I’m aware the Daly decision was subsequently over-ruled and that is no great surprise given its implications.

Has anyone else read “The Grip of Death” by Michael Rowbotham? I gather it’s a key text for Ben at Positive Money.

The Dakly case is interesting I have read the various transcripts un happily it is a small case that was comprehensively killed as any sort of precedent by a more senior court.

There are some bigger cases coming together b’now in the States and in Scotland.

HGere are two links for starters. I am myself in touch with the Scottish law firm examining a case I have with the
UK ombudsman with a bank that is being chaklwenged for shabby practices in Scotland.

http://www.nationalmortgageinvestigation.com/banks-dont-lend-money

http://www.mbmcommercial.co.uk/financial_services_disputes_blog?id=112

I also have been in touch with Ben at positive money

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk and the institute of public finance in thev US

There needs to be a meaningful way to express our exasperation, and voting for a MEP simply isn’t it. The Zeitgeist movement might be a bit wacky/culty, but they think big, way way outside the box, and that is the kind of approach we need, IMHO.

A “big bazooka” approach, to quote that vacuous, cretinous excuse for a human being.

The system is absolutely gamed, the banks create money and we get upset when some of their wackier greedier schemes go wrong – so what? The bottom line is America will go to war with anyone and even the Chinese are wary of that – hence the dollar’s reserve currency status. They won’t give that up without one hell of a fight.

My own view is that we should challenge the legitimacy of money creation by the banks in the courts – there is no consideration in any conventional “loan” – the bank has not exchanged anything of value by creating credit on their accounts.

Jerome Daly vs First National Bank of Montgomery. It has been done before…

David is the best political blogger around, but…. the MEP idea was a non-starter.

We need a revolution.

That’s pretty much my take on it though I’d say it’s far less about gold and much more about land/property/commodity. This is money that wants to earn rent and the best way to do that is to own what everyone needs.

Once they have enough(if that’s possible), or the system impodes, they don’t care about having to action massive write offs, restart, and all that. Because they’ll have the assets and we’ll all be paying them rent.

By they i’m referring to the mix of wealth holders and the decision makers that are either one and the same or the latter are in the pockets of the former. They are quite happy to see depravation on a tremendous scale in order to build their financial fortresses. To be fair ‘happy’ probably isn’t the right word, these are sociopaths and they just don’t care, probably don’t even give it a thought.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2012_09_01_archive.html

I have been involved in a discussion on the Economist linked in group and the Gladstone Library coupled with that discussion led to one of my cut and paste efforts.

This blog on what Gladstone might have made of the financial cris led me to the site. Actually the Ruskin quote.

David Griebers debt the first 5000 years is included in the collection and some Gsalbraith still looking at the index.

Anyway I thought it might appeal to some of Davids regulars too.

Have a lovely Sunday.

Roger

http://www.gladstoneslibrary.org/capitalismcollection/

Hello Penny Bloater,
Sorry for the delay replying.
I agree with you that currency speculation is a blight. One can make the argument for some trading in currencies as teh only way of valuing them in a floating currency system. A simple way of discouraging specualive trading is to simply make it less lucrative. A transaction tax would work.

The bank lobbyists will bleat about loss of profit etc but it is just bleating.

Certainly we do have to take teh power of creating money out of thin air away from the banks. But it is easier to say than to do. The banks ‘create money’ – inflate teh money supply actually by inflating teh supply of credit. When they make a loan. You can restrict this function by making banking full reserve whch would stop fractional banking dead.

Or you can stop short of this and simply restrict teh amount of credit they can create by applying laws and limits to leverage. This was teh situation from teh Great Depression until around 2000 when the limits were lifted first in Europe and then in the US. This lifing of leverabge limits was a major component in the creation of the crash.

Over all what is most frustrating about our present situation is that there are steps which could be taken which would do a great deal to prevent any repeat, and they are both clear and achievable. Achievable in the sense of able to be done with the political will in place. What prevents us at present is the fact that our political system is no longer fit for purpose.

First all sides of our poitical system have become intellectually captured by a financial view which has failed. Even if it had not failed it is dangerous when one diea captureds the whole debate.

Second, there is abundant reason to look suspect that many of those who join the cry of ‘There is no alternative’, do so not because they have thought about it, but because the presnt system, diasterous as it clearly is for the many, benefits the few and those in charge are ‘the few’.

It is my personal feeling that if we have not passed the point at which civilized debate and change ceases to be a possible route to change, then we are very close to it. At some point those with vested interests in the status quo will not and feel they cannot reverse without facing catastrophic losses themselves. In that situation the ruling elite nearly always prefer to see Rome burn, and plan to escape the conflagration, rather than share their power and wealth in an attempt to solve the situatoin for all.