Unfair to bankers


David Davis

The State should get the hell out of Banking – and I mean literally, in the sense that it should not even issue Monies if it holds an enforced monopoly on this activity, legitimised directly by itself. I am not going so far as to say that a State should not issue a Money at all – just that others ought to be allowed to compete.

The Free Market will discover very fast whose moneys are worth something and whose are not.

The kneejerk-Daily-Wail-three-health-scares-a-week-MSM-rag-style lynching of “bankers” for our current woes, caused as they actually are by a profligate and financially-incontinent Stalinist State, ought to be exposed for what it is: fingering an easy and conspicuous small target instead of the real culprits. Shades of Hitler and the Jews under Weimar and later, come to mind.

In the 90s and early 2000s, poor old Sir Fred Goodwin was only doing what all other “successful” (in the context of the time) bankers were doing, only more aggressively. He’s Scotch after all, so we can’t blame him for his aggression in business either.

These people were responding in a logical way to what the British State Treasury was doing to its own (monopoly) money: they were “getting it away”. What would we have done in their stead? Inside the only system they knew, they were trying to turn worthless paper into (at least some) performing assets.

About these ads

6 responses to “Unfair to bankers

  1. Well, I do not really agree on this topic. Firstly the state should not have anything, whatsoever, to do with any kind of finance or money issues. In fact I would argue for death penalty for such stupidities. The biggest socialist victory (and quite possible the biggest political victory of all time) was the elimination of the Gold Standard. Although not a perfect system, at least it held our elected criminals in some restraints.

    Secondly, bankers and banks should be blamed. Not for everything of course, it is the system and the laws that are the main problems, but bankers – or rather in my mind; economists – are some of the worst people there is. And banks have been lending, borrowing and creating money in a large Ponzi scheme since the Gold Standard went away (well, actually long before that, but since then on a larger scale). Eagerly applauded and encouraged by central banks in every country. The lending ratio between in-house money and money costumers borrows is today so vast that it is strange that not more banks crash and burn. The only thing keeping the scam rolling is that people haven’t really figured out that there are alternatives and the fact that we have massive debt accumulations towards the banks. I do not believe in most of the NWO-crap, but there is some truth to that conspiracy theory and even if bankers are not as malice as that notion suggest, they are still evil enough to be among those hanging from lamp-posts in the future.

    Bankers and the banking system is one of the main pillars of the enemy class and this should be acknowledged.

  2. Well I agree that they have sort of become like that, but the concept of banking, as manifested and typified by modern banks, is not inherently evil, and is necessary for an advanced capitalist economy.

    But perhaps “bankers”, which is to say currently modern PPE graduates from “universities”, ought to be more carefully screened before employment. Perhaps only old ladies who have voted Tory all their lives and who run cake stalls ought to be allowed to be bankers? Or perhaps retired Majors?

    I remember how difficult it was to borrow money 35 years ago when I wanted my first car. My “bank manager” and I both knew that he in principle would lend me some money, about £300 I think it was, but I had to take half a day off work and go there before 3.00 pm, and sit in his office in front of his desk and be ceremonially grilled for a few minutes.

    And a mortgage? Forget it! I was told by most building societies in 1975 that I would be lent money, aftre about five years of saving if:-

    (1) I was a public sector worker (and certainly NOT in “trade”, “advertising”, “dealing” etc) (?)
    (2) I was married with more than one child
    (3) That I had not been previously divorced (I was, sadly)
    (4) I wanted to buy a post-1945-house…
    (5) That should be within half a mile of a railway staion…
    (6) That did not contain any pre-1918-materials (I did not understand this)…

    The fact that my (then) wife was a graduate-trainee lingerie-buyer for Marks and Spencer (also a private and thus non-state-owned firm) made it doubly worse. We were thoroughly pissed off.)

  3. I finally got a mortgage from the Skipton Building Society, a small go-ahead one in the early 80s, that didn’t mind that I wanted to buy an 1897 semi, 55 miles from my work, and which was in disrepair, and that I was a single divorced male without children who worked in advertising!

    Oh and they didn’t mind offering me money, even though I had only saved with them for 18 months….

  4. The state does not (directly) control the money supply, David. The BoE and the banks do. State involvement is a very small portion of the whole picture. See here:
    http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/monetary-reform.php

    BTW, I agree about competing currencies (I wrote the page linked above), fully reserved or not: the market would pretty sharpishly decide what it would be comfortable with. However, and as per the link above, there /is/ a very good argument for the state directly issuing money as well, which it currently doesn’t do.

  5. Again, I do not agree, at least not completely. A banking system as we know it is not only unnecessary; it is highly dangerous to the economy. For every decade that passes the lending ratio between how much money the bank really has and how much money they lend to a stupid populace is growing exponentially. Basically (it is a bit more complicated than this) the banks are “creating” money that isn’t there since people won’t withdraw all of it and pay back all loans all at once. And secondly; if this money is available on the market we do not need a bank (in the normal description) to accumulate it and lend it to someone(s), there are other ways or different banking systems to be built. Even on a totally “free market” (or anarchy) this would work fine, at least in theory.

    But as said banks and banking isn’t really the main problem, the entire system with central banks and laws is the problem. A reinstatement of the Gold Standard or, preferably, real money i.e. Gold and Silver, would eliminate almost all problems and the problems that might be left would be solved on the market.

    And your little story says something about how the system (the one we have) is supposed to work with tough rules and hard to borrow if you cannot show a good steady income and such. And this is how, in most aspects, it did work, until the last remaining leftovers of the Gold Standard disappeared in the late 60’s. After that the rules have gradually changed and the most bizarre notion so far is the Japanese suggestion of negative interest rates on borrowing (and no money whatsoever, only cards!) and this might actually be a reality in the near future. Talking about clueless.

  6. The state and the bankers are fairly much the same people (with different hats on.)
    Get control of the medium of production and exchange and you control the works. Someone said.
    Yes, print funny money, no gold standard as a sea-anchor, and be able to loan 10 times the amount you hold on deposit. Create money out of thin air. Don’t even need a printing press any more. Just a computer and a mouse.
    Money is only medium of exchange and is “worth” what it can be exchanged for.
    Get rid of “legal tender” – you can exchange anything for anything. They won’t allow it. Restore the Republic group in the US tried to mint their own gold coins and got busted.
    It is all a con. About getting your wealth and putting it in their pockets. They are very sophisticated and smooth conmen. Do they go to the best clubs? They probably own the best clubs. Money is not wealth. It is a medium of exchange.
    Free up the exchange system.