Jump to content

Food banks.


Red-dot
 Share

Recommended Posts

First I don’t think there is starvation in the UK, maybe feeling hungry yes.

 

Secondly the reported number of people using food banks are wrong (1,182,954 to march 2017) and its down to the way they get their figures.

 

For example, if a family of three was referred to a food bank twice in one year, this would count as six people on the system (Trussell Trust data) and not as three people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know there are genuine cases but i always thought there were the chances too getting this food. This was proved to me a few months ago.

The day before the last general election i was at the dentist waiting my turn. In the waiting room was a girl of about 22ish with a young daughter...also the girls mother was waiting and they were chatting about...well..carp!

Anyway the older woman asked her daughter about her friend...think the name was nicki... The mother asked how nicki was doing and the girl mentioned she had been to a food bank for the first time as she was "skint". Mother agreed it was terrible and silence reigned for about a minute. Then the mother asked if nicki had been on holiday...the reply... no she was saving to go to disney in florida instead!!!!.

At this point i choked on a laugh and went to sit in another waiting area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockySpears said:

Hamster

" the important point here, why on earth do we as a 1st world nation even have such poverty "

  Exactly!   My point being, it is concealed, hidden in the charitable nature of our country.  I am sure most here know exactly who is to blame, it is the Banking system and the Govs cosy relationship with it.  It is NOT a left/right Tory/Labour thing, but is always made out as such.

  Banks create money out of thing air;  When you borrow money (mortgage, loan etc) they create around 90% of that money there and then.  They give it to you and charge you interest on money that previously did not exist, who would not want that scam?  There are plenty of places you can verify this astounding fact, here is one:  http://www.theeventchronicle.com/finanace/bankers-admit-its-money-out-of-thin-air/#

  I'm sure you can Web Search a million others.

  So why poor people?  If they wanted to, the banks could simply create money and give it out.  Hell, why does the Gov not have the ability to create money, you would think it fairly important for a country wouldn't you?  Some among you will immediately know the reason - INFLATION.  Think pre-war Germany.

BUT that has not stopped the Bank of England from creating north of £400 Billion in Quantitative Easing, and giving it to the other Banks, who gave it to businesses, who paid off bad loans they had and then bought their own shares (go look at stock values/buybacks since 2008).  This money, we were told, would "trickle down" to the man in the street, it hasn't, they kept it all.

 

We have poor people, because the BBC and all the rest of the corrupt, paid for, Media, does not put up  a program about this.

We have poor people because they want poor people as a distraction, to fight over.

We have poor people because no one gets angry any more (poll tax riots anyone?).

We have poor people because their jobs are overseas.

We have poor people because we choose to pay £1.00 for Far Eastern plastic, that would cost £2.50 to make here.

We have poor people because a Far Easterner only needs £50 a week to not be poor.

We have poor people because we simply do not see the bad stuff as bad enough yet.

We have poor people because at the moment, they are just hungry, when they are starving, it MIGHT be different.

 

RS

:good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lloyd90

 

" You sound like a communist"

  Wow - less of the Ad hominem eh!  I've been called a few choice things, but no one has ever gone that far!

"Your talking about fractional reserve banking, and you make it sound far simple (and much more conspire theoryesque) than it all is."

OK. Lets not take my word or links as being true, let's ask, say, The Bank of England itself shall we:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q102.pdf

"Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."

  So I guess the BoE are Conspiracy Theorists too?

"You can lead a horse to water ..... "

 

RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocky, you’d make a good politician, taking a large document and picking out the single sentence that suits what your saying. 

Let’s take a look just a couple of lines below

”Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system. Prudential regulation also acts as a constraint on banks’ activities in order to maintain the resilience of the financial system. And the households and companies who receive the money created by new lending may take actions that affect the stock of money — they could quickly ‘destroy’ money by using it to repay their existing debt, for instance.” 

 

So its not as as simple as you’ve made out at all is it? You paint a picture of banks clicking their fingers and billions of pounds enter their accounts. 

 

Now let us consider, what would happen if banks didn’t operate this way? 

Situation: You go to the bank for a mortgage - the bank tells you sorry, we’ve loaned all of our money out already - after all there are a lot of ‘homeowners’ out there lending for houses. Loans for cars, loans for holidays, all sorts. 

What then? Who would you lend off? You going to lend hundreds of thousands off your mate down the pub at a decent rate? 

Its not going to happen is it... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, figgy said:

To take from food banks if you don’t need to is a shameful thing to do. To some immigrants it must seem a wonderful thing to just help yourself to free food no wonder they love to come here.

 

Plenty of grabbing, greedy selfish types with no moral compass here already  they're called tories

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Rocky, you’d make a good politician, taking a large document and picking out the single sentence that suits what your saying. 

Let’s take a look just a couple of lines below

”Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system. Prudential regulation also acts as a constraint on banks’ activities in order to maintain the resilience of the financial system. And the households and companies who receive the money created by new lending may take actions that affect the stock of money — they could quickly ‘destroy’ money by using it to repay their existing debt, for instance.” 

 

So its not as as simple as you’ve made out at all is it? You paint a picture of banks clicking their fingers and billions of pounds enter their accounts. 

 

Now let us consider, what would happen if banks didn’t operate this way? 

Situation: You go to the bank for a mortgage - the bank tells you sorry, we’ve loaned all of our money out already - after all there are a lot of ‘homeowners’ out there lending for houses. Loans for cars, loans for holidays, all sorts. 

What then? Who would you lend off? You going to lend hundreds of thousands off your mate down the pub at a decent rate? 

Its not going to happen is it... 

Yes it is that simple.  QE was in fact the creation of over £400 billion, just like that. 

"Now let us consider, what would happen if banks didn’t operate this way? "

It would mean that house prices (and EVERYTHING we take a Loan for) would have to remain at a level that did NOT exceed the amount of money available.  Which, to me at least, if not to you, would mean that the country was living within its means.  This is how the empire was built, if you wanted to go on an expedition, you actually had to stump up the CASH from somewhere, you needed sponsors, real money.  If a Bank over-lent, there was a run on the Bank and it went under or paid its debtors.  A new Bank would rise to take its place and better lending would ensue.

  Running our country on Debt is not a good thing, we are seeing the end results now.

  People want to know why we have Poverty in a 1st World economy?  Well maybe it is because we are no longer a 1st World economy, just a 3rd World with a pretty frontage and compliant Governments,

 

RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, RockySpears said:

Yes it is that simple.  QE was in fact the creation of over £400 billion, just like that. 

"Now let us consider, what would happen if banks didn’t operate this way? "

It would mean that house prices (and EVERYTHING we take a Loan for) would have to remain at a level that did NOT exceed the amount of money available.  Which, to me at least, if not to you, would mean that the country was living within its means.  This is how the empire was built, if you wanted to go on an expedition, you actually had to stump up the CASH from somewhere, you needed sponsors, real money.  If a Bank over-lent, there was a run on the Bank and it went under or paid its debtors.  A new Bank would rise to take its place and better lending would ensue.

  Running our country on Debt is not a good thing, we are seeing the end results now.

  People want to know why we have Poverty in a 1st World economy?  Well maybe it is because we are no longer a 1st World economy, just a 3rd World with a pretty frontage and compliant Governments,

 

RS

:good:

QE or fractional reserve banking is political language for printing money that does not exist. This is what has allowed murica to wage war on much of the planet and today find itself $22 TRILLION in debt, the cure is to simply print more of it, almost all capitalist nations are in debt to the tune of trillions (not billions) and they all keep pointing at socialist countries, smile and keep printing more in the hope that one day their fortunes will turn around. It won't, these debts are insurmountable hence why we're being led up the path of WW3.

Edited by Hamster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lloyd90

"And the households and companies who receive the money created by new lending may take actions that affect the stock of money — they could quickly ‘destroy’ money by using it to repay their existing debt, for instance"

So they take on Debt - to pay off Debt?  Tell me please how that means less Debt (money) at the end of the process?  And this is the Bank of England telling us so!

So where did the Interest come from?  The Bank creates the Debt (money) but the Interest MUST come from some OTHER Debt, so the overall Debt is bigger.  AT every turn MORE Debt is created because the Interest MUST come from some OTHER Debt.

"So its not as as simple as you’ve made out at all is it? You paint a picture of banks clicking their fingers and billions of pounds enter their accounts. "

  That is EXACTLY it,  They click their fingers and they collect Interest on the money they just created.  Please, if you have a point to make that in anyway shows that Banks do NOT simply create almost any amount of money  (OK, it is limited by the fractional reserve required by the Central Bank - BoE, ECB, FED etc etc), as and when they wish, and can find a stooge to borrow it, let us all know.

poontang

"So it's the bankers fault that some people are poor?"

  The Banks like poor people.   The Gov then gives these poor money to live on,  but Gov doesn't have the money (too many poor because the jobs are overseas), so it borrows from ..... The Banks and creates Government Debt (now at almost £2,000,000,000 (that's £2 Trillion) http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ ).  Now, when a Government tries to pay down its debts, we get AUSTERITY, the people most affected by AUSTERITY are .... drum roll ..... the poor.  The poor currently may go hungry and may yet reach starvation point, you never know.

   Who benefits?  The Banks, because they charge the Gov interest on the money the Gov borrowed to sustain the poor.  But the money was just created by the Bank out of thin air and it collects the interest.

The amount of Interest the Banks/Investors  receive from the UK Gov can be found here where you can also see that the BoE owns £435 Billion in UK assets which it has used as collateral for the all the QE it gave away, to the Banks, who gave it away to their friends other financial institutions.

Yours,

  RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QE was about liquidity in the banking system.  Without it there would have been a run on the banks and there would have been very serious economic and social consequences.  Have a proper think about this.  QE isn't just printing money, it's a debt that will be paid off unless of course you are Argentina or similar who writes debt off and then faces a very high cost of borrowing in the future.  We all benefited from QE through economic and social stability.

We're still spending much more than we earn.  Even if all tax evasion was eliminated it wouldn't have covered what we needed and nor would raising taxes on the 'rich' not least with the potential effect on the economy.  The mass of the money is in the middle but we've seen that people don't like their income being squeezed.  So if we can't earn enough we have to spend less, broadly the solution of one party but then just look at the opposition to any spending cuts, some people oppose literally every cut.  Lastly we can borrow more, QE, or printing money or however we wish to phrase it but we would spend it and our children and grandchildren will pay it off for us, this is broadly the solution of another party.  So who exactly is the nastiest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, RockySpears said:

 

 

"So it's the bankers fault that some people are poor?"

  The Banks like poor people.   The Gov then gives these poor money to live on,  but Gov doesn't have the money (too many poor because the jobs are overseas), so it borrows from ..... The Banks and creates Government Debt (now at almost £2,000,000,000 (that's £2 Trillion) http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ ).  Now, when a Government tries to pay down its debts, we get AUSTERITY, the people most affected by AUSTERITY are .... drum roll ..... the poor.  The poor currently may go hungry and may yet reach starvation point, you never know.

   Who benefits?  The Banks, because they charge the Gov interest on the money the Gov borrowed to sustain the poor.  But the money was just created by the Bank out of thin air and it collects the interest.

The amount of Interest the Banks/Investors  receive from the UK Gov can be found here where you can also see that the BoE owns £435 Billion in UK assets which it has used as collateral for the all the QE it gave away, to the Banks, who gave it away to their friends other financial institutions.

Yours,

  RS

Correct, it's not the bankers "fault", they're merely the symptom of the rancid disease that is unregulated, top heavy capitalism that places profit above all else. In their shoes we'd do the same as is human nature but the point is that it is ALL governments' responsibility to not allow that to happen, the truth is they at the top are all in on it and they've managed to get the masses to clap and encourage them. 

Edited by Hamster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

download.jpg.03b9a02156cf06f9dd3fb3375ecfa506.jpg

 

dont worry ! have a cup of tea..     this simple diagram shows who owes what to whom in the world and it is clear that we all owe everything to everyone and none of it matters, you might need to zoom in

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2118152/Tangled-web-debt-Who-owes-trillions.html

Edited by islandgun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, yod dropper said:

QE was about liquidity in the banking system.  Without it there would have been a run on the banks and there would have been very serious economic and social consequences.  Have a proper think about this.  QE isn't just printing money, it's a debt that will be paid off unless of course you are Argentina or similar who writes debt off and then faces a very high cost of borrowing in the future.  We all benefited from QE through economic and social stability.

We're still spending much more than we earn.  Even if all tax evasion was eliminated it wouldn't have covered what we needed and nor would raising taxes on the 'rich' not least with the potential effect on the economy.  The mass of the money is in the middle but we've seen that people don't like their income being squeezed.  So if we can't earn enough we have to spend less, broadly the solution of one party but then just look at the opposition to any spending cuts, some people oppose literally every cut.  Lastly we can borrow more, QE, or printing money or however we wish to phrase it but we would spend it and our children and grandchildren will pay it off for us, this is broadly the solution of another party.  So who exactly is the nastiest?

"there would have been very serious economic and social consequences"

  ... and there are not now? £2 trillion Gov debt is NOT a problem?  Hungry families are NOT a problem?  Wages that are still 10 years behind (in real terms) are not a problem?

  The problem with bailing out the Banks is that the Banks now expect it, so they don't care (Draghi says the ECB will "do whatever it takes").  

Yes, I believe we should have let them go to the wall.  The purge would have been very painful, but I suspect that ten years later (Now) we would be in a much better place and the Banks will have seen the error of their ways.  Instead we have had ten years of nothing at all, no growth, lost jobs, less workers now than almost ever.

"So who exactly is the nastiest?"  

It has NOTHING to do with Parties as I have already said, it is solely the Banking system and EVERY Governments cosy relationship with it.  

The Banks take Interest for giving Govs money, for giving us money, for giving business money that THEY JUST CREATED out of nowhere.

  Why should the Banks have this power?

 

Yours,

RS

 

 

Edited by RockySpears
Wrong image.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RockySpears said:

"there would have been very serious economic and social consequences"

  ... and there are not now? £2 trillion Gov debt is NOT a problem?  Hungry families are NOT a problem?  Wages that are still 10 years behind (in real terms) are not a problem?

  The problem with bailing out the Banks is that the Banks now expect it, so they don't care (Draghi says the ECB will "do whatever it takes").  

Yes, I believe we should have let them go to the wall.  The purge would have been very painful, but I suspect that ten years later (Now) we would be in a much better place and the Banks will have seen the error of their ways.  Instead we have had ten years of nothing at all, no growth, lost jobs, less workers now than almost ever.

"So who exactly is tA Banking system where a private company (Barclays, HSBC etc etc) CANNOT create money from thin air.  Why should a private company be able to create money?  Why not me? nastiest?"  

It has NOTHING to do with Parties as I have already said, it is solely the Banking system and EVERY Governments cosy relationship with it.  

The Banks take Interest for giving Govs money, for giving us money, for giving business money that THEY JUST CREATED out of nowhere.

  Why should the Banks have this power?

 

Yours,

RS

 

That you consider today's circumstances to be a real problem but would have accepted the events following a run on the banks shows you have no concept of the scale of what would have happened and also that you do not understand the proportion between the two scenarios. 

I don't really get your second point on the banks.  What is your favoured model in place of the banking system?

 

 

I'll stick this in here so as not to create more off-post comments, in response to Rocky Spears.- 

"A Banking system where a private company (Barclays, HSBC etc etc) CANNOT create money from thin air.  Why should a private company be able to create money?  Why not me? " 

No wonder I didn't understand what you're on about, I should have known better.  The banks didn't t create the money, governments did through their central banks.  I don't know if you've made this up, misunderstood it or picked it up on the internet but you don't know what you're on about and your whole argument is shot to pieces.  Unfortunately these sort of untruths abound online and in the world of non-MSM and people who want to believe it suck it up.

 

 

 

Edited by yod dropper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yod dropper

"What is your favoured model in place of the banking system?"

 A Banking system where a private company (Barclays, HSBC etc etc) CANNOT create money from thin air.  Why should a private company be able to create money?  Why not me? 

Banks used to lend what they had assets to cover (Land, goods or actual money), if they got it wrong, they went out of business.  Those that say this prevents growth do not seem to realise that this was the way until very recent history, 100-150 years ago.  Once the Banks were given the ability to create money from nothing and take Interest on it, it all started to slide.

  Take a look around you:  Take a look at an old Town Hall, Railway Station, Government building;  look at the architecture, the stonework.  No one can afford to do that these days, no one can build a St Paul's or a Houses of Parliament building.  Why?  Because our money is so debased, our economy so poor, inflation has destroyed our "Wealth".

  We claim to be a 1st World Country, but I believe we are actually all in the 3rd World and we just do not know it yet, the 1st World has gone.

 The 1% took it away

Yours,

  RS

 

 

4 minutes ago, Red-dot said:

Oi! Start your own topic.... FOOD banks not MONEY banks.

  The sooner people understand the connection, the better.

As you wish,

RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RockySpears said:

 

  People want to know why we have Poverty in a 1st World economy?  Well maybe it is because we are no longer a 1st World economy, just a 3rd World with a pretty frontage and compliant Governments,

RS

Definition of 1st world poverty ?

If youve ever travelled to some of the more remote areas of the globe, you might have seen real poverty, you will NOT see it on the streets of this country.

I once met a man sitting in a gutter, with pieces of cardboard strung to him to keep the 45 degree sun off, trying to sell rocks hed picked up off the street, he was like a skeleton.
No food banks where he lived, and precious little charity.

Poverty in this country is measured it seems,. on how much your holiday cost, or whether you have the latest iphone.
Not whether you can afford to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

Correct, it's not the bankers "fault", they're merely the symptom of the rancid disease that is unregulated, top heavy capitalism that places profit above all else. In their shoes we'd do the same as is human nature but the point is that it is ALL governments' responsibility to not allow that to happen, the truth is they at the top are all in on it and they've managed to get the masses to clap and encourage them. 

No that isn't 'unregulated capitalism' it is heavily regulated government run economics. Centralized power be it through banks or corporations is created through government regulation. And those banks and corporations lobby government to create even more regulation because they know their competitors can't afford to abide by it and so ensures they get a monopoly. Unfettered capitalism benefits everyone because there is no centralized monopoly and the money is far more spread out.

That's why if i did the same job i do here in the UK in pretty much any state in America I would be earning more than four times as much money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rupert said:

You give something away gratis

 

 Some will really need it

Some will really need it but are too proud,

Some will just get something to see the week out

Some will will grab all they can just cos its free,they feel entitled,to subsidise other non essentials in there life.I liken these to "well heeled"

In plain fact we have too many people for the economy to properly support, wayward lifestyles, dimished values, transient sex lives and the result is over population.

Phones, ciggies, staffies fancy handbags etc all more inportant than food etc.

I have come up from nothing,mum on benefits, expelled from home the day after i left school and taken in by Granny, took a job as a hoddie for a building firm. Went to work for a week in my school clothes till i got a wage in for some boots, they were 12 quid. I worked late,early, weekends,bought a bike cycled to work, got a coffee jar to put my savings in. before i was 18 i put half down on a wrecked terrace house and worked on it when i had money. Four years on at 22 bought grannies too.

Told by my father i had under achieved, i long since eclipsed him

 Never blown money i didnt have, wasted plenty i did have.

When i talk to folk today its incredible to me, they just see the uphill struggle as too hard, instant gratification.

I support several worthy causes,  non really mainstream but i give some back and it really boils my blood to see those not in need raping a project for those who have not, especially with the phone, handbag etc.

Benefits cheats them too

Freeloaders,

Tax evaders

and the rest. 

I know Rupert in real life and this is bang on!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife done her final dissertation for her degree earlier this year on food banks and interviewed food bank providers and food bank users. It does fill a gap that unfortunately is there. Users had to be referred and were given a card normally for a maximum of a month sometimes just a week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, yod dropper said:

That you consider today's circumstances to be a real problem but would have accepted the events following a run on the banks shows you have no concept of the scale of what would have happened and also that you do not understand the proportion between the two scenarios. 

I don't really get your second point on the banks.  What is your favoured model in place of the banking system?

 

 

I'll stick this in here so as not to create more off-post comments, in response to Rocky Spears.- 

"A Banking system where a private company (Barclays, HSBC etc etc) CANNOT create money from thin air.  Why should a private company be able to create money?  Why not me? " 

No wonder I didn't understand what you're on about, I should have known better.  The banks didn't t create the money, governments did through their central banks.  I don't know if you've made this up, misunderstood it or picked it up on the internet but you don't know what you're on about and your whole argument is shot to pieces.  Unfortunately these sort of untruths abound online and in the world of non-MSM and people who want to believe it suck it up.

 

 

 

 

Thank you Yod.

I was sure I wasn’t the only one who thought the only thing being plucked out of thin air was the rubbish spouted by Rocky ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with FRB and QE is that "they" get to lend money that is not there but you and I pay them back real money in interest and the loan itself which has actually been worked for and created so they in effect will benefit from lending nothing but air and the icing on the cake for them is that should you find that you can't pay it back the home or whatever they repossess is again very real and has an actual value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2017 at 07:56, Hamster said:

The problem with FRB and QE is that "they" get to lend money that is not there but you and I pay them back real money in interest and the loan itself which has actually been worked for and created so they in effect will benefit from lending nothing but air and the icing on the cake for them is that should you find that you can't pay it back the home or whatever they repossess is again very real and has an actual value. 

So what is the alternative Hamster?

We either have a floating currency, as we do now, or we have a standard backed currency with gold being the acknowledged standard.  Commodity basket standard based currencies cannot work.

So if we are standard backed we only have a finite amount of gold, but we have a rapidly expanding global population so we have wealth erosion by default as we have less gold to go round.  Our currency would be inelastic, yet we live in an elastic world.

There are also some philosophical flaws in your argument quoted, if the money they lend is not actually there, i.e. it is fictitious, then by logic the value of everything associated with that is also fictitious.  The value of the bricks and mortar house is not absolute, beyond the physical quantity of bricks and mortar.  Value is relative to market demand and also the value of the currency which is absolutely a consequence of the amount of invented money in the system, so value is a dynamic construct and not absolute.

The consequence of being kicked out of your house is of course very real, but that is of no relevance to the value of the house or currency or what ratio of capital reserve to lending a bank requires to hold. Whether i have a £10 or £1,000,000 house I cannot sleep in makes no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...