Peter of England: He's going to be in REal trouble

[hardcopy]

If you watch the Bank of England video " money creation in the modern economy" you will see that when you take out a loan, you are not being lent the money of prudent savers, the bank does actually "create" that loan out of thin air !...amazing, but true.
I think this is the foundation of a lot of the freeman thinking .
But of course that money enables you to buy say, a house, so it has to be related.
It's well worth a look, I don't know how to link, but its on YouTube and there is s Guardian piece on it too.

Do you mean this video amongst many others explaining part of money creation the sov/cit movement can't be bothered to research & wrap their pea brains around?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw

Yes, that's the one. So because the money being lent wasn't even there in the first place, it doesn't have to be paid back, even though you now have a house bought with non existent money.
I can see the attraction in that logic.
Btw, there was an eviction in Sweets Way in London yesterday that was well worth resisting in my opinion.

[Skeleton]

I have worked at Airports for the last 35 odd years and can tell him far from being introduced, they were introduced in the UK in 2004 and they were removed in 2012 because they were giving to many false readings because they were not easy to use and the cost of staffing them.

Some years ago I read an article on technology website The Register which basically said that eye scans were inherently unsuitable as mass identification systems because, unlike fingerprints, the eye can and does change significantly in a short period of time without the owner of the eyes even being aware... As any diabetic or person with glaucoma could tell you.

They are OK for discriminating between a few dozen or even a few hundred people but once you involve entire populations the system falls on it arse and the possibility of errors rises to a level where you might as well not bother... They can say "This might be Tom, Dick or Harriet but I can't say which" or "This isn't Tom" when it might be.

Correct the people that swapped between them and E Gates hated them. Lots of failures for that reason and the machines were crap, fail and you went to the back of the normal line, great way to keep people happy! Peter though will be one that believes in chem trails and probably only takes his tin foil hat off to make rubbish videos. He will see something sinister going on with the use of eye recognition systems.

[LocalResident]

Are you all Mad !!, I would never use a government Eye Scanner, have you not seen "The 6th day" the goverment can suck your whole brain out through your eyes and use that to clone you and do other evil stuff.

Stay away and be safe I say.

[guilty]

Guernsey gets in on the act...
http://www.gfsc.gg/The-Commission/News/ ... -Bank.aspx

[guilty]

June Clarke to ‎Peter Of England
Interesting information regarding commercial instruments...
People might think this is off topic but it's not. It's very important. The councils, by law, must accept our commercial instruments because they do have value.
The bank of england has BT forms (balance sheet return).
Please look at page 14, sections 26 very carefully. It clearly states that councils can issue commercial papers and bills. Look at 26F "Commercial paper issued by other UK residents". What we create does have value and is BACKED UP by the bank of england. By LAW, we can create money...just as a council can create commercial paper and bills, which they do.l can't stress enough how Important this is to get into our heads. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ, UNDERSTAND AND PASS ON.

June,
1) you do not understand what a 'commercial paper' is
2) a piece of paper torn out of a notebook and created by you is not a commercial paper and does not have value
3) a commercial paper is not backed by the Bank of England
4) commercial papers require the issuer (usually a major company) to have a huge credit rating
5) commercial papers are short-term and have to be redeemed with cold hard cash
6) banks do not have to accept them

[longdog]

June,
1) you do not understand what a 'commercial paper' is
2) a piece of paper torn out of a notebook and created by you is not a commercial paper and does not have value
3) a commercial paper is not backed by the Bank of England
4) commercial papers require the issuer (usually a major company) to have a huge credit rating
5) commercial papers are short-term and have to be redeemed with cold hard cash
6) banks do not have to accept them

But other than that right in every respect

[Hyrion]

we can create money

Last time I was aware, anyone but the core Government financial authority creating money was involved in counterfeiting.

[NG3]

we can create money

Last time I was aware, anyone but the core Government financial authority creating money was involved in counterfeiting.

Guy Taylor's record agrees with you

[longdog]

I can still remember what must have been the first lesson in O level economics which looked at the question "What is money?". The correct answer is of course "It depends".

These idiots, and it's not just the WeaRy bank idiots it's all of the freemen and goofers and allied morons, don't understand that what might be defined as money under one set of circumstances might be worthless under another. £100,000 in monopoly money is great as long as the game lasts but nowhere else. A gold sovereign is money by many definitions but try buying a packet of fags at Tesco with it. A credit card with a £5,000 line of credit is as good as the cash for most purposes but it's just a bit of plastic if you're trying to buy a second-hand car off a private individual.

[Losleones]

we can create debt

Last time I was aware, anyone but the core Government financial authority creating money was involved in counterfeiting.

Corrected for you June

[YiamCross]

If you put £20k in the bank, which has to happen before the bank can lend it, ...

No it doesn't. Banks don't need to match deposits with loans.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. They don't have to match a specific deposit to a specific loan but they do have to have a pool of deposits before they can lend money. If the $20,000 comes from, say 100 Quatloosers depositing their ill gotten shill payments or if it comes from one person, it matters not. The balance sheet shows $20,000 of cash before the loan and corresponding entries on the liabilities side to the 100 Quatloosers or whoever has deposited their day's takings for providing a service to the criminal cartels of the world. When the money is lent to Barnaby for his Friday night binge it shows the same liabilities to depositors but where there was once cash at hand there is now a big debt owed to the bank by Barnaby.

If no one deposits any money in the bank there's nothing to withdraw or borrow. As PoE's clients are discovering.

The banks can't create money out of nothing, if they could then Were bank would work. Their loans are backed by deposits. or loans from other banks.

Governments are able to create money out of nothing but they do so at their peril. I'm amazed that they've got away with it so far and can only hope they continue to do so.

[Hyrion]

The core point I see being made is: if you do not deposit funds into an account you have nothing on which to write cheques against. Mucho important concept that the OPCA crowd seems to be unable to grasp.

If no one deposits any money in the bank there's nothing to withdraw or borrow.

I'm not sure that's correct although in some jurisdictions it might be. For example, in those Jurisdictions that view an entity that does not take deposits - but can do other functions of a bank - as a bank, then it's not accurate. In those Jurisdictions where it's only a bank if it takes deposits, then it's likely accurate.

Their loans are backed by [snip] loans from other banks.

That's much more accurate. It shows the funds for a loan can come from another asset. So it's probably best to say

• If the bank has no assets, it has nothing from which to provide loans.

And... of course... WeRe Bank has nothing that most (I hope) of us would consider as an Asset and a great deal we'd consider as massive Liabilities.

[Burnaby49]

When the money is lent to Barnaby for his Friday night binge it shows the same liabilities to depositors but where there was once cash at hand there is now a big debt owed to the bank by Barnaby.

I assume that you are referring to me. If not, who is this drunken Barnaby character? In any case I pay for my drunken binges with ready money.

[littleFred]

If the bank has no assets, it has nothing from which to provide loans.

Peter would probably agree, and claim that he has assets, namely the promissory notes.

But this is besides the point. Peter doesn't lend money, or pay out money in any form to the people who are sent his cheques.

[PeanutGallery]

And in turn they would wheel out the argument that other people use promissory notes all the time to settle debts and Denning saying they were as good as cash and all that other bunkum. I'm not an economist, nor have I really done much study of it but my understanding in regard to Promissory Notes and cash and such is laid out below. If I'm wrong on something please correct me, I'm here to learn.

If I gave one of the £20 Bank of England Promissory Notes to Burnaby in the pub so he could get a round in (because he forgot his wallet or left it in his other pants) I am not making any promise to pay either Burnaby or the Pub. Neither would Burnaby be if he had his own £20 and used it to buy a round. We didn't make the promise written on the notes, it's made and signed by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England.

He's the one making the promise and it's backed up by the bank he works for. The Bank has a lot of assets (roughly a nations worth) and so the note is widely considered to be good for the amount it says.

We could take that note into the Bank of England and ask it to be redeemed, in fact we could take it and redeem it at any bank. The bank on taking the note would credit £20 to our account (or open an account for us if we so desired and deposit the £20 within). The Bank, when it takes the £20 uses the complicated system of fractional reserve banking and other tricks invented by crafty accountants to give out loans based in part on the amount deposited. In this manner a commercial bank can loan out more funds than it actually has available (it would "borrow" the additional funds from the Bank of England - which crucially does have a licence to print money and monitors how much money is in the economy because of inflation and interest rates and all those technical things that make an economy), however this does create a risk that the bank could fail if it loans money to people who would be incapable of repaying (which as we all remember happened quite recently and likely was a significant factor in the sudden rise of Fmotl and GOODF type thinking on these shores).

Peter's notes aren't signed by the Bank of England, they are signed by a bunch of deadbeats who have debt problems and are facing serious financial hardship in their near future. They cannot be presented to the signatory with a reliable chance of payment. They cannot be traded, such that you couldn't give one to Burnaby to get the round in and expect a beer or for that matter a happy Burnaby. They are as worthless as those who wrote them.

To that extent Peter doesn't have any assets he can use with which to make good the very bad cheques his customers write.

[littleFred]

Basically true, I think, but a point of clarification:

These days, Bank of England banknotes aren't Promissory Notes as defined by Bills of Exchange Act 1882 s83. Instead, they are Bank Notes as defined by Currency and Bank Notes Act 1954 s1.

Sure, a Bank Note is a kind of a promise. So is a cheque. So is Burnaby's offer to buy you a pint. So is a sucker's promise to pay £150,000. Only the first of these is a legal tender. Only the last is a Promissory Note (and even that one may not be).

I think Peter may once have has an ambition to sell the suckers' promises for real money, and use some of this to actually pay the amounts that were written on the cheques.

[Losleones]

Very good posts above which all freetards should research.

Back to Swifty who wants to open a secret forum away from the shills/trolls to discuss his masterplan to make creditors except fraudulent cheques from a Bank that has no reserves in sterling. He certainly appears to have all the answers as he's going to smash the system to pieces in this thread;
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... gT-81p4WrU
Wooden Head is still defying a ban & irritating the barking mad Swifty.

[hobgoblin]

Very good posts above which all freetards should research.

Back to Swifty who wants to open a secret forum away from the shills/trolls to discuss his masterplan to make creditors except fraudulent cheques from a Bank that has no reserves in sterling. He certainly appears to have all the answers as he's going to smash the system to pieces in this thread;
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... gT-81p4WrU
Wooden Head is still defying a ban & irritating the barking mad Swifty.

I love the way these people actually think that the government considers them such a threat that it employs "agents" to infiltrate their forum.

Deluded fools.

[noblepa]

I think Peter may once have has an ambition to sell the suckers' promises for real money, and use some of this to actually pay the amounts that were written on the cheques.

IIRC, someone posted a copy of one of PoE's promissory notes and it included a line saying that, if the note were transferred to another then the debt was forgiven, or some such language. This effectively means that the notes can not be sold to someone else for cash. Only PoE could go to court to try to force the maker to redeem the note for cash.

I could be wrong.

[PeanutGallery]

Very good posts above which all freetards should research.

Back to Swifty who wants to open a secret forum away from the shills/trolls to discuss his masterplan to make creditors except fraudulent cheques from a Bank that has no reserves in sterling. He certainly appears to have all the answers as he's going to smash the system to pieces in this thread;
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... gT-81p4WrU
Wooden Head is still defying a ban & irritating the barking mad Swifty.

I love the way these people actually think that the government considers them such a threat that it employs "agents" to infiltrate their forum.

Deluded fools.

That is one of the stranger delusions, what would be the point when these groups by their own nature are pretty self destructive and likely to implode without any outside influence.

Besides which the government agencies that do monitor communication on the internet are looking for much more threatening fish than these intellectual minnows. It seems to be part of a delusion that makes them think they are more important than their life would suggest.