Quantitative Easing: the BoE explains and I comment

Quantitative easing explained the American way on a 6-minute video.

First, I contributed to quantitave easing on Wikipedia.

Now, Ask the Deputy Governor offers the following 16 questions addressed to the Bank of England with their answers.

Aware of the Bank of England Act 1694, I comment not as an economist, but from the perspective of a mathematician, systems analyst and software diagnostician, formerly at CERN, looking at “money” and its purpose:

1. Given inflation has only just fallen below the Government’s 2% target, why is the Bank of England adopting such a large unconventional policy measure?
The effects of monetary policy on prices and real activity only come through after long and somewhat variable lags.

Comment: 2% inflation of consumer prices is only possible when measuring inflation extremely short-term. The Office of National Statistics keeps writing about annual inflation, while also gathering monthly data.

Inflation as “price inflation” is only one aspect. The real inflation is the supply of money as currency for the nation as a whole, which should be called “monetary inflation”.

Consequently, the MPC has to focus on the medium term prospects for inflation when setting monetary policy, rather than the current level of inflation, which it can do very little about

Comment: It is true that the current unregulated supply of “credit money” into the economy can hardly predict the effect on price inflation.

Although inflation had been above the target for some time and has only recently fallen below it, the MPC judged that in the absence of a further monetary policy stimulus, the growing margin of spare capacity created by the recession would push inflation significantly below the target in the medium term. With Bank Rate already almost as low as it can go, the MPC therefore decided that a substantial stimulus through quantitative easing was warranted.

Comment: Substantial stimulus, yes. But EFFECTIVE for the REAL, not only lucrative the financial economy, please!

2. You say that the objective of quantitative easing is to increase money spending in the economy? Has the Bank of England’s objective changed?
No. The objective of the MPC remains to hit the Chancellor’s 2% CPI inflation target.

Comment: This target was set by Alan Greenspan, and it appears somewhat ‘noble’ given the overall picture of utter destructiveness by controlling the real economy by eroding and manipulating the purchasing power of currencies.

But the Bank is concerned with the growth of money spending in the economy because it is a primary determinant of inflation in the medium term.

Comment: So the belief is: the more money is spent, the smaller is inflation. I.e. consumption limits price inflation. To me, that is extremely far fetched and not to the point at all. But then “they” want and need to obfuscate, whereas I want to demystify and “enlighten”.

Inflation (deflation) occurs when the growth of money spending is high (low) relative to the rate of growth of the economy’s supply capacity.

Comment: What would it take, I wonder, to replace such hard-wired beliefs with real understanding and knowledge?

In March 2009, the MPC judged that the prospects for money spending in the UK had deteriorated due to the financial crisis and demand would therefore be insufficiently strong to meet the inflation target in the medium term. Quantitative easing aims to increase money spending, and thereby to help achieve the inflation target in the medium term.

Comment: Giving money to investors and other financial players is not going to encourage ‘money spending’, is it?

3. Quantitative easing isn’t fair to savers who did nothing wrong in the lead up to the crisis and now get very little on their savings. Doesn’t it simply reward the imprudent who borrowed too much?
Monetary policy is a rather blunt instrument and unfortunately there will always be gainers and losers from any particular MPC decision. For instance, raising Bank Rate usually benefits savers and hurts borrowers. At the present juncture, many savers are suffering from particularly low interest rates on their savings, even though the financial crisis is not of their making. But by cutting Bank Rate sharply and undertaking quantitative easing now, the MPC is aiming to get the economy back on track sooner rather than later. And when that happens, interest rates for both savers and borrowers can return to more normal levels. If the MPC had not undertaken quantitative easing, interest rates would need to stay low for even longer to keep inflation on track to hit the target.

Comment: What if the MPC realised the difference between “monetary inflation”, i.e. the growth of the money supply through “credit money”, and “price inflation”, i.e. the growth of prices for which consumers are meant to spend their money?

What if the MPC started watching the percentage of interest-free Cash vs the percentage of interest-bearing Credit in the money supply?

What if the MPC asked itself where the interest is coming from that is required to pay for ‘quantitative easing’?

Or is it, maybe, possible, that it’s part of the grander scheme of structures and processes that WANTS people to be more and more enslaved by the necessity to pay taxes and interests? After all, as long as money can be created from thin air, neither taxes nor interest are necessary!

4. Won’t quantitative easing just pump up house prices again and lead to more of the same problems?
Monetary policy, including quantitative easing, seeks to stabilise inflation at the 2% target over the medium-term.

Comment: First of all, I emailed enquiries AT bankofengland.co.uk to ask how long “medium term” is. After all, my forecasting software projects any time series at any interval into the future. But I need clear definitions.

The MPC does not target house prices, or any other asset prices for that matter, although it does take them into account when forming its judgement regarding the medium-term prospects for inflation. If quantitative easing ends up stimulating the housing market unduly then it is also likely to stimulate spending more generally and the MPC will in that case need to be tightening policy in order to hit its inflation target. But the experience of the past few years has shown that asset prices can rise rapidly even when the prices of goods and services are stable. So the FSA and the Bank will need to be on the lookout for evidence of unsustainable developments in housing and other asset markets.

Comment: So ‘quantitative easing’ is supposed to increase money spending, without increasing price inflation.

But spending money on “assets” and their potentially increasing prices would be ok, because that’s not covered by the Consumber Price Index (CPI).

How can anybody believe that turning the screws of ‘Bank Rate’ and ‘interest rate’ can be the mechanism for keeping price inflation “in check” while credit money is being pumped into the financial industry?

Maybe a rise in “asset prices” is exactly due to “monetary” or “financial inflation” rather than the prices of real goods and real services???

5. Won’t quantitative easing undermine trust in money? Won’t it lead inevitably to high levels of inflation and a collapse in confidence in sterling? Aren’t there limits to quantitative easing?
Monetary policy in the UK is focused on maintaining trust in the currency by ensuring that inflation is continually on track to meet the Chancellor’s 2% target in the medium term. At the beginning of 2009, the MPC’s traditional instrument of Bank Rate was cut to nearly zero (0.5%), but the economy continued to weaken as a result of the financial crisis. That is why the MPC judged that inflation would undershoot the 2% target without an additional policy stimulus. Far from undermining trust in the currency, quantitative easing is designed to ensure that inflation is stable and in line with the 2% inflation target in the medium term. As the economy starts to improve, so the MPC will tighten monetary conditions by selling off the assets it has bought and/or by raising Bank Rate so as to keep inflation on track to meet the target.

Comment: So the economy is expected to improve by ‘quantitative easing’ providing money for people to spend that they can’t get from their banks any more… The BoE ‘produces’ money in lieu of the banks…

6. Are you not simply monetising government debt? Is there any economic distinction between buying government debt in the secondary market from buying it directly from the Government?
The key point is that the Bank is not being forced to create money in order to cover the gap between the government’s tax income and its spending commitments. If it were carried out to finance the budget deficit, it would be a violation of Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Comment: It’s too bad that governments contribute to the need to create money from thin air by operating deficits. Please notice how this deficit increased sharply at the time of the ‘crisis’.

Rather, the Bank is undertaking quantitative easing in order to meet the inflation target and will sell the government debt back to the private sector once the economy recovers, thus unwinding the original increase in the money supply.
Central banks routinely buy and sell government debt in the secondary market as part of their normal operations in the money markets and such operations are not deemed to amount to monetary financing under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The only thing that distinguishes quantitative easing from normal operations is their scale and the length of time for which the assets are likely to be held.

Comment: When the Bank of England was set up in 1694, it was expressly NOT allowed to trade. In fact, the Bank of England Act 1694 foresaw a punishment of treble the value of the trade. But the Bank of England became the model for over 100 central banks worldwide, each supposedly doing the right thing. In reality, they are the unelected government of a country.

7. Didn’t this happen in the Weimar Republic and in Zimbabwe? Why will it be different this time? Aren’t you taking an enormous risk with our economy?
In the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe, the central bank printed money to finance government expenditure. This vastly increased the money supply, and hence prices rose rapidly. This is not happening in the United Kingdom. Here, the Bank is buying assets from the private sector to stimulate the wider economy, because otherwise we risk undershooting, rather than overshooting, the inflation target. Quantitative easing is not carried out to help the government meet its financing needs. When the economy recovers, most of the purchased assets will be sold back to investors, reducing the money supply.

Comment: The when and where doesn’t matter. The principle is the same: banks created much more ‘credit money’ for the financial industry than governments created Cash for the real economy. When making money out of money has gone too far, money has no value for real products and services any more. Economists call it inflation. But what is really inflated is the supply of credit money.

8. What is the difference between reserve balances and printing money?
Reserve balances are, in effect, electronic money held only by commercial banks and can only be used to settle transactions between them and with the Bank of England. The Bank issues paper currency in response to the demand for banknotes from the public. But reserves and notes both represent claims on the Bank of England (‘central bank money’) and the banks can exchange the reserves for notes, although as they receive Bank Rate on their reserves they will only do this if the notes are needed to meet, for instance, withdrawals of deposits. When the Bank buys assets under its quantitative easing programme, the bank account of the seller goes up by the value of the sale and their bank simultaneously acquires an equal quantity of reserves.

Comment: Here we see the obfuscation that banks and economists use to camouflage “money”, its origins (central bank or state) and its qualities (interest-bearing or interest-free).

The term “central bank money” has only recently been introduced. But the term “state money” has not been created at the same time. Is it “chance” that the Bundesbank uses it as well as the Bank of England?

9. If banks are unwilling to lend because of capital constraints, won’t this make quantitative easing ineffective?
Quantitative easing operates through a variety of channels, only some of which actively involve commercial banks. When the Bank purchases government debt (gilts), it depresses gilt yields and the yields on a range of similar assets. The sellers are then likely to buy other assets, including equities and corporate bonds, putting further downward pressure on yields and making it easier and cheaper for businesses to raise finance through the capital markets.

Comment: Purchasing government debt is the biggest con trick there is. Here are the reasons:

  1. the state prints notes and mints coins as interest-free money
    • the state does not have to borrow money at interest
    • the state could spend interest-free money into the real economy
  2. the BoE was set up NOT to trade
    • when it BUYS government debts, it uses “credit money” that it creates for the financial economy;
    • by that step it forces the government to include interest payments into its budget;
    • the taxpayer is taken for a ride, not to say exploited and oppressed by the government’s agencies who insist in legally enforceable tax payments
  3. why have successive governments allowed this transfer of control over the money supply from state to central bank?
    • how come the process is the same across countries?
As a counterpart to the asset purchases, quantitative easing also generates extra reserves. These reserves represent a claim on the Bank of England and can only be held by banks; the Bank pays interest at Bank Rate on these reserves. If a bank wants, they can also be converted on demand into banknotes. Reserves thus constitute a highly liquid and riskless asset but one which pays a low return. Banks finding themselves holding more of these highly liquid, riskless but low-yielding, assets may therefore be tempted to use the extra reserves in ways that generate higher returns, including extending more loans. That could be especially helpful to small businesses that are presently finding it hard to get credit.
But banks may not expand their lending if they are worried about prospective losses on their existing loans and the adequacy of their capital to absorb losses; that was what happened in Japan earlier this decade. Even so, quantitative easing will still have a beneficial effect through the channels mentioned earlier, although it will be less powerful than it would otherwise be.

Comment: States never ran their money creation as a business until companies such as McKenzie and Price Waterhouse changed people’s thinking. States ask for taxes. Banks, however, have turned not just their ‘money services’ but also ‘credit creation’ into a business and ask for interest, besides charges.

The ‘power’ of quantitative easing consists in

  • using government debts as the biggest single capital sums to receive highest possible interest payments over longest possible time periods – for the benefit of players in the financial  economy
  • whether the financial economy passes these benefits on to the real economy, is a matter of corporate choice.
10. Quantitative easing was tried in Japan but didn’t work. What lessons have you drawn from this? Why do you think it will work here?
There are three main lessons to be learned from the Japanese experience in regard to quantitative easing. First, policy needs to act early and decisively. The Bank of Japan cut its policy rate to 0.5% in September 1995, but it did not start quantitative easing until March 2001. In the United Kingdom, quantitative easing started in March, the same month as the MPC cut Bank Rate to 0.5%.

Comment: The Federal Reserve of San Francisco published Did Quantitative Easing by the Bank of Japan “Work”? The German weekly paper DIE ZEIT published an article “When money fell from the sky” and concluded that the banks are always the winners. Hence once must conclude that QE didn’t “work” for the real economy, but it does work for everybody able to buy gilts or other ‘instruments’ related to QE.

Second, policy should not focus on a single transmission channel. The Bank of Japan sought to increase the banking sector’s money holdings by buying assets principally from the banks. This meant that there was no direct effect of the Bank of Japan’s actions on broad money – the money holdings of the non-bank private sector. So the Bank of Japan, in order to have an effect on broad money, was entirely reliant on the banks reacting to the extra reserves by expanding their lending. But the banks simply hoarded the reserves and did not expand lending. The Bank of England has taken a different approach, which aims to have a direct effect on broad money, and works through a wider range of channels to stimulate spending. In particular, it has focused on purchasing assets from the non-bank private sector in order to increase directly the money holdings of private individuals and companies who are more likely to spend this extra money. Of course this may then be reinforced if the banks choose to expand lending as well.

Comment: Isn’t it remarkable that “money” can be called by so many different names? It even flows through “channels” now. Why don’t bankers call a spade a space???

“Broad money” is the banks’ term for “Credit” as opposed to “narrow money”, i.e. interest-free Cash, produced by the State.

I wonder whether “purchasing assets from the non-bank private sector” is a cynical way of talking about re-possessing houses due to the crisis…

Third, the Bank of Japan bought only government debt until mid-2002. Though small in terms of the quantity of actual purchases, the Bank of England’s willingness to purchase corporate assets is an important part of our strategy. That willingness to purchase private sector assets has helped to ease credit conditions directly for those firms using these markets to raise funds.
11. Will quantitative easing be unwound (assets sold back into the market) before interest rates increase again?
When the MPC wanted to loosen monetary policy to support the economy at the start of the recession, it began by cutting Bank Rate aggressively. But once Bank Rate had reached its effective floor – Bank Rate is currently 0.5% – it was necessary to stimulate money spending in other ways. That is what quantitative easing is supposed to achieve.
When it comes to tightening policy, the MPC will have two instruments available: raising Bank Rate; and selling back assets. Removing money from circulation can be achieved by selling the assets back to the private sector. The MPC will be likely to use a combination of raising Bank Rate and selling back assets, although the precise sequencing and the relative importance of the two instruments will be considered month by month at each MPC meeting. The Bank will seek to sell the assets it owns in an orderly fashion in order not to disrupt the market for government debt.

Comment:To grow and continuously preserve the market of government debts seems to be the main purpose of central banks. To do that despite ups and downs of bank rates and interest rates guarantees interest payments as passive income of the safest kind. No systemic risk, since states, towns and other public institutions don’t die.

While states can go bankrupt, they are not necessarily dissolved. However, to dissolve the sovereignty of nation states seems to be exactly the agenda of the powers that be.

12. Won’t quantitative easing inevitably lead to higher interest rates on government debt when you come to sell the assets back?
It is possible that gilt prices will fall, thus raising the corresponding interest rates, when the Bank starts to sell its holdings. Subject to achieving the 2% inflation target in the medium term, any sales will be co-ordinated with the Debt Management Office so as to limit any adverse impact on the functioning of the gilt market. Moreover, at this point it is impossible to know whether long-term interest rates at the time of sale will be lower or higher than at present.

Comment: In terms of ‘financial instruments’, it is possible to think about:

  • gilts and treasury bonds as the ‘too big to fail’ products, since they relate to governments
  • currencies as another ‘too big to fail’ category, as they depend on banks using them
  • shares as the ‘too small to care’ products, unless they belong to those corporations that are ‘too big to fail, too’.

And thus the Law of Money, established by financial corporations, rules the world. Therefore, the Forum for Stable Currencies, ever since it was established in 1998, has been advocating ‘economic democracy’ through freedom from national debt.

13. Is the suggestion that the Bank might issue short-term Bank of England bills to reduce reserves an indication that it will be difficult to sell the assets it has purchased back to the market?
The market for UK government debt is one of the deepest and most liquid financial markets in the world. Nevertheless, buying and selling large quantities of assets quickly is likely to result in price distortions. If the MPC decides that it wants to reduce the quantity of reserve balances held by the banks, the easiest way to do it quickly would be to issue them with Bank of England bills in exchange for the reserves, rather than selling off the Bank’s holdings of government debt back to the non-bank private sector. The assets could then be sold back in an orderly fashion over a longer time period. Whether the Bank issues extra bills in exchange for the reserves or not will ultimately be a technical decision that will be taken with a view to market conditions at the time.

Comment: Buying and selling debts has turned into ‘swaps’ of short-term credit with high interest rates for longer-term credit at lower interest rates. The principle is called

  • usury or the practice of lending money at interest
  • speculation or the hope for instant or at least short-term gratification
  • greed or the illusion of satisfaction from buying what money can buy.

It’s the same principle whether bankers or central bankers do it.

14. Why not purchase more corporate bonds?
Since March, the Bank of England has purchased government bonds, corporate bonds and commercial paper paid for by issuing additional central bank reserves. The vast majority of the Bank’s purchases have been government bonds. The purchases work through two mechanisms – by increasing the amount of money circulating in the economy and by improving conditions in the corporate credit market. The quickest way to expand the money supply is to purchase government debt from the private sector because there is a large stock available for purchase; that is why the majority of purchases have been government bonds.

Comment: It all sounds ever so prim and proper, doesn’t it. But who would bother to find out what ‘they’ are doing? After all, they are ‘public servants’ swearing an oath and surely doing the right thing, aren’t they?

Large-scale purchases of corporate assets, for instance of corporate debt or equities, would involve the Bank taking a lot of risk onto its balance sheet, the burden of which would ultimately fall on the taxpayer. So any decision to purchase large-scale quantities of corporate assets really should be made by the Government, not by the MPC or the Bank.

Comment: Of course, if the Bank sees itself operating at profit for its Nominees as shareholders, it has to do what it is doing. But it is conceivable that the Bank of England was to provide a service to the Nation, its voters and its taxpayers, isn’t it?

The immediate purpose of buying corporate bonds is to improve the functioning of corporate credit markets. That would reduce the spreads on such assets – the difference between the yield on bonds and the yield on an equivalent maturity gilt – and stimulate issuance by making it known that the Bank is standing ready to act as a buyer. That in turn should support private sector demand for these assets by making the markets function better and so enable companies to get easier access to finance through these markets.
But it is not the intention to replace private demand altogether. Indeed, if the operations are successful, then it may not even be necessary for the Bank to buy many bonds in order to reduce spreads and improve issuance conditions. The very fact that it is widely known that the Bank is willing to operate in these markets may prompt spreads to fall and issuance to increase. And, as it happens, since the bond purchase facility was announced, the demand for corporate bonds by private investors has been very strong and bonds spreads have fallen significantly.

Comment: Surprise, surprise. The easier and lucrative it is for those who can afford to buy ‘corporate bonds’ the more they will go for it. That’s how the rich get richer. Especially managers of financial institutions and corporations: without taking personal responsibility or risk, let alone providing labour or other ‘real work’.

15. Why did you limit the maturity of government bonds that you will buy?
As of 6 August 2009, the Bank will buy gilts of all maturities of three years and above. But our previous purchases were focused on the maturity range of five to 25 years. We did not buy ultra-long gilts because those are predominantly held by pension funds to hedge their pension liabilities and tend to be relatively lightly traded. And we did not purchase short gilts because they are held in greater quantity by the banks – we wanted to focus our purchases on buying from the non-bank private sector. However, given that the Bank now holds significant quantities of the maturities that it was purchasing, it was deemed sensible to expand the range of eligible maturities in order to avoid distorting the gilt market too much.

Comment: “Distorting the gilt market”: what could be too high or too low? The price, the interest rate or the two together. What could be too long or too short? The maturity. Who judges what is “too high” in growth-driven capitalism and what is “too short” in finding optimal sources for passive income?

16. When you go into the market to buy gilts, which would you prefer to buy a small quantity which creates a disproportionate rise in prices, or to buy a lot as cheaply as possible?
The primary purpose of buying gilts is to increase the money supply as rapidly as possible. Therefore the priority has been to buy in deep and liquid markets. We determine which gilts to buy by comparing the offered sale prices with the respective market prices. In order to ensure all market segments remain liquid, the Bank will cease purchasing a gilt of a particular maturity when it owns a significant proportion of the stock outstanding as the market for that particular gilt is then likely to become less liquid.

Comment: How many quick and slow ways of increasing the money supply are there? Let me count the ways:

  1. notes can be printed – free from interest – which is slow
  2. coins can be minted – free from interest – which is also slow
  3. M0 or Not-Interest Bearing (NIB) Cash can be generated by the Treasury electronically – which is fast
  4. gilts can be issued by the Treasury for the Bank to purchase – is that the fastest track?

Back to the  top

Related Links

16 responses to “Quantitative Easing: the BoE explains and I comment

  1. Cyril Wilkinson


    I received notification and really I no longer wish to say much in the way of comment on what is an iniquitous system anyway.
    iniquitous – characterized by iniquity; wicked because it is believed to be a sin; “iniquitous deeds”; “he said it was sinful to wear lipstick”; “ungodly acts”

    No mention of the interest being paid on the newly created reserves to the banksters. 1.3 billion paid as bonuses the RBOS banksters even though they had “lost” 3.1 billion pounds.

    It just so happens that I have a couple of links. The first paragraph of the following sums it up…


    But continue reading down the page and find some other truths as well.

    And what about the (manipulated) stock market?


    Fraudulent Reserve Lending is based upon a fallacy that is long past its sell by date. “Sustainable growth”.

    Good. Now I’m off to play some golf. Whoops I forgot I don’t play golf.


  2. Cyril Wilkinson

    Sorry about the typos

    1.3 billion paid to the RBOS banksters this time. 40% more than last time which was 900 million pounds. (Yes I am sorry to bleat on about this but they made a “loss” last time as well).

  3. Cyril Wilkinson

    The banks ***should not*** have been bailed out. Period. What carnage is someone likely to do if there is no “moral-hazard”.

    Like I say the banking system is truly iniquitous and does not perform the task which it should do. (Given that we have a credit==debt based money system).

    All commercial banks should be transparent and should not make any profits, taking only enough to cover the costs. Maybe better yet, just pay for the costs out of taxes and cut all the crap about “what we the banks do”.

    There was no mention about the CPI index (the measure of the effects of monetary inflation) not including house prices.???

    For which I have another suitable link…

    Rent-a-currency (why do we have to rent the tokens of exchange when we have a government that can tax?).

    I think we fail to ask the right questions. I mused to myself what would children say when I explained the system to them? Why?

    “If you can’t explain a concept to a 6-year-old, you don’t fully understand it.” – Einstein

  4. Cyril Wilkinson

    N.W.O. ??


    And to those who haven’t noticed there is already a New World Order.

    The governments kneel down to the demands of the banksters.


    (Ok so it ‘s in French) but I love the part how the banks start to tell us that we should now be more prudent.

    et engrangeant à nouveau de mirifiques profits, ils reviennent, la gueule enfarinée, nous donner des leçons de morale

    And for those who like to think of a non-violent revolution…

    Malheureusement, l’histoire nous apprend qu’une caste de privilégiés n’abandonne ses privilèges qu’au cours d’une révolution. Saurons-nous en faire une qui soit non-violente? On l’espère, mais le temps presse, car nous avons le sentiment que le Peuple pourrait assez rapidement voir ses velléités de révolte broyées dans un “Grand Effort Commun pour la Patrie”. Et on ne pense pas particulièrement ici au “grand emprunt”.

  5. Cyril Wilkinson

    I apologise for the profuse number of posts I am putting here. You have my “permission” to delete them.

    Zerofly here puts the debate in nice words.


    (I like Ed Griffin’s “The Creature from Jekyll Island” talk)




    Worth a listen/watch for those you haven’t seen it.

    Right now I will behave myself (I think).

  6. Cyril Wilkinson

    Ok I am “misbehaving” a little here but ZeroFly makes a point…

    A snippet..
    100% Reserve Interest Free Banking is fine as long as the bank is not a commercial enterprise. I’m going to be repeating myself here from my last post, but commercial banks want to claim that they are a capitalist enterprise and are preforming a moral service to society. They want to claim that the money that they created out of thin air is their private property and that you borrowed it when you asked for a loan. The thing is the money that they created isn’t their private property.


    People are waking up and really thinking about the things.

  7. Thank you, dear Sabine. This language and these clarifications make systems thinking for seeing effects and (un)intended side effects of interventions and twiddles in the monetary system real easy. Will let you know a.s.a.p. when I have some diagrams of effects based on your clarifications.

  8. Cyril Wilkinson


    Thank you. I shall return with some “diagrams” myself. I hope in about a month.

    A Bientot

  9. Pingback: Why Spending Cuts are another variation of “institutionalised white collar crime” « Money as Debt also known as Credit

  10. Pingback: Central banks + banks + governments = same circus, different clowns!?… «

  11. Pingback: Four online petitions with remarkable comments – expressions of the “Zeitgeist” in the UK | Room 14 – a foundation for change

  12. One other issue is that if you are in a scenario where you would not have a co-signer then you may really need to try to make use of all of your school funding options. You can get many grants or loans and other scholarships that will provide you with money to support with college expenses. Thanks alot : ) for the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s