andyh wrote:
You think a bank should provide administration for free? Humm no problem if you expect no payment for any service you provide I guess. How the fee is paid is irrelevant whether it's paid up front at the end or over the course of the loan makes no odds. The point is the staff who manage the transactions would require payment in the same way as other people working would expect the same.

No available credit that is not managed can lead to inflated prices. Someone taking an advance on their future labor allows them flexibility.

@Dub

The flag is a coloured rag. The Constitution Group is a system based on what we have already got in place which would function if the corruption is removed. The whole point is to return to a proper common law jurisdiction using the our existing constitution. Why would they run up a new flag when many members of the public understand what it used to represent for many. Worrying about the design of a rag that flaps in the wind is pointless.

The fact remains that the average person has some concept of money regardless of how flawed that concept is. Rejecting it completely will not happen in anything like a realistic time scale. Could you please explain in detail where the proposition of the Lawful Bank falls down?

Maybe you could provide an alternative solution which addresses the legal, political and financial aspects which are currently totally dis-functional and corrupt at every level?

Fixing or even attempting to fix just one area isn't going to provide a long term solution.

I stand by my considered view. BCG is BNP in disguise. Nationalist supporters of the system.

I don't see much use in trying to point out how such a concept as money is inherently fucked to those that can't see it for themselves. I tried it at the DIF. The ridiculous "arguments" proposed in response just about made me want to peel my skin off.

Frog wrote:
Its called slavery frog. Same old game as far as I'm concerned.
Its pointless discussing it any further because I'm dead set against FR with or without interest.

andyh wrote:

dubmeup wrote:
That's an unsubstantiated opinion. Entering a debate about a fucking flag at this stage of the game is the equivalent of you standing there deciding what curtains to put up as the bailiffs stroll up the garden path. I hope you and your offspring manage OK under the fascist EU state.

Humm yet another unproductive and totally pointless post with no hint of a solution. How exactly do you propose to introduce a new system and concept to 60 million people who can't grasp the most rudimentary concept of money? It aint going to happen!
andyh wrote:
You're quite right it is pointless entering a discussion on the subject if you think an interest free loan is the same as slavery. If we were talking about the means by which you earned the money maybe the point would be vaguely valid.

Maybe one day could explain the ideal system and exactly how you think you will sell the idea to 60 million people?

At least there are people out there actually coming up with workable solutions and actually walking the talk! They could sit in forums blowing a breeze like it's some third rate sixth form philosophy debate.

The time for talking shit passed long ago!

Frog wrote:
Dear oh dear, they've certainly got to you aint they.

Maybe, maybe not. At least I'll be spending my life chatting about the reality of money rather than touting some pointless and equally crappy 'alternative' that aint exactly too far removed from the status quo.

This emote comes to mind the way you are about these Union Flag waving Nationalist fools.

Frog wrote:
Bankrupt man suggests swapping your fiat money for his fiat money.
Hmm.

It's reinventing the wheel, but badly, with a definite air of 'scam'.

dubmeup wrote:
I couldn't care less what rag is used to represent anything! You're the one who seems to be trapped in the mindset that thinks it's relevant. The point is a decent percentage of 60 million people need to embrace any solution. Good luck with the EU fascists the blue and yellow will go well next to the PFC badge. Maybe you could unit the country under that banner.

Space Bandit wrote:
Provide a solution that stands any chance of holding water and will be acceptable to an sufficient number of people. I'm all ears!

Money is simply a means of exchange the value comes from sweat equity and the conversion of raw material to usable products.

If you can't provide a meaning full critique of the proposals of the Lawful Bank or the British Constitution Group there is not much point in blowing bubbles on the topic.

Frog wrote:
To be perfectly frank I'm rather enjoying your little bout of ad hominem

If you don't think the Union Flag has any relevance I suggest you have a look into such things. Anyway let's face it the whole BCG thing presents no alternative to the system. It in fact relies on the system for the arguments it presents to the system.

Frog wrote:
The proof is in the pudding as they say...
let us know how it goes when you hand your money over eh?

btw, discounting one theory does not equate to having to replace it with another one... that's not logical argument.

dubmeup wrote:
If you had comprehended what was said I made the point that I personally don't give a shit what rag people unit under. I do understand that a significant number of the other people in the country are interested in the design of a piece of cotton sheet. Where is the Ad hominem? You put a lot of stock in flags you made that fact clear, you even have one that you unit under as an avatar. That suggests that you are in fact trapped in that mind set. The EU state will be settling into place while you blow the breeze. That's a fact if we don't take some form of positive action to prevent it.

Here is an Ad Hominum "This emote comes to mind the way you are about these Union Flag wav­ing Nation­al­ist fools." complete with images in the original post.

I never claimed that the proposals of the BCG were radically different from the current system The whole point is that it isn't drastically different from what people know and understand! On that basis this solution has a much higher chance of acceptance from the wider majority. It does offer real benefits which are lacking in the system as it is now, which could and would work more efficiently if the constitutions was observed and the protection mechanism were actually employed. The problem we have under the current system is due to corruption and self protection mechanisms which have been established by undermining the constitutional fail-safes.

There is no other project which is as mature, proactive or organised as the BCG which has a conventional enough mandate to achieve a reasonable adoption rate by the general public. On that basis I see a benefit in supporting the movement.

Its as simple as this frog.
You print more money, you inflate the supply of it and thereby devalue the currency.
Interest free is no good if you just replace it with fees for chrissake the fees are just going to be set as high as the profit made on interest or no-ones going to bother with the business...a business that needless to say quite simply should not exist.
Treasury should print its own money as a separate branch of govt, banks should never be allowed to print money and govt should spend the money into projects that the electorate want and people should be taxed solely to control inflation.

Thats all there is to it, its very simple tbh.



What BCG proposes is not a total solution by any means. It might help to have co-op FR banks but it hardly cures everything as the core issues remain.
You'll notice the young lad in the vid says that we do NOT need new lending or new debt, we need less.
Its not rocket science.
The BCG talks about old british law and yet doesn't bother to mention the 1844 banking reform act?

www.positivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uplo...n-Plain-English1.pdf

*trying to spot the flag in me avvy*

andyh wrote:
No that's too simplistic. In terms of lending you can loan money at no interest the equity is the promise to repay from the fruits of your labor (value). When the repayments are made the money is disposed of it's not added back into the system. There by the value is maintained.

The fees required need to cover the cost of administration unless you think that people should work for nothing (slavery). There is nothing to suggest that the fee would need to be set at a level equivalent to an interest charge. But of course you know that already assuming you have actually taken the time to listened to the various presentations and audio available.

It makes no difference who prints/issues the money what matters is the system for managing the issuance along with the prevention of fraudulent activity and manipulation.

Again assuming that you have listened to the presentations from the BCG and the Lawful Bank you will be aware that it involves a multifaceted approach which addresses the legal framework, government and banking. The proposal being aimed at management at a local level in most cases. The banks would be a series of local branches which are operated by businesses and people in the local area for the benefit of the local community.

As they point out on their website there are a number of different solutions and they simply offer one alternative. What they don't offer is an over all package which addresses the failures with in the legal system or government. Without establishing a series of reforms within all areas the system isn't viable. The financial issues are simply a part of the overall problem which has been facilitated by the failures in management of legal and government fields.

As you have taken the time to view the presentations from the BCG and Lawful Bank I assume that you're aware that the two are associated not actually the same body. The BCG is primarily concerned with legal and political aspects, while the Lawful Bank is simply concerned with banking. The two combined form a more comprehensive strategy.

To be honest reading some of the content in your responses makes me wonder if you have actually spent any time listening to what the two groups are proposing. If you have you seem to be ignoring much of what they are saying and how they intend to achieve their goals. They are quite clear about what and why they intend to do things in the way they propose. A major element of their proposition is to place individuals in a stronger and more responsible financial position.

dubmeup wrote:
I guess the concept of a banner, badge or flag is a difficult one to grasp.

D00d....

You create money out of thin air and charge a fee for the privilege and then try to say thats a good thing here on this forum of all places.
I expected better tbh.

I do NOT expect people to 'work' for nothing but I expect SOMETHING in return for the payment..capiche?

Perhaps not

What do you expect the fee to be? Cheap? The other ones got bells on it mate.

As for it doesn't matter who prints money... I am disappoint.

Frog wrote:
Excellent Keep them coming

andyh wrote:
They are facilitating, recording the transactions and processing the transactions for you. In your world that seems to equate to doing nothing. The people talking to you and filing your shit need to be paid! The bank would be operated local people and businesses in your community/area. It actually isn't a dissimilar concept to that in the presentation you linked to. It's a ground up system with similar objectives for stimulation. You clearly missed some of the fundamentals in the Lawful bank presentations if you can't see that.

If you had reviewed the information presented by the Lawful Bank you would already have some ideas about what fees would be involved and other aspects which clearly you are not familiar with.

How does it matter who prints the shit? The thing that matters is the legitimacy and integrity of the control mechanism!

the problem I have with the lawful bank is that the numbers just dont add up - if the fees charged for loans are purely for admin where does the money come from for interest payments on deposits? Unless the lawful bank intends like current banks to also gamble with the deposit money in order to make more to pay the interest.

Add to that that in order to work tams need to be accepted as currency by vendors which would mean they would need to be accepted by mainstream banks as legal tender - an example - I sell my handmade bag for ten tams to you my option would either be to deposit it in the lawful bank or spend it with someone else who accepts tams - I could not pay my bills with the tams nor could I deposit them in an account with barclays (i do not have a bank account so for me that point is moot but for most it wont) - Who will set the exchange rate for tams and based against what? if £10 sterling = tams100 - then tams would be 'worth' ten tams to the pound - which means the extra tams you would get are worthless in essence.

The other problem I have is that lawful banks will be free from all safe guards currently offered by legislation - Currently deposits up to or over a certain amount are protected and guaranteed - if my local lawful bank collapsed my deposits would be lost - I personally cannot afford that.

I applaud the fact that there is some real thought going into real change - I personally am not convinced enough to put my money into the trust of the lawful bank - for the above and other reasons.

I havent looked at the lawful bank stuff for a while so will happily go look again if anything I have said above has been addressed and new ideas brought to the table.