Sorry about the source of these figures, but a quick search couldn't find a better article that has some concrete number, this is from February 20th, 2009:

"Britain’s public debt is about 142% of GDP, or about 2 trillion pounds. In one week, Britain’s debt has increased by 1.4 trillion pounds... It’s likely the fastest, largest increase in net national indebtedness in the history of the world.

What happened? On Thursday, Britain’s Office of National Statistics ruled that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds (which had already taken over HBOS) are, thanks to the recapitalization agreements reached on October 13, now in the public sector. That is, they have been nationalized. Therefore, their liabilities belong on the national accounts.

...

RBS reported liabilities of 1.8 trillion pounds in June 2008.

...

of the about 3 trillion in reported liabilities the two banks reported in June 2008, between one-third and one-half will fall to the taxpayer.

...

Total bank liabilities reported in January 2009 were 7 trillion.

...

Of that 7 trillion pounds, about 4 trillion was denominated in foreign currencies. In the worst case scenario, Britain can pay off sterling debts by running the printing presses. But that does not work for debts in other currencies. This problem of foreign currency obligations was exactly what destroyed Iceland’s banks and brought the country to bankruptcy."

 http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/20/britain’s-public-debt-up-by-14-trillion-pounds-this-week/

To get this in perspective, from The Times, January 12, 2008:

"The total value of homes in Britain reached a record £4 trillion last year."

 http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article3174803.ece

It appears to me that there is a very real possibility of the UK doing an Iceland as part of a global Economic Collapse -- the beginning of the end of Industrial Civilization...

Some extracts from an article by Gail the Actuary from The Oil Drum:

"Hubbert's curve gives us an idea of what maximum oil production might be, given geologic constraints. My forecast is more at the opposite end of the range--what the worst case might look like, if the current debt unwind results in a major world-wide financial collapse.

...

When the economy hits limits, such as an oil supply that cannot grow fast enough to support the growth needed to keep the treadmill going, repaying the debt with interest becomes a huge burden. We have been reaching that point in the last few years, as oil production remained approximately flat and oil prices rose. Food prices rose as well, but real wages did not rise fast enough to keep the treadmill going. Soon defaults on debts started.

Once defaults started on debts, we suddenly shifted into a new cycle:

Peak oil -> higher oil prices, but little additional production-> stagnant wages -> defaults on debt -> banks not in a position to lend as much because of losses on loans -> debt harder to obtain -> lower demand -> lower prices on oil -> layoffs and less investment.

If it were only the oil industry with problems, one would think the problem would be self correcting, since less investment should lead to less production, and eventually prices would go back up, and at least part of the cycle would be fixed.

The problems caused by peak oil and resource limits are much more widespread than just with respect to oil. Besides the above cycle, we also have a more general cycle:

Peak oil -> higher oil prices, but little additional production-> stagnant wages -> little discretionary income -> cutbacks in buying many discretionary items -> layoffs (restaurants, newspapers, many businesses)-> more loan defaults -> banks not in a position to lend as much because of losses on loans -> debt harder to obtain -> lower demand -> lower prices on other commodities, like food -> more defaults and layoffs -> banks in even worse shape -> etc.

These cycles are leading to a huge unwind of debt that has barely begun. There are also a large number of derivative contracts outstanding, and some of these may generate huge payments (as has already happened at AIG). These also have barely begun to unwind.

It is not too hard to envision a situation where the worldwide banking system collapses, and it is necessary to start over, perhaps almost from scratch, with new currencies and new international treaties. As the result of such changes, there is at least the possibility that the world's financial system may function at only a minimal level, and world oil production will take place at only a very low level.

...


With all of the debt defaults, and the inability to settle all of the debts equitably, some sort of debt jubilee may be necessary. This may start with some small countries, like Iceland and perhaps the Ukraine defaulting on their debts. Gradually more and more countries will default, and their currencies will sink lower and lower.

After a certain point, it may become clear that virtually every economy in the world is in this mess together. There will be no way that more debt can be issued as "stimulus" to get the world out of this problem. The only thing that can be done is to start canceling debt, in some sort of debt jubilee, and to start over.

The problem with a debt jubilee is that there would be many too many claimants for many of the world's assets. If a wind turbine owner's debt is cancelled through a debt jubilee, who then "owns" the turbine--the original owner, or the lender whose debt was cancelled? If the debt of a factory making replacement parts for a wind turbine is cancelled, who runs the factory--the original owner of the factory, or the investor whose debt was cancelled?

The debts that are cancelled are likely to cross country borders, making for international disputes. Furthermore, countries may want to retaliate for a loss of one of their overseas investments by grabbing a business located in its own country that has overseas owners. In not very long, relationships among countries are likely to sink to deteriorate, and international trade will be at much lower levels than in the past. War may even break out, or border disputes.

"Demand" will be at new low levels, because there is likely to be very little cross-border trade, except with a few trusted partners. Without this trade, it will not be possible to manufacture goods, other than those using only local products. In this kind of scenario, prices (to the extent the monetary system continues to function) would continue to be very low, because of the low demand. (A factory that is not operating doesn't need raw materials!)

The credit market would be close to non-existent, because creditors will expect that any debt that is issued could easily be cancelled. New investment would be limited to what can be financed by cash flow. With low prices, this cash flow would be very low, further limiting investment.

It is possible that in some parts of the world, the monetary system will cease to function all together, and barter would become necessary. Because barter is so cumbersome, this is likely to have a further limiting impact on trade.

In such a scenario, I would expect that oil production would be significantly lower than the physical resource available. If nothing else, it will be difficult for the whole chain from local production to pipeline to refinery to distribution pipeline to consumer to function properly. Countries that previously exported oil overseas will see that their chances of getting paid are less than 100%, and may reduce their production to match what they can sell through arrangements with trusted parties.

Production of many other goods may decline as well, as the lack of an adequately functioning monetary system limits the ability of long supply lines to function properly. Natural gas and coal production may decline, as well as oil production. Food through mechanized farming may decline, as Liebig's Law of the Minimum makes itself known.

...

I show only a slight decline in production in 2009, but then large decreases in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to a level not much above 20 million barrels a day. If it reaches such a low level, due to a widespread failure of the financial system, I would expect electricity to be affected in many locations, and because of electricity, water and sewer systems. Some large cities may become uninhabitable.

Under such a scenario, I expect all of this would take a while to get sorted out. If there is a widespread failure of the monetary system, it is possible that many governments would be replaced. Some countries may fall to pieces, in the manner of the Soviet Union after its collapse in 1991. Governments may not have much faith in other governments--except perhaps with a few trusted trade /strategic partners. New monetary systems will likely be put in place, but many will not be any better than the previous ones, so bubbles and further collapses may occur.

In such an environment, international businesses will find it virtually impossible to survive. Businesses are likely become much smaller and more local. As I have shown on Figure 2, it may be many years before oil production begins to rise again. In fact, it may never rise again, if international trade stays at a low level.

I would expect that the renaissance, when it comes, would begin with basic human needs, in local communities and local agriculture. People will grow their own food, and trade with others in their community. There will be small shops that make shoes and clothing and cooking utensils. People may begin to raise animals for transportation.

People will still need energy for heating their homes and for cooking. The initial impulse will be to cut down trees for these purposes, but with the world's large population, this will tend to produce deforestation. Neo-environmentalists may urge people to use other products for this purpose--such as coal or oil, if these can be obtained. There may be some local electricity produced, particularly water generated, if transmission systems can be kept in good enough repair.

If this scenario happens, it is difficult for me to see much of a future for large complex systems that require specialized parts from around the world. Thus, I would expect large wind turbines to fall into disrepair in a few years, and solar PV panels to be very difficult to obtain, after such a crash scenario. Smaller windmills, similar to what a person sees on old farms, may come back into popular use, as may coal operated steam engines (at least in the US, where coal is still plentiful).

If you have been following the interconnected threads of what is occurring in our system, you are aware that the above scenario is at least a possibility. Due to the complexities involved, it is impossible to estimate a percentage likelihood of this particular trajectory, but the odds are increasing of something like it.

If such a scenario should happen, it could result in our world becoming a very different place in a very short time. If the odds of this happening are more than very slight, what should our response be? Should we be devoting all of our efforts towards avoiding this scenario, or allocating some resources towards adapting to it?"

 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5160

Harriet Harman said of Sir Fred Goodwin's pension deal:

" It may be enforceable in a court of law but it isn't enforceable in the court of public opinion. And that's where the government comes in."

By that it seems she is saying that the government are prepared to BREAK THE LAW. Not that the government is new to breaking the laws which they made, but they did agree to a legally binding pension deal, fair and squire. Now they must honor their agreement. If public opinion is that the deal should not have been made, the tax payer should make their opinion felt by not paying for it. The tax payer didn't agree to the deal, the government did. Let it come out of their wages.

Congratulations to Sir fred on his early retirement and pulling off such a great deal. We'd all do it it we could.

"By that it seems she is saying that the government are prepared to BREAK THE LAW."

She really doesn't, she's simply asserting that the government's constitutional role is to make laws where existing one's do not serve the public interest. It'd be nice if she meant it.

"but they did agree to a legally binding pension deal, fair and squire."

No they didn't, the RBS board did.

"Congratulations to Sir fred on his early retirement and pulling off such a great deal. We'd all do it it we could."

Speak for yourself, some of use aren't sociopaths.

The total haul of the Great Train Robbery was less than four years of Freds pension; yet Ronnie Biggs is still in prison and Fred is still a 'Sir'.

Just incase anyone is interested there is a short video clip:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq06fGgsvDg

Banks, and not only the Central Banks like the Bank of England, but also high street banks, create "money" out of thin air.

Every time someone takes out a loan, their promise to pay it back with interest creates more money. The bank can lend out 10 times more money than they have on deposit from savers. The interest has to come from somewhere: more loans, more debt = more money. This is why countries national debt is in the trillions and nobody can say who it is owed to.

This video explains how this came about:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8&feature=PlayList&p=2A79CD028E77AE5D&index=0&playnext=1


A good first step might be for governments to nationalise the Central Banks i.e. Bank of England, Federal Reserve, etc. Governments have the power to create money themselves, but they were conned into giving that power away to the private central banks. If they take back that power, they would no longer have to borrow from the central bank to run the country and spend our taxes on servicing those loans. That way our tax money would go much further.

Instead they are nationalising high street banks, leaving us to pay for it.

I wonder how many attending these marches / demos will hand out flyers or hold banners reading "GOOGLE FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING"

or

"GOOGLE MONEY AS DEBT"

Andy, the central banks are not private. They are independent of direct government control but they still belong to the state.

Well, on paper perhaps. The Bank of England was nationalised after WW2. But the same people remained in charge and the government is still required to borrow money to run the country, which is impossible to pay back because the only way money is created is from more loans, which in turn demand more interest, etc.

The Federal Reserve may be a quasi-public institution, but nobody really knows who owns the controlling share. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the required Internal Revenues Act were written by bankers on Jekyl Island, not the legislative branch of the government (Congress / Senate). The Internal Revenues Act was necessary to create the IRS to collect income tax to allow the government to raise the money to pay the interest on their loan from the Fed.

The financiers had their patsy in the white house (Woodrow Wilson) who could sign off on the acts. IIRC they passed the Acts on Christmas Eve or something so that very few congressmen were there to vote. Later Wilson opined that he had "unwittingly ruined his country" by giving away the right to control the issuance of currency to a private bank.

Discussion of whether central banks are private or not is a diversion from the real problem of how the banking system creates poverty by design.

Sign up for vital info on April 1st  http://smsalerts.tachanka.org/cc

while signing up for text alerts sounds useful, i'm concerned that - despite the organizers' best intentions - handing over your mobile number could mean handing it over the cops who may gain access to the list. i'd be happy to hear otherwise!

This scares me.

I'm diagnosed Asperger Syndrome, and I work in the IT industry... I don't think I could cope without a high-tech economy...

What about us?

Danny, there's a couple of several ways to get money. One is doing it legally, on paper, the other is doing like Ronnie Biggs and co did.

And, moreover, the poor will always be bailing out the rich. The poor work for the rich. Ooops, I meant slave hard for the rich. And that will forever be the case! Simples! Seriously, there's going to be no space in the world soon to encapsulate all this moaning and groaning from poor and rich alike. But, not to worry, mates, because our old mate Gordon and co are going to sort this bloody gigantic financial mess out before you can utter the words fairy dust! Mind boggling, eh?