12 year old explains the banking system

[RichyBoy]

I wish more people were wise to what is going on in private banking:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...

[AndrewW-G]

Video misses something . . . . .the people are happy to vote for governments who spend more than their annual revenue.

Live within your means and there is no need to spend your income on debt repayment. Borrow and then blow your money on crap that you really don't need and be forever caught in the debt loop.

When labour were pfi'ing new hospitals and "academies" etc. all over the place, the left and the feckless didn't ask where the money was coming from, they just grabbed it with both hands.
Now that it's obvious to all, that it was a debt pyramid that makes Ponzi & Madoff look like amateurs, they still aren't asking why so much was borrowed and spent, they just demand that we borrow more to prop up their wasteful ways.

Want to break free from government debt . . . . .petition your MP to cut none essential government spending, and don't complain if they actually do it.

[LordFlathead]

Very clever. However; she appears to be reading from a pre-learnt script. The eyes and tone of voice do not match the emotion, therefore I think that this is a clever hoax whereby she has been put up to do this.

At 12 years old she clearly has a gift, albeit in public speaking and self confidence.

At 12 years old she should not be exploited.

[12gauge]

AndrewW-G said:

Video misses something . . . . .the people are happy to vote for governments who spend more than their annual revenue.

But wouldnt it be better to have no national debt, so that whenever govt promises something, prints money, the full inflationary effect is felt now, rather than passed on to the next generation?

Once people actually had to deal with govt irresponsibility INSTANTLY they might vote a bit more responsibly. Probably wont, but its possible.

[AndrewW-G]

12gauge said:

AndrewW-G said:

Video misses something . . . . .the people are happy to vote for governments who spend more than their annual revenue.

But wouldnt it be better to have no national debt, so that whenever govt promises something, prints money, the full inflationary effect is felt now, rather than passed on to the next generation?

Once people actually had to deal with govt irresponsibility INSTANTLY they might vote a bit more responsibly. Probably wont, but its possible.

Yes, hence the rest of my post

[steveatesh]

AndrewW-G said:

Video misses something . . . . .the people are happy to vote for governments who spend more than their annual revenue.

Live within your means and there is no need to spend your income on debt repayment. Borrow and then blow your money on crap that you really don't need and be forever caught in the debt loop.

When labour were pfi'ing new hospitals and "academies" etc. all over the place, the left and the feckless didn't ask where the money was coming from, they just grabbed it with both hands.
Now that it's obvious to all, that it was a debt pyramid that makes Ponzi & Madoff look like amateurs, they still aren't asking why so much was borrowed and spent, they just demand that we borrow more to prop up their wasteful ways.

Want to break free from government debt . . . . .petition your MP to cut none essential government spending, and don't complain if they actually do it.

Well said.

[RichyBoy]

12gauge said:

But wouldnt it be better to have no national debt, so that whenever govt promises something, prints money, the full inflationary effect is felt now, rather than passed on to the next generation?

Once people actually had to deal with govt irresponsibility INSTANTLY they might vote a bit more responsibly. Probably wont, but its possible.

But wouldn't it be better to have no national debt by eliminating the banks and the government print the money it needs; thereby making it accountable for spending? Why should we be paying interest to the banks to lend us our own money?

[andyroo]

AndrewW-G said:

Video misses something . . . . .

The video misses something else... the previous government who allowed this buildup of debt to occur were also the ones with whom the responsibility of regulating the financial sector lay, but now, out of power, they point the finger not at themselves, but at the people who followed their rules. In fact, during their reign of power, the labour party relaxed some of the regulation around the banking system at the request of the banks, something they seem to neglect to mention when they thrust their crooked digits towards the bankers.

[eccles]

andyroo said:

AndrewW-G said:

Video misses something . . . . .

relaxed some of the regulation around the banking system at the request of the banks,

Says it all really.

[williamp]

I always like this:

explains how the bank lending system. "people like us" from the mid 90s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbtRUrEaRA0

[ringram]

RichyBoy said:

12gauge said:

But wouldnt it be better to have no national debt, so that whenever govt promises something, prints money, the full inflationary effect is felt now, rather than passed on to the next generation?

Once people actually had to deal with govt irresponsibility INSTANTLY they might vote a bit more responsibly. Probably wont, but its possible.

But wouldn't it be better to have no national debt by eliminating the banks and the government print the money it needs; thereby making it accountable for spending? Why should we be paying interest to the banks to lend us our own money?

Because it sets a "risk free" rate and helps to manage and maintain growth through monetary policy and operations.
I wouldn't trust the government to manage squat.

But there is no operational reason that what you suggest could not be done. In effect thats what happens anyway. Except the central bank and HMRC soak up the cash through taxation and bond issuance.

[jshell]

andyroo said:

The video misses something else... the previous government who allowed this buildup of debt to occur were also the ones with whom the responsibility of regulating the financial sector lay, but now, out of power, they point the finger not at themselves, but at the people who followed their rules. In fact, during their reign of power, the labour party relaxed some of the regulation around the banking system at the request of the banks, something they seem to neglect to mention when they thrust their crooked digits towards the bankers.

Jesus fking Christ!

So, those poor, poor institutions, whom we're always told: 'well, we NEED to pay those salaries and bonuses to get the quality of management', were all along dependant on the govenment setting rules to make sure they ran their businesses correctly? You can't have it both fking ways! Either they are very good at what they do and can run their businesses properly and without spunking everything on bad debt and having us bale them out, OR, any tt can run them as the government should set the confines of operating strategy and we save a fortune!

We KNOW pure Socialism does not work. And, now, we KNOW pure Capitalism doesn't work. There has to be something else.

[andyroo]

jshell said:

Jesus fking Christ!

So, those poor, poor institutions, whom we're always told: 'well, we NEED to pay those salaries and bonuses to get the quality of management', were all along dependant on the govenment setting rules to make sure they ran their businesses correctly? You can't have it both fking ways! Either they are very good at what they do and can run their businesses properly and without spunking everything on bad debt and having us bale them out, OR, any tt can run them as the government should set the confines of operating strategy and we save a fortune!

We KNOW pure Socialism does not work. And, now, we KNOW pure Capitalism doesn't work. There has to be something else.

No; like any business, the law that they operate within needs to manage and regulate the level of natural human greed... And the whole while things were looking spangly, the government rode along on the gravy train, making it easier for the banks, rather than keeping things stable, and we have the situation we are in now.

I see it like this: people abuse benefits. We can't blame them, because they are working within the law, and it's the law that's at fault. Things have become so deep rooted, that changing it would have severe and irrepairable consequences. It's the same with the banks. Of course they are goin to make every last penny they can within the law! It's how humans work, we push the boundaries of our constructs until those boundaries need readjusting. It's a problem then that the previous government let those boundaries be pushed so far on the wrong direction, that putting them back would have, like a benefits reform, severe and irrepairable consequences.

[eccles]

andyroo said:

jshell said:

Jesus fking Christ!

So, those poor, poor institutions, whom we're always told: 'well, we NEED to pay those salaries and bonuses to get the quality of management', were all along dependant on the govenment setting rules to make sure they ran their businesses correctly? You can't have it both fking ways! Either they are very good at what they do and can run their businesses properly and without spunking everything on bad debt and having us bale them out, OR, any tt can run them as the government should set the confines of operating strategy and we save a fortune!

We KNOW pure Socialism does not work. And, now, we KNOW pure Capitalism doesn't work. There has to be something else.

No; like any business, the law that they operate within needs to manage and regulate the level of natural human greed... And the whole while things were looking spangly, the government rode along on the gravy train, making it easier for the banks, rather than keeping things stable, and we have the situation we are in now.

So basically you're saying that the Government forced the banks to lend the money?

[andyroo]

eccles said:

So basically you're saying that the Government forced the banks to lend the money?

[jshell]

andyroo said:

jshell said:

Jesus fking Christ!

So, those poor, poor institutions, whom we're always told: 'well, we NEED to pay those salaries and bonuses to get the quality of management', were all along dependant on the govenment setting rules to make sure they ran their businesses correctly? You can't have it both fking ways! Either they are very good at what they do and can run their businesses properly and without spunking everything on bad debt and having us bale them out, OR, any tt can run them as the government should set the confines of operating strategy and we save a fortune!

We KNOW pure Socialism does not work. And, now, we KNOW pure Capitalism doesn't work. There has to be something else.

No; like any business, the law that they operate within needs to manage and regulate the level of natural human greed... And the whole while things were looking spangly, the government rode along on the gravy train, making it easier for the banks, rather than keeping things stable, and we have the situation we are in now.

I see it like this: people abuse benefits. We can't blame them, because they are working within the law, and it's the law that's at fault. Things have become so deep rooted, that changing it would have severe and irrepairable consequences. It's the same with the banks. Of course they are goin to make every last penny they can within the law! It's how humans work, we push the boundaries of our constructs until those boundaries need readjusting. It's a problem then that the previous government let those boundaries be pushed so far on the wrong direction, that putting them back would have, like a benefits reform, severe and irrepairable consequences.

I'm sorry, that's blatant apologist cop-out garbage. The deliberate actions of those s led to the meltdown we've all expereinced. So, it's not their fault, the poor things, as they weren't regulated enough? 'I vas just following orders', springs to mind. Absolution through pass-the-parcel of blame? Seriously? Really?

You'd murder, rape or thieve if there were no police then?

Edited by jshell on Sunday 13th May 10:49

[andyroo]

eccles said:

So basically you're saying that the Government forced the banks to lend the money?

You know full well I didn't say that. Government regulates business. They knowingly allowed and in fact relaxed rules to allow banks to sail closer to the wind for their own short term political benefit, rather than regulate it independently for the benefit of the country in the long term.

Look at at like this. House builders, like bankers, are businessmen looking to make as much money as possible. Regulations, and exceedingly strict and numerous ones at that, stop house builders from making houses out of straw to maximise profit, requiring stone for the benefit of the long term user. If those regulations didn't exist, housebuilders would build them out of straw, and in fact they sail as close to the wind as possible, so they build them out of wood.

Banking is no different, except what has happened is, to use the housebuilders analogy further, that the government have allowed the house to be built out of straw so their political agenda stands tall. However, a breeze came along, and surprise surprise, all the houses have fallen down.

[andyroo]

jshell said:

I'm sorry, that's blatant apologist cop-out garbage. The deliberate actions of those s led to the meltdown we've all expereinced. So, it's not their fault, the poor things, as they weren't regulated enough? 'I vas just following orders', springs to mind. Absolution through pass-the-parcel of blame? Seriously? Really?

You'd murder, rape or thieve if there were no police then?

If you're comparing foolish business to murder, rape and genocide, then I think this conversation ends here.

[AndrewW-G]

eccles said:

So basically you're saying that the Government forced the banks to lend the money?

In the US, this is exactly what happened (via the community re-investment act) and is why so many unsuitable people were given mortgages.

[jshell]

andyroo said:

jshell said:

I'm sorry, that's blatant apologist cop-out garbage. The deliberate actions of those s led to the meltdown we've all expereinced. So, it's not their fault, the poor things, as they weren't regulated enough? 'I vas just following orders', springs to mind. Absolution through pass-the-parcel of blame? Seriously? Really?

You'd murder, rape or thieve if there were no police then?

If you're comparing foolish business to murder, rape and genocide, then I think this conversation ends here.

It's the principle that counts. To blame the regulator/law maker is the tail wagging the dog! Bankers taking such a terrible risk with other people's money has caused chaos and meltdown on a global scale. But, I suppose, I gave you an easy (cop)-out...