Mike wrote: I'm sorry, I find it impossible to believe that you genuinely believe that the Vince Cable article is a good one, or for that matter as suggested elsewhere that the UN is interested in peace. You cannot possibly believe this, so I think the term 'troll' is entirely accurate. It's not name calling, it's merely an accurate description of your conduct. 'Troll' in this context is a verb, not a noun. However, if you do genuinely believe this, I'm not sure what you've been reading on here, but you can't have been reading much.

In terms of correcting your mistakes, the IMF estimates 0.7% growth for the UK this year. The economy probably won't even make that (and let's not go into what that growth represents, because a lot of it is bloody useless activity), but let's be phenomenally optimistic and assume that somehow 1% growth is achieved.

UK GDP is £2.45 trillion:

www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d...=en&hl=en&q=uk%20gdp

1% of £2.45 trillion = £24.5 billion.

The interest on Britain's debt is £43 billion per annum:

www.debtbombshell.com/uk-national-debt.htm

Although this source states that they're nearer to £50 billion:

www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

This is why the UK government is still borrowing record amounts just to service the interest and run its basic programmes (which are quickly being privatised):

www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/24/...-record-figure-april

The UK national debt is well over £1,000,000,000,000 and rising at a rate of £1,000,000 every five minutes. No-one has a feasible plan that will result in the UK breaking even, let alone paying any of it back.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't take into consideration unfunded liabilities, off the balance sheet debts such as banking bailouts, personal debt and trading debt as incurred by such instruments as derivatives. Thus, the real level of UK government debt has been widely reported as being in excess of £5,000,000,000,000:

www.iea.org.uk/blog/true-level-of-uk-gov...eds-%C2%A35-trillion

There is no amount of growth, taxation, austerity, or any other plan, that will enable this to be paid back. Either Britain will eventually default, or they'll start stealing bank deposits, or there'll be a rapid inflation of the currency, or a combination of the three. This is why central banks and the super-rich are diversifying their holdings into concrete assets because they know that every major currency, will the possible exception Renminbi, is fucked.

That is the mathematical reality of the situation, and it is also the case across Europe, and in North America.

I don't expect to have to explain this to you again.

Perhaps if you find the Vince Cable article wrong, disingenuous or incorrect in any way you should explain why or what is wrong with it?

According to your explanation there, because I have opinions that differ from yours, you call me a troll..
I hardly think that is an attitude conducive to an atmosphere of mutual respect?

Mike wrote:
It doesn't matter if borrowing creates growth because it can't go on forever & what we're seeing now is the flipside of what doing that causes.
Imagine a few years ago you could get loads of credit & you spunked it all up the wall and now you can't even afford to pay back the interest and you're drowning in debt! So you have to start making sacrifices, working more. All because some cunts decided that your signature is reasonable enough consideration to print you a load of money that you will be paying back forever! The austerity thing has been a useful lever to allow the sale of the rest of the nations services.
The whole economic system is a scam purposefully designed to control us & make the rich richer.

Space Bandit wrote: There's a few things I disagree with about that, mainly that it's simplistic, overall I agree with some of your points but you need to explain them, the bolded is strange though.

You're blaming people getting loans and spunking them on the people who sold them the loans, no actually in that specific situation, it's the fault of the people living beyond their means, taking loans to buy stuff they can't afford, banks merely facilitated that consumerist aspiration with de-regulated consumer credit during the Reagan Thatcher years..they're sacrificing their entitlement to the things they can't afford without consumer credit, they're working more to be able to purchase unaffordable commodities and perfectionist emblems on poor wages.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mrs...britain-8565716.html

just out of curiosity , ANdy and WUB's do you still have a bank account and keep your money in it? genuine question

reading the OP I would have thought that if you agree 100% with the article you would have closed your bank accounts

And yes , a few years ago credit was very easy, mortgages given out willy nilly but there are two parties at fault , the banks obviously but also the borrowers.

Not all borrowers are having to borrow busy they are in dire straits , loads of people borrow because they just have to have a new kitchen, a new car , a foreign holiday whatever, lead the lifestyle they think they should have rather than the lifestyle they can afford

There are faults on both sides

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Total disregard for higher debt payback and only further debt to pay it back with.

Its just the usual polar argument we see played out in the media.
Its either borrow more or austerity, its never anything factual just one bullshit story or the other.

The argument would be valid if the govt printed its own money instead of borrowing it. But not just 'the' govt, ALL govts globally would have to do it.
This is why single digital currency will be offered up as the answer while the banking scum rub their hands with glee.

Mike wrote:
He just did explain it above, complete with figures
A troll would ignore it and say what you just did there.

dawnbreak wrote:
I have most of my money out in cash, I use an account I deposit money in to make card payments aye.
Unfortunately theres no avoiding it as I literally can't trade in a lot of things with cash.
That said, having a bank account has little or nothing to do with what I've been saying.

I'll say it again for clarity cos I think you've missed a lot dawn

Banks as they stand are an illegal and immoral entity, govt as it stands is an illegal and immoral entity.
The reason why this is the case is because money is no longer a tool of the people, it is a tool of the few, just as govt is now a tool of the few.
There is a recent thread here saying how the EU central bank has lowered central bank interest rates again (as it has to because govt cannot pay back debt with no growth) yet the high st banks are INCREASING tracker mortgage rates and guess what...the govt don't givbe a shit, they're ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING IT and it doesn't matter a flying fuck who you vote for, it doesn't matter a flying fuck what you do or what you say, there is NOTHING you can do about it.

You can try to have a run on the banks by withdrawing deposits but that doesn't even matter a shit now because apparently some countries don't even have a reserve ratio lol...

I really don't think people want to get their heads around how completely fucked this scenario really is. They don't want to see the big picture so instead they focus on little aspects, anything to escape the insanity of it all.

Yes you can improve your own lot in life somewhat but don't think for a minute that having or not having a bank account really makes a jot of difference here. Nor does having gold or not having gold, nor does renting or having a mortgage, none of it matters.

All that matters is the perception of the mob as a whole. If they continue to believe that this madness can continue then it will.
Its the worlds biggest and strongest religion and you're all part of it whether you like it or not.

Talking about whether or not having a bank account makes a difference is akin to standing in front of a 10 mile high tsunami and arguing about whether you have a lifejacket is going to somehow make a fucking difference.

I'm sorry but I really do fall about the place laughing at the sheer nuttery of it all sometimes.

I know I've asked this before, but, please bear with me.....If I had a substantial amount of cash coming, is it safe to put into a bank or not? yes or no?

jhado wrote:
I'd like to know the answer to that too.

jhado wrote:
No, ultimately however it's going to make little difference because all cash will no longer be legal tender and you will be forced to use a bank account and plastic.

Even then what guarantee do you have that your money won't be worthless next week or the week after?
You can keep it all in a safe but if things go all zimbabwe then 1000 quid might only buy you a lollipop.

What do you do then? Even gold requires a working stable economy for it to be of value. It depends I suppose on how bad things get.
How bad things get depends on how slow people are to co-operate or how fast they are to fight.

From a practical point of view it depends how much money you have.

The Uk banks do have a guarantee scheme but they vary in the maximum paid out so good idea to read the individual banks guarantee. If you have savings that exceed the guarantee it is advisable to of course open accounts with different banks.

however not every bank that operates in the uk operates under the deposit protection scheme (some non uk banks operate here so appear to be uk based but operate on passports so are not fully regulated and protected

obviously this is as things stand today, negating a collapse of the banking system or introduction of scenario's described by Andy

Mike wrote:
It's an analogy to the overall picture. I'm not sure what it is you don't see about it. Borrowing loads of money - growth - money wanted back - banking collapse - austerity - selling off family jewels - work harder - high cost of living - borrowing loads of money.
Also the fact that banks are able to just print money based upon the signature of the creditor/debtor where only the signature is the lawful consideration. ie. mortgages. Then those mortgage notes are re-sold. If that's not taking the fucking piss, I don't know what is?

dawnbreak wrote: Yes, I do have a bank account, no, I don't have any money in it. If it was possible for me to get paid without a bank account, I wouldn't have one. I don't have any need for one whatsoever, I just can't get paid without one. I assume this is the case for most people.

Space Bandit wrote:
Explain this to people in 3rd world poverty who live without loans, homes, debt, cars and other luxuries.

.......... wrote: How do loans and debt reduce poverty? Do people in the third world genuinely live without loans, or are they in fact cripled by government debt?

jhado wrote: I don't think I'm in a position to offer financial advice. But I would advise you to read the Cyprus thread:

sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/todays-news/9158...ne.html?limitstart=0

...and judge for yourself.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Its a hell of a long time ago last time I remember getting paid with a brown envelope. Over 20 years ago.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
People use loans to by nice homes & cars or travel around the world ect...

You know, some of the things a debt free person living in a shack might wish they had to raise their quality of life.

.......... wrote: Off topic.