We’ve been using the term polarising for a while now.
The term’s not just a buzzword; its an accurate description of what’s happening.
The word polarises the world economy.
It is polarising global finance.
It’s polarising the way we think about money.
This is because it’s a concept which has been around for millennia, and which, despite the best efforts of many of the people who created it, has not yet been fully understood by the general public.
This term has, for better or worse, defined our relationship to finance.
In this piece, I’ll try to explain how the term works.
I’ll start by saying that I am not a finance expert.
I’ve spent most of my career in finance.
But I’ve also written about finance in a wide variety of media, and I’m the author of a book called Money and Money: A History of Finance, published in 2016.
In order to understand the way the term has become so polarised, it’s important to understand how it comes into being.
The first polarisation in finance took place in the late 19th century, and it was an attempt to get rid of a certain kind of financial system that was dominated by a handful of big banks.
They had a monopoly on lending.
The other big banks were not only able to lend, they were able to buy the loans of other banks.
And so, for a time, they could print money at will.
There were a few exceptions to this rule.
One was the United States.
It didn’t want to give up its monopoly on issuing money.
And it tried to create a system of credit, known as the credit system, which allowed it to borrow money at much lower interest rates.
The problem was that this system was not very good.
It allowed credit to be used in a very short period of time and then to be worthless.
Another exception was the UK.
In the mid-1880s, the British government decided that the economy would be much healthier if it could borrow money and spend it.
This meant that, unlike in the US, where interest rates were fixed, interest rates in the UK were set by market forces.
The interest rates of the UK government were set to be set by the banks, who would borrow the money and lend it to the government.
So the interest rate of the bank that lent money to the British Treasury was set by an agency called the Bank of England, and the interest rates on the loans the banks made to the Treasury were set in turn by a private bank called the Treasury Bank.
This created an incentive for the banks to lend more and buy more of the government’s debt.
In turn, the banks got richer and richer, until they had enough money to buy back the government bonds at a profit.
At that point, the term ‘poverty-stricken’ became synonymous with ‘loan-lending’, because this was a form of borrowing and lending that was highly risky.
The British government could have bought back the bonds at high interest rates, but they didn’t, because the government was already in deficit.
The government had to borrow more to pay the banks.
When the British banks came to realise that they were borrowing at lower interest rate than the government, they started to sell more bonds, and more and more money went into the government coffers.
The banks were forced to borrow at lower rates because their interest rates weren’t being kept low by a government with low interest rates who had an interest rate surplus.
What we’ve learned in finance By the mid-’20s, interest rate wars had started.
The two major players in the debt market – the US and the UK – were pushing the terms of trade of the world to new lows.
These wars were not fought for economic reasons.
They were fought because the economies of the two countries were competing for the same kinds of cheap money.
Both countries had a vested interest in keeping their interest rate at zero.
But both countries also wanted the world’s economy to be able to borrow and spend money at the same time.
This was what made the debt war so nasty, because it meant that countries were borrowing and spending money at a much higher rate than they were allowed to.
If interest rates had remained low and the economies were competitive, governments would have been able to pay their debts, because interest rates would have remained at zero and the economy was at full employment.
And this is why the debt wars were so nasty.
If interest rates stayed low and interest rates remained low, there was a certain level of risk that governments were going to have to pay interest on their debt.
And if interest rates kept going up, they would have to make up the difference between interest and the amount of money they had to pay.
In other words, governments were borrowing from each other, and