The Great Depression Ii?

[Lxxx]

The conversation seems to have deteriorated when I pointed out that you were very obviously factually and historically incorrect about the ownership of The Bank.

 

Meanwhile - debate around the role of the Fed is perfectly justified and mainstream. But when you start implying that it is a Rothschild conspiracy then you are in the same camp as the sort of people who spout nonsense about international banking conspiracies and cabals.

 

No-one mentioned a Rothschild conspiracy. It's a known fact, as long as you do not get your information from mainstream sources, that an international banking cartel own and operate most of the central banks around the world. It's no secret, as long as you do some proper research. The info is out there for all to see.

[pongo]

as long as you do not get your information from mainstream sources

 

There are no neutral sources. Therefore mainstream sources are just as much a part of the story as any other source.

 

You seem to be influenced by the flipside of the mainstream - broadly the people who are looking for someone / something to blame. You and the mainstream are two sides of the same coin IMO. Sort of the same.

[Lxxx]

as long as you do not get your information from mainstream sources

 

There are no neutral sources. Therefore mainstream sources are just as much a part of the story as any other source.

 

You seem to be influenced by the flipside of the mainstream - broadly the people who are looking for someone / something to blame. You and the mainstream are two sides of the same coin IMO. Sort of the same.

 

Haha...you couldn't make this crap up. Just have a re-read of what you have written and ask yourself does it really make any sense..??

[Chinahand]

The ownership of the Fed is irrelevent, its a creature of statute.

 

But for what its worth its ownership is quite simple.

 

If you own a US registered bank you, by statute, have to deposit a certain percentage of your deposit base with the Federal Reserve - you recieve no interest for doing this - as your reserves make up X% of the Feds reserves, you recieve shares for X% of the ownership of the Fed.

 

This gives you very few rights or powers.

 

All banks create fiat money out of nowhere - when money is locked away in a vault it isn't being useful. Most of the development of finance has being attempting to understand how to ensure money is used as efficiently as possible.

 

Use it too freely and bubbles, booms and inflation will wreck the economy. Don't use it enough and a credit crunch will leave worthwhile projects starved of funds and unable to be done, to all our detriment with increase poverty the result.

 

Getting the balance right is one of the most difficult jobs humanity has tried to do and we still aint got it right!

[Slim]

So come on then brains, instead of poo-pooing everything, what do you think will happen, in your esteemed opinion?

 

With Europe and Greece. I don't know with any certainty, but probably some kind of managed/assisted default with a similar but not quite as severe effect as the 2008 credit crunch crisis. That is banks struggling, governments bailing them out with some going under, that kind of thing. Harsh times, particularly if you work for an EU bank, but not quite time to learn how to kill my own food.

You really should do your homework before you come on here spouting off. If you think the Bank of England is owned by the UK Government then I really do despair.

 

 

Are you serious? It's nationalised, it's owned by the Government. This isn't a secret.

[slinkydevil]

Are you serious? It's nationalised, it's owned by the Government. This isn't a secret.

 

Ah but the 'international banking cartel that own and operate most of the central banks around the world' is.

 

Ssh!

[Barrie Stevens]

The US owes money to the Federal Reserve not itself, which is in fact an independant bank ownded by a small group of international bankers, who also own the Bank Of England

 

 

1. No the Bank (of England) is owned by the UK govt.

 

2. US debt is owned by the institutions and individuals who hold the debt which exists in the form of bonds. As I pointed out appx 70% of that debt is owned by US public and private institutions and individuals.

 

You really should do your homework before you come on here spouting off. If you think the Bank of England is owned by the UK Government then I really do despair.

Every single dollar the US Government uses/spends/invests is lent to them by the independant Federal Reserve (owned by banking families such as Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller etc..), who print it out of thin air, exactly the same process as the BoE and the UK Government. They then have to pay this back with interest, which is where increasing taxes come into play. I suggest you go away and do some proper research before you next post.

It is this reason and this reason alone that the whole world is being dragged deeper and deeper into the mire. If governments were allowed to print their own money there would be no compounded interest, therefore the economies of the world could function quite effectively on their own. The fact that most currencies in the world are created out of thin air by central banks and then lent out at a cost, is the cause of the ever increasing debt levels, which can never be repaid. That is how the system was designed to work, for the benefit of the few over the many.

 

Bank of England was nationalised in 1946 with the shares made over to the UK Treasury.

 

It is also the natural bank for the Isle of Man and Bank of England currency the natural currency of the Isle of Man.

 

The Island treasury deposits money in London in UK securities to give the local currency of the Isle of Man some reciprocal value and that is why Manx notes are changeable for Bank of England notes being on par.

 

Manx money is primarily redeemable at the Isle of Man Bank as the small print on the notes will tell you.

 

The Island banks have to buy Bank of England money at face value ie £10 for a £10 note - a process known as Seignorage - which is why they don't like it going off-Island when such as the foreign workers send it home in packets ie Philippines. They have to replace it at cost and the cash ends up on the street markets overseas.

 

The Island's security deposits in London earn the Island money and the more local Manx notes are used then the more of this money stays earning as there is less need to reciprocally balance (I know an odd one but Allan Bell has explained)

 

It is cheaper by far for the Island to print its own notes rather than buy them from the Bank of England at face value so the Island earns money by using its own notes.

 

Isle of Man Bank was owned by NatWest which was owned by RBS and which was then part nationalised by the UK the Treasury of which owns the Bank of England.

 

Never mind. The Isle of Man is fiscally independent and by agreement with the UK must balance the books and not run a deficit by law (And it is by long standing agreement with the UK as Dominic Delaney confirmed in a recent radio broadcast)

 

Carry on Banking!

[GD4ELI]

Isle of Man Bank was owned by NatWest which was owned by RBS ...

 

Shirley you mean 'Isle of Man Bank is owned by NatWest which is owned by RBS' or has this changed since RBS almost collapsed?

[Barrie Stevens]

Isle of Man Bank was owned by NatWest which was owned by RBS ...

 

Shirley you mean 'Isle of Man Bank is owned by NatWest which is owned by RBS' or has this changed since RBS almost collapsed?

 

Don't ask me ask Shirley!

[P.K.]

With Europe and Greece. I don't know with any certainty, but probably some kind of managed/assisted default with a similar but not quite as severe effect as the 2008 credit crunch crisis. That is banks struggling, governments bailing them out with some going under, that kind of thing. Harsh times, particularly if you work for an EU bank, but not quite time to learn how to kill my own food.

 

Anything but a default it would seem:

 

"The world's major central banks have pledged to extend large dollar loans to Europe's fragile banking sector, boosting stock markets around the globe.

 

The European Central Bank, the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank all announced, in co-ordinated statements yesterday, their intention to provide three-month dollar loans to the financial sector over the rest of the year." Link. So the dollar is still the currency of choice it would seem.

 

Mind you, it doesn't help when Berlusconi is overheard referring to German Chancellor Angela Merkel as "an unf~ckable lard-arse" and it get's international press coverage, at least in the EU anyway.

 

What a star! Just another day in the colourful life of Silvio Berlusconi...

[Lxxx]

So come on then brains, instead of poo-pooing everything, what do you think will happen, in your esteemed opinion?

 

With Europe and Greece. I don't know with any certainty, but probably some kind of managed/assisted default with a similar but not quite as severe effect as the 2008 credit crunch crisis. That is banks struggling, governments bailing them out with some going under, that kind of thing. Harsh times, particularly if you work for an EU bank, but not quite time to learn how to kill my own food.

You really should do your homework before you come on here spouting off. If you think the Bank of England is owned by the UK Government then I really do despair.

 

 

Are you serious? It's nationalised, it's owned by the Government. This isn't a secret.

 

Excellent, Wikipedia's working well then.

 

The BoE is the only 'government department' that has a wholly owned private limited company, formed in 1977, called The Bank of England Nominees Ltd, which was granted state exemption from disclosing whom its shareholders were. It is now referred to by the British Treasury as an 'Agent of the Treasury' and under no correspondance since that date will you see the bank referred to as a department of government in any way, shape or form. Numerous motions through parliament have been blocked to establish just who and why this seperate entity is needed, and how much power they yield.

Also since loveable Gordon Brown granted complete independance on monetary policy to the bank, we now have an 'agent' of government, effectively owned by a separate private limited company which has never traded and only lodges short form unaudited accounts, with shareholders unknown, directing independant monetary policy to it's 'owner.'

 

I don't do conspiracy theories, just facts, and the facts outlined above are pretty clear. If you'd like to believe the good, old cuddly UK government who surely wouldn't lie to us then fine, it makes no odds to me what anyone else believes.

[Lxxx]

.

[Bobbie Bobster]

...it makes no odds to me what anyone else believes.

Protest too much, much?

[pongo]

The BoE is the only 'government department' that has a wholly owned private limited company, formed in 1977, called The Bank of England Nominees Ltd, which was granted state exemption from disclosing whom its shareholders were.

 

The shareholders are detailed in this 2010 FOI response. The BOE is not a 'government department' and it certainly is not the only nationally owned entity which owns private subsidiaries.

 

It is now referred to by the British Treasury as an 'Agent of the Treasury' and under no correspondance since that date will you see the bank referred to as a department of government in any way, shape or form.

 

Nobody has said that it is a department of govt.

 

we now have an 'agent' of government, effectively owned by a separate private limited company which has never traded and only lodges short form unaudited accounts, with shareholders unknown, directing independant monetary policy to it's 'owner.'

 

You are saying that the subsidiary owns the parent ? Why ?

 

I don't do conspiracy theories, just facts, and the facts outlined above are pretty clear.

 

----

 

ETA: - I do agree however that you have highlighted some quite interesting stuff. How The Bank works, what it actually is, is something that I realise I do not really understand. Despite

[manshimajin]

Is it a good idea to grow the banking sector further here?

 

Juan Watterson seems to think so:

 

He said he didn’t anticipate the island would lose any business as a result of the reforms and, indeed, for those banks who may find it ‘quite painful’ to meet the requirements, there was a ‘potential opportunity’ for banks with headquarters in London to move more of their business to the Isle of Man.

 

Is it wise to attract banks that find Vickers 'too painful'?