Held hostage by banks

By Tim Price Jul 27, 2012

Tim Price

Share with
friends:

Comments (13) Print this article

For the last two weeks here in the UK, TV stations have been running a documentary series called Bank of Dave, in which down-to-earth businessman Dave Fishwick attempts to establish his own bank.

The premise sounds plausible: offer depositors 5% interest (as opposed to zero), and lend to credible small businesses that are otherwise ignored by the majors.

But as the irrepressible Dave soon discovers, getting a new banking licence in the UK isn't easy.

Bank of Dave has obviously been, albeit inadvertently, deliciously well-timed, arriving on television and computer screens accompanied by increasingly shrill coverage of interest rate rigging in the Libor manipulation scandal.

Granted, news of the world's biggest banks colluding to manipulate interest rates to their own benefit has spark a major debate about banking. But what's frustrating about the banking debate is how narrowly focused most contributors are.

Critics of the commercial banks loudly vent their outrage at the covert manipulation of interest rates, for example. But almost nobody thinks to question the overt manipulation of interest rates on the part of central banks.

It is generally accepted that central banks should be allowed to set interest rates. In the US, the base rate is effectively zero.

In the UK, it’s now being held at 0.50%, explicitly to help the banking sector at the expense of all non-bank members of the population who are unable to earn an economic return on their savings.

One might ask why we take this official rate manipulation for granted. One would also ask why the economically critical business of saving is being so offhandedly crushed in the name of banking expedience...

Why, for example, do we need a central bank at all?


DR banner

Receive Bill Bonner's free daily email 'The Daily Reckoning' straight to your inbox


 

A typical if feeble answer is that we need a lender of last resort. To which the next question is... Why? Why do we need a government-appointed entity to support banks that get in over their heads?

A typical answer to that one is that if our banks start failing, our society starts going down the toilet. (It already has, but never mind.)

So now we have the worst of all possible worlds. Our banks are already failing, in the sense of no longer functioning according to the principles of offering an economic rate to depositors and offering economic funding to borrowers.

Plus, now we have ended up with a handful of quasi-nationalised banking group zombies that appear to be being run for the sole purpose of being granted dollops of money that they are free to hoard whenever the central bank deems it appropriate to depreciate our currencies some more.

If our banks were free to fail, a) we would have no need of a central bank, and b) we would have no need for banking guarantees.

Banking deposit agreements would simply come with a giant ‘caveat emptor’ on them, and depositors might be able to start earning a positive real interest rate on their savings again.

Abolishing central banks and their core functions would have the happy and non-trivial side effect of reintroducing something akin to sound money into the world economy, rather than living with permanent inflation and having the entire economy held hostage by banking interests.

• Tim Price is the author of the True Value newsletter. Find out more about True Value here .

• Don't miss the next issue of the Daily Reckoning. To receive the next article straight into your inbox as soon as it's written, sign up to the email list here .

Information in The Daily Reckoning is for general information only and is not intended to be relied upon by individual readers in making (or not making) specific investment decisions. Appropriate independent advice should be obtained before making any such decision. Your capital is at risk when you invest in shares - you can lose some or all of your money, so never risk more than you can afford to lose. Always seek personal advice if you are unsure about the suitability of any investment. The Daily Reckoning is an unregulated product published by Fleet Street Publications Ltd. Customer services: 020 7633 3600. Fleet Street Publications Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do FSA number: 1152 34

Comments (13)

Share with
friends:

Comments

  • 1. Critic Al Rick

    (27 July 2012, 06:06PM)  Complain about this comment

    Quote: 'Why do we need a government appointed entity to support banks that get in over their heads?'

    Response:
    Is the entity (the ownership of which is subject to the Official Secrets Act) appointed by the government?

    Is such an entity, evidently appointed to support banks, needed by us?

    Let's argue that the answer to both of these questions is "No"; then one can logically state:
    'The BoE is appointed by an authority above the government and acting in the interests of banks. Furthermore, the BoE is directing the government to act in the interests of banks rather than in the interests of us.'

    And if that be the case ... we are not as much living in a democracy as in a totalitarian state.

    In that case, who do you think are the budding totalitarians?

  • 2. B2DF

    (27 July 2012, 08:57PM)  Complain about this comment

    Just split banking from casino-type functions. The wing responsible for casino functions needs no support and would never be to-bi-to-fail.

  • 3. rpaco

    (28 July 2012, 11:30AM)  Complain about this comment

    What angered me most in the "Bank of Dave" was that the FSA refused to even talk to Dave Fishwick. It is obvious that their noses are so far up in the air that they cannot see where they are going. They have failed on the largest scale possible to do their job regulate the major banks but think themselves above talking to one of the people who could very obviously do a much better job than they have.
    The FSA should resign in abject shame and be replaced by a body not behoven to the very banks they were supposed to control.
    The refusal to talk to Dave is arrogance beyond belief.

  • 4. david

    (28 July 2012, 09:51PM)  Complain about this comment

    0.5% base rate is to help bankrupt governments as much as banks.

    governments need central banks to print cash
    to buy their bonds.

    It has taken me years to see the light. I have sold all govt bonds .

    government bonds are garanteed notes of confiscation.

    I reckon majority of gilt purchases nowadays are.

    1. bank of england With printing press cash

    2. Commercial banks with loans from central bank

    3. pension funds forced buyer By law!.

    It all boils down to bankrupt socialist government

    All one has to do is study south american public financial history to see clearly where we are heading .
    Its not pretty!!!!!!!!1

  • 5. Chester

    (30 July 2012, 07:04AM)  Complain about this comment

    Excellent - if we are serious about the reform of banks and the nature of our bankrupt financial system, we are finally asking the right question

    My concern for years has been how to put an end to this unelected, unaccountable group of fraudsters and thieves. It seems few understand the underlying damage they have done, and continue to do daily. The politico's won't kill their golden goose, so who will?

  • 6. DavidH

    (30 July 2012, 10:29AM)  Complain about this comment

    We need reform of our politicians and senior civil servants in parallel with the banks. If these people had been on money purchase pensions as are now the greater proportion of the wealth creators, we would not be in the mess we are now, since they would be looking out for their own long term interests as well as short term interests. At the moment, they have no incentive to look at the long term. And certainly not the experience!

  • 7. LERENARD

    (31 July 2012, 02:37PM)  Complain about this comment

    'Banking deposit agreements would simply come with a giant ‘caveat emptor’ on them,.......' In other words innocent ordinary depositors would be totally at the mercy of the banks and could lose all their savings. There would be zero peace of mind and zero confidence in the system. We have been there before !

  • 8. Boris MacDonut

    (31 July 2012, 06:07PM)  Complain about this comment

    RBS should be fully nationalised. The risky bits sold off to some gullible greedy institution like Santander and the the core banking activity should become a state backed lending business.You never know, maybe they could even take on the role the Post Office used to perform.Perhaps they could even deliver letters on weekdays and within 2 days of sending them. Something Royal Mail gave up years ago. I am down to getting letters on 4 days a week often 8 or 9 days late.

  • 9. 4caster

    (31 July 2012, 10:22PM)  Complain about this comment

    Like #7 LERENARD, I would not be happy if the often small life savings of the "person in the street" were to enjoy no protection from the reckless activities of greedy, racketeering or merely incompetent bankers.
    And as a matter of fact, in the UK at least, deposit protection is provided by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which is quite separate from the Central Bank. Therefore the Bank of England could be abolished (and I accept that there is a case for doing that) without disturbing the FSCS, which is funded by a levy on all banks which in turn rely on the guarantee to attract depositors.

  • 10. Critic Al Rick

    (31 July 2012, 11:49PM)  Complain about this comment

    Boris, in principle you're right about RBS, it could give serious competition to the Banksters Cartel; in practice, it won't happen because "they're all (bankers and politicos) in it together".

    We're stuffed. And so will they be.

  • 11. Donald

    (01 August 2012, 08:38AM)  Complain about this comment

    Most disconcerting: I had heard rumours that the BoE is really owned by certain "secret" families. Finding this hard to believe I went to Companies House and found that The Bank of England is protected by Royal Charter ( "company number RC000042" ) - they would not give me the information, specifically who owned the Bank. Furthermore, there are nominees (Parliament) but we are not allowed to know who ACTUALLY owns the BoE. Astounding. Furthermore, Congressman Ron Paul is presently trying to "Audit The Fed" in the USA, but being prevented from doing this. He is trying to get his bill through the Senate to overcome this. I understand this will be very difficult because of "lobbying" by Wall Street to prevent the "Audit of The Fed". WHAT do they have to hide???

  • 12. Donald

    (01 August 2012, 11:06AM)  Complain about this comment

    Just found this very interesting 6 minute video-clip on how Iceland got itself out of the mess it was in (and back to nearly 3% growth) by jailing the bankers - not rewarding them:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4Z3rm4r-4&feature=youtu.be

  • 13. Boris MacDonut

    (02 August 2012, 02:01PM)  Complain about this comment

    #10Rick. I do think nationalising RBS is a distinct possibility. Of course the greedy career bureaucrat bankers will be found bolt holes a other banks first. But RBS is not a viable business.It's price to biook ratio has languished below .20 for 5 years. Mitch Feierstein tells us any ratio under 0.60 means the bank is failing under 0.40 it is already drowning. The network of counters is the real asset for the UK population and the Government should run it asap.

Leave a comment

This will be the name displayed with your comment.

This helps us verify comments are genuine. It will not be displayed anywhere on the site and is stored confidentially.

Please keep your comment within 1,000 characters and relevant to the main topic. We encourage healthy debate, but we don't allow insults or bad language. Anything off topic or unpleasant, we'll remove. Enjoy the conversation! Thank you.

captcha To prevent spam-related comments please enter the characters shown in the 'Captcha' box to the left.

By leaving a comment you accept our terms and conditions.


FREE - MoneyWeek's daily investment emailJohn Stepek

Our free daily email, Money Morning, is an informative and enjoyable analysis of what's going on in the markets. Written by our Editor, John Stepek, and guest contributors.
Sign up FREE to Money Morning here.

>