PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS CAN VERY EASILY BE DONE.
THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL STOPPING THIS HAPPENING.
BE AWAKE, BE VERY AWAKE!
Could Icke have sold out to the dark side? Could the very “reptilians” who possess the personalities he speak of possess him? Is that so hard to believe? Well let’s see….
David Icke: Sold to the highest Buddha!
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS AS APPLIED TO COMPANIES: THEY ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LEGAL PERSONS!
DAVID ICKE ALREADY HAS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE AND, THROUGH “THE PEOPLE’S VOICE” HE INTENDS TO CAPTURE TENS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE. PERHAPS MILLIONS. NOW IMAGINE WHAT A LIZARD COULD BE WHISPERING SOFTLY IN HIS EAR REGARDING HIM HAVING A BROADCAST NETWORK ALL TO HIMSELF AND PAID (HE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE) ENTIRELY BY YOUR DONATIONS. A BROADCAST NETWORK WHICH IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM “DAVID ICKE BOOKS LTD” WHILE THE LEGAL SYSTEM, AS IT CURRENTLY FUNCTIONS, SEES “DAVID ICKE BOOKS LTD” AS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE “LEGAL PERSON” FROM “THE PEOPLE’S VOICE”.
Let’s start this little journey into David Icke’s “Twilight Zone” by first taking a close look at the BBC and how they do things. You will see why… promise! 🙂
Have you ever heard of “BBC Enterprises”? It started life as such but is now known as “BBC Worldwide”.
BBC Enterprises was set up as a “mechandising arm” of the BBC. Essentially, it would take BBC content and product (for product think Tellitubbies for example, licensed to any and all sorts of manufacturers to produce Teletubbies merchandise) and sell it. Nothing wrong with that on the face of it right? But just give it a little more thought as to what is going on here. Let’s say there are 20 million homes in the UK all paying a TV licence (which goes to the BBC because the BBC “DOES NOT ADVERTISE”). 20 million homes x £145 = £2.9Billion. We (if you pay a licence) are funding the BBC Corporation per year to the sum of approximately £2.9Billion. The BBC then provides (poor and propagandised) content to us while the quality of shows and drama etc has just dropped dramatically over the years and more and more repeats (funded decades ago in some cases) are provided. If it was not for our funding of it, the BBC would not exist but, more to the point, BBC Enterprises (BBC Worldwide) would not exist. The latter sells content and product worldwide, and to us ourselves, which has been funded by us. It is like its own virtuous circle: It promotes content to us by way of the BBC broadcasting shows, characters etc (which we fund) and then BBC Worldwide sells us those same shows and characters and generates over £1billion in revenues and a healthy profit which is paid back to the BBC Broadcasting company. No, the BBC does not advertise!! It advertises every single day its own content and product (again funded by us) and has its merchandising arm sell us the content we have funded.
As an example:
There are 34 pages of 500 titles each page which the BBC sells to us and which they never would have been able to create without our money funding them. Essentially, we are buying our own creations. Strangely, this is exactly how the entire world works when you step back (as Icke would say but he won’t like it being done in this instance) and view it again. It is so clear. As an aside, let me give you another couple of examples of how we buy our own funded creations. Recognising all of this may shock you if you haven’t thought of it before.
We build national grids and offshore rigs (oil, gas, wind farms etc) and we work extracting the resources to provide ourselves with our energy requirements. We are paid, of course, to do so but we are also taxed. Meanwhile, the entire energy grid and the natural resources are owned by people who have never picked up a spade in their lives. It is suggested by these same people that it is all in public ownership and that we benefit from the income generated which is, in part, given to the treasury. But what does the treasury do with that money? It pays toward the national debt (interest on money borrowed by the nation where, globally, the only way of paying the interest is by borrowing more money from the same source which increases the debt further but is indebting the future generations). The real owners of all the resources and energy is, in the case of the UK, the Crown. I have blogged about this many times now. The Crown then licenses corporations to extract the resources (and we work for the corporations – we ARE the corporations) and the corporations (legal person entities) make a profit. This profit then being distributed among shareholders – the major shareholders being? You guessed it – the Crown and those individuals within it who have never done a real day’s work in their lives. These people then sell our resources to us which we have extracted for them and keep increasing prices on us while our salaries do not ever keep in line with the increases. We effectively build and generate our own energy and then pay for it. It is incredible what we will do and never question. We just seem unable to figure out the most simplest of cons.
2. Mortgages and housing
We build homes for ourselves. Yes we do. Builders, craftsmen, electricians, plumbers and all the other skills which go into building a home. We then take a mortgage from a bank (such a loan being unnecessary because it is we who create the money for the banks in the first place but that’s been covered numerous times now) by way of signing a promissory obligation which creates the money for the bank who then lend us our own money/value which we have to pay back (again with interest which, globally, is non existent. To pay it back we then have to “win” the race or the game of finding money from someone else). But, nevertheless, it is us, generally speaking, who build our homes. Let’s forget that the land we build upon is, once again, owned by land owners – a major landowner being the Crown – so we never truly own our homes, we simply rent them. If we owned our property we would have every right to do as we wished with it without planning approval. So we buy (and pay interest on) the very homes we build but we go a step further than that. The banks (and it is us once more that keep these legal persons called banks operating while they use our own money to indebt us with) then take the value of our properties (the promissory note we have signed to bring the money into existence for them) and sell them on. Who do they sell the values of our properties to? To you and I. How? They sell them to pension funds and the general market. Who do these pension funds etc invest for? For us! So we are buying our own properties once more. The banks then crash the property market making our properties worth far less and the derivatives sold on in the market worthless so our pensions are worthless. But what have they done in the meantime? Well, it is they who create the market conditions and it is they who then, with that insider knowledge, invest in shorting the property and derivative markets so that, as it falls, they have bet ON it falling and the money goes directly to them. How stupid is the human race?
And yet, David Icke proclaims “Human Race get off your knees” while he, as I am about to demonstrate to you, uses the exact same methods to create wealth for himself and his trusted little team.
Back to the BBC…..
Have a look at this:
So, as I said, a revenue of over £1billion and profit of £156M returned to the BBC. ALL of it generated from coercion of you having to pay for a licence which funds the corporation and allows its shareholders to generate massive income for themselves and the various BBC employees who you look to as “celebrities” and people worthy of your praise and hero worship.
A “public service mission” which then pays profits to shareholders. It commercialises but it doesn’t “advertise”! haha What an incredible doublespeak that is.
“BBC Advertising sells advertising…….”
“Be commercially efficient” – Indeed.
And oh look: “… highest standard of ethics…” etc. It’s amazing what you can state on paper or promote to your audience while keeping a straight face. It’s called “Sales” in essence and, personally, I’ve been in this arena for decades. I like to think, however, I DID have ethics in my approach – at least as far as I could afford to have them. But I know that, at the top, ethics DO NOT exist. They are merely words. I expected (naively) that “The People’s Voice” and David Icke would be different. I can assure you there is zero difference and you only have to have that “open mind” David speaks of and look at how he is doing what he is doing to recognise how you are getting screwed in precisely the same manner. Promoting yourself as ethical is such a crowd pleaser isn’t it? Getting the crowd to “buy in” to the promotion of a person or concept is especially easy when you are promoting what you know the market wants (and that’s ALL you are to David Icke – a market to tap into). Look how Tony Blair was promoted in 1997 and the landslide victory he had. People will buy anything if it’s promoted just right. In a war you are taught to know your adversary. In sales, you are taught to know your target market. You know how to press their buttons and you’ve got them just where you want them.
Ok, on to David Icke in earnest.
What we have here is “David Icke Books Ltd”. (now one could theorise about the figures you see here but there’s no real point in doing that. You’d have to have access to his accounts to understand fully what is going on there so I’d rather not theorise on it).
This how David Icke makes his money. By selling his books (and his talks etc).
Then along comes another, entirely separate legal entity called “The People’s Voice”. BOTH companies, however, run by David Icke. He is a Director in both. Gareth, his son, is also a Director of “David Icke books Ltd” while Sean Tabatabai is a Director of “The People’s Voice”.
David likes to sell books doesn’t he?
Have you ever heard of “Transfer Pricing”? Well, once upon a time, I worked for a well known multinational telecommunications company who were at the top of their game, during which, I was involved in Business Management globally. Transfer pricing is all about the creation of profit by one division or subsidiary of the multinational company selling its product to another division or subsidiary of the same company. Transfer pricing can then be manipulated in whichever way is preferred by the divisions and the overall corporation to ensure that, on transfer from one division in one country (say the UK) to another division in another country (say the USA), the most “appropriate” pricing can ensure minimal tax being paid by the organisation as a whole.
Have a look at this:
Now, don’t go off on a tangent here and say I’m suggesting David Icke is money laundering or terrorist financing. No, no ,no. What I am saying is that “Transfer pricing” is a perfectly LEGAL and accepted way of doing business and YET, it is through such practice that such things can be, and are, achieved. Now, I’m not even suggesting transfer pricing by David Icke because transfer pricing is used between subsidiaries of the same company. “David Icke Books Ltd” and TPV are not subsidiaries of the same company. So what AM I getting at then?
“Hey, I have an awesome idea!”
“Well, I write books and I publish them. I was thinking how I could create an ever larger captive market for them and even have my own broadcasting station to promote my work. A broadcasting station which has global reach, will appeal to an even broader audience because it will broadcast everything from news and current affairs to music and art etc.”
“Yes but where will you source all the content and at what cost?”
“From the people themselves who will not only be desperate to have their voices and their art and music broadcast but who will provide their content for free.”
“Great idea but what about the investment that is needed to create this broadcasting network and keep it on air? It’s a shitload of money that’s needed for that Dave! Are you going to invest that £25K cash you have in “David Icke Books Ltd” and/or liquidise the assets of over £200K you have to fund it?”
“No no no. It will ALSO be funded by the people. I’ll do a donation drive through Indiegogo. I’m not going to spend my own money! This is not “David Icke’s Voice”, I’ll promote it as “The people’s Voice” – THEY can fund it! Although I won’t mention the obviously needed further funding coming from somewhere otherwise people will start asking questions. I mean most of the idiots out there haven’t a scooby regarding the real cost of funding a project like this and they won’t care. They’ll believe every word I say. I give them truth remember and I point fingers at corruption so how could they possibly consider me to be sucking them dry?”
“Oh man, you’re a genius! They pay for it, they provide the content free and they end up buying the content that you produce. Your very own multi-media empire spitting out your propaganda. But where does “David Icke books Ltd” come into the equation?”
“Oh come on man! It’s simple. Get with the programme! “The People’s Voice” is going to have me introducing movies, giving talks, promoting myself and the station as a whole right? So then I will also be promoting my books won’t I? Just exactly the same proven format adopted by BBC Enterprises or BBC Worldwide. Of course, I’m not getting paid by TPV – it’s for the “love of humanity” you understand. It just so happens that I have all of these books – a whole back catalogue of them too – which would then be promoted and sold through TPV as a “public service”. After all, TPV is all about truth so, to have an expense attributed to TPV for buying my “truth books” is entirely rational isn’t it? And justifiable.”
“Hey but that doesn’t make sense David! How can you profit from yourself buying from yourself?”
“Man, what is it you don’t understand about what I have just said. I’M not investing in TPV. It’s not MY money. So when TPV decides to buy “David Icke books Ltd” product for stock and then sell it to the public (who have funded TPV), it’s THEIR money, not mine, which is buying the books. TPV is an entirely separate legal entity from “David Icke Books Ltd” and so they buy, perhaps 1000 at a time? That generates profit for “David icke Books Ltd” and a rather substantial income for me. Whatever TPV then sell of those book numbers are bought by the very audience which has already bought them FOR TPV through their funding of TPV!”
“Oh Jesus Christ David, you truly are the messiah! Only he could come up with a scheme like that! It’s brilliant!”
This is how it works. VERY simple and VERY legal. Moral? That’s for you to decide….
“IMAGINE FINDING A PLACE TO ADVERTISE WHERE THE BROADCASTER ENDORSES YOUR BUSINESS. HAS AN AUDIENCE THAT IS LOOKING FOR EXACTLY THE KIND OF PRODUCTS YOU PROVIDE AND RUNS PROGRAMMING THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE BENEFITS OF THOSE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.”
Stated out in the open, right under your nose! Furthermore, the legal person and company named “David Icke Books Ltd” does not, unlike all other potential advertisers and sponsors, have to pay a solitary cent for its advertising on TPV. IT IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! David, I seriously do tip my hat to you!
So let’s analyse just exactly how this works:
David Icke sets up a company/broadcasting network which will advertise and promote everything David Icke related. This company, called TPV, does not receive a cent’s worth of his own money but he generates that money through donations from the public. He creates for himself FREE MONEY (JUST EXACTLY like the banks). He doesn’t even pay a cent of interest on it. There is absolutely no risk for him whatsoever. Not a penny. This new company, “TPV” will then buy assets with that money (for example, a cost to the business can be anything from buying the equipment to buying PROPERTY (YES PROPERTY). The property purchases can “justifiably” be stated as required to house certain members of the team who have travelled from different parts of the UK and world to relocate. Those members then, perhaps, pay rent of one form or another, to TPV the company which then pays off mortgages TPV may have taken out. This is all totally and utterly legal.
TPV then pays salaries to the core team of TPV while David Icke works “for free”. All of the investments TPV makes, with YOUR money, then become valuable assets to TPV and, at any point in the future – near or far future – those assets can and will be sold. Property is a very valuable asset and while you will have funded TPV’s purchase of such, when it comes to selling the asset and liquidising it into cash, who gets it? Even if that is 20 or 30 years in the future.
Meanwhile, there is an entirely separate company to TPV called “David Icke Books Ltd”. The latter is solely interested in selling David Icke’s books (would you believe?). TPV then turn to “David Icke books Ltd” and say “Hello David, we would be interested in stocking your books and selling them worldwide.” David turns to TPV (perhaps he speaks to one of it’s Directors and does a deal – he could, for instance, speak with….David Icke) and says “Sure. Sounds good. What about taking 1000 books per month as a stock and selling them on? At a retail price of about £25 each that would be an income to David Icke books Ltd of £25,000 per month or £300,000 a year. I might even give you a discount David but really, in this case, it’s unnecessary. TPV is a not for profit concern so if you buy at £25 and sell at £25 then there’s no profit right? No problem!” And David Icke, on behalf of TPV says “Sure, sounds good to me but what happens if we don’t sell that number per month?”. “No problem…” says David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd”, “..you can just burn the excess for all I care. Take it as a loss and I still get paid.” “Ah indeed you do David. I wish I was as smart as you!” says David Icke of TPV. “You are as smart as me David, you are me! We’re all one consciousness remember? Remember who you are David!”. Then David Icke, Director of TPV, says “But David, I don’t like wasting all that money and losing it. You wouldn’t like to lose money would you?” and David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd” states the obvious: “But David, what are you talking about? You haven’t lost a cent because all that money you are buying the books with isn’t yours! It’s money donated by the public. You’re losing THEIR money and all that money is coming across to me at “David Icke Books Ltd”. Trust me David, I WILL share it with you!”.
The central equitable principle applicable to directors is to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.
The purpose of the no conflict rule is to ensure directors carry out their tasks like it was their own interest at stake. Beyond corporate opportunities, the law requires directors accept no benefits from third parties under section 176, and also has specific regulation of transactions by a company with another party in which directors have an interest. Under section 177, when directors are on both sides of a proposed contract, for example where a person owns a business selling iron chairs to the company in which he is a director, it is a default requirement that they disclose the interest to the board, so that disinterested directors may approve the deal. The company’s articles could heighten the requirement, say, to shareholder approval. If such a self dealing transaction has already taken place, directors still have a duty to disclose their interest and failure to do so is a criminal offence, subject to a £5000 fine. While such regulation through disclosure hovers with a relatively light touch, self dealing rules become more onerous as transactions become more significant. Shareholder approval is requisite for specific transactions with directors, or connected persons, when the sum of money either exceeds 10% of the company and is over £5000, or is over £100,000 in a company of any size. Further detailed provisions govern loaning money. On the question of director remuneration where the conflict of interest appears most serious, however, regulation is again relatively light. Directors pay themselves by default, but in large listed companies have pay set by a remuneration committee of directors. Under section 439, shareholders may cast a vote on remuneration but this “say on pay“, as yet, is not binding.
Finally, under section 172 directors must “promote the success of the company”. This somewhat nebulous provision created significant debate during its passage through Parliament, since it goes on to prescribe that decisions should be taken in the interests of members, with regard to long term consequences, the need to act fairly between members, and a range of other “stakeholders“, such as employees, suppliers, the environment, the general community, and creditors. Many groups objected to this “enlightened shareholder value” model, which in form elevated the interests of members, who are invariably shareholders, above other stakeholders. However, the duty is particularly difficult to sue upon since it is only a duty for a director to do what she or “he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company”. Proof of subjective bad faith toward any group being difficult, directors have the discretion to balance all competing interests, even if to the short term detriment of shareholders in a particular instance. There is also a duty under section 173 to exercise independent judgment and the duty of care in section 174 applies to the decision making process of a director having regard to the factors listed in section 172, so it remains theoretically possible to challenge a decision if made without any rational basis. Only registered shareholders, not other stakeholders without being members of the general meeting, have standing to claim any breach of the provision. But section 172’s criteria are useful as an aspirational standard because in the annual Director’s Report companies must explain how they have complied with their duties to stakeholders. Also, the idea of whether a company’s success will be promoted is central when a court determines whether a derivative claim should proceed in the course of corporate litigation.
In short, if you can’t be arsed reading the above, there is recognition in law regarding the reality of doing precisely what a “reptilian possessed” David Icke is capable of doing and that the ethics are far more than suspect (because it is obvious what is happening) but, given the TPV and “David Icke Books Ltd” set up and the fact there are only two shareholders of each, all very happy with how things turn out, then the reptilian possessed Icke would get away scot free. 🙂
And all Ickeans will say is “Well he’s got to make a living!” Sure he does and he is doing so very well from your money you stupid, naive, gullible prat!
Now, TPV may WELL be a “Not for profit” enterprise or it may not. I have no evidence of either. IS it registered as a charity? Or as a “Not for profit”? There is absolutely no evidence of that but it matters not one iota! “David Icke books Ltd” is a FOR PROFIT enterprise which can entirely legally sell its books to a “Not for profit” enterprise. The two separate legal entities can conduct business with one another. The “Not for profit” taking on an expense and the “For profit” making…. well…. a very healthy profit!
There is so much more to this and the capabilities of TPV to create a vehicle for, and take all the cost for, setting up Gareth Icke with his own little music business but I could go on forever demonstrating how all this can be done and what can be done.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND HOWEVER THAT THE FOREGOING ONLY CONSIDERS WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND LEGAL AND PROBABLE IF DAVID ICKE WAS POSSESSED BY A REPTILIAN. IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT DAVID ICKE, THE FINE UPSTANDING TURTH GURU WHO EXPOSES CORRUPTION, WOULD RESORT TO SUCH PRACTICE (EVEN THOUGH THE DONATIONS PROVIDING HIM WITH ABSOLUTELY FREE MONEY AND THE ABILITY TO BUY ASSETS OF VARIOUS KINDS THEN SELL AT A LATER DATE MAKING A HANDSOME PROFIT PLUS THE VERY FACT THAT DAVID ICKE IS PROMOTING DAVID ICKE ON TPV, FUNDED BY YOU, IS ALL INESCAPABLE FACT).
In the UK, many nonprofit companies are incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. This means that the company does not have shares or shareholders, but it has the benefits of corporate status. This includes limited liability for its members and being able to enter into contracts and purchase property in its own name. The goals (“objects”) of the company are defined in the Memorandum of Association when the company is formed. The profits of the company (also referred to as the trading surplus) must be invested in achieving these goals and not distributed to the company’s members.
I don’t have any time for this guy and his promoter, Jones, either but this speaks volumes nonetheless.
Meanwhile, check this out. EXACTLY the same wording except for one obvious element:
Here is the ad on Facebook for anyone who’s a musician and wishes to “come long” to the TPV studio to be part of a launch film for “The Banned” music programme hosted by Gareth Icke.
Now, here is the exact same wording for the ad which appears on a specific website for musicians/student musicians:
Spot the difference? 🙂
THEY REALLY DO HOPE YOU WILL COME OF COURSE. Let’s ignore that, once more, they are advertising for a certain type of person, a certain look, a certain attitude (that THEY like of course) – what happened to “The People’s Voice”? They are very choosy of what sorts of people and look and attitude they attract for it to be solely for “the people”. People come in all shapes, sizes, ages, attitudes, types but they want CERTAIN SPECIFIC TYPES to promote a certain specific type of network/channel/”hip” (in their view). It’s kinda like turning up at the nightclub but the bouncer turning you away because they want to attract a certain crowd. But let’s forget all that.
Noticed it yet?
Well, in the Facebook “shout out” they have “Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks!” – But that’s for the general dumb populace who are just avid fans of anything and everything Icke does. That’s why they’re on his Facebook page after all.
The ACM one (not an Icke page then but Icke wants to attract the muso’s and cool student types): “Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks and we can cover basic travel expenses.”
Hahahaha. So they finally considered travel expenses as being important to cover – just not for volunteers giving their energy and time constantly but for those who the station are desperate to attract.
Good on ya Deanna. You certainly have your priorities sorted!
“We pay for what might be a bit more difficult to attract however serious fans are already captured so fuck them!” LOL
SO BLATANT MAN!
One last thing: “It’s raunchy, decadent…… people who look like they know how to party”
Let’s consider what decadent means.
Now, doesn’t that remind you of exactly what you would consider the “elite” (that is, in Icke’s language, “the reptilians”) are into and want from the world? Moral and cultural decline – for example, pedophilia. What a strange irony in so many ways Icke is displaying.
BUT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HIS FOLLOWERS HAPPILY HAVE: THEIR EYES WIDE SHUT!
Sudeley was an active member of the House of Lords for thirty nine years (since he was 21, the minimum age one can take one’s seat), introducing several measures, most notably the Bill to prevent the unlicensed export of historical manuscripts. He was one of the hereditary peers expelled from the Upper House by the House of Lords Act 1999. He spoke out against the reform of the Lords, saying: “If it isn’t broken why mend it?”, and also that since he believed inherited titles were “inextricably” tied to the monarchy that it was “odd that they just want to touch one institution and not the other”. He also cited the wealth of experience that the Lords had built up.
Dear Lord Sudeley, you may now recognise that it was your speeches below which ensured your expulsion from the Lords.
You peers were getting in the way of “business”. The usury of the jewish/zionist/Rothschild cabal was and is something you dare not attack – whether or not you saw it as such and simply, in ignorance (which I doubt) thought was simply a banking institution “anomaly”. You had stumbled across the criminality inherent within the system.
By the way, I like your 100% valid point about it being “odd that they just want to touch one institution and not the other”. Has it still not clicked that your beloved monarchy are simply the sitting “CEO” of the Office of monarchy and are entirely corrupt? It doesn’t yet resonate with you that it is the monarchy and the City of London (the “Crown”) who call the shots and they were fired at you?
To those who THINK all this talk of the fraud of FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING is just some form of “Conspiracy theory” due to your own ignorance in the study of it…..
This is not 50 or 100 years ago. This is now (well 1998/99 big deal). And it is STILL being ignored!
The House of Lords:
2nd November 1998 –
Lord SudeleyMy Lords, to what extent does the Minister recognise the problem of fractional reserve banking in this situation whereby banks lend out more than they have in the proportion of 10:1 of the reality? That situation would not exist if, as happened under the old thinking, banks were forbidden to lend money without taking a share of the risk.
§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the noble Lord is surprisingly modest. Many hedge funds, such as long-term capital management, lend out far more than a multiple of 10 of their reserves. It is a very real problem, which is referred to in detail in the Statement. We have to balance the risks, as do the investors concerned, of lending, investing or gambling, if you like, beyond the available reserves, against the undoubted benefits to the global economy of wider credit which have arisen over recent decades. It is a difficult balance to sustain.
§Lord GrenfellMy Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that although one welcomes the idea of precautionary credit lines, that idea is still far from being properly thought through? What happens if a country is accorded a credit line on the strength of good policy and those policies deteriorate after the credit line has been started? That would put the IMF in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I would not like to be in its place and to have to decide whether or not to withdraw the line of credit.
Secondly, I am not sure whether I heard an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the role of the World Bank and the new facility. I thought that we were trying to get away from the idea of having the World Bank issue liquidity and were trying to get it to maintain its position as a development financing agency. There seems to have been a change of heart.
§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend’s second question first. If I gave any suggestion in an answer that we were proposing a change in the role of the World Bank, I did so mistakenly. I do not think that I did so. There have been questions on that point, but I was not conscious of indicating that we expected the World Bank to develop its role in that direction. I think that I gave the same answer when we debated the European Central Bank.
With regard to lines of credit, I do not underestimate the difficulty of dealing with a country which changes its policies once a line of credit is available. The very fact that lines of credit will be followed up by further financing and that that further financing is contingent on continuing with policies which will have to be satisfactory to the IMF is some satisfaction against the kind of dangers that my noble friend fears.
26th January 1999 –
My Lords, the proper way to tackle the question of this debate would be the eradication of usury in its old sense of lending money without taking a share of the risk. However, instead of that, we really need to go back to the Moslem system of banks entering into business partnerships. The case against usury has been well represented by the Christian Council of Monetary Justice, meetings of which in the other place are chaired by the honourable Member for Great Grimsby and also by the Federation of Small Businesses. I am very conscious about how many parliamentarians shy away from opposition to usury because it is so embedded in our system. So this evening I shall ask for less.
The parties which are exceptionally informative on the subject of this debate would, I believe, be the Independent Banking Advisory Service, the Bankruptcy Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and two academics, Prem Sikka and Professor Christer of the University of Salford. In considering the problem posed by the debate we need to be mindful of the view of the Independent Banking Advisory Service that 30 per cent. of business failures would not have occurred during the last recession if banks had not been in a hurry to get their money back. The Bank of England’s quarterly report on small business statistics dated December 1998 reflects the fact that business failures rose by more than 6.2 per cent. last year. We also need to have regard to the lack of sufficient bank regulation. The ombudsman is concerned only with small cases and the Financial Services Authority will not comment on individual cases.
The report in the Daily Mail on 20th January headed, “Beware On Demand Bank Loans” was largely concerned with the case of Lloyd’s Bank versus Heritage Plc—distributing household wares to major superstores—in which the courts upheld that “on demand” means immediate repayment. Here lies the problem. The British Bankers Association is not collecting information about on demand loans in the belief that they are rare. On the contrary, the Independent Banking Advisory Service finds that the number of such loans is growing.
942In repaying a loan it is crucial that a debtor should have sufficient time so that his assets can be sold at a comfortable pace to fetch their proper value. Otherwise, the assets go for a decimated value. The proper role of the investigatory accountant, therefore, is to ensure that that should not happen. He should be acting as a debtor’s physician and not as his mortician.
Why is that not happening? It is because of the conflict of interest with which this debate is concerned where the investigatory accountant is appointed a receiver and so has a vested interest from the initial investigation, thereby knowing the lucrative fee income available. There is also the problem and foul practice of collusion with outside parties waiting in the wings to acquire the debtor’s assets at under-value. Hard though it may be to prove collusion, the opportunity is there. I hope, therefore, that Parliament will be sufficiently sagacious to judge that it is.
In conclusion, this debate is concerned with the questionable methods by which banks pursue many small debtors who would otherwise survive. But which party is chiefly in debt? Obviously the banks themselves, with a fraction in reserve, lending fraudulently way beyond their resources. I thought that the proportion was 10:1 but, when repeating the Statement on international finance on 2nd November, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, inform the House that, with hedge funding, that proportion is much higher.
4th November 1999 –
Lord SudeleyMy Lords, there are three submissions in this report opposed to usury in its old sense of “lending money at no risk”. Drawing on those submissions and on other sources—there is a large literature on the subject—perhaps I may paint with a broad brush what is wrong with usury and the banks creating money out of nothing, and what we should do about it.
There is no doubt that banks should not finance business enterprises with loans where they charge interest. Instead, they should enter into partnership agreements, where, as in Islamic banking, the business risk is shared equally between entrepreneurs and financiers.
The use of bank credit consists—as I shall explain in a moment—not only of loans but of the creation of additional money. Money is cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged. Treated in that way as a commodity, money loses its value and stability as a medium of exchange. Money should therefore be a record of transactions for real goods and services. The fact that the medium-of exchange function of money is not adequately met is indicated by the growing emergence of local, LETS, private, Air Miles, and barter trade credit currencies.
How has money been cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged? The ancestors of the present banking industry in Tudor times were the goldsmiths, who realised that not all the gold plate and bullion deposited with them would be withdrawn at the same time. They therefore invented the audacious and fraudulent trick of issuing promissory notes, which are the origin of our present bank notes, to represent an excess of what they really had.
That policy of lending out more than one has was continued by the banks with their system of fractional reserve, sometimes given as a proportion of 10 to one, but hedge funding is really far higher. We see that at two levels: national and private debt. The mechanism of national debt is quite simple. It involved the assumption of debt by the Government to obtain additional revenue to cover annual shortfall in taxation. Therefore, to pay for the war against Louis XIV, the Bank of England was chartered in 1694 and started out in the business of lending out several times over the money that it held in reserves, all at interest.
Such lending at a prudent rate took a quantum leap with World War I. It was extended further to pay for World War II, and in the United States of America it took an even greater quantum leap to pay for the Vietnam War. Therefore, by 1971, it became unbridgeable, and at a rate of growth beyond control. President Nixon had no choice but to cancel the right of the Government to exchange dollars for gold, which removed the gap altogether.
The level of private debt escalated in a similar fashion. During the 10 years from 1980, consumer debt rose from £11 billion to £43 billion, while mortgage borrowing increased more than five-fold.
1069What are the bad effects of all this? There is no doubt that usury intensifies business cycles. Bank lending enabled share prices to rise to unsustainable levels in 1929; the Depression followed. Over-availability of credit caused a massive increase in house prices, followed by a dramatic fall in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In recession, interest acts as a fixed cost outside the company’s control, unlike share dividends. The higher its debt-equity ratio, the worse are the implications.
The basic cause of inflation, then, must be the banks’ use of fractional reserve in lending out more than they have. To reduce inflation, governments put up interest rates, which increases the profits made by the banks and encourages them to lend out more. Meanwhile, the high interest rates lead to a decline of economic activity because they increase production costs.
What is the way to curb the evils of usury which I have just described? The only way in particular to stop inflation is to stop banks from creating credit. The supply of money should be removed from banks and should be assumed by governments, who should issue it on a debt-free basis. Such a view is supported by five disparate quarters: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in the debate which he introduced to this House in 1985, Disraeli, the Vatican under Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, the Tsars of Russia in the last century, who prevented the setting up of a privately owned central bank, and, above all, Abraham Lincoln, who said that governments should create, issue, and circulate all currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of governments and the buying power of consumers.
By adopting those principles, the taxpayer would be saved immense sums of interest. Lincoln’s greenbacks were generally popular, and their existence let the genie out of the bottle with the public becoming accustomed to government-issued, debt-free money. The year after Lincoln’s assassination, Congress set to work at the bidding of the European central banking interests to retire the greenbacks from circulation and to ensure the reinstitution of a privately owned central bank under the usurers’ control.
During the history of the United States, the money power has gone back and forth between Congress and some privately owned central bank. The American people fought off four privately owned central banks before succumbing to a fifth privately owned central bank, at that time essential, owing to the period of weakness during the Civil War.
The founding fathers of the United States knew the evils of a privately owned central bank. They had seen how the Bank of England ran up the British national debt to such an extent that Parliament was forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies, leading to their loss following, the American Revolution.
I now conclude. Once the fundamental decision is taken to prevent sterling from being debt-based, the Commonwealth could act as the right monetary union to use sterling debt-free as a genuine alternative to the dollar and the euro.