Fair enough, but you’ll understand that since people first started to decorate their own bodies – as they do in uncontaminated tribes still – gold has been used as jewellery. I don’t see that a human failing, so much as part of the human condition. What’s wrong with wanting to dress up for an occasion? (Having said that, I mostly drive around in a small and rather rusted 16-year old diesel, worth maybe £200, so I’m not too bothered about being flash myself.)
But back to gold. A handful of individuals having the monitory equivalent of 1000s tons of it, hoarded away, while still scrambling to get yet more (causing poverty and misery in the meantime), is definitely a societal failing. Take a look at this rogue’s gallery:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/photos/the-richest-people-on-the-planet-2014-slideshow/walmart-shareholders-meeting-photo-201120647.html
Gold has always been regarded as something likely to keep its value, and not subject to the vagaries of authorities, who might declare your entire family penniless through devaluing currency, economic mismanagement and so forth. Like it or not, a means of exchange is necessary. The primary reason money came about was so that the King could tax it. To use gold for greedy speculation is rather foolish, but as a small hedge against turbulent currencies, one could certainly do worse. The wisdom might be up for debate, but I don’t see anything immoral in that.
The Old currecncy is the one that the New Drachma I speculated about replaces. We will know what that is when it comes about.
You see Europe with the Euro pegs to the petro dollar. It’s a pity but it does. Let the Greeks, and everyone else pay off their debts in confetti dollars, when the US pays off its debt. It’s all a fiction. It might be expecting too much but I thought even you might be able to see that Habbabkuk.
Now then. When are the US and UK going to pay off their national debts?
Mr Goss
“The Old currecncy is the one that the New Drachma I speculated about replaces. We will know what that is when it comes about.”
______________
I’m trying hard, Mr Goss, but I still don’t know what you’re referring to.
If the “old currency” is yet unknown, and for the future, why do you call it “old”?
Peter
26 Jan, 2015 – 3:09 pm
Thank you for the sources. I will be pleased to read them.
I was aware that psychological therapy was being offered by the DWP as a pilot scheme. The idea of therapy being enforced, on pain of sanctions, is profoundly disturbing and I need to look at it closely.
Kind regards,
John
Lysias
“Interesting how someone has suddenly turned into an expert in international law.
Whatever international law may or may not say, antropologist David Graeber persuasively argues in Debt: The First 5,000 Years (now in a new edition) that debt forgiveness is often a wise policy”
______________
1st para : silly.
2nd para : the first part seems to be admitting that “odious debt” is a concept in international law but that it is not international law. Which is what I said previously. Therefore we agree on that point.
The anthropologist Mr Graeber may well be right, but what is the connection between your reference to him (debt foregiveness) and the question of odious debt?
It seems to me that the essence of odious debt is that it is (or should be) null and void or at any rate ca
…capable of unilateral cancellation, whereas debt foregiveness is applied in cases where the legality of the debt is not in doubt. So I do not see how the first part of your second para illuminates the second part, or vice versa.
@Homeneara*.
Your art material, move it out before they get their hands on it. Unless, you have put it up as collateral.
What the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve.
Best of luck to you.
Anton and habbaduk miss the point entirely, banks don’t have what they loan, what they loan is created from nothing at the point of lending it. Such power to create ‘money’ for which the taxpayer past, present and future is on the hook for, perpetually, is not something that should be permissible to conspiracies of persons i.e. banks. Government only should create and lend money interest free to individuals and to aggregates of people, such as companies for productive or societal good. Those who benefit from the present racket will say say, “but what if they default and don’t pay it back, the taxpayer must foot the bill”, to which the answer is that that is already the situation at present with for profit ‘banks’ as intermediaries, the taxpayer is always liable ultimately there too, but with the government as lender exclusively, no-one is profiting from a system essential to meeting peoples’ ans society’s needs and wants. No one would choose to borrow at interest, or could lend at interest when interest-free lending prevailed. The banks owe us for every penny they’ve been permitted, I would say hoodwinked us into allowing them to create.
Gold still has no intrinsic value, it differs not the least from fiat currency. I think rusted iron has great value, is rather more beautiful in its own way aesthetically than gold.
The citizens of the United Kingdom gave 45,000 pounds each, every man woman and child of them, direct to the bankers in bailouts.
I suspect that this claim is totally misleading, as in essemtially false. The UK Government provided banks with loans, and credit guarantees and received, in the case of RBS and Lloyds a substantial equity stake in the business.
The net cost to the tax payer remains uncertain since the government remains a shareholder of RBS and Lloyds, so we don’t know what gain or loss there will be on the shares. In the end, however, the cost to the taxpayer is likely to be rather small.
But someone must surely be better informed of the details than I am. It would be good to hear from them.
@Robert Crawford: “Glen.
I was born during the Second World War before the NHS was started.
If I need a haircut I don’t go to a politician, I go to a barber.
What does an Occupational Therapist do?
Would he be experienced in legal matters to be a good Justice Minister?”
Well, who would you go to then for leadership/representation, someone who’s only experience is making money for themselves and their mates? You appear to be confusing leadership with the hands-on operational details. Politicians – for all their bluster and pretence – don’t know much about anything. You’ll never catch one admitting to being less than a universal expert, of course.
Their skill should be in enabling those who do know what they’re doing to get on with it. Not micro-managing everything themselves. Look at Attlee’s cabinet, since you brought up WW-II and the NHS for some reason. After WWII, Attlee had the courage to get very good people who knew what they were doing, and gave them the power and materials necessary to do their jobs. Not swapping cabinet positions like musical chairs, as if any one manager could do the job of any other, totally interchangeably.
Do you think the CEO of Amalgamated Widgets must be ideally placed to run the NHS, just because AW (inc) is profitable, and expanding? Maybe you think there is no higher calling than expansion, and making money. Therefore anyone good at this is going to be competent at running every other large organisation.
*
If I have you all wrong here, kindly explain why you rubbished that barber for no other reason than he was a one-business individual, and not some mighty captain of industry.
“Now then. When are the US and UK going to pay off their national debts?”
Why, when it works so well for the elite.
The answer is the shares in banks are worthless, as is any share in any despised and rightly despicable fundamentally criminal enterprise or racket. Their worth depends entirely on keeping a whole lot of balls in the air simultaneously, and I’m glad to say, it cannot be ever be done. The ‘banks’ as they’re permitted to simply create what it is claimed they owe the state, can do so in an instant and buy themselves back, the situation is only even then resolvable if they’re permitted to carry on doing and repeating the actions that led to the financial crisis, every financial crisis, in the first place, permitting them to create virtual money and lending what they do not have with ultimate liability for their profit, the interest, whatever the outcome, residing not with individual borrowers but taxed from the population at large with future tax-es not even dreamed of let alone collected in by the state, as debt collector for private interests, of first and only resort.
The bailouts are analogous to allowing a thief to repay what they’ve stolen you from future anticipated proceeds of stealing from you again.
@homeneara*
Yes I know it works out well for them. That’s why I am asking Habbabkuk a perfectly valid question. He seems to be keen for Greece to pay back its ‘gifts’ but not for those countries whose debts are collosal. I keep mentioning that the US National debt is greater than its GDP. It is totally and absolutely bankrupt but somehow hobbles along creating one war after another.
So Habbabkuk, when are the US and UK going to pay off their debts?
“The citizens of the United Kingdom gave 45,000 pounds each, every man woman and child of them, direct to the bankers in bailouts.”
“I suspect that this claim is totally misleading, as in essemtially false.”
It vastly underestimates the true cost to people, because it’s not just the dept but the effect of paying it. Plunging most peoples economy into the dirt. The effect overall in just monetary terms must be vast, ongoing and thus hard to calculate.
And I don’t really consider dept to be the correct term.
N.B. I’ve left Resident Dissident a comment on the previous thread in response to his angry attack yesterday on the good people of Donetsk who are trying to defent themselves against the extreme right which has waged war on them.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/01/sam-adams-award/comment-page-2/#comment-505188
Henry Ford once famously said that if the people only knew and understood the banking system there would be revolution tomorrow morning.