DJKillaQueen

I'm probably several posts behind when I post this (internet connection problems today). I don't in essence disagree with your points MP but I do think we need to restore regulation to make the banking institutions more accountable than they are and to stabilise the propensity towards recurring crashes. And given that the US Federal Reserve is the Powerhouse of the IMF and World Bank it should be perfectly possible to bring about global change without too much difficulty....but the will isn't there because the focus of those running it is in a different place to what the world really needs. Where I disagree though is in that fractional reserve banking is the best system and we should thank it for everything we have - most people in the world have nothing or very little it has to be remembered. As you may already know MP, during the civil war President Lincoln turned down the high interest loans offered by European banks and wanted to create an independent and debt free currency called the Greenback. He introduced the currency. Shortly after, in a secret document in 1862 written by the European and US banking institutions, they wrote 'slavery is but the owning of labour and with it carries the care of the labourers. The European plan is that capital shall control labour by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the Greenback as we can not control that'. This is the premise under which the fractional banking system was pushed, to indebt. The same resources still exist whatever system we have and knowledge and innovation have nothing to do with money anyway. Man didn't need a fractional reserve system to invent the wheel anymore than to discover penicillin. I think what offends me really is the pursuit of profit over wellbeing, rather than the system, because I think in that it is far easier to identify the destructive consequences. A good example is in the manufacture of goods. Goods are purposely designed to fail so that a constant consumer market exists. A constant argument is that we need that consumer market to keep people in jobs making the stuff and in turn to earn the money to buy the stuff. But if things last as long as they can and tenchnolgy wasn't dribbled out bit by bit to keep us upgrading then the cost of living would be lower and we'd have to work less anyway. The technology already exists to replace something like 90% of all jobs....but in this system it would be economic suicide to use it. We will eventually run out of mined resources and what then? We'd better figure out something. There are tons of examples of how production, distribution and costs of food fuel etc could be far better managed but the prevailing economic systems don't want any of it and I can't thank them for that.

The mortgage issue is an interesting point Senor. In 1969 someone in America facing foreclosure argued in court that the money loaned to him by the bank had no collatoral in reserve to cover the value of his home....and the judge and jury agreed with him.

The reserve bank creates the money in return for governemnt bonds. Commercial banks then expand the money through loans and the fractional reserve policy...which is 10% of the value of the loan. So a bank can loan ?90 for every ?10 deposited whereas you and I, can only loan ?10 if we are given ?10. That's how it works. Just to illustrate.... You deposit ?10 into the bank. Now it can loan that ?10 to someone else and charge interest. When it makes that loan, the rules only require it have ?1 of that ?10 in reserve. So after that intial loan of ?10 to someone it still technically has ?9 it can loan to the next person...and then ?8.something and so on.......that's how money is created that doesn't intitially exist. In other words, it's loaning you money it didn't have until you pay the loan back.

Ok I am seeking out Avon Skin Soft..... I get bitten every time I play in the park atm and last night I got bitten TWICE at jags...........and of course everyone assumes I have a flea infestation because I have cats! Enough is enough! grrrrrr....

But they loan up to ten times more than what is deposited - that's the problem. That's why in a crash money suddenly 'disappears'...because it never existed in the first place. What other business can magically invent money this way? It would be fine I think if interest or profit on investment were the only method of making money banks use, but it's not. As result there is more debt in the global economy than there is money (or the equivalent) to cover it (up to ten times more). It's a facinating business model, which is inherently inflationary (inflation just being another form of tax really), drawn up by the Federal Reserve (have a read of 'modern money mechanics' published by that Federal Reserve for example). There is an inverse relationship between the supply of money and the value of money, so the more you inflate the pool of debt....the lower the value of any money already out there. It's a myth to say that more money in the system creates wealth because most of it is debt and the money that really does exist is devalued as a result. When the USA for example, reintroduced the fractional reserve banking system in 1913 (after it's predacessor had been abolished by President Jackson in 1835, to return America back to being a debt free nation) $1 equalled $1 in value. In 2007 $1 in circulation needs ?21.60 to match value. That's a 96% devaluation in value of the currency. Is it any wonder we are now seeing wealthier economies beginning to collapse. Surely there has to be a better business model than that for a monetary system. Of course there is, but the banking institutions are never going to be interested in anything that makes them work harder for their money, or makes them relinquish the absolute power they hold on our entire economy, a power that subconsciously holds governments to ransom and imo is a greater debaser of democracy than any tyrant or dictactor out there. So I can't agree that banks should operate their business model as they see fit......and recent events (regarding sub prime lending and derivatives) should more than anything be a perfect indication of that. Who did the government borrow the money from to bail out the banks for example? It's a game of roulette the banks can never lose as things stand. But you do make some good suggestions. Detailed publication of the operation of banks should be available and customers need to be better informed of how banks operate and the potential consequences of their business models. After all, the biggest threat to a bank as a business is a run on it by it's depositors. And we should be able to let banks fail when they go bust (just as with any other business) as well. If they face that kind of pressure they'll soon self regulate. The personal banking thing is I think important. Most customers feel valued if they can build relationship with a service provider. Most banks though don't want personal relationships with their customers. It's all just about numbers. And that I think is what fuels most people's disdain towards the banking industry, more than any perceived profiteering and greed. And I couldn't agree more with you regarding overhualing the whole tax system. Most people beyond income tax and NI have no idea what they are really paying in tax and the number of loopholes and complexities create anything but a fair and progressive system. Edited to add....that it really does matter what kind of monetary system we have banks operating under. The world banking institutions are in the hands of a tiny percentage of the globes population. When they mess up, the consequences are dire for billions of people. We can not have so many at the risk of the actions and decisions of an unchallenged few.

Dress down Friday at Dulwich College..... http://www.robertharrop.com/imageitem.php?i=22199&x=5&w=1024&h=768&q=100

Local dog owner takes dislike of 'Iceland' too far..... http://www.robertharrop.com/imageitem.php?i=21615&x=1&w=270&h=245&q=100&f=0

I'm saying banks should not loan money they don't have, which is what happens at the moment as banks are only required to hold 10% of any deposit in reserve. So a ten million pound deposit can become 90 million in loans as each successive loan is deposited. The bank doesn't have the other 80 million...it never did...it's one of the biggest cons of the fractional monetary system. Ironic then that a bank can loan you money without any collateral to offset against it but can take the home you borrowed that money for after a single default. I whole heartedly agree with your view on a return to local banking. I think that would definitely be a step in the right direction.....but it won't happen because it will compromise profits. Loans and debt should be restricted to those with a realistic chance of paying them back. That is not the case at the moment. Credit cards that for example allow people to only pay the interest...how is that ever a good idea? It works for the bank because it maximises the income they make on the debt of course but for the consumer it's a poor deal. Mortgages are cheaper than ever in order to keep the over inflated housing market bouyant....and for no other reason. It's a discussion that's been had many times in this forum with regards to the various ways in which banks and mortgages lenders have insulated the housing market from normal market forces. But mortgages are just another form of debt. You don't own anything until you've paid off every penny plus interest. And what is the point of a cheap mortagage when house prices are increasingly beyond the reach of growing numbers of people?

I'm not saying we should live like tribesmen at all SJ, although it could be argued that we do still live in tribes - defined by class, or status, culture etc. Technology will still evolve. After all...how many engineers, scientists and creators do you know who are obsessed with profit. On the the whole they are not, obsessed only with forwarding innovation. What I'm talking about is attitude and personal greed. I don't think most people are fullfilled by their greed anyway (i.e. nothing is ever enough). Resources are a finite thing. They don't disppear just because the financial institutions implode. Part of the problem is that we are so entrenched in this way of life that it is hard for most of us to be able to imagine something else.......but I think it could start by shifting the idea of working for yourself to working for your community, country, the world. But I'm not sure such a large scale shift in thinking is likely to happen until forced on us...so a realist in that respect and pesimistic for the future of our world as a result. I don't think the current banking system ever works well. I think when it works it works for the few, not the many. And how can it? It is a self serving institution. And like politicians, it doesn't really create anything. Inventors, scientists and visionaries are the people who create things. Politicians destroy countries and ivade them and then award lucrative contracts to repair the destruction to their own muti-nationals - see what I mean? It's a reference to iraq but it could be so many countries before her. And the ordinary population are effed in all of this. America spends more money on fighting terroirsm and econmic espionage than it does on fighting heart desease for example, even though heart desease kills far more people than terrorism. What's required is a shift of power from economists, politicians, the federal reserve and the multinationals whose pockets they are in. But it's never going to happen and they will fight tooth and nail to preserve their status quo. Right, I will return to this thread later.....have to go and do stuff :D ......but it's warming up nicely for a good debate I think!

And what do you think is more likely to create a market crash than taking the cash out of it and bunging into government? I'd say that printing money that doesn't really exist, inflating it by loaning it to several times of its value (yes banks truly do not have assets to cover their loans) are what we should be worrying more about H. Taxation didn't create the recent financial crisis. You are focussing on the wrong fiscal triggers if you want to examine what causes the majority of economic crisis. If I want a loan I need collatoral. The Bank that loans the money to me needs nothing. That's why in a crash suddenly all this money disappears.....because it never existed in the first place. It was just a figure on a piece of paper created out of nothing. A bank can loan out a deposit to ten times of it's value. Let's regulate that kind of practise if we really want to create a more stable global economy under this system. SJ is absolutely right. Thousands are going bankrupt everyday. And why? See above.

On this point I do agree with H, that facilitating job creation is better than shrinking an economy through cuts or increased taxation, but it's far easier said than done....especially when debt remains the core powerhouse of that economy. And given that when cashflow ceases, the factory and the resources to operate it don't misteriously disappear too! What is wrong with us that we give money (and ultimately the banks) all this power to shut things down? "a system that rewards the few and enslaves the rest" .....Oh please. What bollocks. Modern UK has no idea what slavery is, people coming out with that should get around more. I was talking globally, however you don't think that unnaffordale mortgages are not a form of enslavement? The increased cost of living is not a form of enslavement? The need for money itself in a world that has enough resources if they were used correctly to house feed and cloth every human being on the planet should be questioned. We are not economic in any true sense of the word. Again a different debate perhaps. Of course I see pecking orders, but human nature is learned not born. There are examples of tribes that have lived in self sufficient communities without crime and pecking orders. So human nature can be nurtured that way too. It's a constant debate the nature vs nuture one between geneticists and psychologists and one I am very familiar with. If we reduce inequality we will also reduce crime and mental health issues. Every single piece of data in the world supports that theory. There is nothing good about a free market that promotes individualism and absolute profit, in that respect. It's nothing to do with tyrany or revolution. You need to get away from the idea that someone has to be in charge, or always will be in charge. Communities can collectively organise themselves without the need for any self appointed leaders, and where they do rely on leaders, it should never boil down to who has the most money. We live in a world where power is bought...and even you H should be able to appreciate the destructive nature of that. SJ one of the terrible problems we have with a fractional monetary system is that there is never enough money in circulation to cover the outstanding debts. It's a really bad system to be operating under.

I agree SJ. And of course there are other things that can be done to make sure the wealthy are paying the taxes they should be, by closing loopholes. Even I, as a self employed person pay proportionately less tax than someone earning the same amount PAYE. That's because I'm allowed to offset some of my receipts, including part of the utility bills I pay for my home. There is nothing fair about the current tax system, but it is always those that do best out of it who whine the most it seems.

It's not a cartoon argument H. We live in a system that causes more problems and misery than problems it solves. And even if I were to accept that a fractional monetary system works.....how many more times do you think the World Bank, run mainly by the US federal reserve can go on inflating the world's economy by printing money every time it reaches crisis point? Ok perhaps that's not the core discussion at hand in this thread but to argue that the idea the wealthy should pay more tax is simply an attack on the rich is equally cartoon I'm afraid. We don't live in a fair economy. To make money you need money in the first place (even if it is just a loan) and unfortunately that is beyond the reach of the majority of people living on this planet irregardless of talent or work ethic. 1% of the world owns 40% of it's wealth or something like that. Only a fool would really believe that the 1% somehow work harder or are more deserving than the 99%. My view has nothing to do with socialism (the bog standard claim of anyone who criticises the current economic system - so bog standard it's laughable)....it is to do with the blatent realisation that a system that rewards the few and enslaves the rest is not a good thing for humanity. I don't give a hoot for 'isms', just for balance, fairness and a cohesive and healthy happy society. I have never claimed that taxing the rich heavily to provide for the poor is an ideal answer either. What I'm arguning is that the current economic system does not work on any level. It simply gives power to the few, the consequences of which are waste, the destruction of the planet, brutal poverty and the subjegation of developing and poorer countries via debt to America and the other superpowers, whose agenda is not the well being of those developing countries, but to bleed them as dry as possible through the pursuit of profit. And it doesn't matter if it's a US multinational or the self made small business tycoon.......nothing is never enough.....where does it stop? Yes I'm arguing from a philosphical perspective, mainly because I am pessimistic about the worlds willingness or ability to change that system before it implodes completely. And arguing the toss over a measly 5% of tax for those who can afford to pay it I'm afraid is the perfect demonstration of how sick our values as a species really are.

it was them that worked 14 hours a day, it was them that had no weekends, it was them that got ripped off This could be many minimum wage employees too. Where is their financial reward for the 'hard work'? So that's my problem. Hard work is not rewarded in equal measure, and many more people would love to work for themsleves if only they could get a start up loan.......it's not a level playing field and never has been and yes greed is at the heart of 'what's mine is mine' and 'because I worked for it'. Inequality is the biggest ill of any society. The more unequal a society is, the more violent it is and so on. So I personally struggle to find any positive reasoning when it comes to the protection of minority wealth. I was just putting a perspective against this relentless attack on wealthy people that presumes they 'owe' more tax, and are greedy if they don't pay it. You always jump on this line H tbh. You can't seem to seperate the experiences of individuals from the more serious issue of the consequences of inequality. Every piece of data shows that poverty has grown globally and that the inequality gaps have risen. Inequality is disastrous for social cohesion and for a healthy society. How about we put a perspective on what level of income a person really needs to live on, as opposed to the addiction that makes those at the top pursue maximum profit over the general well being of humans. It's that attitude that I morally object to...and it's one that permeates every aspect of our global economy...an economy that incidentally is doomed to collapse unless we do something to change it's reliance on debt.

But none of those players compare to the versitility and individual ball skills of a Xavi or Alonso or Villa. It's a fundamental flaw in the style of football we play that is at the heart of the porblem (you only have to look at the contrasting success of the emerging young team from Germany to see that). And before an English player makes it to a first team (if they are lucky enough to make it) they go through a coaching system that knocks individual flair out of them. When clubs of other countries, like Spain, Germany and Italy etc fight to buy the likes of Rodwell, Wiltshere and Bartly, then we can say we have a world class team. The sad truth unfortunately is that we produce very few players of world class standard these days. Yes those players will be the future of the England team but just as with Scholes and Beckham and that generation before them, they will not live up to expectation without some truly creative and talented world class players in amongst them. Rooney alone is not enough.

A better likeness! http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/8/0/f/e/event_54093022.jpeg Meanwhile, dogs running loose in Peckham Rye Park, and with a ringleader in the Artful Dogger, take over at Zippos Circus.... http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/8/1/0/8/event_54093032.jpeg

But what if you don't like whisky?

My reading of the OP is that he felt the bottle was deliberately thrown at HIM (which is bit different to just chucking rubbish out of a car window). With no verbal comment to give him a clue as to why, I think it's only natural he would come to some conclusion (whether correct or not) as to why the bottle was thrown at him. Racism, or homophobia, or just antagonist bullying may well have been at the core, or maybe not - it's impossible to know for sure, but entirely possible. I do wish that some people would be more polite and thoughtful in the way they post though, before assuming the OP is a pot calling the kettle black.

You need something that's a bit of a winter warmer, like a Mai Tai or Tequila Sunrise. For the sweeter tooth, a White Russian would be my shout! And for refreshment...try the Mojito.

Whether the rate is 50p or 45p the wealthy will still find ways of dodging it. Tbh I don't really know where I stand on this because there is no convincing data that it will make much difference to commerce and/or jobs either way. I would favour a raise in the threshold over a tax cut though I think, because those above a certain income can more than afford to pay it. Only their personal greed makes them unhappy about doing so. What that threshold should be though is perhaps another debate altogether. I feel that the way to motor the economy out of recession, is through investment in small business (rather than relying on big business). If we are going to reduce taxes for the wealthy then better to do it as tax breaks on business tax rather than on personal salaries or wealth. Having said all of that though.....we live in a ludicrous system of greed and inequality so the older I get, the less I'm caring what the government or world banks do anyway. Nothing is going to change.....and we'll see another crisis within a generation and yet more people turned over whilst those at the top remain largely unaffected. I've lived through three recessions, and I'm only in my early 40's............it's all bs and the those that keep it turning are deluded beyond help.

I echo the above in saying read the contract you have with them. The answer to your questions will be in there. There will be a way around most things anyway. Quite normal for a letting agent to expect to continue to collect fees within a reasonable time frame of placing a tenant (stops landlords using them to find a tenant and terminating their services). But having said that, my advice would be never to sign a contract that demands that beyond a resonable time. I think one year is reasonable. More than that, no.

I think it's time we wake up to the fact that England are a mediocre team and I don't really think there is any manager in the world that can fix that. The problem is deep rooted, lies in the style of football we play and the style of coaching we use. And it's worth making the point that many of the international stars who play in the premiership also underperformed at the last world cup. The kick and rush of the premiership is mo match for the possession football of Spain. And until the FA and the premiership wake up to that nothing will change.....They don't really care anyway whilst the premiership keeps brining in the millions it does.

Beware....the Artful Dogger lurks in the shadows..... http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/7/0/a/a/event_53968842.jpeg

I just wet myself with laughter...this is by far the funniest thread ever......keep it coming :D

The point surely is that if you live in a compact residential area, what right do you have to keep everyone within a certain radius up all night while you party? I live in a flat with people below, above and to the sides of me (most of whom are families with small children and babies). There is NO way I'd throw an all night noisy party. I might lose my tenancy if I did. If however I lived in a semi-detached house, then I might throw a party but I'd let my neighbours know and do whatever I could to limit the noise to an acceptable level - which might mean keeping the party indoors and limiting the music levels and/or agreeing a cut off time with my neighbours. That I think is reasonable and perfectly possible to achieve in the right types of property. The reason why southwark has such a thing as a noise team is because people who make excessive noise at unsociable hours are often not reasonable....sometimes bordering on anti-social.