Quote of the day Monday 8th June 2020
Nick Herbert on his visit to flood hit areas of Cumbria
Please note that the post below was published more than ten year ago on 21st November 2009 Nick Herbert MP, shadow cabinet member for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, was in Cumbria this morning to see the areas affected by the flooding. He writes on Conservative Home about his visit. Here is an extract. I’ve been in Cumbria today to see the areas affected by the floods. I arrived early in Keswick where I met officials from the Environment Agency. Although the river levels had fallen considerably and homes were no longer flooded, the damage to homes had been done. And the water which had got into houses wasn’t just from the river – it was foul water which had risen from the drains. I talked to fire crews who were pumping flood water back into the river, and discovered that they were from Tyne & Wear and Lancashire. They had been called in at an hours’ notice and had been working on the scene ever since, staying at a local hotel. You cannot fail to be impressed by the
Comments
There is of course an entire discussion here that nothing is actually owed because noting was ever lent, just a double entry on a balance sheet, then comes the whole debate on paying the "interest" on what was lent, which was of course nothing.
Its no wonder with scams like this on a global scale that people are saying how mavellous it is that interest rates can go negative.
If you can use a type of money to buy whatever you like on the same terms that the items concerned would normally be available, then it's not just notional money, it is real money.
There do have to be controls on the ability of banks to create money or you get all sorts of problems.
And as you know, I do not regard negative interest rates as a good thing.
One side of a balance sheet is a liability "loan to jim £1000"
at the same time put an entry on the asset side "loan to jim £1000"
Nothing has been handed over and nothing has been lent by the bank.
you can buy things with it due to legal tender laws, but that still does not mean something was lent when it wasn't.
If the bank gives me something which they call a loan, with which I can buy a car, a meal, pay a builder, take cash out of a cash machine, or do any of the other things we normally use money for, which I would not otherwise have been able to afford, but am ultimately liable to pay back, then for all practical purposes it can be treated like a loan.
Do I owe him anything over the material and a bit of a printing fee?