Bank of England Official: Occupy "were right" (video)

Home » Blog » 2012 » December » 23 » Bank of England…

The main stream press was eager to quote Andy Haldane, the Executive Director of Financial Stability for The Bank Of England, when he publicly announced that Occupy was right. However Andy Haldane’s proposed reform strands, which he memorably calls the 5C’s, do not go very far in addressing what Occupy stands for.

The Bank of England only allowed audio recording (no video) at the talk and this piece includes Andy Haldane’s speech at the talk. It focuses on his 5C’s reforms and what Ben Dyson from Positive Money and Richard Paton from Occupy had to say in response to them.

Video from 

“There are deeper problems than just the culture in banking, it’s more fundamental and it’s more about the structure and the actual design of the whole system.”

Ben Dyson




Stay in touch

Trackback from your site.

  • Pingback: Bank of England Official: Occupy "were right" (video) | |

  • Barry Cooper

    Ben, what’s wrong with a Jubilee? Why not eradicate all debt? In your plan, existing debt is paid off in a way which will be patently deflationary. Deflation, when considerable private or public debt is present, is economically catastrophic. That is what started the Great Depression. Both the evidence and logic in favor of this claim are overwhelming. Even in the Chicago Plan all private debt is eliminated, but I say why not all of it? OF COURSE there will be relative winners and losers, but on balance EVERYONE wins except the banks, and they truly are the villains in this soap opera. I will post my plan again: The proposal, which I will say in advance is NOT a true gold standard, but rather a hybrid unique as far as I can tell to me, starts on page 23.

    • Simon

      The best way is to pay back existing debts by issuing more debt free money (without causing inflation), then prevent the banks creating more debt money in the future.

  • Lincoln

    I agree with your comment Barry.

    One way of looking at it is looking a the so called “money supply”. 97% of it consists of banks debt to customers (all banks accounts are the banks debt to customers that the customer can claim by withdrawing cash from for instance a ATM machine).So in the present it’s fair to say that we have so called “money supply” that to 97% relies on that the banks never need to pay their debts. So you could actually argue that the present system is in fact a 97% Jubilee for the banks.

    And the big banks are working hard to make it a 100% Jubilee for themselves by pushing for the cash less society. One question I never hear is:How will the banks be able to pay their debts if cash disappear? Well, they can’t and that’s their goal – a total write off of all the banks for the banks (you could think that a 97% write off should be more the enough but greed is greed).

    So we don’t actually have much of a “money supply” – we got to 97% a “bank debt supply” instead.

    We don’t even have payment system –we got a “bank debt swap system”. People don’t pay money to each others through their bank accounts – they swaps bank debts. If I send you 100£ from my account to your bank account the only thing happening is that I get 100£ less of my banks debt on my account and you end up have 100£more of your banks debt on your account. Isn’t rather funny that people think that they are rich the more bank debt they own. I mean, I would laugh out loud (LOL), if my friend Erik, tried to convince me that I would be rich if I took over and hold on to his debt. But the banks actually convince us that carrying the banks debt is the same as being rich.

    I also agree with Barry that it is a “soap opera” and a bad one. It would have been quite funny if it wasn’t for the fact it’s mostly tragic.

    Sorry for any spelling and/or grammar errors – I’m from Sweden and I don’t have the time to double check my writing.

  • Pingback: Bank of England Official: Occupy "were right" (video) | The Money Chronicle |

No Announcement posts

back to top