The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby B25 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:07 pm

Paphiti, you are talking utter bollocks here now. You show me a bank that will accept my say so on assets for loan without signing them over as security and I'll eat me hat.

There is not a bank that will give money with no security. Maybe in Cyprus in the past where the elite got such loans with no security, some of Paphos larger developers, mention no names ;) But we saw what happens to banks when they do this. They steal other peoples money.

Anyway, please advise which bank is happy to do this I wish to borrow a couple of mil.

Waiting ........
User avatar
B25
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6067
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:03 pm
Location: ** Classified **

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Paphitis » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:19 pm

B25 wrote:Paphiti, you are talking utter bollocks here now. You show me a bank that will accept my say so on assets for loan without signing them over as security and I'll eat me hat.

There is not a bank that will give money with no security. Maybe in Cyprus in the past where the elite got such loans with no security, some of Paphos larger developers, mention no names ;) But we saw what happens to banks when they do this. They steal other peoples money.

Anyway, please advise which bank is happy to do this I wish to borrow a couple of mil.

Waiting ........


OMG, show me where I said that.

Of course the Banks will take security over the assets.

For example, they will take security over the Homes, Rental Properties and Share Portfolios or whatever the Partners have used as Collateral to get a loan and buy their shares into the start up.

When the start up uses that money to buy other assets and then uses those assets to buy more equipment or for expansion, then they will take that as Collateral as well.

Everything is secured as far as the Bank is concerned. The will leverage you up to 80% on your personal assets and up to 70% on your business assets but you can go higher than that if you buy their insurance (about 90% or even 100%).

So yes, you can borrow 2 million if you have 2.4 million in Collateral and are able to prove that you have the income to sustain those borrowings. You can borrow up to 2.4 million against 2.4 million in assets if you're willing to pay through the nose.

What I said is that people and or businesses without enough Collateral can still do a lot of things by forming a Consortium (Partnerships) because they can pool their collateral together and each borrow and fund the venture that way. So you don't even need the Collateral to raise 2 million if everyone chips in for a stake. Fifiri can do anything he wants.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20971
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Robin Hood » Mon Mar 21, 2016 8:39 pm

Paphitis:
No I think that as long as the money keeps circulating and there are people willing to spend it, then the economy will be ok
.
There in lays the problem. In the current banking system money does not circulate! It is created from nothing ..... and is then destroyed, only to be resurrected again as another loan/debt. The debt just get bigger and bigger as the interest also has to be borrowed. It is an ever increasing spiral of debt that in real terms can NEVER be repaid. All this austerity is bullsh*t! All that does is reduce the amount of money in the REAL economy, whilst the debt money paid to the banks, for them to write off, steadily increases. That to me is a basket-case economy! The economy is NOT OK far from it!

If however, the State created the currency in exactly the same way commercial banks do, then money would truly circulate, there would be no debt and there would be no interest to pay! This is because the taxes recovered from people spending their income would go directly back to the State (Treasury), to be re-spent into the economy, instead of repaying it to the banks for them to just write it off their books and then raise it again as another loan.

If you have a sovereign currency, you just create enough simply to top up what goes out of the circulating currency system .... for example money spent on imported goods. It is therefore far more important to control the balance between imports and exports than the supply of money.
Well if you like Communism there is nothing stopping you from living in a Communist country. I really don't want Communism to succeed because where does that leave us if you want a bit more than just earn a wage or if you have a dream. Can you still own a Gulfstream IV for instance? Why shouldn't I be allowed to own one?

There is no such thing as a communist country! What is to say you can’t get rich under communism? Why can communism for the majority and extra gain through hard work and taking the risk, not work side by side taking the best from both system’s. They do not have to be incompatible.
....... should be free to do it and succeed or fall flat on their face.

So why did we not let the (TBTF) banks fall flat on their faces? Instead, we picked them up, stuffed their pockets with money and within no time they were back in the same sh*t that got them into trouble in the first place. Absolutely NOTHING has been done to prevent another economic collapse because of these cow-boys, just plans as to what to do to bail them out next time! And it is people like us that will see our banks accounts stripped as they did in Cyprus with the bail-in. They ‘lend’ the countries the very money they have just been given to bail them out, by buying Bonds (IOU’s) which is debt WE have to pay!

In most western economies the ‘bail-in’ is now the legal response to bank failures. I just ask you one question ....... How do you lose something that you never had in the first place?..... Because that is what the banks claim when a ‘loan’ (classed as a bank asset) goes belly up and becomes a liability (NPL) that ends up in the same column as your deposit with the bank. They then default on their debt repayment to you and I, and we foot the bill by reducing their liability to repay us our deposits. :evil:

Crazy, crazy, crazy .......... :evil: :evil: :evil:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Paphitis » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:01 pm

No I think that as long as the money keeps circulating and there are people willing to spend it, then the economy will be ok
.

Robin Hood wrote:There in lays the problem. In the current banking system money does not circulate! It is created from nothing ..... and is then destroyed, only to be resurrected again as another loan/debt. The debt just get bigger and bigger as the interest also has to be borrowed. It is an ever increasing spiral of debt that in real terms can NEVER be repaid. All this austerity is bullsh*t! All that does is reduce the amount of money in the REAL economy, whilst the debt money paid to the banks, for them to write off, steadily increases. That to me is a basket-case economy! The economy is NOT OK far from it!

If however, the State created the currency in exactly the same way commercial banks do, then money would truly circulate, there would be no debt and there would be no interest to pay! This is because the taxes recovered from people spending their income would go directly back to the State (Treasury), to be re-spent into the economy, instead of repaying it to the banks for them to just write it off their books and then raise it again as another loan.


I don't really care who creates the money RH as long as it keeps getting created. It can be the Banks or the Federal Reserve. It doesn't matter to me at all as long as the current system stays in place because I believe it works. And I ask you, if the Government takes all this over, will the market be competitive, or will this money be accessible to the elites only like it was in the past? That is scary to me. At least with private Banks, there is competitiveness in the market and everyone is treated equally against the lending criteria.

I don't want to see Communism, not because I do not believe in Social Justice or a safety net for the poor. I believe in these things and fully support the notion that society must take care of the vulnerable and to protect them.

I just don't like Communism because there goes my FREEDOM. I want my FREEDOM and treasure it. Yes, I believe in FREE ENTERPRISE too because that is the ultimate freedom for me. And why not be free to do what you want?

Robin Hood wrote:If you have a sovereign currency, you just create enough simply to top up what goes out of the circulating currency system .... for example money spent on imported goods. It is therefore far more important to control the balance between imports and exports than the supply of money.


I don't know about that. As I said, I just want the supply of money to be as is and I really don't want any interference from the State. If people do want it, then they can move to some countries where that happens.

Well if you like Communism there is nothing stopping you from living in a Communist country. I really don't want Communism to succeed because where does that leave us if you want a bit more than just earn a wage or if you have a dream. Can you still own a Gulfstream IV for instance? Why shouldn't I be allowed to own one?


Robin Hood wrote:There is no such thing as a communist country! What is to say you can’t get rich under communism? Why can communism for the majority and extra gain through hard work and taking the risk, not work side by side taking the best from both system’s. They do not have to be incompatible.


Well in China, it is supposedly a Communist Country (it isn't) but also the most capitalistic Nation on the planet. China has gone out of control. I can live under such a system, because there are hardly any restrictions. There are however political restrictions. You are not as free in China as you are in the EU or America for instance.

....... should be free to do it and succeed or fall flat on their face.


Robin Hood wrote:So why did we not let the (TBTF) banks fall flat on their faces? Instead, we picked them up, stuffed their pockets with money and within no time they were back in the same sh*t that got them into trouble in the first place. Absolutely NOTHING has been done to prevent another economic collapse because of these cow-boys, just plans as to what to do to bail them out next time! And it is people like us that will see our banks accounts stripped as they did in Cyprus with the bail-in. They ‘lend’ the countries the very money they have just been given to bail them out, by buying Bonds (IOU’s) which is debt WE have to pay!


Whoah! I don't think so. That is far too radical for me. Yes I think we should pick them up otherwise you are talking about complete bedlam and utter anarchy and chaos. What about all the depositors, which are mostly from the most vulnerable of society? A Billionaire is not exactly going to have his Billions in one Bank. They probably have the least money in the Bank.

Robin Hood wrote:In most western economies the ‘bail-in’ is now the legal response to bank failures. I just ask you one question ....... How do you lose something that you never had in the first place?..... Because that is what the banks claim when a ‘loan’ (classed as a bank asset) goes belly up and becomes a liability (NPL) that ends up in the same column as your deposit with the bank. They then default on their debt repayment to you and I, and we foot the bill by reducing their liability to repay us our deposits. :evil:

Crazy, crazy, crazy .......... :evil: :evil: :evil:


Yes and there is good reason for it. When a Bank fails, you can bet that it won't be the super rich who suffer. The most vulnerable pensioners might lose their savings. These deposits are suppose to be under a Capital Guarantee.

I am happy to stay as we are. It works everywhere around the world and the global economy will be ok if only 1 or 2 Banks go down. I don't have an issue with Governments issuing money only if the current volume and infrastructure can be maintained at its current level or increased and that the marketplace maintains its current competitiveness and current supply volume into the market. Money has to be cheap enough to allow people to borrow if that is what they want, and not just a resource available to a select few.

As for Capitalism Vs Communism, well I don't like Communism because they are going to tell me how I should live, what I will be paid (probably from the State), make me live in a unit with a small TV and radio to watch and listen to State Propaganda, and they are going to tell me what I can own and stop me from doing stuff. And if I have too much they are gonna take it from me.

Sorry but couldn't think of a worse fait. I would go bananas!

Doesn't mean that I believe the State doesn't have a responsibility to look after the vulnerable. They should do that, as well as provide everyone with great Health Cover and Education opportunities and concentrate these resources to the most poor who are mostly in need of support.

That stuff can exist with FREE Enterprise and hence complete FREEDOM and no restrictions against anyone or any business.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20971
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:41 am

Paphitis:
And I ask you, if the Government takes all this over, will the market be competitive, or will this money be accessible to the elites only like it was in the past?

Why should it change? The difference will be that the banks will be on the same footing as any other enterprise .......... if they want money they will have to borrow it from the Central Bank. That means the government not the Banks will hold the debt and the collateral. If you happen to lose your job and find you cannot pay the mortgage, then the government can seize your property but you get to remain in it ......... as a tenant and pay rent. When you find another job you tke up the mortgage from where you left off. The bank would just throw you onto the street for the government to look after and sell off your property.
At least with private Banks, there is competitiveness in the market and everyone is treated equally against the lending criteria.

But that would still be true as they would all need to borrow from the same source and under the same terms and conditions.
I believe in these things and fully support the notion that society must take care of the vulnerable and to protect them.

There is hope for you yet! :wink: But society cannot not do that without getting the money from some where! So why borrow it when you can create it debt free and interest free as a perpetual currency?
Yes, I believe in FREE ENTERPRISE too because that is the ultimate freedom for me.

But there have to be rules! I had a problem working in the UK, I had to follow the jobs! I worked in Oxford and lived in Chester. I was not allowed travelling costs or accommodation as expenses. The IR logic was ..... because I had no permanent place of work, everywhere was my normal place of work and I was not allowed expenses for travelling to my ‘normal’ place of work. But an MP can claim thousands for a second home when quite clearly London (Westminster) is his normal place of work. I quit and went abroad to work ..... tax free. My choice was FREE ENTERPRISE ..... but it was the UK that lost my income and taxes!
I really don't want any interference from the State.

You mean you don’t like rules unless they benefit you ..... that is just how most Cypriots seem to think!
China has gone out of control.

Exactly ..... but not because of Communism but because of capitalism. You know .... all these people who don’t like having some limits put on their exploitation of everyone else.
Yes I think we should pick them up otherwise you are talking about complete bedlam and utter anarchy and chaos.

I think you are in for a very big shock! The chaos and Bedlam is inevitable because nothing has been implemented in law to reign in the banking and financial systems. Glass Steegal should be reinstated to separate Casino ‘Banks’ from Commercial Banks and the Banking Act should be revised to prohibit the creation of ANY form of currency by anyone other than the State.

I am no economist but I understand the mechanics of money creation and banking operations and they are inherently evil and wide open to abuse. You need legislation to reign them in and the above would clip their wings by preventing that abuse.
It works everywhere around the world and the global economy will be ok if only 1 or 2 Banks go down. I don't have an issue with Governments issuing money only if the current volume and infrastructure can be maintained at its current level or increased and that the marketplace maintains its current competitiveness and current supply volume into the market.

See my comments above. But it does not work! It works in favour of a very small minority of the population but it has to be funded by those who are least able to afford to. They do this by introducing austerity, which of course has been an abject failure. (Ask the Greeks!) Austerity contracts the economy in favour of the rich who are given tax breaks as the poor lose their social care.
I don't like Communism because they are going to tell me how I should live

Again, you don’t like restrictive rules. Do you really think that countries in Europe and the US actually have freedom? In some US States it is illegal to grow your own vegetables, create off-grid electricity and they even have height limits on the flowers they let you grow. Nowhere has more restrictions on personal freedom than the US.
........ to watch and listen to State Propaganda

But you do already. Again, I believe that RT is banned in the US? Is that not promoting State propaganda by not allowing you freedom of choice to make up your own mind?
They should do that, as well as provide everyone with great Health Cover and Education opportunities and concentrate these resources to the most poor who are mostly in need of support.

But that takes money! Under the current system it is money that the State has to borrow from private banks so that they can make a profit. If the State creates the money, looking after all the social requirements for a free and fair society cost nothing. It all gets spent into the economy and eventually, via taxation on purchases as opposed to income, returns to the treasury to be put back into circulation. It does not affect the rich because they don’t have the responsibility of having to use their wealth directly, to support those less fortunate.

Your business jet, Rolls Royce, designer clothes, caviar and the little palace in the country ..... will just cost you more to buy as luxury sales taxes would be applied. Like all things ...... you pay more where cost is no great restriction anyway. Seems a fair system to me?
That stuff can exist with FREE Enterprise and hence complete FREEDOM and no restrictions against anyone or any business.

Well, as previously said, there have to be rules (limitations) but the State creating money debt free and interest free, would make it a far more sustainable system, than one based on private banks having the power to create the money required by the State as loans and with interest. The only ones that lose out will be the Bankers ....... and theyptoduce nothing anyway!!!!! :roll: :wink:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 22, 2016 8:43 am

And I ask you, if the Government takes all this over, will the market be competitive, or will this money be accessible to the elites only like it was in the past?


Robin Hood wrote:Why should it change? The difference will be that the banks will be on the same footing as any other enterprise .......... if they want money they will have to borrow it from the Central Bank. That means the government not the Banks will hold the debt and the collateral. If you happen to lose your job and find you cannot pay the mortgage, then the government can seize your property but you get to remain in it ......... as a tenant and pay rent. When you find another job you tke up the mortgage from where you left off. The bank would just throw you onto the street for the government to look after and sell off your property.


The thing is RH, and what I am telling you is that I am not convinced at all, and probably Free Enterprise doesn't want this equal footing because they want access to cheap and fast money. If the Government owns the supply of money, then like everything else, the cost of money will only go up and Free Enterprise will go in decline, and all of a sudden you have a Growing Lower Class and a diminishing Middle Class.

When Western Economies started privatizing all their assets from Airlines, to Electricity to Water, and Telcos etc, we had many other competitors come into the market and as a result we have cheaper Airline Tickets, cheaper electricity, cheaper water, and a cheaper phone and internet company.

Prove to me that this Government Monopoly won't destroy everything and force many Free Enterprises to shut down. Maybe it is change we all fear, and business don't like uncertainty or have the taps to cheap money controlled by STUPID politicians who will only look after their supporting elites.

At least with private Banks, there is competitiveness in the market and everyone is treated equally against the lending criteria.


Robin Hood wrote:But that would still be true as they would all need to borrow from the same source and under the same terms and conditions.


We need competition. Nothing stopping the Government from opening its own retail Bank though. It's a Free Market. Best thing ever!

I believe in these things and fully support the notion that society must take care of the vulnerable and to protect them.


Robin Hood wrote:There is hope for you yet! :wink: But society cannot not do that without getting the money from some where! So why borrow it when you can create it debt free and interest free as a perpetual currency?


I think you will find that one of the Natural Enemies of a Free Market and Free Enterprise and even to the Banks is in fact POVERTY. Nothing can kill an economy like poverty can.

But I would again like to point out that I would like to see a minimum safety net and protection for people not because of the above, but because it is only right.

Yes, I believe in FREE ENTERPRISE too because that is the ultimate freedom for me.


Robin Hood wrote:But there have to be rules! I had a problem working in the UK, I had to follow the jobs! I worked in Oxford and lived in Chester. I was not allowed travelling costs or accommodation as expenses. The IR logic was ..... because I had no permanent place of work, everywhere was my normal place of work and I was not allowed expenses for travelling to my ‘normal’ place of work. But an MP can claim thousands for a second home when quite clearly London (Westminster) is his normal place of work. I quit and went abroad to work ..... tax free. My choice was FREE ENTERPRISE ..... but it was the UK that lost my income and taxes!


There are rules and everything is tightly regulated. Some jurisdictions are more tight than others.

I can't comment about your tax laws, but yes it is true that Business have more ways of legally claiming more expenses, but they can't take the Tax Office for a ride either.

I really don't want any interference from the State.


Robin Hood wrote:You mean you don’t like rules unless they benefit you ..... that is just how most Cypriots seem to think!


No I mean I want the freedom to set up as many Businesses I like and be capable of buying lots of fine things and look after my family. And yes I have done it very tough before and even defaulted a couple of times.

China has gone out of control.


Robin Hood wrote:Exactly ..... but not because of Communism but because of capitalism. You know .... all these people who don’t like having some limits put on their exploitation of everyone else.


And it's great to see. All that wonderful economic development, and all those millions of people transitioning from poverty to the middle class and all those millions from the Middle to Upper Classes transitioning to the semi super wealthy.

Nothing can be more exciting that that, and if you are brave enough to lay your claim to a small piece of the action in China then GO FOR IT! :D

Capitalism is a beautiful thing! :wink:

Yes I think we should pick them up otherwise you are talking about complete bedlam and utter anarchy and chaos.


Robin Hood wrote:I think you are in for a very big shock! The chaos and Bedlam is inevitable because nothing has been implemented in law to reign in the banking and financial systems. Glass Steegal should be reinstated to separate Casino ‘Banks’ from Commercial Banks and the Banking Act should be revised to prohibit the creation of ANY form of currency by anyone other than the State.


Prove it. Unless you show me a viable alternative that has a proven track record that is better than the current State of Affairs of Capitalism, I think I will take my chances with the current State of Play.

Robin Hood wrote:I am no economist but I understand the mechanics of money creation and banking operations and they are inherently evil and wide open to abuse. You need legislation to reign them in and the above would clip their wings by preventing that abuse.


Yes that is the problem with many millions of people who have never taken a punt in life or taken out loans or gone to try and set something up for themselves. They just want to tear down the Banks because they think it is all a conspiracy theory. I'm not talking about you, but the system is available to anyone willing to avail themselves to it, and the Banks will only be too happy to help and you. Not in their interest to see you fail either.

It's like that documentary you posted earlier. Most of it is true. I agree. But it all sounded like bitter lemons too. Sorry to say that, but it is the truth.

It works everywhere around the world and the global economy will be ok if only 1 or 2 Banks go down. I don't have an issue with Governments issuing money only if the current volume and infrastructure can be maintained at its current level or increased and that the marketplace maintains its current competitiveness and current supply volume into the market.


Robin Hood wrote:See my comments above. But it does not work! It works in favour of a very small minority of the population but it has to be funded by those who are least able to afford to. They do this by introducing austerity, which of course has been an abject failure. (Ask the Greeks!) Austerity contracts the economy in favour of the rich who are given tax breaks as the poor lose their social care.


RH,

Greece went down because their economy was all wrong. I don't agree with Austerity or forcing the bottom end paying for the big end. never have, but Greece would also be in a lot more trouble if their supply was controlled by the State. The country would just shut down.

I don't like Communism because they are going to tell me how I should live


Robin Hood wrote:Again, you don’t like restrictive rules. Do you really think that countries in Europe and the US actually have freedom? In some US States it is illegal to grow your own vegetables, create off-grid electricity and they even have height limits on the flowers they let you grow. Nowhere has more restrictions on personal freedom than the US.


Yep! The less restrictions, the better!

Nope, I don't think there is freedom in the EU, USA, or Australia. There is only freedom for the political elites, milking the system and you want those elites to be in charge of the purse strings and set up your Socialist utopia.

I personally think political freedom and democracy is over rated and couldn't care less whether we vote or not. it's all as fake as hell.

I just want Commercial Freedom because then you can make your own rules, and potentially own your own luxury yacht etc. I know, I am a greedy and materialistic Capitalist.

........ to watch and listen to State Propaganda


Robin Hood wrote:But you do already. Again, I believe that RT is banned in the US? Is that not promoting State propaganda by not allowing you freedom of choice to make up your own mind?


No I don't. I read the Guardian for laughs. In a Socialist utopia, this comedy rag would be shut down. :lol:

They should do that, as well as provide everyone with great Health Cover and Education opportunities and concentrate these resources to the most poor who are mostly in need of support.


Robin Hood wrote:But that takes money! Under the current system it is money that the State has to borrow from private banks so that they can make a profit. If the State creates the money, looking after all the social requirements for a free and fair society cost nothing. It all gets spent into the economy and eventually, via taxation on purchases as opposed to income, returns to the treasury to be put back into circulation. It does not affect the rich because they don’t have the responsibility of having to use their wealth directly, to support those less fortunate.

Your business jet, Rolls Royce, designer clothes, caviar and the little palace in the country ..... will just cost you more to buy as luxury sales taxes would be applied. Like all things ...... you pay more where cost is no great restriction anyway. Seems a fair system to me?


What does free and fair society mean? Does that mean taking away our Gulfstreams, and Rolls Royce's?

Why? Did you have to even go without food on some days because you couldn't afford groceries? Doesn't sound very fair to me.

That stuff can exist with FREE Enterprise and hence complete FREEDOM and no restrictions against anyone or any business.


Robin Hood wrote:Well, as previously said, there have to be rules (limitations) but the State creating money debt free and interest free, would make it a far more sustainable system, than one based on private banks having the power to create the money required by the State as loans and with interest. The only ones that lose out will be the Bankers ....... and theyptoduce nothing anyway!!!!! :roll: :wink:


As I said, I don't care who creates money as long as the following criteria are met:
1) we still have a FREE MARKET,
2) with the least restrictions as is possible without hurting other people,
3) money remains a CHEAP and AVAILABLE commodity
4) and that money is even a CHEAPER and more AVAILABLE commodity.

And no, I don't want the State to take away my home and rent it back to me. What an insult. :roll:
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20971
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:31 am

Paphitis:
Last point first:
As I said, I don't care who creates money as long as the following criteria are met:


1) We still have a FREE MARKET, - but you would have a free market, in fact even more freedom than now because the banks would not be creating money that cost them nothing and then lending it to you, as a business, for a handsome mark –up. If the State provided the money they could control the initial rate (bank rate) and set a limit to the lending rate. Just as Cyprus used to do before they decided to use the Euro, where the banks were limited to charging a maximum of 9.5% (?)
2) With the least restrictions as is possible without hurting other people, - Well we have to have some control otherwise you get people like this Pharmaceutical guy in the US that bought up a small drug company and upped the price of a commonly used essential drug by 5,500% simply to make a bigger profit.
3) Money remains a CHEAP and AVAILABLE commodity – but money is very cheap ..... it costs the banks nothing to produce, but I don’t see them lending it at the rates they can get by depositing it in the Central Bank? Banks will charge what they think they can get away with and as the banking system is a Cartel .... that is just about anything!
4) ....and that money is even a CHEAPER and more AVAILABLE commodity. - Don’t be greedy!

And no, I don't want the State to take away my home and rent it back to me. What an insult.


So if you happen to have a mortgage, had an accident that stopped you from working for say six/nine months, you would feel content with the system where the bank took your property and threw you and your family onto the street? Whereas a Government could afford to give you a breathing space, with you just paying what you could afford, without having even more trauma imposed on you and the family by chucking you out? Or even the State paying your ‘rent’ until you were back on your feet and could resume your life again?

I don’t call that an insult .... I see it as having compassion for others who have a problem not of their making! :roll: :wink:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:16 pm

As I said, I don't care who creates money as long as the following criteria are met:


Robin Hood wrote:1) We still have a FREE MARKET, - but you would have a free market, in fact even more freedom than now because the banks would not be creating money that cost them nothing and then lending it to you, as a business, for a handsome mark –up. If the State provided the money they could control the initial rate (bank rate) and set a limit to the lending rate. Just as Cyprus used to do before they decided to use the Euro, where the banks were limited to charging a maximum of 9.5% (?)
2) With the least restrictions as is possible without hurting other people, - Well we have to have some control otherwise you get people like this Pharmaceutical guy in the US that bought up a small drug company and upped the price of a commonly used essential drug by 5,500% simply to make a bigger profit.
3) Money remains a CHEAP and AVAILABLE commodity – but money is very cheap ..... it costs the banks nothing to produce, but I don’t see them lending it at the rates they can get by depositing it in the Central Bank? Banks will charge what they think they can get away with and as the banking system is a Cartel .... that is just about anything!
4) ....and that money is even a CHEAPER and more AVAILABLE commodity. - Don’t be greedy!


You always say that RH but you don't show any evidence. This could very well be just wishful thinking.

It sounds like you are wanting BIG Government and a monopoly. I haven't seen any examples of how monopolies have actually been beneficial to the consumer or to Free Enterprise and business. I want small Government, and competition.

The last thing any of us would want to see is cronyism. Or a government having too much power, because one day you are going to get a stupid "genius" like Christofias who will just decide to raise Interest Rates to 18% thinking he will get the State out of Financial Trouble and at the same time tax the "rich". The end result is hundreds of businesses that will go to the cleaners and Unemployment at 30%. It's only the SME that will go to the cleaners because the Super Wealthy (the 0.01%) everyone hates or is envious of, is completely immune. You raise their Interest rates, they make more money. You raise their taxes, they go to the Canary Islands. They are not gonna stay and live in your Socialist Utopia either. They are gonna move and all the Socialists will just be looking at each other wondering what just happened.

Oh and btw, this problem you talk about in Cyprus is only prevalent in the EU. Other non EU countries actually have their own Central Bank and they actually decide on fiscal policy and control the interest rates. Cyprus lost that capability when it joined the Eurozone.

And no, I don't want the State to take away my home and rent it back to me. What an insult.


Robin Hood wrote:So if you happen to have a mortgage, had an accident that stopped you from working for say six/nine months, you would feel content with the system where the bank took your property and threw you and your family onto the street? Whereas a Government could afford to give you a breathing space, with you just paying what you could afford, without having even more trauma imposed on you and the family by chucking you out? Or even the State paying your ‘rent’ until you were back on your feet and could resume your life again?

I don’t call that an insult .... I see it as having compassion for others who have a problem not of their making! :roll: :wink:


Banks will give you breathing space too. They are not going to throw you on the streets under such circumstances. Firstly, it is illegal for them to do that. Yes, there are regulations and restrictions.

Communication with the Banks will invariably result in them suspending your payments for 9 months. They will even do this when females stop work due maternity leave.

Sorry, but I can't trust Government to show compassion. This compassion only comes the way of the Cronies. For instance, what if Anastasiades found out you were a Christofias voter or vice versa? Will he throw me on the street? What if you have a complete and utter looney as your Government - Assad, Pootin, Trump, Hitler, Ceausescu, Stalin, Mugabe (who btw confiscated all land and farms from the white Rhodesian population) etc etc?

That is how jobs are handed out.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20971
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:32 pm

Paphitis:
You always say that RH but you don't show any evidence. This could very well be just wishful thinking
.
You cannot show evidence. ‘Communist’/’Capitalist’ countries have never tried to embrace the principals of Capitalism and Communism and enjoy the best of both worlds, as both fear the other system will dominate. You demonstrate that by your comments. You have a fear that a socialist program will automatically be detrimental to capitalism. I don’t believe that to be necessarily true and that both can run side-by-side and that the key to it is the way money is created.

It sounds like you are wanting BIG Government and a monopoly. I haven't seen any examples of how monopolies have actually been beneficial to the consumer or to Free Enterprise and business. I want small Government, and competition.

The World is full of monopolies none more so than the US/EU. Both groups are run by Banks, as is much of the rest of the financial World. There are about five major banks that dominate, and they are all ‘too-big-to-fail’ you cannot get more monopolistic than that. BUT , what could be more socialist in principal than bailing out the banks, using other peoples money, because of their failure? How many bankers have been brought to trial for the fraud and the theft they have committed. They are above the law as are the politicians that put them there. That is what monopolies do.

The last thing any of us would want to see is cronyism. Or a government having too much power, because one day you are going to get a stupid "genius" like Christofias who will just decide to raise Interest Rates to 18% thinking he will get the State out of Financial Trouble and at the same time tax the "rich". The end result is hundreds of businesses that will go to the cleaners and Unemployment at 30%. It's only the SME that will go to the cleaners because the Super Wealthy (the 0.01%) everyone hates or is envious of, is completely immune.

Cyprus thrives on it! From the Government, the Unions, Lawyers, Doctors, the Police ...... the list is endless. Add to that an inefficient, privileged, overpaid and underemployed civil service and I agree with you. But Christophias lived up to his name, he was a village boy and thought like one. Anastasiades is really no better! But I would wager that neither of them or their political friends and enemies, know very much about economics ..... and BTW, neither do most accountants or bankers, surprisingly.

You raise their taxes, they go to the Canary Islands (Cayman Islands ??? .... the Canary Islands are not a tax haven.). They are not gonna stay and live in your Socialist Utopia either. They are gonna move and all the Socialists will just be looking at each other wondering what just happened.


That is because they consider themselves to be above all population. That is evidenced by the petulance demonstrated when they don’t get the respect they think they deserve.

Oh and btw, this problem you talk about in Cyprus is only prevalent in the EU (Eurozone?). Other non EU countries actually have their own Central Bank and they actually decide on fiscal policy and control the interest rates. Cyprus lost that capability when it joined the Eurozone.


Cyprus’ economy was sound until they joined the Eurozone, like all the others that took that route. Anyone with a grain of common sense could see that it would not work. The economies and the wages were too diverse for such a system to work. The same also applies to the US, strange as that may seem. Each State had its own Central Bank and currency, until ‘they’ decided on the principal of The DollarZone and The FED and until then it worked well. Now they have one central bank (with branches) that calls the shots and the poor states got pooer whilst the richer States got richer. The EuroZone, which was an American idea, has gone exactly the same way.

Capitalism has not survived because it is the best system, it has survived because it has almost eradicated the principals of the social society. There is no space in capitalism for any serious form of social structure because that would mean those that had not worked for ‘it’ would still get ‘it’ from the State, such as health care, education and a social safety net.

As for banks having compassion ........ that is not really true. They work to the bottom line, like any business and the bottom line is profit. I once had a conversation with a Director of the Halifax who said that any interest paid to the bank is profit, the repayment of the capital sum, or not, had virtually zero effect on the banks profits. I have to say he DID understand the principal of the creation of money. So in a way you are right, but it does not work that way in principal.

What I am trying to get over to an obviously staunch Capitalist is that if the State creates all the currency, debt free and interest free, it does not affect your ability to operate as a capitalist. There needs to be no more and no less control (in general). The only thing that has changed is what you say you don’t care about anyway ........... that is who creates the currency you need!

The banks will charge you interest even if they get the currency for nothing, as that is their primary source of income. A government created currency would not change that principal for the banks only that they, like you would have to borrow from source what they needed to operate.

The difference is that the currency created by banks is LENT into the economy and has to be repaid; but the currency created by a government is SPENT into the economy through the government and is perpetual .... it is not destroyed by the left hand and then recreated by the right hand so that a profit can be made. Your availability of currency would still be from the banks, whereas government expenditure would be controlled by the Central Bank, distributed through the Treasury and spent into the economy by government. The latter creation of currency provides huge benefits for the provision of a social society for the less entrepreneurial of us, without having to tax the rich to do it.

You might even benefit if you happened to own a business that provide things the government wanted ...... maybe instead of renting jets, you could build them ...... and ALL financed by the government? I would have thought with interest free financing? They are going to get back all the money they pay you through taxation on your, your employees and contractors expenditure anyway. The government spends back into the system next year what the tax system takes from it this year. They don’t even need to charge income tax.

Does that not make sense to you? :?:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: BBC – THE SUPER-RICH ..... and us!

Postby Paphitis » Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:45 pm

Robin Hood wrote:Paphitis:
You always say that RH but you don't show any evidence. This could very well be just wishful thinking
.
You cannot show evidence. ‘Communist’/’Capitalist’ countries have never tried to embrace the principals of Capitalism and Communism and enjoy the best of both worlds, as both fear the other system will dominate. You demonstrate that by your comments. You have a fear that a socialist program will automatically be detrimental to capitalism. I don’t believe that to be necessarily true and that both can run side-by-side and that the key to it is the way money is created.

It sounds like you are wanting BIG Government and a monopoly. I haven't seen any examples of how monopolies have actually been beneficial to the consumer or to Free Enterprise and business. I want small Government, and competition.

The World is full of monopolies none more so than the US/EU. Both groups are run by Banks, as is much of the rest of the financial World. There are about five major banks that dominate, and they are all ‘too-big-to-fail’ you cannot get more monopolistic than that. BUT , what could be more socialist in principal than bailing out the banks, using other peoples money, because of their failure? How many bankers have been brought to trial for the fraud and the theft they have committed. They are above the law as are the politicians that put them there. That is what monopolies do.

The last thing any of us would want to see is cronyism. Or a government having too much power, because one day you are going to get a stupid "genius" like Christofias who will just decide to raise Interest Rates to 18% thinking he will get the State out of Financial Trouble and at the same time tax the "rich". The end result is hundreds of businesses that will go to the cleaners and Unemployment at 30%. It's only the SME that will go to the cleaners because the Super Wealthy (the 0.01%) everyone hates or is envious of, is completely immune.

Cyprus thrives on it! From the Government, the Unions, Lawyers, Doctors, the Police ...... the list is endless. Add to that an inefficient, privileged, overpaid and underemployed civil service and I agree with you. But Christophias lived up to his name, he was a village boy and thought like one. Anastasiades is really no better! But I would wager that neither of them or their political friends and enemies, know very much about economics ..... and BTW, neither do most accountants or bankers, surprisingly.

You raise their taxes, they go to the Canary Islands (Cayman Islands ??? .... the Canary Islands are not a tax haven.). They are not gonna stay and live in your Socialist Utopia either. They are gonna move and all the Socialists will just be looking at each other wondering what just happened.


That is because they consider themselves to be above all population. That is evidenced by the petulance demonstrated when they don’t get the respect they think they deserve.

Oh and btw, this problem you talk about in Cyprus is only prevalent in the EU (Eurozone?). Other non EU countries actually have their own Central Bank and they actually decide on fiscal policy and control the interest rates. Cyprus lost that capability when it joined the Eurozone.


Cyprus’ economy was sound until they joined the Eurozone, like all the others that took that route. Anyone with a grain of common sense could see that it would not work. The economies and the wages were too diverse for such a system to work. The same also applies to the US, strange as that may seem. Each State had its own Central Bank and currency, until ‘they’ decided on the principal of The DollarZone and The FED and until then it worked well. Now they have one central bank (with branches) that calls the shots and the poor states got pooer whilst the richer States got richer. The EuroZone, which was an American idea, has gone exactly the same way.

Capitalism has not survived because it is the best system, it has survived because it has almost eradicated the principals of the social society. There is no space in capitalism for any serious form of social structure because that would mean those that had not worked for ‘it’ would still get ‘it’ from the State, such as health care, education and a social safety net.

As for banks having compassion ........ that is not really true. They work to the bottom line, like any business and the bottom line is profit. I once had a conversation with a Director of the Halifax who said that any interest paid to the bank is profit, the repayment of the capital sum, or not, had virtually zero effect on the banks profits. I have to say he DID understand the principal of the creation of money. So in a way you are right, but it does not work that way in principal.

What I am trying to get over to an obviously staunch Capitalist is that if the State creates all the currency, debt free and interest free, it does not affect your ability to operate as a capitalist. There needs to be no more and no less control (in general). The only thing that has changed is what you say you don’t care about anyway ........... that is who creates the currency you need!

The banks will charge you interest even if they get the currency for nothing, as that is their primary source of income. A government created currency would not change that principal for the banks only that they, like you would have to borrow from source what they needed to operate.

The difference is that the currency created by banks is LENT into the economy and has to be repaid; but the currency created by a government is SPENT into the economy through the government and is perpetual .... it is not destroyed by the left hand and then recreated by the right hand so that a profit can be made. Your availability of currency would still be from the banks, whereas government expenditure would be controlled by the Central Bank, distributed through the Treasury and spent into the economy by government. The latter creation of currency provides huge benefits for the provision of a social society for the less entrepreneurial of us, without having to tax the rich to do it.

You might even benefit if you happened to own a business that provide things the government wanted ...... maybe instead of renting jets, you could build them ...... and ALL financed by the government? I would have thought with interest free financing? They are going to get back all the money they pay you through taxation on your, your employees and contractors expenditure anyway. The government spends back into the system next year what the tax system takes from it this year. They don’t even need to charge income tax.

Does that not make sense to you? :?:


I never spoke about Compassion. I don't believe government has any Compassion either. So no different.

There are however Consumer Protections, and hes, if borrowers are experiencing Financial Hardship, all they need to do is Communicate with their Bank. The Bank is obligated under law to respond and come to an agreement or Variation in the Loan which will assist the consumer get over the difficulty they are experiencing.

That could involve a number of things, and even payment suspension in the case of a serious accident or illness.

The Bank is not allowed to proceed to closure and throw families or farmers on the street. If they did, then they would deal with significant product and image damage.

Hardship variations should be in the T&Cs as well - required by law.

Oh and money can't be free. I don't believe so anyway. Money will always have a cost to it. How else will the Bank pay for the wages and electricity bill and other overhead.

If money is free, then you need to tax depositors. That would include pensioners and the most vulnerable. Don't see that working.

But I like the idea of free money. Just don't think it's realistic. Plus, we pretty much have a situation where money is ALMOST free right now, around the world. Interest Rates have never been this low, and it is nice.

This free money lark is like a double edged sword too. Now imagine a Pensioner trying to stay ahead of inflation. Shouldn't they get an Interest payment from their deposits?

The super rich won't bother with Interest.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 20971
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests