Christopher Whiteside MBE is a Conservative activist. He was Conservative candidate for Leeds North East in the 2024 General election
He has served as a County, City & District, Borough, Town and Parish councillor, and has also been a school governor and health authority member. He is currently an Egremont Town Councillor.
He lives and works in the North of England, particularly dividing his time between Cumbria and Yorkshire.
Only disagreement here is "borrowing your savings", it does not really do that anymore, it borrows instead from central banks. Thus "money" is created.
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.
If it swims like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then for most practical purposes it can be treated like a duck.
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.
If my friend dave prints a load of good quality tanners and I go and buy some stuff with them, is that a loan from dave? Do I owe him anything over the material and a bit of a printing fee?
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?