| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
 |
|
In message <n6npe4tne0mn7vepbf1chod35td76v8irl@4ax.com>, abelard
<abelard3@abelard.org> writes
[quote]
banks used to be private before the governments started
interfering on their modern high levels.... they issued their own
notes....
[/quote]
And frequently went bust. Actually, the period when they could issue
their own notes unregulated was pretty short because notes were not
widely used until the 19th century and banks were regulated by the
middle fo the century. Moreover, the gold standard was operating. RH
[quote]a major issue with modern banking is the very fact that it
is mostly a government monopoly......
i don>t know sufficient detail of the history...... but it is certain
that for centuries banks have lent money on a
fractional basis.... even if you ignored that....surely you>re
still looking at lending
the gold deposited by others at interest....
or will you regard a safe depository as a bank ....
regards
[/quote]
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
In message
<41354ba1-58e0-47fa-9b3f-f8f1ddc5ce01@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Mel
Rowing <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> writes
[quote]No! No figures!
All the money in your purse came from the banking system
[/quote]
No, the money supply is more than that. It is coins and notes plus any
government paper issued for sale with the interest and redemption
payments made by the taxpayer out of future taxation. This should
includes PPP and PFI contracts but the normal measures of money do not
count it despite the fact that they are in effect a government IOU. . .
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:52:41 +0100, Robert Henderson
<philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]In message <n6npe4tne0mn7vepbf1chod35td76v8irl@4ax.com>, abelard
abelard3@abelard.org> writes
banks used to be private before the governments started
interfering on their modern high levels.... they issued their own
notes....
And frequently went bust.
[/quote]
of course......that is the way of competitive business....
a major problem with monopoly banking is government bail out....
in that situation there is *no* discipline on the large banking orgs..
in a competitive banking system, reputation matters...any successful
bank would be *forced* to strenuously defend its reputation...
independent banks in the long past often went bankrupt mainly
by fraud...
not because of problems with independent banking...
there is no reason to stop legal regulation with private banking
any more than any company is outside the law...
[quote]Actually, the period when they could issue
their own notes unregulated was pretty short because notes were not
widely used until the 19th century and banks were regulated by the
middle fo the century. Moreover, the gold standard was operating. RH
[/quote]
the gold standard does not preclude notes....notes denominated
in gold....
there is *no* conflict between a gold standard and fractional banking
there are considerable conflicts with running a modern flexible
economy....
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
In message
<29e0bba3-2b33-44e8-83f2-151719320ac8@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Mel
Rowing <mel.rowing@btinternet.com> writes
[quote]
That amount may be zero if the administrator deems that is the best
chance of keeping the company or part of it as a going concern. Only
where a company is liquidated is there a distribution of realised
assets, assuming there are any. RH
If that amount were zero then the bank would be solvent!
Er.... All the zero means is that there were no realised assets which[/quote]
exceeded the debts. RH
[quote]An administrator is appointed solely to represent the interests of the
creditors and to recover for them as much of their combined losses as
possible. As such there is no onus upon him either to sell the
enterprise on as a going concern or to liquidate it. It all depends
upon which course of action will yield the most for the creditors.
Indeed the law requires him to base his decision on this consideration.
If he defaults in this duty then not only does his reputation suffer,
he could personally be taken to court for the balance.
[/quote]
None of which contradicts what I said. GH
[quote]Therefore the very least a new owner could expect to pay for a going
concern is the liquidation value plus the difference between the total
value of the enterprise>s assets and its liabilities.
[/quote]
The purchaser pays as little as they can. RH.
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Anthony Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On 8 Oct, 13:32, Robert Henderson <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote](1) if the banks are insolvent then they do not have to be purchased
[/quote]
At the moment nobody knows if the banks are solvent or not. Many of
the assets they hold cannot be marketed and are impossible to value.
[quote]If the banks were nationalised the government it is unlikely that they
would have to shell out more than they already have nor underwrite more
than they have. Moreover, the taxpayer would own the assets and take all
the profits
[/quote]
If the banks were nationalised they would inevitably follow the same
pattern as every other state industry:
1. Markets would be distorted as politicians and civile servants used
them for their own political ends.
2. It would be impossible to run the banks efficiently as politicians
would inevitably be forced by their constituencies to offer favourable
terms to special interest groups. Rates would be held at artificially
low levels, loans would be made to people and businesses who private
banks wouldn>t touch and it would be nigh-impossible to forclose on
any business or group with the ear of the right politician.
3. As a consequence of 2, the banks would require constant injections
of new capital from taxpayers (Who cannot sell the stake they are
forced to hold in the bank as a private investor would be able to)
starving productive sectors of the economy of capital.
[quote]if you cannot make profits from cautious banking you are mentally deficient. RH
[/quote]
I>m sure that politicians and civil servants could manage to lose our
money in banking as in every other enterprise they have run.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of the current problems in the
financial sector is that it has given hope to every half-baked Marxist
and collectivist in the land. The fact remains that there is no crisis
so bad that it cannot be made worse by government interference. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
Are you making all these claims about the FRS?
The FRS is a quasi-governmental agency.
I believe it has worked on behalf of the
Republican party for decades if not always.
The current problem didn>t happen over night.
I believe they thought they could delay the
problem until the Democratic Administration
took officebut they couldn>t.
I am and always have been a fiscal conservative
social liberal person. While I believe the first
job of the FRS is to maintain the value of the
dollar, it isn>t always clear to me what that
value is. The issue to me is that it>s value
isn>t so much a quantity as a quality.
With electronic bankiing we see that the
medium of exchange is measured in dollars
but isn>t dollars. Transactions take no longer
when in tens of dollars or hundreds of dollars
as long as the banks are connected electronically.
What is the value of a dollar on the world market?
I think it>s a political issue. If so then who should
work it if not the politicians? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Oct 9, 6:20 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
[quote]there is so much muddle in your post that it would take
a book to sort through it all
so i won>t
[/quote]
That>s OK because I read your stuff in this line and
don>t think your standard reply would add much more
than you did here.
Money is a tool for social use. Government is a tool
for the stabilization of social interaction. It seems
silly that people would claim governing this social
tool would be harmful. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:11:29 -0700 (PDT), forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:
[quote]Are you making all these claims about the FRS?
The FRS is a quasi-governmental agency.
I believe it has worked on behalf of the
Republican party for decades if not always.
The current problem didn>t happen over night.
I believe they thought they could delay the
problem until the Democratic Administration
took officebut they couldn>t.
I am and always have been a fiscal conservative
social liberal person. While I believe the first
job of the FRS is to maintain the value of the
dollar, it isn>t always clear to me what that
value is. The issue to me is that it>s value
isn>t so much a quantity as a quality.
With electronic bankiing we see that the
medium of exchange is measured in dollars
but isn>t dollars. Transactions take no longer
when in tens of dollars or hundreds of dollars
as long as the banks are connected electronically.
What is the value of a dollar on the world market?
I think it>s a political issue. If so then who should
work it if not the politicians?
[/quote]
there is so much muddle in your post that it would take
a book to sort through it all
so i won>t
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:44:36 -0700 (PDT), forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 6:20 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
there is so much muddle in your post that it would take
a book to sort through it all
so i won>t
That>s OK because I read your stuff in this line and
don>t think your standard reply would add much more
than you did here.
Money is a tool for social use. Government is a tool
for the stabilization of social interaction. It seems
silly that people would claim governing this social
tool would be harmful.
[/quote]
when you study the problems more deeply you may begin to
understand the problems and the links better...
i recommend you start by reading the classic 'the road to serfdom'
by hayek.....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Oct 9, 7:07 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:44:36 -0700 (PDT), forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
Money is a tool for social use. Government is a tool
for the stabilization of social interaction. It seems
silly that people would claim governing this social
tool would be harmful.
when you study the problems more deeply you may begin to
understand the problems and the links better...
i recommend you start by reading the classic 'the road to serfdom'
by hayek.....
[/quote]
Do you understand that religious authorities can be self
asserted but in science an authority serves a different purpose.
Theorists need to be authorities in the subject matter because
the theories they assert will be tested and against reality.
Others, like me, can hold or even create new theories but
a person competent in the subject matter can readily
provide examples or point to the data to disprove bad
claims.
Science moves on. What was believed true in the past
can be cast aside when evidence to the contrary presents
itself. Also, when a theory is untestable, that is, the theory
presents no testable hypotheses, it can be dismissed out
of hand as having no value.
I am always amazed at how much science actually got
done prior to computers. I am more amazed that in the
information age so many still appeal to authority when
making untestable claims in areas outside the subject
matter of the supposed authority.
In many cases Political and Economic theories will
go hand in hand but they are distinct areas of study.
Likewise Ethics is a separate area of study. All
three fall into the class "social studies" because
their focus is on the behaviors of sentient beings.
Hayek, Von Mises, Marx, etc. have their place
in history. Like the rest of use they had their
own filters through which they viewed the world.
A long time ago a pretty smart guy said, "If I
can see so far it is because I stand on the sholders
of giants." Notice that he said "stand" not "sit".
The work of science is never done and issues
once settled may become unsettled again.
If you have something to say, say it. If you
appeal to authority on a scientific subject
*you* have nothing to say. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
In message <diipe4tnsdtro1ocq2h7k9uo9meojcm9h3@4ax.com>, abelard
<abelard3@abelard.org> writes
[quote]On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:52:08 +0100, Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
There is a good deal of logic in the idea that banks should be
do stop it hatstand....
do start from reality instead of theory.....
money is a government monopoly....i
[/quote]
It self-evidently isn>t. The prime source of money creation is private
finance credit creation. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:42:15 -0700 (PDT), forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 7:07 am, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:44:36 -0700 (PDT), forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
Money is a tool for social use. Government is a tool
for the stabilization of social interaction. It seems
silly that people would claim governing this social
tool would be harmful.
when you study the problems more deeply you may begin to
understand the problems and the links better...
i recommend you start by reading the classic 'the road to serfdom'
by hayek.....
Do you understand that religious authorities can be self
asserted but in science an authority serves a different purpose.
Theorists need to be authorities in the subject matter because
the theories they assert will be tested and against reality.
Others, like me, can hold or even create new theories but
a person competent in the subject matter can readily
provide examples or point to the data to disprove bad
claims.
Science moves on. What was believed true in the past
can be cast aside when evidence to the contrary presents
itself. Also, when a theory is untestable, that is, the theory
presents no testable hypotheses, it can be dismissed out
of hand as having no value.
I am always amazed at how much science actually got
done prior to computers. I am more amazed that in the
information age so many still appeal to authority when
making untestable claims in areas outside the subject
matter of the supposed authority.
In many cases Political and Economic theories will
go hand in hand but they are distinct areas of study.
Likewise Ethics is a separate area of study. All
three fall into the class "social studies" because
their focus is on the behaviors of sentient beings.
Hayek, Von Mises, Marx, etc. have their place
in history. Like the rest of use they had their
own filters through which they viewed the world.
A long time ago a pretty smart guy said, "If I
can see so far it is because I stand on the sholders
of giants." Notice that he said "stand" not "sit".
The work of science is never done and issues
once settled may become unsettled again.
If you have something to say, say it. If you
appeal to authority on a scientific subject
*you* have nothing to say.
[/quote]
to refer you to a source that you can read.....and thus improve your
understanding....where at present you are weak....
is not 'appeal to authority'
as for your
[quote]A long time ago a pretty smart guy said, "If I
can see so far it is because I stand on the sholders
of giants." Notice that he said "stand" not "sit".
[/quote]
http://www.abelard.org/abelard/abelard2.htm
14. Bernard of Chartres (d. c.1130) used to say, "We are like
dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they,
and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of
sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are
carried high and raised up by their giant size".
John of Salisbury The Metalogicon (1159) bk. 3, ch. 4; quoted in R. K.
Merton, ch. 9.
Also Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the
shoulders of giants". Letter to Robert Hooke, 5 February 1676, in H.
W. Turnbull, p. 416.
Also Samuel Taylor Coleridge: "The dwarf sees farther than the giant,
when he has the giant’s shoulder to mount on".
The Friend (1818) vol. 2 ‘On the Principles of Political Knowledge’.
go study......go do your homework
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
abelard
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:33:21 +0100, Robert Henderson
<philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]In message <diipe4tnsdtro1ocq2h7k9uo9meojcm9h3@4ax.com>, abelard
abelard3@abelard.org> writes
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:52:08 +0100, Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
There is a good deal of logic in the idea that banks should be
do stop it hatstand....
do start from reality instead of theory.....
money is a government monopoly....i
It self-evidently isn>t. The prime source of money creation is private
finance credit creation. RH
[/quote]
no hatstand...it is not....
the banks just carry out a process that is fully sourced, controlled
and regulated by government
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it>s funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robert Henderson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
In message <o2nue4h7bgkkvo26hivg9jfadsutah7ekp@4ax.com>, abelard
<abelard3@abelard.org> writes
[quote]do stop it hatstand....
do start from reality instead of theory.....
money is a government monopoly....i
It self-evidently isn>t. The prime source of money creation is private
finance credit creation. RH
no hatstand...it is not....
the banks just carry out a process that is fully sourced, controlled
and regulated by government
regards
[/quote]
Simply wrong. They create credit at their own will. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Michael Coburn
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: Re: Should the banks be nationalised? |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:46:53 +0200, abelard wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:33:21 +0100, Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <diipe4tnsdtro1ocq2h7k9uo9meojcm9h3@4ax.com>, abelard
abelard3@abelard.org> writes
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:52:08 +0100, Robert Henderson
philip@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
There is a good deal of logic in the idea that banks should be
do stop it hatstand....
do start from reality instead of theory..... money is a government
monopoly....i
It self-evidently isn>t. The prime source of money creation is private
finance credit creation. RH
no hatstand...it is not....
the banks just carry out a process that is fully sourced, controlled
and regulated by government
regards
[/quote]
The definition of money is always a problem in any discussion of modern
credit and finance. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
