Our Birth certificate effectively makes us nothing more than Corporate entities.
We are Owned by the Global Elite who farm us, at the end of our usefull life the Establishment disposesses us of our Wealth ( forcing the elderly to sell their homes to pay for care ) then disposes of us as quickly as possible.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lOSgS9odK8s&feature=related

This is not just a quirky way of looking at our plight it appears that our laws have been set up this way.

http://planetquo.com/The-Law-Is-An-Ass-And-You-Are-Made-Of-Straw

This explains why Corporatism seems to be taking over, closing down the Post offices to be replaced by Fed Ex, Privatising failing hospitals (which the Govt causes to fail)

Ok try this

The Elite’s Brueprint for a global business Model.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/silentweaponsforquietwars.htm

Now watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA&feature=related

Now watch this
http://www.endgamethemovie.com

and
http://www.prisonplanet.com

See, I told you.

Funny that Argentina’s
economy collapsed after the Falklands, there are a number of countries that do not have central banks run by the IMF and the Global Bankers, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, and North Korea,

do these countries sound familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=money+ron+paul&search_type=

When that economy is overvalued, the pieces of paper lose their power.

The banking system knows this and makes money out of it.
Therefore, if you print more money, its value is bound to go down because you have more money resting on the same economy.
Ask Argentina, any Sierra Leonian or President Mugabe.

Why do we need to repay it or take it out. Simply print it and distribute it into the economy. It doesnt need repaying.

If you double the money in circulation then to buy back the new half would take as much gold as would have paid for all the old currency in the first place.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I have just given.

If you go for bonds you at least know that it is possible to pay them off & the public can at least believe they will be redeemed.

If Govt simply prints the money, it doesnt need repaying. simply sat ro General Dannat, Here is £2 Billion, happy shopping.

If you print money everybody knows it won’t be.

Again Why repay bonds when givt could (but doesnt) simply print the Money.

Let me give an example, General Dannat wants £2 Billion for our Army, so Govt prints a load of bonds and sells then.
Bankers buy them, general dannat now has £2 Billion and goes shopping.

5 Years later the Bankers come to the Givt with the Bonds and the Givt must Pay 5 Billion PLUS 5% interest Per annum which govt can only raise ny Taxing us to the tune of £5.25Billion

If Govt simply printed the Money and gave it to general Dannat it would cost NOTHING.

Paper bonds haver no more intrinsic value than Paper money.

So who benefits from doing the money dance this way ( You already know the answer to this John )

If you go for bonds you at least know that it is possible to pay them off & the public can at least believe they will be redeemed. If you print money everybody knows it won’t be.

Howevere All things being equal and taking into consideration all inflationary precautions, it must be cheaper for the Govt to Print Money, than to Print Bonds that carry an interest penalty serviced by our taxes, why does it do this.
Why Not give General Dannat £2Billion freshly printed notes rather than raise this £2Billion through Bonds, because these Bonds must be services via our taxes and they carry an idditional cost in that they must be repaid with interest.

Who benefits.

The reason I labour the point is that in the Video Below and in a number of articles it appears that once upon a time the Crown had the legal right to Print money ( that was then backed by Gold ).

This was subverted by an agreement between the Crown and the International Bankers who agreed that they would print all the money that Govt desired if our taxes could be channelled up to the International Bankers.

Thinking about it, this would explain why Govt Prints Bonds, Not Currency.
Bacause if you think about it, who is it that buys these Interest bearing Bonds, I would argue that in large part it is Banking and financial sector.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnwLgrSJZKs

So the question remains, All things being equal, why would a Govt Print Gilts rather than Print Money.

Well, yes. But so what? Take Ireland for instance, the constitutional statute is not above being ammended, just watch the comming Lisbon treaty referendum. Look at the behaviour of the political elite in Ireland in the treaty of Niece the treaty of Amsterdam when ever the Irish had the audacity to vote against the wishes of the political class, they were simply told to go and vote again. So much for constitutional statute!!

In the USA, where there is a much more clearly defined constitutional document, there is a body of opinion that the federal reserve, now approching 90 years in existance is an unconstitutional institution. The US constitution mandates the coinage of the USA, and has been ignored in this respect since the establishment of the FED. The US Supreme court has been taken over by judges who choose to innovate rather than interpret the law. So even when you have a defined and well established constitutional document, what is observed in the constitution is purely down to the good grace of the political class. So much for constitutional statute!!

What plagues us (with due respect to our host) *is* the professional political class. It is a mistake pay MPs the whole lot should clear out and get real jobs.

If the government took only 30% of GNP & 20% was ring fenced what I would consider legitimate welfare (NHS, Pensions, schools) it would not be a prize for special interests to so fight over.

“I made clear that it was not independent and was a critic of the removal of powers from Day One. I thought it kept rates too low…”

Maybe, but you also said earlier that the independent Boe was keeping interest rates too high and risking a recession, and it would be better for the Chancellor to be in charge of setting interest rates as they would be lower.

When did you change your mind on THIS issue (i.e. the Chancellor was best placed to set interest rates), and what was the reason - that the UK economy didn’t go into recession or something else?

They are vilified by politicians on the continent (Sarkozy comes to mind) because it is not allowing them to spend their way to buy elections (which really is the main reason for having independence, the credibility factor), but still manage to have rates lower than here, and a very strong currency.

The Bundesbank had credibility in spades, which meant lower costs for Germany.

I believe that it is the model to follow, and if the Germans supported it, it is because they could see that it made them richer in the long term.

Reply: I do not mention the ECB because it does not live in a democracy - it part of the quangocracy in a quangocracy.

Well, since the 2002 Laws judgement in the ‘metric martyrs’ case, there is now a distinction. Convieniently, the EEC ‘72 act turns out to be one such.

Apparently in a constitutional inovation his lordship revoked the long standing doctrine of implied repeal.

For a while after the BoE was given the power to set interest rates, you argued that this was the wrong decision, and that because it was setting interest rates they were higher than they should be, and would be, if the Chancellor had been setting interest rates.

This both suggests you thought it was ‘independent’ of government in its rate setting (despite your requirement (1) above not being met by definition) and that you thought that was a bad thing. So my question is when, and for what reason, did you change your mind?

Reply: I made clear that it was not independent and was a critic of the removal of powers from Day One. I thought it kept rates too low when the governemnt switched targets, and made clear my opposition to that political intervention. The Conservative party does support a more independent Bank of Engl;and, and I set out how that could be achieved in the Economic Policy Report, but my blog piece shows the conditioons needed to create an independent Bank. I have not changed my view - circumstances have changed over what is the appropriate level of interest rates, and how much independence political parties really want.

It seems to me that it cannot be done except as part of wider constitutional reform in the UK. The ideal perhaps might be a written constitution, whose articles might (among other things) establish an independent central bank with a goal of achieving price stability below a fixed maximum (say 3%) with the government of the day being able to set a lower (but not higher) target. Modification of this constitution would require referendum or at least a super-majority in parliament.

Alternatively, if the House of Lords were to become elected, then a US-like system might become credible in the UK with the government nominating central bankers, an elected Lords confirming them and the appointee having security of tenure for say 4 years such as to be able to act as a countervailing power to the government during this period. However it seems to me that the current unelected Lords could not play the role and the Commons is no substitute when it is controlled by the same prime minister nominating the bankers.

Since I see no way that the Bank of England can ever really be independent under the current system, I am wondering what the conservative proposal is to achieve a truly independent central bank that might defy the government of the day? Jack Straw and Gordon Brown have made some interesting sounding proposals in recent years on constitutional reform (not related to central banking), but actual progress seems slow and I am not aware if these proposals are supported by the Conservatives. Do you agree that the Bank of England can never really be independent without constitutional reform?

Reply: I have set out the conditions needed for an independent Central Bank in a democracy in my piece. The Conservative party is looking at a number of ways of making the MPC more independent, especially by changing the method of appointing the members.

In 1913 the Federal reserve was set up, The Words Federal & Reserve intended to deceive the American Public in that it was not Federal but a Private Company.

Neither does it any longer have any reserves.

http://www.planetquo.com/The-Law-Is-An-Ass-And-You-Are-Made-Of-Straw

http://www.stopthelie.com/chapter_1_money_is_power.html

The bank of england Building may well be Owned by the Treasury but my understanding of the Situation is that Public money is Borrowed into existance from a Private source to the tune of £20 Billion worth of Interest Per year.
I now there are other ways of raising Public Money but one example is the Issuance of Gilts.
Instead of Issuing Gilts Why can the Crown not simply mint its own Money Free of charge and Issue that into circulation ( thus saving us the Interest paid on Gilts )

Reply: If you do too much of that it is inflationary.

That doesn’t seem to me to be contentious.

I am, however, worried about this: isn’t the FSA foisted on us by Europe? Doesn’t the Euro come, in most European countries, above the pound? I am concerned, actually, that our rivals and, yes, people who wish us to fail, are in charge of one third of our financial situation.

It would be nice to get a smidgeon of reassurance here.

Reply: they are not yet in charge of our currency but have increasing influence over our economic policy thanks to this government’s failure to stand up for our interests and independence.

Reply: Please read my reply more carefully.

It appears it may have, the Fed is a Private Company and the IRS ( tax office ) is Constitutionally illegal.

http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm

Reply: He is probably correct, and studied the US experience much more than I have. I do not know how you sustaimn the argument that the IRS is illegal.

Reply: It was more Gordon than the Bank

Reply:Yes, they did

Don’t take my word for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+federal+reserve&search_type=

The Global Elite Own you and your children.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lOSgS9odK8s&feature=related

Reply: Nonsense. By the way the Bank of England is 100% owned by the Tresury on behalf of taxpayers.

So to answer your main question, I would say that having an independent central bank automatically implies a ‘democratic deficit’ but never-the-less is to the long-term advantage of the public. Central banking is not a unique case either. Judges for example exercise one of the three classical forms of political power but are unelected in (almost) all countries. The skills required to be a good judge are very different from those required to run for elected office, involving long experience of case law gained over many decades and the benefits of delegating judicial power to independent judges is widely held to be in the public interest. Our independent central bank is very new compared to our independent judiciary, and has yet to establish the legitimacy that comes from being imagined to be the best possible system. However I would like to see an incoming Conservative government improve rather than abolish this new institution because experience shows that we will most benefit from an independent central bank under future left-wing governments which historically have attached a low priority to low rates of inflation.

Reply: It is Conservative policy to make the Bank more independent.