the_austrian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 And then they stop paying the mortgage, right? They aren't paying it because of any feelings of good will toward the banks, so it doesn't much change things. Compare the following: i) I can't believe the banks are getting away with being empty, not lending anything, being bankrupt (delete as applicable) ii) I can't believe the banks are getting away with printing money out of thin air. Of course this is not how the truth is revealed, but you can see I hope that the second is more effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yes. And the vendor gets his house back.Bloody toerags. Only if he'd bought it himself previously without using a bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 They aren't paying it because of any feelings of good will toward the banks, so it doesn't much change things. Compare the following:i) I can't believe the banks are getting away with being empty, not lending anything, being bankrupt (delete as applicable) ii) I can't believe the banks are getting away with printing money out of thin air. Of course this is not how the truth is revealed, but you can see I hope that the second is more effective. iii) I can't belive they are asking me to repay something they never lent. They can ****** off. Much more effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 iii) I can't belive they are asking me to repay something they never lent.They can ****** off. Much more effective. It needs to work on a political level, it doesn't work if the argument is made personally. We can justify pretty much anything to ourselves if we so require but "winning the argument" is public. That people don't want to pay their loans is already a win for us, the rest is talking down the authorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 It needs to work on a political level, it doesn't work if the argument is made personally. Yeah it does. I've done it. We can justify pretty much anything to ourselves if we so require but "winning the argument" is public. That people don't want to pay their loans is already a win for us, the rest is talking down the authorities. It's always personal. We win by outgrowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Only if he'd bought it himself previously without using a bank. And if the supposed buyer doesn't want to give the house back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yeah it does. I've done it.It's always personal. We win by outgrowing. That wasn't the point I was getting at: what I mean is that when you come up against an apologist for the system, what are the arguments that are difficult to defend. They will allow that banks loan out more than they have in reserves, that they are illiquid. This does not hurt them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 And if the supposed buyer doesn't want to give the house back? I'd be amazed if he gets asked to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I'd be amazed if he gets asked to. Why would you be amazed. According to you the vendor received nothing. ...or maybe he did. Maybe he elected to be paid in cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 That wasn't the point I was getting at: what I mean is that when you come up against an apologist for the system, what are the arguments that are difficult to defend. They will allow that banks loan out more than they have in reserves, that they are illiquid. This does not hurt them. You don't need to do anything with the apologists. As long as a tiny but escalating minority ask for proof of cash changing hands, this leads to the whole system ceasing to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Why would you be amazed. According to you the vendor received nothing. ...or maybe he did. Maybe he elected to be paid in cash. Perhaps he spent it on another house. The seller of that will want it back too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Why would you be amazed. According to you the vendor received nothing. No, the borrwer isn't actually a borrower. ...or maybe he did. Maybe he elected to be paid in cash. Non borrowed cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 You don't need to do anything with the apologists.As long as a tiny but escalating minority ask for proof of cash changing hands, this leads to the whole system ceasing to exist. The revolutionaries need to know that the argument can be won, in fact they usually have a higher standard of proof than the people they accuse. The banks can easily come up with the cash if you need to smell it, that has never been a problem and is the reason it still persists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Injin: I remember you saying once, that you started reading and learning because of an experience you had relating to debt. From that I am guessing that your political beliefs stem from your understanding of the monetary system, rather than the other way around. Am I mistaken in this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The revolutionaries need to know that the argument can be won, in fact they usually have a higher standard of proof than the people they accuse. The banks can easily come up with the cash if you need to smell it, that has never been a problem and is the reason it still persists. No, proof of cash changing hands at the time of the alleged loan is the weak spot. That they can make it up later changes nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 I am not entirely sure it is to 'the banks'.The banks are just an intermediary. As we have previously discussed, debt interest paid to the banks gets distributed in many ways by the bank back into the economy. Shareholder dividends, depositors' interest, banksters' wages and bonuses, write off of bad debts etc etc What we are really saying therefore is that the indebted are in hock to those with money and those with money earn more by the expansion of the money supply so that debtors become even more in hock. There is something going by the expansion of the money supply that has led to a concentration of wealth and indebtedness going unchecked. The non-banking sector includes both borrowers and depositors, their union (in set theory terms) if you like. Accounted for as this union, it must always be in net debt to the distinct banking system/sector. This net debt increases as the banking system retains profits, either as money numbers or as purchased assets. Morally, the huge bonuses "earned" by top bankers, their share options, etc., though of course not accounted for as retained profit, in a loose sense still count as wealth "within the banking sector." Even when banks suffer, bankers seem to do just fine. Overall, debt-based commercial money issuing is just too damn profitable and politically influential! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Injin:I remember you saying once, that you started reading and learning because of an experience you had relating to debt. From that I am guessing that your political beliefs stem from your understanding of the monetary system, rather than the other way around. Am I mistaken in this? Not far off. My political beliefs stem from my personal experience. it's why I advocate free markets etc - it's what I do in my own life and so does everyone else I ever met pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 No, proof of cash changing hands at the time of the alleged loan is the weak spot.That they can make it up later changes nothing. They can produce it at the time if you request it. Might be a hassle for them but much less than the total reserves available to them. They don't normally, but why couldn't they show you the cash if you want to see it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Someone should really tell him there are worse things than a 'recession'. These people live in little bubbles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 They can produce it at the time if you request it. Might be a hassle for them but much less than the total reserves available to them. They don't normally, but why couldn't they show you the cash if you want to see it? Because they didn't use any or have any in 97% of prior cases. You got a liar loan mortgage in 2005? Ask for proof of the money changing hands. The denomination of the cash and a cashier recispt. You won;t get one - because they were lying too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Those who have recently learned to say "Fractional reserve banking" think you are really onto something. You are not. Don't mock us, we may have not known about it before but the more that learn about it the better. The reason that "everything went wrong" is that the lender underpriced risk, primarily because it stopped holding loans to maturity and conned third parties into buying them in the form of CDO's etc.. In underpricing risk the lender created a demand higher than the borrowers real ability to repay which has led us to the saturation of credit and speculative bubbles where the glut of credit has been misallocated to unproductive assets*. This was exacerbated by the delinking of the brokers and the loan originators to those who ultimately held the loan til maturity. This statement helps me understand the reasons for the contraction. Perhaps blindingly obvious to some, these snippets are enlightening. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 No, proof of cash changing hands at the time of the alleged loan is the weak spot.That they can make it up later changes nothing. A CHAPS receipt of course means nothing. If it doesn't have queenies head on it - it doesn't count despite the fact that both are central bank liabilities changing hands. About time we got a stifled yawn emoticon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Because they didn't use any or have any in 97% of prior cases.You got a liar loan mortgage in 2005? Ask for proof of the money changing hands. The denomination of the cash and a cashier recispt. You won;t get one - because they were lying too! But that's when they look at you (or me, whoever) in a pitying way and slowly explain that the banks lend out their deposits, but that it's OK because they always have enough on hand at any one time to provide for withdrawals and go back to sleep. Most people don't get why this matters, and I'll admit it's not a clinching point for me either. I don't mind that it's not real if I like fiat currency in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 A CHAPS receipt of course means nothing. That's right. If it doesn't have queenies head on it - it doesn't count despite the fact that both are central bank liabilities changing hands. Excellent, well done. About time we got a stifled yawn emoticon. Definitely. You could always stop posting though, save the mods some work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 (edited) But that's when they look at you (or me, whoever) in a pitying way and slowly explain that the banks lend out their deposits, but that it's OK because they always have enough on hand at any one time to provide for withdrawals and go back to sleep.Most people don't get why this matters, and I'll admit it's not a clinching point for me either. I don't mind that it's not real if I like fiat currency in the first place. You aren't getting it I think. You ask the banks for proof of their claims. They don't have any. Therefore you no longer have to "repay" them anything. Pretty simple. Edited August 18, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.