Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The UK banking system

slaar said:
No it's not, it's a nationalised institution:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm

The bank even has to get parliamentary approval before printing money.

At least check your basic facts.
Click to expand...


ermm does the bank have a board of governors? YES
Does the bank have shareholders? YES

it is a private bank, a corporation.

get over it, you are wrong. Misinformed and spreading non-sense.

Everybody who looks into this agrees the bank is private.

Economists admit it, everyone admits it except people like you who read the word 'nationalised' and believe somehow magically the bank is now Public.

No no no, the Private Nationalised Bank is still Private.

Just forget it, you have lost your mind. Also, the world is round. How about that one?
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
I ask only becuase you come accross exaclty the same as the AR nutters on here do - you keep repeating the same incorrect statements over and over agian, in spite of numerous people giving you evidence otherwise. You also have the same superior attitude that somehow the rest of us are just to stupid to see the bigger picture available only to you.

You are wrong, on several basic facts, simply spouting the same rubbish over and over again will not change this.
Click to expand...

same questions = same answers
 
An act passed by the British government in 1797 to free the central Bank of England from converting bank notes and other financial claims into gold. The act was created in response to the flood of paper money issued by the British government that resulted in an economic catastrophe.


In 1694, the Bank of England, a private corporation, was created out of the British government's need for cheap loans to finance its expenses. Three years later, the Bank was given monopoly rights that covered banking and note-issuing activities in England. However, once the war with France began in the 1790s, the British government's military expenses rose very quickly. Thus, the government issued paper notes that the Bank of England was expected to convert into gold on demand. But, by 1797, the Bank's gold reserves had been reduced to dangerously low levels as a result of heavy demands for gold redemptions from both domestic and foreign note holders. To save the Bank from bankruptcy, the British government passed the Bank Restriction Act. By the end of the war in 1814, bank notes outstanding had a face value of 28.4 million pounds on gold reserves of only 2.2 million pounds, which caused the British currency to depreciate about 30%, creating so much stress on the British economy that a gold standard was needed to stabilize the currency.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/restrictionact.asp

It performs all the functions of a central bank -- to maintain price stability, and subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government (Bank of England Act 1998) in order to promote economic growth.

It has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes in England and Wales (see Sterling); it is both the Government's banker and the bankers' bank; a "Lender of Last Resort"; it manages the country's foreign exchange and gold reserves; it used to be responsible for the regulation and supervision of the banking industry (see Johnson Matthey, BCCI, and Barings), although this responsibility was transferred to the Financial Services Authority in June 1998. Since 1997 the Monetary Policy Committee has had the responsibility for setting the official interest rate. With the decision to grant the Bank operational independence, responsibility for government debt management was transferred to the new UK Debt Management Office in 1998, which also took over government cash management in 2000. The Bank maintains the Government's Consolidated Fund account. Computershare took over as the registrar for UK Government bonds (known as gilts) from the Bank at the end of 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

so just give it up. The bank is private and you are in denial
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
I'm in denial of nothing, personally I couldn't give a fuck about any of this :D
Click to expand...

so you are admitting you are only arguing for arguing sake.

you dont believe that teh BoE is public, you know it is private.
 
zArk said:
same questions = same answers
Click to expand...

same questions = same evasions = same avoidance of the facts = same bullshit :rolleyes:

With the ressuraection of the BoE is a private bank bollox, zArk's demostrated to my satisfaction that either a) he's a troll or b) has a certificate to prove his sanity.
 
According to Wikipedia a nationalised organisation is one that has had its assets taken into state ownership. The BOE's accounts state "the bank provides several services to its shareholder, HM Treasury..."
So yes the bank does have shareholders. Its the government. So its not a private organisation.
Understand?
 
zArk said:
so you are admitting you are only arguing for arguing sake.
Click to expand...
No, I'm arguing coz I thought you needed help with your hole.

you dont believe that teh BoE is public, you know it is private.
Click to expand...
I can honestly say that I had never considered what it was, and still couldn't give a fuck :)
 
slaar said:
Jazz - To illustrate my point, if banks could lend £100,000 for every £10,000 they receive some of that money would be deposited back in banks, and then lent out again. So if, say, only half of the money was deposited, the growth would become explosive. And yet the money supply is not explosive over long periods of time except in situations like 1930s Germany when the Bank prints money to finance spending. Why is that, do you think?

If too much money is printed or created, the price level rises. What ultimately matters is what is produced, not what money is chasing it.
Click to expand...
slaar,

I'm sorry for shouting as if this is an easy subject. It's not, it's a headfuck, and I welcome discussion on it. The wikipedia article you linked to hasn't really got the idea at all and there is debate about it in the talk section.

I would urge you to have a really good look at the text book example I linked to earlier, particularly the section between balance sheet 2 and 3. There is no withdrawing of cash nor redepositing necessary. The loans are simply ledger entries.

You have to distinguish between cash deposited in a bank, and the money the bank says people have deposited in it. They are not the same at all! The latter is simply a ledger entry. To answer your question, yes, the £100,000 created from the reserve of £10,000 cash is, inevitably, transferred all over the place. However, few of these transactions will involve cash - the precise reason this can be got away with is that 10% is enough to cover the demand for cash at any one time. For simplicity's sake, imagine everyone has an account at this bank and the £100,000 is transferred by cheque between customers - all the bank need do is deduct from one account and credit the other. As long as there is no rush to draw out the cash, the bank is laughing, by the time the £100,000 loan is paid back, we are back where we started, except that the bank now has interest, not on £10,000, but £100,000 for its trouble.

To answer your other question, there is not necessarily a sharp increase in the money supply because as banks create money this way, it is also being destroyed as people pay back their loans. What we have seen in the UK is a gradual decrease from 50% cash in 1948 to now just 3% with 97% of the UK money in circulation existing in the form of bank loan - for which some poor chap is having to pay interest. It's like a parasite has a hold on our blood supply, and no wonder we have so little money.

Money Creation

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled."
John Kenneth Galbraith.

"The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn't quite realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must all be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create credit."
H. W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.

"Of course, they [banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts."
Modern Money Mechanics, published by FRB Chicago, pg. 6.

source for quotes
 
Rune said:
So yes the bank does have shareholders. Its the government. So its not a private organisation.

Understand?
Click to expand...

I don't think "understand" comes into it. Our fruitloop friend has C&Ped US conspiracy stuff and changed the names of the institutions. It's quasi-religious belief.

Anyone who googles "Federal Reserve" private can come up with the same - and some seriously dodgy "conspiracy of international bankers nudge-nudge you-know-who" stuff.
 
laptop said:
I don't think "understand" comes into it. Our fruitloop friend has C&Ped US conspiracy stuff and changed the names of the institutions. It's quasi-religious belief.

Anyone who googles "Federal Reserve" private can come up with the same - and some seriously dodgy "conspiracy of international bankers nudge-nudge you-know-who" stuff.
Click to expand...

Great! So;

1. I say the BoE is private - most posters say i am wrong - it is shown to be a private bank

2. I put forward an argument of simulacrae - most posters say "gzzhjshajd" - my argument is shown to be stable

3. Now that all arguments have failed, ZIONISTS crops up.

Get that shit outta here.

Maybe a lot of those website do nudge nudge nudge but that doesnt negate the fact that the BoE is private.
It doesnt negate the fact that a Public National Bank would provide infinately better economic stability for the UK public.

Iran have a Public National Bank -- and you wonder why the UN, EU, UK and US want to invade it. Its economics, nothing more.

The UK is wholey dependant upon the US economy (as is the rest of the world -- barring Iran of course) . In 1999 and 2000 $3.3 trillion went missing from the Pentagon. Just vanished off the computer systems, lost. It has not been found. Official.

The global economic system has extended its life cycle by invading Iraq (murdering hundreds of thousands of people in the process) and now it is eyeing Iran.

All this is fact, read Michael Ruppert. I can also provide a realistic reason for this without falling into the crap hole of conspiracy theories which blame Zionists, Jews, Christians, Catholic Church etc etc.

You better wake up and stop playing silly games on forums. The world around you is changing whether you like it or not. Sticking your head in the sand BEESONWAX, is only submitting to an ass raping.

I have said what i have to say.

Defend Iran, dont allow the war, protect them from plundering maniacs who are completely subserviant to the simulacrae.
 
zArk said:
Great! So;

1. I say the BoE is private - most posters say i am wrong - it is shown to be a private bank
Click to expand...

So, respond to my reply please. How is it a private bank when the shareholder is the Treasury?
 
I'm glad to hear it. Just answer the question.
You say the BoE is a private bank. Thier accounts say their shareholder is the Treasury. Which is part of the government. So it belongs to the government. So its not private, is it?
 
Rune said:
I'm glad to hear it. Just answer the question.
You say the BoE is a private bank. Thier accounts say their shareholder is the Treasury. Which is part of the government. So it belongs to the government. So its not private, is it?
Click to expand...

Mr Rune it is not a debate, the BoE is a private corporation.

Economists admit it, economic lecturers admit it, everyone admits it (well except those in denial or up for a bollocks argument)

Ya'll post whatever you want.

The world is round and thats a fact also
 
zArk said:
Mr Rune it is not a debate, the BoE is a private corporation.

Economists admit it, economic lecturers admit it, everyone admits it (well except those in denial or up for a bollocks argument)

Ya'll post whatever you want.

The world is round and thats a fact also
Click to expand...

The information is from the bank's own accounts for fuck's sake. Who is more likely to know? I'm guessing the bank does.
zARK said:
Ya'll post whatever you want.
Click to expand...
I'm posting what the bank says. Or are they trying to mislead us all?
 
Rune said:
I'm glad to hear it. Just answer the question.
You say the BoE is a private bank. Thier accounts say their shareholder is the Treasury. Which is part of the government. So it belongs to the government. So its not private, is it?
Click to expand...

That means that, like the BBC, it is at arm's length from the government while being a part of the state (like the government). At least that is my take on the sujet. So it is a national corporation.
 
nino_savatte said:
That means that, like the BBC, it is at arm's length from the government while being a part of the state (like the government). At least that is my take on the sujet. So it is a national corporation.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. But its still not a private bank is it?
 
Shareholders are the owners of a corporation.
The single shareholder of the BoE is HM treasury - part of the government.

The BoE may have the structure of a private corp. but it is wholly owned by the government.

I can't see where in that sequence of facts you can insert your argument, zark.
 
If I may help out with that one

Furthermore, central banks such as the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank which regulate the commercial banks and set interest rates are controlled not by elected governments but largely by private interests from the world of commercial banking. They are basically private banks. Even the Bank of England, although nationalised in 1946 (i.e. its shares were acquired by the state) is still largely under private control by virtue of the fact that its Court of Directors, the Monetary Policy Committee and its executive directors, who are responsible for the day to day running of the bank, are all dominated by bankers and conventional economists.
Click to expand...
"Who really runs the world?" Richard Greaves

The 'Federal Reserve' - although sounding like a government institution, is not in the slightest - it's run by twelve European private banking interests
 
Ok, breathes in, breathes out

this is going father than my initital post but lets go...


Do we really understand the structure and function of the Government? Take for instance these examples

government departments
HM offices
Ministerial positions
HM Treasury
Minister
Parliament;
House of Lords
House of Commons

Where is the public interest?
Where are the public within this structure?

Look at how these departments describe themselves and then refer to everyone else as "The Public".

The entire structure is privately owned and gladly a servant to HM.

Public services are what are dished out to us and we should act "grateful". Who owns this ludicrous system - or actually who claims ownership of this system?

The Bank of England is a private corporation but only part of this gigantic private system. Hence the reason i was specific to say 'the economy is simulacrae' - not money as such or the bank of england.

When member of the public is 'elevated' in to the bastions of this system, who do they swear allegiance to? Not us, the public, who voted for them. They are elevated into a system that clearly defines itself as separate from the public. These ex-public people then protect the interests of the system not the public interest.

HM is the head of the Church of England, Ministers of the HM are servants, Prime Minister is made to report to HM. HM Treasury, HM Inland Revenue & Customs, HM Government Family Records

It all functions to make sure you know who is in charge and HM tells us to vote for this shit.

The English Civil War was hijacked by Oliver Cromwell, in 1649 the diggers, the levellers and the people of this land were double-crossed.

The problem isnt anyone in particular, it is the system that is fake, that is simulacrae in its principle.

To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't. One implies a presence, the other an absence. But the matter is more complicated, since to simulate is not simply to feign: "Someone who feigns an illness can simply go to bed and pretend he is ill. Someone who simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms" (Littre). Thus, feigning or dissimulating leaves the reality principle intact: the difference is always clear, it is only masked; whereas simulation threatens the difference between "true" and "false", between "real" and "imaginary". Since the simulator produces "true" symptoms, is he or she ill or not? The simulator cannot be treated objectively either as ill, or as not ill.” (1994a, 3).
 
zArk said:
Ok, breathes in, breathes out

this is going father than my initital post but lets go...


Do we really understand the structure and function of the Government? Take for instance these examples

government departments
HM offices
Ministerial positions
HM Treasury
Minister
Parliament;
House of Lords
House of Commons

Where is the public interest?
Where are the public within this structure?
Click to expand...

I getcha now. In those terms, no, the BoE is not Public.
 
All i am attempting to do is bring social theory and cultural studies into a field of analysis that doesnt resort to antagonisms. Them against us, etc etc

By re-evaluating all social theories with 'sign value' it is possible to analyse social functions, social structures, agency, individuals etc etc

By placing blame squarely at the foot of the economy, the simulacrae, blame evaporates with the simulacrae. The problem is not 'out there', it is all of us together acting irresponsibly. In this way, we approach ourselves with a goal, with a real effect in sight.

peace, justice, equality

the gods gpt a heavy job
 
Wow, post #300 and we're the debate is still on the same topic as the first page; is the BoE private?

300 posts and still ontopic without excessive swearing? How very very odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DrRingDing
King Abdullah accused the UK of ignoring Saudi's forewarning of the 7/7 bombing.
Replies
24
Views
3K
selamlar
S
phildwyer
Banking and Conspiracies
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
378
Views
21K
camouflage
camouflage
Back
Top Bottom