Thursday, July 12, 2007

Dizzy: Abandoned Cars Must Not Be Scrapped?

Dizzy paints a lovely word picture of his reader tending their pride and joy - in Dizzy's case an old school vintage penis extension in the garage - for 15 long years. And then having it appropriated for lack of attention!

Doesn't make sense? I thought not.

A real parable for the proposal to give money in lost bank accounts to good causes if the owners cannot be traced would be a car completely abandoned for 15 years being finally cubed and recycled.

Lovely picture of cubed vehicles, for recycling, using a car crusher loaned by the DVLA at Ystrad Quarry, Trefil in the Brecon Beacons. Collected by soldiers from 101 Bn REME (V) part of Exercise Brecon Blackhawk to remove approx 150 vehicles that have been stolen or burned out to avoid paying scrapping fee. Courtesy of Guardian wizard Jeff Morgan.


dizzy said...

I;m not surprised you don't understand an analogy of proeprty rights.

Chris Paul said...

I'm not surprised you have concocted one that is plain wrong mate!! By looking after your dear car (as presumably the analogue money) you are completely immune from confiscation! And of course in this dead money society scenario you can have your money back anyway, should you claim it. Meanwhile it is making social capital not super-profit for thieving banks.

As you well know. You ideologue you!

Good explanation from anonymous I thought:

Oh dizzy, sometimes you let the idealogy run rampant all over the facts.

The Unclaimed assets bill does not and will not mean that your money is taken away. What it means that the money that banks currently put on their balance sheets as profits and use to invest but make no attempt to find the rightful owners of will be put to social use.

What is does not mean is that you will not be able to have the money should you discover an old savings book under the Mr and Mrs Thinks mattress. Banks will simply take out insurance against the claimant coming back for the money and there it will be in all its insurance gathering glory for you to spend as you see fit.

It is estimated that there is around £10-15bn worth of cash lying around on bank's balance sheets that does nothing bar feather the nests of bank executives. This way, banks have to actually do something to earn their money, your money remains asseccible should you want it, and the cash can be put to good uses like under fives edudaction provision or finding kids something to do in the summer holidays - all things that reduce long term crime and save tax payers money whilst making Britain a nicer place to live.

So, idealogy aside we have a little tickle of the banks which is always popular, we have no extra taxation, we have extra socially good spending that will reduce crime and save money in the medium to long term and you get to keep your money if you want it.

So libertarianism gone mad aside, what exactly is there not to like?

Indeed, what's not to like?

dizzy said...

The answer is simple as I already said. It's not the states money> period. It never was the state's money> it never will be the state's money. It belonged to an individual who went into contract with a bank to store it there. The state has no right to it.

You are a socialist who beleives the states has a right to won pretty much everything, I am not an authoritarian. I beleive in freedom, you believe in the oppression of the individual under the guise of the all pervasive state.

Bottom line is simple though as I already said. it's not the state's money. End of.

dizzy said...

The banks are not stealing either. the money was placed into them under cotnract. There is no act of "theiving" taking place whatsoever. Your politics of envy is bollocks.

Chris Paul said...

My politics is the bollocks mate!

The banks have fulfilled their contract - except that they are no longer keeping owners apprised of their assets' whereabouts.

I see no problem whatsoever in the public good benefitting rather than the private greed - which after all has incompetently lost touch with asset owners. Hardly deserves the reward of a free lunch now does it it?

The banks currently have an incentive to 'lose' customers. Why should that be?

They don't 'lose' customers that owe them.

And as all right thinking people are saying you get your dosh back with interest if you ever manage to track it down.

What is your problem?

Naturally the remark about the banks thieving was about their punitive over-charging etc and not this little wheeze of theirs.

Obviously I am envious. I don't have a vintage car in my garage. I don't even have a garage.

Eat the rich! Trotty slogans fade into distance etc etc

dizzy said...

What is your problem?

You're just not listening are you. The problem is that the Government has no right to the money. Period. It is not theirs. It doesn't matter whether you can "appeals and get it back" which I bet you will be like trying to get a tax rebate and a myriad of from and interviews desgned to put people off.

There is no point in arguing anymore over this because we come from different sides of the spetcrum. You beleive in the state controlling individuals I beleive that individuals make up the state and the state has no right over it's individuals property. I beleive in liberty and freedom, you don't.

Chris Paul said...

It's not the banks' money now is it?

When it comes to "government" spending you are of course keen to point out that this is the people's money. Quite right.

Why cannot this be seen as the people's money?

Chris Paul said...

PS My Facebook politics says Libertarian! Cos the scum don't have socialist as an option.

Liberate the people's money!
Release the people's dosh!