Who got the £375 billion?

Glen_Clark

Hi,
I wonder if anybody can help my fluffy brain understand this issue because I can't seem to grasp the apparent absurdity of what's going on...
Allow me to spell out my confusion...
The Bank of England is privately owned and now run by a company set up in 1976 called the Bank of England nominees (BOEN) ltd... This LTD company is exempt from having to disclose who owns either of it's shares... The bank BOEN printed £375,000,000,000 in new fiat funds in the last 12 months... The BOEN's 2 private shareholders own all £375,000,000,000 that they have just printed and have now lent a tiny fraction of that new money to HMgov and are charging HMgov (us) approx 5% in interest...
Am I right so far?
HMgov has a Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (overdraft) of £146bn which it borrows from the Bank of England but has to pay back plus interest...?
Printing money out of thin air has always historically caused inflation over the following years which every citizen ends up having to suffer and endure...?
So the 2 private shareholders of the BOE nominees Ltd have become £375,000,000,000 richer whilst the UK citizens have become £375,000,000,000 poorer... That's the bottom line here right?
Now the BOEN ltd have commissioned a report which basically says that UK pensioners are the net beneficiaries of their demented money printing - which to me sounds like an out and out lie and an absolutely outrageously absurd state of affairs - not to mention a monstrous privilege for the 2 owners of the BOEN (who could they be I wonder?)?
What I'm wondering is this - Why doesn't HMgov simply take back the right to print sterling from BOE nominees and while they're at it why don’t they take back the £375,000,000,000 that the BOEN have just printed -
[FONT=&quot]Apparently JFK tried to do just this with the FED with executive order 11110 in June '63 - before he was assassinated?[/FONT]

Milarky

You've got me there, Glen, I am BOEN #2 but I haven't seen a penny of my cash yet. The other nominee says there's a problem forwarding it so he's holding onto my share, just for now, and signs himself: 'Mr M. Burger King'

grey_gym_sock

BOEN seems pretty straightforward. printing £375bn is harder to understand.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/28738/response/74019/attach/2/D.pdf
BOEN is owned by 2 shareholders, the BOE and a individual who is a nominee for the BOE. therefore it's all effectively owned and controlled by BOE.

[edit to add:] BOE is publicly owned, not owned by BOEN.

BOEN has been used as a means to exempt both the monarchy and some other States from the rules under which shareholders of companies generally have to be disclosed. i.e. you can find out that BOEN own some shares, but they're not the real owner, and you can't find out which State is the real owner. (i don't agree with this secrecy, but it's unrelated to the £375bn.)

there's nothing to prevent BOE extracting the £375bn gilts from BOEN and canceling them, so that neither interest nor principal has to be repaid, and public debt is that much reduced. it's just that the consequences might be unpleasant. the theory is that it was only OK to buy the gilts with printed money because they will later sell the gilts again and then burn/cancel the printed money, so no net money has been created. putting this operation inside BOEN is presumably a way to keep the printed money separate so that it's clear they're sticking to this theory.

whether the theory makes any sense, i don't know. it seems unlikely to me that you can print so much money, even temporarily, without there being unfortunate side-effects.

grey_gym_sock

Milarky wrote: »

I am BOEN #2 but I haven't seen a penny of my cash yet.

you should get 1 of those claims companies to help you.

innovate

Milarky wrote: »

You've got me there, Glen, I am BOEN #2 but I haven't seen a penny of my cash yet. The other nominee says there's a problem forwarding it so he's holding onto my share, just for now, and signs himself: 'Mr M. Burger King'

SHUSH Milarky, don't say any more. I appreciate your valiant efforts dear boy to cover up my real identity , but we don't want to know anyone about the two of us! Remember our bond wink wink

racing_blue

I'm one of the BOEN two. Nice work if you can get it.

Having £375000000000 in your account is overrated though. It makes reading the ATM display really hard. And even with this large balance, I'm shocked how little interest I am earning in my NatWest current account which pays 0%

innovate

racing_blue wrote: »

I'm one of the BOEN two.

OI. There's Milarky and me already, filling the BOEN two entirely.

You can pay me £475000000000 and I will gladly get out of the way.

racing_blue

Innovate, relax, the number of shareholders has been quantitively eased.

Glen_Clark

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

the theory is that it was only OK to buy the gilts with printed money because they will later sell the gilts again and then burn/cancel the printed money, so no net money has been created. putting this operation inside BOEN is presumably a way to keep the printed money separate so that it's clear they're sticking to this theory.

whether the theory makes any sense, i don't know. it seems unlikely to me that you can print so much money, even temporarily, without there being unfortunate side-effects.

It seems more than unlikely to me that they would be able to sell the gilts for the same price they bought them, even ignoring trading costs, since their astronomical buying spree has forced gilt prices up to ludicrous highs.

grey_gym_sock

Glen_Clark wrote: »

It seems more than unlikely to me that they would be able to sell the gilts for the same price they bought them, even ignoring trading costs, since their astronomical buying spree has forced gilt prices up to ludicrous highs.

ye-es ... i imagine they would "burn" whatever they sold the gilts for, rather than £375bn ... and it would probably be less.

presumably that would be a bit inflationary, but then the money supply is usually expanding, and QE is supposed to counter deflationary forces. so the issue is more whether QE, combined with other factors, leads to inflation being excessively high. i've no idea whether it will ...

i'm more concerned that they are trying to fix the economy by purely financial means, which i don't think can work.

Glen_Clark

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

the money supply is usually expanding.

In the past, the money supply has expanded as productivity expanded, the increasing productivity restrained inflation.
Now we have an expanding money supply with declining productivity........:eek: