1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Discussion in 'Serious' started by TheBlackSwordsMan, 22 Feb 2016.

  1. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    102
    Guessing he means the European Central Bank that is in charge of the Euro currency which the uk is not part off.

    Or the Bank of England maybe they are the only 2 in Europe that print money.
     
  2. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    91
    I'm not sure because when I google "The private central bank" I find conspiracy sites going on about "the Rothschilds".................
     
  3. moose67

    moose67 Member

    Joined:
    22 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    358
    Likes Received:
    7
    I am not going to give any specific sites as that just opens the door to more dispute.

    There is several of these banks in operation. The Federal Reserve in America is one. So google that maybe. The American people are in debt to the tune of trillions to them.

    Our Government is in debt to one of these institutes. Maybe you can find out a definite answer?

    I am just trying to bring the info out. We owe billions of pounds to one of these organisations, and we are all paying a heavy price for it.
     
  4. jinq-sea

    jinq-sea 'write that down in your copy book' Super Moderator

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,295
    Likes Received:
    456

    Why such vagueries?
     
  5. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    91
    Okay, if you look up at the top, this forum is titled "Serious". You are spouting phrases I can only find elsewhere on conspiracy-fruitcake sites. I point this out an you tell us you cannot link to the sources as we will disagree with them.
     
    boiled_elephant and aramil like this.
  6. aramil

    aramil One does not simply upgrade Forums

    Joined:
    10 Jul 2012
    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    57
    +Rep to you sir, does stink of " it's a fact that this is happening! There is no proof but, it is a fact!" :D

    @moose67 probably better not to derail this thread with this, but if you want an open discussion on this, open a new thread. :thumb:
     
  7. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    91
    Well the federal rfeserve system is a little more complex than the Bank of England but how you can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System and somehow think that it means that:
    is hard to say.
     
  8. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16

    I think he may be talking about this:

    Bank of England (2014) “Money creation in the modern economy”

    Also other links:

    Bank of England (2015) “Banks are not intermediaries of loanable funds — and why this matters”

    Howells, P (2009) “The Money Supply in Macroeconomics”

    Due to the fact that private banks effectively create broad money through their financing activities creating deposits every time they make a loan meaning we pay interest on privately created money. This results from the nature of our fractional reserve banking system in which banks operate on a loans first model.

    Sadly the operation of our current banking system leads to people who are anti corporatist donning the tinfoil hat over fractional reserve banking creating endogenous money in econ speak because it all looks dodgy to them because money creation is based on debt. Therefore they effectively argue for full reserve banking with exogenous money in wonk speak.

    However full reserve banking has had advocates in history at the very top of the field of economics, Irving fisher is probably the most influential economist not many people have heard of, the main effect of which would be to eliminate the ability of banks to create money meaning central banks would be solely responsible for the quantity of money, rather than just base money.

    IRVING FISHER AND THE 100 PERCENT RESERVE PROPOSAL

    Although I don't know how all this relates specifically to the EU as every country in the world operates on fractional reserve banking and we would inside or out and inflation targeting means that central banks prefer to focus on controlling the price of money (interest rates) rather than controlling the quantity of money.
     
  9. Surrender_Monkey

    Surrender_Monkey New Member

    Joined:
    5 Aug 2011
    Posts:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have noticed that even God does not know the answer and appears to be in two minds.

    One set of followers says "out" and another "in." If God does not know the answer how am I meant to know how to vote.
     
  10. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    91
    Ah the old problem of confusing the money supply with the printing of banknotes.

    A deposits £1 and Bank B who loads 90p to C, keeping 10p in reserve. Money supply has gone up from £1 to £1.90.
     
  11. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Not exactly because banks don't need a deposit first as the central bank will always supply the required reserves to banks because not meeting an increase in demand for reserves would mean the central bank loses control of interest rates. That is explicitly stated by the bank of England and is how all central banks in the developed world operate who target inflation using interest rates

    Because banks lend first, a deposit is then created at another bank, then lent out and so on. It's a common complaint that economics textbooks talk about high powered money and deposits first models on bank lending, usually because it gets across simply how banks can create money from a deposit without including the complex explanation of how and why banks can lend first ask for deposits later.

    This doesn't mean banks can do this willy nilly they have macro prudential regulation, creditworthiness of customers, liquidity, solvency, profitability etc to worry about.

    a*lso in that model its new deposit divided by the reserve rate so 1/0.1= 10, so £ would turn into 10
     
    Last edited: 24 Feb 2016
  12. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Oh dear, gold buggism.

    The gold standard was the main reason the 1930s depression lasted so long, it means monetary policy can't even operate in a recession. One of the reasons the great depression ended was the end of the gold standard in the 1930s. Its only marginally better in 2008-now like conditions than being in the current state of the euro (if you're not germany). It's economically illiterate to want a currency without moderate inflation because that traps a country in permanent deflation/lowflation which would perma-stagnate economies

    Gold has no intrinsic value, it only has value because people believe it does; mainly for "look at the shiny" reasons. How about those Yap stones, loads of commodities have been currencies in history, gold ain't special.
     
  13. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Obviously how positively you view things is very subjective but there's also the cap on mobile roaming charges, compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled, the right to study in Europe, the European health insurance card, refunds when buying from other EU countries, part-time workers having the same rights as full-time workers, less polluted air, rivers and beaches.

    IDK if any of those effect Finland though.
     
  14. Cei

    Cei pew pew pew

    Joined:
    22 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    4,717
    Likes Received:
    122
    I also don't care how they affect Finland. This is the UK referendum, not a Finnish one. Finland may be some enlightened utopia that has been dragged backwards to shambles and ruin by the EU, but the EU has had positive effects on the UK and its citizens. Is it all sweetness and light? Of course not. It's all about balancing up a set of very complex issues, positives and negatives. I also find it utterly distasteful to be agreeing with Cameron, but for the first time ever he's actually being sensible.
     
    Last edited: 24 Feb 2016
  15. Archtronics

    Archtronics Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    2,559
    Likes Received:
    64
    I'm unsure which way I'm voting atm.

    With regards to trading with the EU since setting up for myself I've found it much easier doing jobs for Chinese clients in comparison to EU countries. The amount of paperwork is ridiculous then again it's pretty much on par with the UK.

    Other than that I don't know enough, I think I need to look into this not being able to implement your own laws. I don't for example understand why the uk pays child benefit abroad when other countries don't.
     
  16. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    “What did the EU ever do for us?

    In the week when the UK's five extremist right-wing media billionaires won their battle to waste our time, money and political capital on a EU referendum, I thought it a good time to post the great letter by Simon Sweeney in the Guardian, which he kindly allowed me to reproduce in my book, "The Prostitute State - How Britain's Democracy has Been Bought":

    "What did the EU ever do for us?
    Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
    structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
    clean beaches and rivers;
    cleaner air;
    lead free petrol;
    restrictions on landfill dumping;
    a recycling culture;
    cheaper mobile charges;
    cheaper air travel;
    improved consumer protection and food labelling;
    a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
    better product safety;
    single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
    break up of monopolies;
    Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
    no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
    price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
    freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
    funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
    access to European health services;
    labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
    smoke-free workplaces;
    equal pay legislation;
    holiday entitlement;
    the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
    strongest wildlife protection in the world;
    improved animal welfare in food production;
    EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
    EU representation in international forums;
    bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
    EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
    European arrest warrant;
    cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
    European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
    support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
    investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
    All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
    It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
    Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

    Simon Sweeney,

    Lecturer in international political economy, University of York"
     
  17. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    91
    Can you explain why moving from banknotes and coins to electronic transfers will allow them to "reset....destroying huge amounts of monetary wealth"?

    I am unclear what you mean though I acknowledge that governments can destroy wealth effectively as it is.
     
  18. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Didn't say the cause of the depression but why the effects persisted and were so strong over the years following. I.e being forced into tight monetary policy. Also the move off the gold standard signalled a permanent monetary expansion, much like increasing the inflation target would. Change expectations, change outcomes. Expectations are very important to macro economic policy making.

    Then the opportunity cost of storing it as and asset is at the expense of those uses. Using it to back currency has barely any support even in the heterodox areas of economics. Mainly because of the lack of inflation it brings (some inflation is needed) prolonging depressions and how hard it makes it to operate monetary policy making recessions deeper and longer.

    Its chemical and physical characteristics make it a good candidate for wealth storage as commodity money goes. Most the current value is because of speculative and monetary reasons. Any element will always have some value especially if it is rare but gold's status is largely cultural, there have been societies that didn't value it at all.



    Problem with gold is it doesn't pay a dividend or a rent. It's incredibly
    volatile. Spiking in periods of high inflation as a hedge against inflation such as the 1970s but performs badly in that duty, in severe recessions as a flight to safety yet inevitably provide poor returns for people who partake in these periods as the price inevitably decreases when normal times resume. 1940-72 and 1980- 2007 saw long periods where the gold price was low, US/UK index linked bonds would be better bets. The volatility could wipe out massive amounts of your personal wealth without a return to the same value for many years.

    Real estate is a better bet, at least in the UK. Properties can pay a rent and in the UK it will be a long time before homeowners dwindle enough for the NIMBYs to have a small enough say in our democracy to result in addressing of the housing supply problem that despite crashes like the early 90s and 08-09 will ensure the long term trend is always up.

    Problem is the EU moves at a snails pace to reform. All an in vote would tell them is that well thats the last we'll hear from the UK for the next 30-40 years on this, the EU will not consider change because of an in vote. The only other issue forwarding change is a fundamental eurozone issue, even on that 2 years to OMT to intervene in the secondary bond market, 5 years to go for QE. Slow to cut interest rates and those are all responsibilities of the central bank which should have acted as quickly and decisively as the US/UK central banks.


    Also worth looking into the democratic deficit as well.

    Oh... yes you can.

    Just fill up the cash machines with whatever currency your changing to, set an exchange rate and period to exchange, convert all bank balances then open on Tuesday because Monday would be a special bank holiday.
     
    Last edited: 24 Feb 2016
  19. Goatee

    Goatee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2015
    Posts:
    1,590
    Likes Received:
    556
    Could a Brexit lead to a Brexplosion?

    Assuming the "leave" parties are successful in campaigning, would / could a Brexit lead to the breakup of the union, with region(s) seeking independence to allow them to remain in the EU?

    Just wondering if anyone else had thoughts about this?
     
  20. aramil

    aramil One does not simply upgrade Forums

    Joined:
    10 Jul 2012
    Posts:
    961
    Likes Received:
    57
    Like if we had never joined the common market they would never of traded with us anyway. (as we can't go back in time to see what the alternate figure would be outside of the EU it becomes a none comparative stat and not relavent)
    because we would never spend any of the money we send to the EU in self improvement.
    Again speculation that the UK would not of done this anyway (cannot be proved either way)
    If we had not been in the EU do you think car makers would of continued to produce a UK only lead fuel engine. "leaded gasoline was phased out in the USA beginning in 1973" " First European countries started replacing lead by the end of the 1980s and by the end of the 1990s leaded gasoline was banned within the entire European Union."
    yeah but if our large bundles of plastic are found to be not just plastic (ie mixed waste) then it becomes that thing we ship aross the world for a poorer country to deal with because it is uneconomical for us to do. so yeah works well.
    Major first world issues that needed addressing.
    Because if any government was given hard evidence that somthing was dangerous or unsafe they would never address it. (again you can't say if we where not in the EU it would not of happened)
    I feel many southern european counties would disagree
    MICROSOFT
    so that China can make a cheap clone instead of someone else.
    just so much more paperwork/box ticking/more paperwork/etc to actually get anything into an EU market in the first place.
    because in the internet age it is so difficult to compare actual and offered exchange rates and charges.
    Have passport/work permit will travel, never stopped people traveling to or working in europe before.
    Because our education system is sooooo bad and i really should send student on a funded european jolly with my tax contributions.
    Europes access to our "i wish my countries was as good as this" health system
    Again can't say whether we would or would not have similar laws if we did not join the EU. (see no time machine)
    Because the UK goverment has never invested in it own industry or future.
    Bcause the 5th largest economy would never get into the WTO.
    so because we leave someone will get nuclear weapons... or that we are unable to do the same outside of the EU.
    Will we not also be co-operating from outside the EU. Or are we just letting them go.
    because it works so well, like when oh wait france alone did that, ok well how about when... no that was the UN... errr when... no that was the UK and the US. If you could get everyone in the EU to agree well maybe. it's not like we would be unable to joint venture from outside the EU.
    Ask Greece/Spain/Italy/etc
    Because the modern UK is a bloodthirsty country. The UK leaving will not make Germany invade poland.
    Heaven help those poor countries because the UK outside of the EU would never of helped.
    TTIP is the next thing in the pipeline that underlines its failure, and furthermore undermines the memberstates power.

    There is an assumption that none of this would of happened if it was not for our membership of the EU. No one can prove either way what would of/could of/should of, happened.

    What is being asked, is what now, is it to stay in what will become "Greater Europe" and loose more control to the EU (face it we can't stop them passing those laws or changing the rules) or to leave, and heaven help the 5th largest economy in the world, to be able work it out from outside the EU.

    As far as I know if the UK votes to leave and say Scotland votes to leave the UK, Scotland would have to re apply to the EU (under the qualifying rules) for membership, as the current EU agreements and laws are with the UK government and not scotlands parliment.
     
    Last edited: 25 Feb 2016
    boiled_elephant likes this.
  21. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    91
    If the government of the day passes the law they can redenominate your banknotes into rainbow feathers if they want. Electronic money isn't any different, just a way of accounting.
     

Share This Page