Wings Over Scotland, then Nigel, but more?
The decision comes after other Right-wing figures including Richard Tice, the leader of Reform UK, and Toby Young, who established the Free Speech Union, said their accounts had been closed or restricted.
Seriously?
Hmm. There’s bank in a box software these days. Could be 100% reserve because you get 4.5% off the BoE these days. A purely transactional bank.
The problem would be finding someone viable to hold a banking licence. And if the folk affected aren’t viable to hold a bank account then…..
“There’s bank in a box software these days. Could be 100% reserve because you get 4.5% off the BoE these days. A purely transactional bank.”
So 100% reserve banks are possible now then?
I was laughed at on here and told quite categorically that such things could not exist in a fiat system. One commenter (who thinks he’s cleverer than everyone else and knows everything) informed me that a 100% reserve bank could only exist with the gold standard.
But hey, glad to see our host seeing the light……one sinner that repenteth etc etc.
He should name the bank. It’s the sort of thing where I’d close my business account and move it to someone else. Let’s see how good a commercial decision that is.
I don’t approve of this at all. If you want the state to guarantee your operation and have the regulatory barriers, then you have to do banking for all, right down to the neo nazis.
100% reserve banks are entirely possible right now. They just can’t do maturity transformation. As that’s the very thing we desire from a banking system – even if not from every component in it – that’sthe problem. “A” 100% reserve bank? Sure.
So, if a bank can pick and choose, based upon political belief of the customer, does the same apply to NHS staff?
Will we now see those supporting the wrong political party denied health care?
Farage should name the bank so we can ostracise the management and their families. No food sales for you!
A few years ago, it would have made an implausible drama plotline.
I think or at least hope that I’m using a 100% reserve bank. Wise. Was Transferwise. Or at least they’re not in the retail loan business & they say funds are deployed in secure loans. And they do make a living out of providing a service. Not too sure I actually want them paying me interest on deposits but it’s not totally unwelcome.
I was conversing with someone yesterday UK-side who was waxing virtu7ally hysterically over the Farage iniquity. Until I suggested he would be closing his account in protest, of course! should it be with the culprit bank. Whereupon the grating as reverse gear was engaged was deafening.
Thus the problem. It’s not whether you could start such a bank. It’s whether you could get sufficient customers to make it viable. People want secure deposits. But they also want to be able to get heaps of credit. When closing your bank account means paying back all you owe them…
Farage should name the bank so we can ostracise the management and their families.
The question of why he hasn’t, puzzles me, somewhat. Can’t be reluctance to piss off other banks because he’s saying he’s been refused by them as well. Unless he found himself where I was, trying to close my account. Couldn’t get my money out of it because they’d blocked withdrawals for “security reasons”. At which point one finds oneself at their mercy.
His bank’s been named as Coutts / NatWest elsewhere. He says his family’s accounts are also being closed.
We’ll see what else emerges about this, but at first glance it seems the establishment are no longer bothering to cloak their ongoing purge with allegations about hurling Pret a Manger tomatoes, unauthorised cake eating, etc
“100% reserve banks are entirely possible right now. They just can’t do maturity transformation. As that’s the very thing we desire from a banking system – even if not from every component in it – that’sthe problem. “A” 100% reserve bank? Sure.”
So am I right in thinking that a 100% reserve bank could just deposit all the money it received with the BoE and get the current BoE rate on it?
So that money it got from the BoE could be used to pay the banks expenses? And perhaps some passed back to the customers? So you could have a 100% RB offering 100% safe (and unlimited) deposits, and a guaranteed return of (say) half the current BoE rate? Or maybe nothing if the BoE rate is 1% or below, but 80% of the above? Given the sh*tty rates the major banks offer, I’d say you’d be flattened by the stampede of depositors wanting that deal. Chuck in a free current account and it would be a no brainer.
It’s interesting what incentives bank behaviour produces. If one’s reluctant to trust funds to them, not only because of the solvency issue but the concern over having ones money arbitrarily embargoed. (Something’s happened to a mate to the tune of 200k) And you have laws like we have, which make cash transactions over 1k illegal*. Then all that’s left is the black economy. Not saying that’s not saying I’m enthusiastically in favour of. I believe the unofficial economy to be our saviour & future.
*You’re not much different in the UK, are you? They just tackled it from a different end. There’s restrictions on how much cash you can carry. 5k? When you’re in some parts of the construction industry, that’s chicken feed.
If you could get the banking licence and the clearing house arrangement – so deal direct with BoE – then yes. Entirely that.
Coutts/NatWest have been named in numerous places. If this was not the case one would have expected s statement of denial by now.
On last nights GBNews programme he stated that just before airtime he had been told by the bank that his personal account would be safe but not his business accounts. He also stated that family members had been similarly targeted.
A rational government would be looking into this as a matter of urgency but these are a shower whose whips instructed their MPs to vote against Andrew Bridgens bill to monitor gender transitioning advice and assistance provided by schools to pupils. Where that level of petty spite exists Farage should not expect any help.
They just can’t do maturity transformation. As that’s the very thing we desire from a banking system
You speak for yourself. I think there’s a lot of people would like the money handling side of retail banking totally separate from the risks of maturity transformation.
Tim. If you asked someone “Do you think I should lend next month’s rent money to a bloke down the pub?” they’d think you were crackers. But that what the system essentially does.
“I think there’s a lot of people would like the money handling side of retail banking totally separate from the risks of maturity transformation.”
Amen. If, as with almost any current account, I have to pay you to sit on my money, that should be zero risk. Risk begins to get involved from me once I start accepting your payment (interest) to use my money.
There is also so much regulation these days that will land a bank with immense fines, that the merest whiff of “you might be a bit more work than usual” causes you problems. For example, one UK bank regularly demands that I prove I am not a US citizen.
Look up ‘politically exposed person’. You’ll find a bunch of internationally imposed regulations designed ‘to prevent corruption, bribery and money-laundering. Each country has a version of the regs and there must be a list of PEPs (and their families) in each country and possibly internationally too. (Wonder if the Bidens are on it.)
Anyhow, given such a list, it’ll be like the no-fly list. You can get on it for nothing but you can’t get off it after proving your innocence.
It seems to me that, surprise surprise, those regulations have been weaponised. If the authorities just don’t like you, you get labelled. You can’t get off the list. Further, it might just be that if some pressure group complains to the bank it would rather cancel you than defend you. It is probably like your average twitter storm, except that you don’t just get cancelled from twitter for having the wrong political outlook, you get unpersoned completely. We are lucky Nige has a bully pulpit.
Of course in Nigel’s case it won’t help that the government is his service provider’s biggest shareholder.
But, if you’re that important you have multiple accounts no? With multiple banks. In multiple countries. Not to excuse Coutts’ behaviour in the least, but don’t tell me he doesn’t have a current account in Brussels or Germany to tide him over. As well as a stash of readies in at least three currencies under the mattress.
Brussels was a bad example to choose .
As well as a stash of readies in at least three currencies under the mattress.
Not as easy as you think. After my & others experiences with banks, I have a suitcase full. If I hadn’t had plenty when my a/c got embargoed, I’d have been totally f**ked. But where to distributively stash took some thinking about. Just possession of large accounts of cash is problematic. Police can arbitrarily confiscate it as “suspected proceeds of crime” & how you’d ever convince them otherwise I can’t imagine. Unreported carrying across frontiers of quite small amounts is illegal & subject to confiscation again. I expect that what he means when he says that without a bank account it’s impossible to operate. Between them, banks & governments have have us by the short hairs.
” If you asked someone “Do you think I should lend next month’s rent money to a bloke down the pub?” they’d think you were crackers. But that what the system essentially does.”
Its more a case of ‘Should I lend next month’s rent money to someone at the other end of the country to fund some business that looks as dodgy as f*ck?’ or ‘Should I lend next month’s rent money to some limited company that can go bust in an instant and all the money disappear?’
John, seeing as he was an MEP for over 20 years it seems plausible..
We could try starting our own banks, then our own police force to protect the banks, our own courts etc.
But idk about that. Depends on the outcome of the French Civil War, imo. If the Algerians win, I assume it’ll shake up politics somewhat.
BiT4R
It was my attempt at humour as he didn’t exactly ingratiate himself with the Brussels establishment during that time. I reckon eu bureaucrats are probably even bigger bitches than ours.
Brazil: judges decide to ban former president Bolsonaro from politics for “lies”.
They’re very keen to make sure you can’t vote your way out of this.
This is of course the actual reason that bitcoin the censorship proof coin exists
This is of course the actual reason that bitcoin the censorship proof coin exists
Indeed. Then morons chose to use it as an ‘investment’ rather than just using it. So, for now anyway, making it worthless.
That that happened. And so many people in the financial even took it seriously, shows how many morons there are.
“This is of course the actual reason that bitcoin the censorship proof coin exists”
I tried to make this point on here before, and I was roundly derided for it.
Regardless of what the ‘value’ of bitcoin is right now, its got to have a non-zero value as a medium of exchange not under the control or issuance of the State that could be used when either State issued money is no longer accepted in return for goods and services, or the State refuses you access to its money system, which is what the denial of banking services amounts to.
The regulations pertaining to Politically Exposed Persons have been around for at least two decades. Nigel has been a PEP for at least his entire time as MEP. Whatever is going on here, it isn’t related to his PEP status.
“Farage should name the bank”
On GB News yesterday he all but did:
A London private bank for the posh owned by a large banking group
Coutts owned by Nat West
Trump was right “If they come for me, they will come for you”
Definitely something here that needs attention. While the individual bank would no doubt assert they are simply following regulations, in practice they apply a fairly wide and risk-averse interpretation of those (similar to inflation of regs by HR depts). They then hide behind calling it a commercial decision with the aim of avoiding any need to justify their decision, and close off the avenue of complaint to the ombudsman.
There does need to be some due process established for this, once a flag has been raised, that allows for an open and _real_ review of any concerns. Since the banks are pretty much uniformly deciding that would be labour intensive and better ditch the customer, this needs to be forced upon them.
“You want a banking license? Great! It comes with a universal service obligation, and if you do need to deny service for compliance reasons, expect to have your reasoning gone over with a fine tooth comb in full view of the customer (and his lawyer)”
Jim. The value of any currency is defined by the goods & services it can reliably exchanged for. By that definition, Bitcoin isn’t a currency. Thanks to the morons, there are few or no goods & services it can be reliably exchanged for. It’s notional value is being set by the exchange rate with other (government) currencies. Few people are using it for commerce.
As far as the 100% reserve Vs fractional reserve argument goes, I think that one is complex.
You want to run a 100% reserve bank, great! I might well become a client. But for most folk, what’s the difference between that and a typical bank with a govt* deposit guarantee?
But want to assert that all banks be 100% reserve and separate out “thing that takes deposits to do maturity transformation” ? Could be done, but I suspect cost of credit would be significantly higher… Good luck explaining that to mortgaged homeowners etc…. Oh, and the building societies are f-d.
*Assuming a govt that still has the right to print money…. Out here in euroland that govt guarantee does need a careful look
“You want to run a 100% reserve bank, great! I might well become a client. But for most folk, what’s the difference between that and a typical bank with a govt* deposit guarantee?”
My feeling is that the State would never let a 100% reserve bank get off the ground. Because it would show up the FR banking system for the ponzi scheme it is. If there was a bit of a banking crisis, what would happen? Everyone with more cash than the deposit guarantee would be taking their money out of the FRBs and sticking it into the 100% RB. Thus weakening the FRBs even more. While all banks are FR, they can stick together like a bunch of drunks propping each other up, just as when all currencies are fiat they can all inflate together. If depositors have another option in a crisis, which they can access at the click of a button, FR banking would become impossibly unstable. The State would do everything it could to make sure that depositors down’t have that escape route out of the FRB ponzi scheme.
” Thanks to the morons, there are few or no goods & services it can be reliably exchanged for. It’s notional value is being set by the exchange rate with other (government) currencies. Few people are using it for commerce.”
As of now. That may change, if things continue how they are, both with the devaluation of fiat currencies by inflation, and increasing restrictions on access to the existing financial system.
I suspect its one of those processes whereby nothing happens for ages, and then everything happens all at once. Probably virtually overnight, given the the speed of information transfer nowadays. Given the amount of fiat currency in the world, and the amount of bitcoin, if there was just a crack in the dam the price of bitcoin could go up 10 or 100 fold overnight, to a point where you might not even be able to buy it for fiat any more. And once the confidence went in fiat, buying real stuff with bitcoin would very rapidly become the norm.
If I was more tech savvy and knew how the process worked, I would hold some bitcoin on a physical device, as a sort of insurance policy against just such a day.
Comes the day, ammunition will become the new ‘currency’. The basic unit will be the .22 LR cartridge. Other calibers will be worth multiples of that. As part of my preparations I have several thousand rounds of 5.56 mm in my stash.
As far as I know Jim, there’s no reason a second instance of Bitcoin couldn’t be created. Other cryptocurrencies have. I can’t see how any crypto that’s been poisoned by the morons could transit to commerce, though. Whatever level of value it was, it’s too vulnerable to the morons still holding it trying to cash out. To work as a currency you need something reasonably stable.
So can anyone work out how to start a commerce currency without it being overwhelmed by speculators? It has to derive its value from the commerce it enables. The only way I can think of is there’s no exchangeability directly between the crypto & government money. To participate in commerce, you have to bring goods or services to the table. Which is basically how money came about in the first place.
100% reserve – Tally money?
Loathsome Chris Bryant allegations to blame?
Nigel Farage: After my banking travails, I fear Britain is lost
Our large corporates have turned woke. If you stand up to new-think, you too can have your accounts closed and your life made impossible
Be aware: if they are coming for me today, they can come for you tomorrow
Telegraph Article
Hi Pcar, welcome back.
@bloke in Spain. The goal of cryptopunks is build a parallel financial system that is censorship resistant. BTC is the foundation and like gold may vary in value however that are stable coins like USDC that have a fixed value. The smartest people in the world are building this system. It already works and in 30 years time it will have ‘replaced’ tradition finance. It is like electric cars, in principle they are simply better than the ICE but it will take a generation or two of development before it is also true in practice.
@jim if you want exposure to bitcoin you can either get a normal account with Coinbase or in an ISA you can buy the Microstrategy stock. The second is higher risk because it a single company not regulated a financial service provider. A sensible investment horizon is 7 to 10 years. Like all equity investment you should buy it and don’t look at it because traders alway lose.
however that are stable coins like USDC that have a fixed value.
Which just shows how much bollocks you’re talking. That is not a currency. No currency can have a fixed value against any other currency. That’s the f***point of it! The value of any currency is the quantity of goods or services it can be exchanged for. Nothing else.
Something like USDC is just an electronic ledger in government money.
And only a complete moron could talk about a currency in the sense of being an “investment”. It has zero intrinsic value. Any currency, including government money, has zero intrinsic value. But there are certainly a lot of morons around. The word’s speculate. Speculating on how moronic other speculators are, in the case of crypto.
Amazes me how few people seem to understand what money is. It is not a thing. It’s an aspect of a process. Without the process occurring, it doesn’t exist. So by “investing” in crypto currencies as they currently stand, you’re investing in nothing. Buying nothing. There’s insufficient commerce being conducted with them to bring them into reality.
Telegraph Readers show their ignorance – unquestingly accept msm narative
TalkTV JHB and GB News Liam Halligan no better, Gov’t and Ofwat regulations are the cause of water companies dire accounts
Regulators have failed to hold debt-ridden water companies to account
“It is incomprehensible that the Highly Regulated Water Industry should be so close to collapse”
Fool identifies the problem, but blind to the reality
NHS, Banks are Highly Regulated and always on brink of collapse as we’ve seen with SVB, Credit Suisse etc. How Deutche Bank continues to suvive is questionable
Telegraph
“there’s no reason a second instance of Bitcoin couldn’t be created”
That’s why I never understood the argument “only a finite number of BC can be issued so it will be resistant to inflation”. Maybe BC v.1 is special by virtue of being first but there’s going to be BC v.2, BC v.3, etc (well a whole plethora of alternative coins, not necessarily called “bitcoin”) and who’s to say BC v.517 is worth less than BC v.518?
Indeed, inflation in crypto is in the number of different coins, not the number of coins of any denomination available.
And there will never be an end to the creation of cryptocurrencies, because any coin you create at (essentially) zero cost will at some point after creation have a non-zero value, which the creator, as owner of most of the early coins, can cash in on. This will continue until there is one or a small number of cryptos in actual use by people other than nerds and purveyors of contraband.