Ask the Chancellor a question on the banking crisis

djohn2002uk

Please stop discussing bank charges here. This thread is not for that. There is a thread specifically for those discussions.

baby_boomer

I want to know if the Prime Minister is in favour of higher bank charges, so that the taxpayers' risk in backing the banks in these desperate times can be reduced ASAP.

Is the taxpayer a bottomless pit, who can afford to subsidise the banks at infinitum? At some stage they need to become profitable and independent.

This taxpayer "investment" is [yet another] liability on us all. Can Darling at least guarantee that the whingers won't prevail on him to go soft on his [our] own investment?

StevieJ

djohn2002uk wrote: »

I would like to know why those who invested in Icelandic banks now have ALL their savings guaranteed while the rest of us still only have £50,000 guaranteed. Where is the fairness in that?

An unconditional guarantee would result in a concentration of funds in banks paying higher rates (for higher balances) rather than spreading the balances around, and thus create more risk for the govt.

tomterm8

Deryk wrote: »

I'd like to know exactly who owns the bank of england. We're told it's the taxpayer but if so why are the profits from its trading activities not returned to the treasury, and also given the current crisis, why can't it lend money to the government interest free when it's creating that money out of thin air?

The bank of england is owned by the crown, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Bank of England Act 1946. In accordance with Section 1(4) of the act on the fifth day of April and October, the bank of england pays a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree. The bank of england does not pay any other dividend, and any other profits are retained.

it has the power to lend money to the government "interest free", but it can only do so by (effectively) printing money thereby causing inflation. In effect, this is a tax on all savers and pensioners. There aint no free lunch, except for bankers.

Bojangles_3

That would be a nice thing for HRH to do. Shall we ask her - she seems like a reasonable enough lady.

I think I've previously asked The Duke of Westminster to forego his right to Land in the UK where the Freeholder is absent. Surprisingly, he never replied.

They all seem like jolly nice people, all those that have. Perhaps we could have a windfall moratorium ad infinitum?

Alternatively, we could just give the egomaniacs behind the Halliburtons, Rothchilds & tax avoiding Hedge Funds of this world what they want: all of the world's resources, one central bank, one currency (might that be the dollar?) & one world order & just do away with farcical destracting instituations like..em, National Governments.

Your humble slave (sorry..I meant servant)

Bo xx

nothingwitty

djohn2002uk wrote: »

Please stop discussing bank charges here. This thread is not for that. There is a thread specifically for those discussions.

Thank you for that insightful post. If you go back to my original question, you will find that it was a question to the Chancellor and not in fact the opening of a debate. If I want to pose a question to the Chancellor about bank charges I have every right to do it in this forum. That is, unless we are only allowed discuss matters which don't affect millions of people on a daily basis...

Deryk

tomterm8 wrote: »

The bank of england is owned by the crown, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Bank of England Act 1946. In accordance with Section 1(4) of the act on the fifth day of April and October, the bank of england pays a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree. The bank of england does not pay any other dividend, and any other profits are retained.

it has the power to lend money to the government "interest free", but it can only do so by (effectively) printing money thereby causing inflation. In effect, this is a tax on all savers and pensioners. There aint no free lunch, except for bankers.

but the whole banking system works on fractional lending meaning money (debt) is created without assets to back it up (equivalent to printing money but without the paper). this system hasn't caused huge inflationary pressures despite some banks lending up to 100 times their assets so your argument doesn't stack up.

and what is the crown doing with the 75% of profits retained? it seems the time is right to look at the role of the bank of england and whether a fairer system can be created that doesn't line the pockets of the crown at our expense.

O_Miserly_one

I'm investing in Of-floor banks. In particular, the Of-floor Bank of Mattress. There's a branch in every town!

Lex555

Anyone who wants to know the real reasons behind the "credit crunch" really needs to watch this video. It goes into the details revealing the secrets of the way the banking system really works and how we got into this mess. You won't hear any of this from the media because there seems to be a blackout on the truth of the issue. They just spurt the same old rubbish which few people really understand if they are honest with themselves. This explains everything clearly and in detail and will likely be a shock to many...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Also, this is what i had to say to the treasury commitee.....

Anyone who knows the way banks really operate, is aware that when any individual or institution, including government, takes a loan from a bank, the bank is legally authorised to effectively create that money out of thin air, and then charge the borrower interest on top. The spiralling interest owed by society is a main cause of the so called credit crunch.

Given this, when government needs to borrow money, why does it not simply authorise it's self to create the loan money at a rate of 0% interest, rather than borrowing from banks which ultimately leads to the interest on those loans being paid back directly with tax payers money? Or perhaps it is even time to nationalise the entire banking industry altogether?

hippobottomus

I would like to know whether, should HBOS be nationalised, shareholders will not lose out. i.e will the government purchase:

• the remaining unsold shares, leaving shareholders’ shares intact, or
• the entire bank, wiping out shareholders’ stakes, or
• a new issue of shares, so diluting the share value of existing shareholders.