On 27 Apr 2023 at 8:53pm Tom Pain wrote:
I must admit that I found that one hard to swallow and it took me a long time to confirm that it's true. In fact it would be illegal for banks to say they lent money because until they have the agreement you sign to pay them £X they do not have anything to give you. Your promise to pay is a negotiable instrument like a bond, it's worth £X. Until they have it they can't have a contract with you because before they had your promise they had no equal promise to offer you which is called "consideration". The law of contracts stipulates that equal consideration must be offered by both parties or the contract is void. Once they have your promise to pay they magically create £X out of thin air. Fascinating eh?
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:43am Nevillman wrote:
I'm not finding it highly fascinating Tom. I don't actually know what point you are trying to make. If they called it something apart from the word loan, would that make you happy?
Are you just repeating a point you have made earlier that it upsets you that they lend money they don't actually have? If so, what is your problem with that and your suggested solution please?
On 28 Apr 2023 at 12:12pm Slarty wrote:
Is this like Tesco don't sell food because the food I put in my trolley isn't there until the contract (ie I pay at the till) when it is magically created out of thin air?
Could it be possible (pushing the boundary of my banking knowledge) that banks have bank accounts with money in to transfer once you've filled in the forms promising to pay it back?
On 28 Apr 2023 at 1:27pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Imagine playing Monopoly with tom pain.
On 28 Apr 2023 at 7:52pm Tom Pain wrote:
And that is exactly what you do with banks sleevie.
No slarty it's not. Food is a tangible item, money is just a concept. Coins and notes are intrinsically worthless but the numbers on them have a value which we give them and that is not constant due to all sorts of things like inflation. They're not allowed to lend money deposited with them.
I'm not making a point nev just stating something else that isn't widely known. My happiness and your fascination are not germane to the matter at hand but if you are happy paying tax on a debt that was manufactured out of thin air and enduring austerity, that's entirely your business.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 11:42am Nevillman wrote:
You are confusing two completely different things Tom which might account for why you find it fascinating. Banks lending money to businesses and individuals has nothing to do with my tax going to pay for money that the government have borrowed to fund the deficit between its tax revenue and spending.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 1:55pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Tom Pain sees everyone in control of banks and money as "Rich Uncle Pennybags" types from Monopoly. The tropes are strong with this one.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 9:56pm Tom Pain wrote:
I can smell your tropes from here sleevie.
Congratulations nev, you are correct, money lent to business and individuals has nothing to do with taxes. Money lent to the government has though. The money lent to the gov is no different to that lent to businesses- it's created out of nothing. The gov could do that itself and has done in the past. Nothing confusing about that, though you may not be fascinated, I still am. Just think of the money that could fund the NHS all going into the hands of those who are buying it up- fascinating food for thought.
On 29 Apr 2023 at 10:39pm Nevillman wrote:
Money lent to the government generally comes from pension funds and investment houses investing the money they receive in pension contributions and as deposits for investment in government bonds and gilt edge securities. I've never heard of banks creating money to buy government bonds and see no reason why they would. I doubt very much of it is allowed. If the government creates money by simply printing more of it then history shows it only leads to inflation and economic turmoil.
No idea what you are saying about the NHS funds. I'm still waiting to see the 360 million a week Brexit bonus you were promised on the side of a bus. You were all in favour of Brexit as I recall. Maybe you can explain where it is.
On 30 Apr 2023 at 9:01am Tom Pain wrote:
I wondered what happened to pension and insurance money, I'll look into that. But brexit? What's that got to do with it? I've stated so many times that my support for it had nothing to do with anything on the side of a bus or coming from Johnson's mouth. I also said at the time that it was just another device for dividing the population and hasn't it succeeded?
On 30 Apr 2023 at 9:30am Green Sleeves wrote:
Yes, Brexit was indeed good for dividing the country and making it poorer and a lesser influence on the world stage. It has succeeded in all those areas, so I'm glad you found your vote in favour of Brexit to be worthwhile. The biggest voices of the brexit side of the debate were the biggest conmen you can find and disaster capitalists. Well done.
On 1 May 2023 at 10:11pm Tom Pain wrote:
And one voice is still continuing ; how long has it been?
On 2 May 2023 at 8:53am Green Sleeves wrote:
Mainly remainers and brexit voters who realise they were conned by rabble-rousing disaster capitalists like Farage and Johnson, and justifiably miffed by it and having their rights stripped as a consequence. Contempt for the conmen, compassion for the conned - brexit architects refuse to take responsibility but will continue to be held accountable. I don't blame them for being embarrassed by Brexit though.
On 2 May 2023 at 8:23pm Tom Pain wrote:
I see your tropes are still giving you gyp, sleevie. It's making you tiresomely repetitive as well as retentive.
On 9 May 2023 at 5:32pm knight temlar wrote:
the great reset ,own nothing your be happier ,green agenda eat bugs and sprayed toxins on veg ,being told what to do full control,the antichrist system .wef .the german and bill gates and doctor death.