97% Owned

New anti-bank documentary (UK)

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

97% Owned

#1  Postby UndercoverElephant » May 01, 2012 2:01 pm


NEW DOCUMENTARY RELEASED TODAY - WATCH BELOW…

97% Owned is a brand new documentary about the problems with our debt-based privatised money system. It features frank interviews and comments from Positive Money, The New Economics Foundation, PRIME, Paul Moore HBOS Whistle Blower, Simon Dixon of Bank to the Future and Nick Dearden from Jubliee Debt Campaign. It’s the first documentary to really tackle this issue from a UK-perspective, and can be watched online for free now.

The documentary has been compiled over the last 14 months by independent film-makers Michael Horwarth and Michael Oswald. The documentary focusses on the creation of money by banks and the implications this has on debt, housing and economic stability, as well as discussing potential reforms.

PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE WORD

Please forward this documentary to friends, family and colleagues. The more people who watch it, the closer we will be to getting some change in our monetary system. You can send them the following link and text:
---
97% Owned is a new documentary that reveals how money is at the root of our current social and economic crisis. Featuring frank interviews and commentary from economists, campaigners and former bankers, it exposes the privatised, debt-based monetary system that gives banks the power to create money, shape the economy, cause crises and push house prices out of reach. You can watch it online now at:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/97percent


Basically arguing the banks must be run by [edit: an independent body], either directly or indirectly. Banks must be run in the interests of the general public, not private owners.

I cannot understand why anybody would still oppose this.
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on May 01, 2012 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
UndercoverElephant
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: 97% Owned

#2  Postby shadrack » May 01, 2012 2:11 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:

NEW DOCUMENTARY RELEASED TODAY - WATCH BELOW…

97% Owned is a brand new documentary about the problems with our debt-based privatised money system. It features frank interviews and comments from Positive Money, The New Economics Foundation, PRIME, Paul Moore HBOS Whistle Blower, Simon Dixon of Bank to the Future and Nick Dearden from Jubliee Debt Campaign. It’s the first documentary to really tackle this issue from a UK-perspective, and can be watched online for free now.

The documentary has been compiled over the last 14 months by independent film-makers Michael Horwarth and Michael Oswald. The documentary focusses on the creation of money by banks and the implications this has on debt, housing and economic stability, as well as discussing potential reforms.

PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE WORD

Please forward this documentary to friends, family and colleagues. The more people who watch it, the closer we will be to getting some change in our monetary system. You can send them the following link and text:
---
97% Owned is a new documentary that reveals how money is at the root of our current social and economic crisis. Featuring frank interviews and commentary from economists, campaigners and former bankers, it exposes the privatised, debt-based monetary system that gives banks the power to create money, shape the economy, cause crises and push house prices out of reach. You can watch it online now at:

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/97percent


Basically arguing the banks must be run by the government, either directly or indirectly. Banks must be run in the interests of the general public, not private owners.

I cannot understand why anybody would still oppose this.


We (Australia) tried this in the 1940s. Our High Court struck it down as unconstitutional.

The bounders. :(

Turns out nationalising the banks breaches Section 92 of our Constitution which is, apropos of nothing, an Act of the UK Parliament.

So that's why we can't do it here. Because white men in flowing robes say we can't.

I like to think of them as the spokesphincters of patriarchy! :naughty:

In any event you Britishers don't have a constitution so you get what you deserve.
shadrack
 
Name: Shadrack
Posts: 22

Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#3  Postby Strontium Dog » May 01, 2012 2:32 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:I cannot understand why anybody would still oppose this.


Yeah, that explains a lot.
Liberal.

STRONTIUM'S LAW: All online discussions about British politics, irrespective of the topic, will eventually turn to the Lib Dem tuition fee pledge
User avatar
Strontium Dog
Banned User
 
Name: Dan
Posts: 13820
Age: 42
Male

Country: UK: Free May 2010-15
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#4  Postby UndercoverElephant » May 01, 2012 3:57 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:I cannot understand why anybody would still oppose this.


Yeah, that explains a lot.


And your post explains nothing. It is contentless posturing. If you have nothing to contribute but personal insults, please don't bother.
UndercoverElephant
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#5  Postby Strontium Dog » May 01, 2012 6:56 pm

After the 65th or 66th time of explaining why it's a bad idea to concentrate too much power in the hands of the state, you tend to lose the will to live.

The fact your post has thumbs up is indicative of everything that's wrong with this world.
Liberal.

STRONTIUM'S LAW: All online discussions about British politics, irrespective of the topic, will eventually turn to the Lib Dem tuition fee pledge
User avatar
Strontium Dog
Banned User
 
Name: Dan
Posts: 13820
Age: 42
Male

Country: UK: Free May 2010-15
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#6  Postby campermon » May 01, 2012 7:03 pm

WE are the state.

:popcorn:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#7  Postby UndercoverElephant » May 01, 2012 7:11 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:After the 65th or 66th time of explaining why it's a bad idea to concentrate too much power in the hands of the state, you tend to lose the will to live.

The fact your post has thumbs up is indicative of everything that's wrong with this world.


So the power should be given instead to unelected bankers with their own self-interest as their only motivation? How is that better?
UndercoverElephant
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: 97% Owned

#8  Postby epepke » May 01, 2012 7:15 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:After the 65th or 66th time of explaining why it's a bad idea to concentrate too much power in the hands of the state, you tend to lose the will to live.

The fact your post has thumbs up is indicative of everything that's wrong with this world.


But look, it says to right there!

Banks must be run in the interests of the general public, not private owners.


It's appeared in print, so it magically must happen!
User avatar
epepke
 
Posts: 4080

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#9  Postby UndercoverElephant » May 01, 2012 7:20 pm

epepke wrote:
Strontium Dog wrote:After the 65th or 66th time of explaining why it's a bad idea to concentrate too much power in the hands of the state, you tend to lose the will to live.

The fact your post has thumbs up is indicative of everything that's wrong with this world.


But look, it says to right there!

Banks must be run in the interests of the general public, not private owners.


It's appeared in print, so it magically must happen!


I'm not sure who you are talking to or what you are trying to say. :)
UndercoverElephant
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#10  Postby purplerat » May 01, 2012 7:24 pm

Strontium Dog wrote:
... is indicative of everything that's wrong with this world.

Completely aside from this topic I have to say I'm really sick of this phrase. It's become almost impossible to find any story or comment posted online where somebody doesn't claim "it's indicative of everything that is wrong with the world (or substitute country name) today". I think it's indicative of the extremism that causes all of the problems in the world today.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12947
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#11  Postby UndercoverElephant » May 01, 2012 7:24 pm

Why should privately-owned organisations be able to create money and charge interest on it? How does this help the rest of society?

Why should banks with a profit motive decide who gets the money that is created?

This is the way it has been, at least in recent decades, and the result has been disastrous. The existing system is both unethical and unstable. It helps nobody but the bankers, and pretty much everybody who isn't a banker has had enough of it.

We've had several decades of unbridled free market capitalism, and it has failed. It doesn't work.

Why not try something else?
UndercoverElephant
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#12  Postby campermon » May 01, 2012 7:25 pm

purplerat wrote:
Strontium Dog wrote:
... is indicative of everything that's wrong with this world.

Completely aside from this topic I have to say I'm really sick of this phrase. It's become almost impossible to find any story or comment posted online where somebody doesn't claim "it's indicative of everything that is wrong with the world (or substitute country name) today". I think it's indicative of the extremism that causes all of the problems in the world today.


That's just the sort of statement I'd expect from you and it is totally indicative of everything that's wrong with this world.

:)
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#13  Postby campermon » May 01, 2012 7:26 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:Why should privately-owned organisations be able to create money and charge interest on it? How does this help the rest of society?

Why should banks with a profit motive decide who gets the money that is created?

This is the way it has been, at least in recent decades, and the result has been disastrous. The existing system is both unethical and unstable. It helps nobody but the bankers, and pretty much everybody who isn't a banker has had enough of it.

We've had several decades of unbridled free market capitalism, and it has failed. It doesn't work.

Why not try something else?


I find myself in total agreement with you.

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#14  Postby Animavore » May 01, 2012 7:31 pm

I liked the film and it explained a few things I'd been wondering about economics.

I'll be interested to see where this thread goes and hearing any objections. I'm incredibly ignorant of the subject.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44752
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#15  Postby Macdoc » May 01, 2012 8:06 pm

Banks must be run in the interests of the general public, not private owners.


It's appeared in print, so it magically must happen!


Want to try ME on the this Strontium...??? :mrgreen:

Perhaps you can explain why since the banks are chartered by the state as representatives of the citizens to allow them to lend fractionally.....

and I think you would agree that's a nice bit of capital magnification.

Why in return for that charter privilege - which can be withdrawn by legislation.....the banks should NOT work in the public interest.

With a legislated privilege comes a responsibility.

If I have a house - I can rent it out once.
If a bank has a house - it can rent it out 10-20 times depending on the capital reserve legislation.
Nice work if you can get it eh.

( sub in a million dollars for house )

What the marvel is - that even with the capital magnification fractional lending provides to the greedy assholes - they still fucked it up by leveraging it out even further on risky bets - cuz when the margin calls come on fractional lending....it works in reverse and banks go underwater right quick....as for every say million dollars in bad debts that's a direct hit on their capital and takes out 10-30 million in lending capacity.

My guess is every single bank in Europe is underwater big time if the paper they are holding on places like Spanish housing were evaluated honestly.

The Economist called all this in 2005

The global housing boom
In come the waves
The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops
Jun 16th 2005 | from the print edition

NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?

According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.

continues
http://www.economist.com/node/4079027

House prices
After the fall

Soaring house prices have given a huge boost to the world economy. What happens when they drop?
Jun 16th 2005 | from the print edition

read on

http://www.economist.com/node/4079458




That was then

•••••••
what is happening now? It is unfolding with big time hurt as any bubble does - and this was the mother of all bubbles - there were 1.3 million houses built on speculative loans in Spain alone.....more than half remain unsold....if you recall how the fractional lending works - you can see how far far underwater the European Banks are as those houses remain on their books.


Spain in ‘crisis of enormous magnitude’ as unemployment rate nears 25%
Published On Fri Apr 27 2012EmailPrint(13)

Spain's sickly economy faces a "crisis of huge proportions", a minister said on Friday, as unemployment hit its highest level in two decades and Standard and Poor's weighed in with a two-notch downgrade of the government's debt.
ANDREA COMAS/REUTERS
Daniel Woolls and Pan Pylas

MADRID—The hole in Spain’s economy is getting deeper.

The government reported Friday that unemployment rose to 24.4 per cent in the first quarter — compared with 22.9 per cent in the fourth quarter — and that more than half of Spaniards under 25 are now without jobs. The bleak employment report came one day after ratings agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded the country’s debt.

The Spanish economy is in recession for the second time in three years as the damage from a housing bust persists. Foreclosures are rising, Spain’s banks are in worse financial shape and the government’s deficit is hitting worrisome levels.

more

http://www.thestar.com/business/article ... gnitude-as


Now you were saying ........??? :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: 97% Owned

#16  Postby UndercoverElephant » May 01, 2012 8:09 pm

Animavore wrote:I liked the film and it explained a few things I'd been wondering about economics.

I'll be interested to see where this thread goes and hearing any objections. I'm incredibly ignorant of the subject.


So is almost everybody else - that is the only reason they've been allowed to get away with it for so long. It was a revelation to me when I first found out about it.

The thing is...until now we could have complained all we liked and it would have made little difference because of too many vested interests trying to stop reform. But everything changes if the system actually collapses (e.g. if we end up with global hyperinflation, which is a real possibility at this point.) Then it is inevitable that the system will change. And yet almost nobody, including those who are explaining what is wrong with the existing system, has much to offer in the way of alternatives. This is a collective failure of imagination, I think. :)
UndercoverElephant
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 6626
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#17  Postby Macdoc » May 01, 2012 8:16 pm

The issue is lack of enough regulation on risky lending and government, bank risk assessors in the banks and those borrowing ALL bear the burden of co-conspirators.

Canada remained fairly immune ( thanks to stronger banking regulation _ we are used as the model now ) tho our bubble is simply taking longer to pop.

On the scale of this bubble there are no simple or short time answers....the economies must contract to squeeze out the bubble money and inflation rebalance ratios - Japan has been in this for two decades now.

Underneath it all - unless curbs are put on speculation by way of taxes - these bubble will occur again and again.

Of the trillions of dollars that move through the economy of the world daily .....99% is speculative - only 1% is wealth building.

A big start is a tax on financial transactions.

No matter who does what - for many economies - this is going to be painful for a long time.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#18  Postby orpheus » May 01, 2012 9:14 pm

campermon wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:Why should privately-owned organisations be able to create money and charge interest on it? How does this help the rest of society?

Why should banks with a profit motive decide who gets the money that is created?

This is the way it has been, at least in recent decades, and the result has been disastrous. The existing system is both unethical and unstable. It helps nobody but the bankers, and pretty much everybody who isn't a banker has had enough of it.

We've had several decades of unbridled free market capitalism, and it has failed. It doesn't work.

Why not try something else?


I find myself in total agreement with you.

:cheers:


Me too.
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 56
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#19  Postby Ultimate » May 01, 2012 9:47 pm

I can't watch the documentary at the moment. I'm simply commenting on what people have said thus far.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Why should privately-owned organisations be able to create money and charge interest on it? How does this help the rest of society?

Why should banks with a profit motive decide who gets the money that is created?

This is the way it has been, at least in recent decades, and the result has been disastrous. The existing system is both unethical and unstable. It helps nobody but the bankers, and pretty much everybody who isn't a banker has had enough of it.

We've had several decades of unbridled free market capitalism, and it has failed. It doesn't work.

Why not try something else?


Profit motive isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bank of England makes the money, right? Its a public institution, correct?

I think several things have helped on this side of the pond. Allowing investors to vote on CEO bonuses (though now it have very little teeth and isn't binding). If you expanded this to all sectors I have a feeling you would have banks with much better controls, CEO's and boards wouldn't have the power to perpetually feed themselves massive bonuses and pay raises.
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.as ... ac18eb6492

Of the trillions of dollars that move through the economy of the world daily .....99% is speculative - only 1% is wealth building.

I do think this is a pretty substantial problem. Billions are being made with no actual change in capital.

A big start is a tax on financial transactions.

Maybe you could elaborate? It seems like this might be a little excessive. Thought it might help curb high frequency trading done with computers. Surely theres another way to do that though.
User avatar
Ultimate
 
Posts: 511

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: 97% Owned

#20  Postby Macdoc » May 01, 2012 10:15 pm

Yes the idea is to slow down the idiotic pace AND a form of insurance for bail- outs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... 94734.html

I'll give you an example of the underlying issues.

Banks pay nothing on their deposits - okay so not much of the their profits go to depositors.

Here's the rub tho.

Small businesses provide some 60% of the jobs in most nations. Small businesses pay through the nose for loans that are not property backed ( you'd think the banks would learn ) AND what is worse smal businesses are moved into credit card lending which is fine on 30 day roll over but punitive on anything longer 18-24%. ( credit cards are another whole crazy story )
None of this serves the public well yet the banks think their fractional lending charter is written in stone tablets.
If interest rates are low - all should share in that - not just the banks.

So what the situation is now that corporations are sitting on billions of cash AND low interest credit, not creating jobs and the banks are raking in profits on fees, small business lending and the spread between deposits and say mortgages.
The bank profits are at record high because of that even tho many banks are technically underwater if the true situation was declared on underperforming or dormant loans.

Even further - the banks have now made a business of foreclosing - charging huge fees.
The culture of excess has not been weeded out either.....wages for the financial sector are far out of touch and bonuses still flow - yet that is underwritten by the risk to commonwealth that charters those institutions to fractional lend.

In the 90s when it happened in Sweden - that country tossed management and shareholders, nursed the banks back to health and sold them.

There has a been a resistance to nationalization of that sort yet the banks want to be bailed out.
Can we say hubris.
And there is the threat of too big to fail - if the banks capital to lending ratio gets too high then sound businesses that require short term funding find themselves unable to borrow - not for any good reasons...but because the banks ran out of money to lend as strange as that may sound.

Here's an odd summary of the situation from the movie world during the worst days of the crisis.

Commentary: Movies ‘Inside Job’ and ‘Too Big To Fail’ entertain but don’t explain the panic
Posted on June 21, 2011 | Leave a comment

From the editor:

The new financial-crisis movies “Inside Job” and “Too Big To Fail” are riveting tales of Wall Street and its giant banks, but don’t expect to find out why taxpayers were forced to bail out those big banks in 2008.

Each movie tells important pieces of the crisis of 2007-2008, but neither explains what was the panic that freaked out top U.S. officials and sent the Bush Administration to Congress, hat in hand, for $700 billion in September 2008.

The repurchase market, where the panic was centered, is not mentioned in either movie, though each movie does a fine job of explaining banking conditions leading up to and during the crisis.

It’s like telling a sick joke and then leaving off the punch line.

“Inside Job” shows that deregulated banks borrowed lots of money, paid themselves handsomely, financed a housing bubble, ripped off homeowners and investors, lost billions, and made taxpayers pick up the tab, all while regulators twiddled their thumbs. Watch the movie, and you can feel your blood pressure rise.

But I had to see the movie twice to find the spot where it tells what the crisis in the financial markets actually was.

Well into the movie, the narrator quickly summarizes in about two minutes by saying: Home foreclosures skyrocketed, securitization imploded, mortgage lenders couldn’t sell their home loans to investment banks, the mortgage lenders failed, the market for collateralized debt obligations collapsed, investment banks couldn’t sell their loans or collateralized debt obligations to investors, and the investment banks ran out of cash.

This summary makes it sound like the crisis was caused by the first point, home foreclosures skyrocketed. But the dollar amount of home foreclosures was not large enough to cause a systemwide panic and credit freeze. Instead, the crisis was caused by the last point, the investment banks ran out of cash. The chaos in 2008 occurred mainly because the repo lenders to the over-leveraged investment banks stopped financing them.

The 2008 financial crisis was not caused by homeowners who borrowed too much money. It was caused by big banks that borrowed too much money, especially on the repurchase market.

And little has changed, to prevent that from happening again.

“Too Big To Fail” is a blow-by-blow account of the scariest days of the crisis, with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as the hero, played by William Hurt, saving the financial markets against the worst possible odds.

Throughout the movie, the narrator hints at the problems in the repo market, without ever explaining them or mentioning the r-word (repo). There was “a run on the banks,” the narrator says a couple of times. “Credit markets were frozen.” “Interbank lending stopped.” “We can’t finance our daily operations,” a General Electric* executive says.

Through conversation among Paulson’s staff, the movie gives viewers a fine explanation of credit default swaps, the cause of American International Group’s near-demise.

But the movie does not attempt a similar explanation of repo.

The best dissection of the crisis, in either movie, comes near the end of “Too Big To Fail,” when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, played by Paul Giamatti, soberly explains that what is destroying the economy is the disruption of credit, just like in the Great Depression.

The Great Depression in the 1930s was not caused by the stock market crash of 1929, and the Great Recession of the 2000s was not caused by the housing crash of 2008, Bernanke says. Both economic crises were caused by the disruption of credit.

We have to bail out the banks, to get credit flowing again, Bernanke says.

That’s as close as anyone in either movie gets to the r-word.

Mary Fricker
Editor, RepoWatch

*General Electric sold short-term unsecured commercial paper to help fund its operations. Money market funds were key buyers. When repo lenders forced the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008, one money market fund’s shares lost value. That spooked investors who took their money out of money market funds, and in October General Electric could not find enough buyers for its paper, according to GE testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Next

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest