Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

How Did We Get Here? It's All Thanks To The Banksters.


Recommended Posts

Nope - you have your own moral framework which you consider to be universal and self-evident

It is neither.

You then define any behavior which you consider infringes your own moral framework to be fraud or abuse

which it is not.

It is just behavior which you personally do not find morally acceptable.

:)

I didn't add any moral element.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

It is implicit in your argument

:)

Not at all.

Fraud is the process where you take peoples resources from them by lying to them in some way.

This might be moral, certainly arguments could be made that way.

However, the process of fraud would be a factual description of real world events in any case presented. Such as in banking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.

Fraud is the process where you take peoples resources from them by lying to them in some way.

This might be moral, certainly arguments could be made that way.

However, the process of fraud would be a factual description of real world events in any case presented. Such as in banking.

If something is legal but you object to it

then you are making a moral judgment.

And a single 'factual' description of real world events is not possible

as all events are seen differently by different observers.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If something is legal but you object to it

then you are making a moral judgment.

And a single 'factual' description of real world events is not possible

as all events are seen differently by different observers.

:)

Is it possible to lie to someone to get their resources in an area where there is no law?

Was it possible to lie to someone to get their resources before there was law?

Yes.

Therefore fraud is a factual description of a behavioural set. No moral judgement has been made here. Now, all you need do is admit you are wrong like an adult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If something is legal but you object to it

then you are making a moral judgment.

And a single 'factual' description of real world events is not possible

as all events are seen differently by different observers.

:)

Er..... Game Over -- if you go to see your bank and they ACTIVELY tell you to fill out Application Forms and tell HUGE LIES about your income........ THAT is absolutely appalling - and THAT is what led the world to the very brink of disaster.....

Type in "Predatory Liar Loans" into Google - and get reading.....]

Also - check out the film "Inside Job" - via Google - and get reading - and watch that film.

The Banksters have raped this world with their insatiable greed and corruption. Yes - SOME bankers were not complicit - but their is NO WAY that very, very senior people didn't see that it was all wrong - and that it would lead to the cataclysm we now face....

The fact is, THEY KNEW - but they just cashed in/made hay whilst the going was good - and have now run off with their loot - and we have bailed them all out....... :angry: It is BEYOND BELIEF what they have got away with. :angry:

Edited by eric pebble
Link to post
Share on other sites

Er..... Game Over -- if you go to see your bank and they ACTIVELY tell you to fill out Application Forms and tell HUGE LIES about your income........ THAT is absolutely appalling - and THAT is what led the world to the very brink of disaster.....

Type in "Predatory Liar Loans" into Google - and get reading.....]

Also - check out the film "Inside Job" - via Google - and get reading - and watch that film.

The Banksters have raped this world with their insatiable greed and corruption. Yes - SOME bankers were not complicit - but their is NO WAY that very, very senior people didn't see that it was all wrong - and that it would lead to the cataclysm we now face....

The fact is, THEY KNEW - but they just cashed in/made hay whilst the going was good - and have now run off with their loot - and we have bailed them all out....... :angry: It is BEYOND BELIEF what they have got away with. :angry:

Mortgage brokers may have encourage people to lie

But at the end of the day the people responsible are those who did the lying IMO.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to lie to someone to get their resources in an area where there is no law?

Was it possible to lie to someone to get their resources before there was law?

Yes.

Therefore fraud is a factual description of a behavioural set. No moral judgement has been made here. Now, all you need do is admit you are wrong like an adult.

You have just defined fraud

The moral judgment is deciding that banking constitutes fraud.

But once again I return to your core argument which is that all the ills of society rest at the feet of bankers

This is clearly not the case given that all the things you object to existed for thousands of years before money and banking were invented.

Anyway I am off to bed now

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bankers lent money in good faith to people who, it turns out, never had any intention of paying the money back

And the tooth fairy is real. :lol:

Think for five seconds about what you are saying here. How would it be possible for someone to con a bank into lending them money?- after all- as soon as the bank asked for proof of income, assets and certified accounts the truth would become instantly apparent.

Unless- of course- the banks didn't ask to see such documentation or didn't bother to check it if they did.

Why would they do this?- one word:

Securitisation.

The simple truth is that the banks did not care who they lent money too because they knew the risk would be passed onto pension funds and other trusting investors- all they cared about was a ready supply of mortgages and other loans to feed their securitisation scam.

So blaming goverenment or regualtion misses the core issue- the bankers believed they had finally managed to achive the holy grail of banking- risk free lending.

And they got drunk on this new found wealth creating machine. And when it finally blew up in their faces those hero's of the free market came running back to daddy state to bail them all out. :lol:

At the end of the day no amount of traffic law or patrol cars can really stop someone who wants to drive head first into a brick wall because they believe they are a master of the universe and cannot fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the tooth fairy is real. :lol:

Think for five seconds about what you are saying here. How would it be possible for someone to con a bank into lending them money?- after all- as soon as the bank asked for proof of income, assets and certified accounts the truth would become instantly apparent.

Unless- of course- the banks didn't ask to see such documentation or didn't bother to check it if they did.

Why would they do this?- one word:

Securitisation.

The simple truth is that the banks did not care who they lent money too because they knew the risk would be passed onto pension funds and other trusting investors- all they cared about was a ready supply of mortgages and other loans to feed their securitisation scam.

So blaming goverenment or regualtion misses the core issue- the bankers believed they had finally managed to achive the holy grail of banking- risk free lending.

And they got drunk on this new found wealth creating machine. And when it finally blew up in their faces those hero's of the free market came running back to daddy state to bail them all out. :lol:

At the end of the day no amount of traffic law or patrol cars can really stop someone who wants to drive head first into a brick wall because they believe they are a master of the universe and cannot fail.

They didn't care because they never had any money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's legal then by definition it isn't fraud

And you are still ignoring the fact that states existed thousands of years before even money was invented, let alone banking

so if money and banking were abolished tomorrow there would still be a state

:)

It's wrong because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's wrong. This is a silly, circular argument. Using logic is much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the tooth fairy is real. :lol:

Think for five seconds about what you are saying here. How would it be possible for someone to con a bank into lending them money?- after all- as soon as the bank asked for proof of income, assets and certified accounts the truth would become instantly apparent.

Unless- of course- the banks didn't ask to see such documentation or didn't bother to check it if they did.

Why would they do this?- one word:

Securitisation.

The simple truth is that the banks did not care who they lent money too because they knew the risk would be passed onto pension funds and other trusting investors- all they cared about was a ready supply of mortgages and other loans to feed their securitisation scam.

So blaming goverenment or regualtion misses the core issue- the bankers believed they had finally managed to achive the holy grail of banking- risk free lending.

And they got drunk on this new found wealth creating machine. And when it finally blew up in their faces those hero's of the free market came running back to daddy state to bail them all out. :lol:

At the end of the day no amount of traffic law or patrol cars can really stop someone who wants to drive head first into a brick wall because they believe they are a master of the universe and cannot fail.

PRECISELY.

The mortgages advanced to borrowers was THE FUEL: This FUEL was willingly supplied by Banksters who took their massive cut - and they off-loaded it onto others, misrepresenting what was REALLY there -- and - WOOSH - off they scurried with their commissions....

IT was a MASSIVE FRAUD MACHINE --- and the Banksters ORGANISED & SET UP THIS WHOLE FRAUD MACHINE.

Without the "money"/advanced LIAR LOANS - it would NEVER have got off the ground.

They KNEW is was rotten to the core. But they didn't CARE, they didn't CHECK -- because - with the click of a few keys on a computer keyboard - PING - it was all off-loaded onto someone else - to be someone ELSE's problem. AND THEY TOOK AND KEPT THEIR COMMISSIONS.

IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THE COMPLICITY OF FRAUDULENT BANKERS.

It was a thoroughly NASTY trick. AN EVIL, NASTY TRICK. :angry:

Edited by eric pebble
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortgage brokers may have encourage people to lie

But at the end of the day the people responsible are those who did the lying IMO.

:)

Oh -- I see. So that let's the Mortgage Brokers off scot free does it??

Weird logic :wacko:

It's 50 - 50 AT LEAST. And the Mortgage Brokers INSTIGATED the fraud.

AND NEVER FORGET: EVERYONE who went to a street/village/town after the initial fraud - [LIAR LOAN advanced] - HAD TO MATCH THE PRICE PAID WITH FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED MORTGAGES, [LIAR LOANS]. This often meant that people who had always been honest in their lives were forced into a corner - and "exaggerate" their income on their mortgage application forms - just to get their family housed - and all because the Bankers & Mortgage Brokers ALLOWED and ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED bogus figures to be used. :angry:

So it spread like a CANCER -- TOXIC, TOXIC CANCER -- dressed up as an "investment".............

EVERYONE - whether innocent or not - was FORCED into paying MORE for the roof over their head as a result of Mortgage Fraud.

It's affected - and continues to affect -- MILLIONS of people.

Edited by eric pebble
Link to post
Share on other sites

>We gave the bankers one of the most important roles in our society- that of credit allocation- and they f*cked it up. They are responsible and they did for reasons of personal >greed.

>You have bought into the bankers corrupt world view that they are entitled to do whatever it takes to enrich themselves and their clients- this is self serving bullshite.

I actually have some sympathy for this point of view: medicine, law even politic seems to have some residual sense of morality where as financial services has become 100% profit driven with no room for the moral dimension. Wouldn't it be great if banks were like the one in a wonderful life - really knowing their customers, occasionally protecting people from themselves and supporting good businesses through think and thin.

I interviewed someone who worked in a bank during the boom and she told me that rejecting a mortgage application even for a really ropey borrower went down internally like a bag of sick. Her boss had short term targets, set by his boss that had short term targets, all the way up to the CEO who was constantly under pressure to grow the business from shareholders. Bank employees probably have zero discretion about lending and simply enter data into a computer and tell the customer the results.

again - my point is not that banks are blameless its that society has to take its fair share

Link to post
Share on other sites

>We gave the bankers one of the most important roles in our society- that of credit allocation- and they f*cked it up. They are responsible and they did for reasons of personal >greed.

>You have bought into the bankers corrupt world view that they are entitled to do whatever it takes to enrich themselves and their clients- this is self serving bullshite.

I actually have some sympathy for this point of view: medicine, law even politic seems to have some residual sense of morality where as financial services has become 100% profit driven with no room for the moral dimension. Wouldn't it be great if banks were like the one in a wonderful life - really knowing their customers, occasionally protecting people from themselves and supporting good businesses through think and thin.

I interviewed someone who worked in a bank during the boom and she told me that rejecting a mortgage application even for a really ropey borrower went down internally like a bag of sick. Her boss had short term targets, set by his boss that had short term targets, all the way up to the CEO who was constantly under pressure to grow the business from shareholders. Bank employees probably have zero discretion about lending and simply enter data into a computer and tell the customer the results.

again - my point is not that banks are blameless its that society has to take its fair share

Considering that our society is a theft free for all, with different people lobbying to have more theft done on their behalf, is it any wonder that morality has largely evaporated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

>We gave the bankers one of the most important roles in our society- that of credit allocation- and they f*cked it up. They are responsible and they did for reasons of personal >greed.

>You have bought into the bankers corrupt world view that they are entitled to do whatever it takes to enrich themselves and their clients- this is self serving bullshite.

I actually have some sympathy for this point of view: medicine, law even politic seems to have some residual sense of morality where as financial services has become 100% profit driven with no room for the moral dimension. Wouldn't it be great if banks were like the one in a wonderful life - really knowing their customers, occasionally protecting people from themselves and supporting good businesses through think and thin.

I interviewed someone who worked in a bank during the boom and she told me that rejecting a mortgage application even for a really ropey borrower went down internally like a bag of sick. Her boss had short term targets, set by his boss that had short term targets, all the way up to the CEO who was constantly under pressure to grow the business from shareholders. Bank employees probably have zero discretion about lending and simply enter data into a computer and tell the customer the results.

again - my point is not that banks are blameless its that society has to take its fair share

All banking is fraud.

It doesn't matter how moral any individual actors in a bank are personally, the actions of the bank are always fraudulent.

And again, the only people responsible for this are those who work at the bank. No one has to work for a bank, any more than they have to mug old ladies or ****** puppies.

Edited by Injin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankers lent money in good faith to people who, it turns out, never had any intention of paying the money back

With each and every post, you discredit yourself further (even without the moronic :blink: after every post)

There's hundreds of credit bureau information on file on everyone who's previously accessed credit. All defaults, credit limits over drafts, mortgages, arrears, CCJs etc past and present, are all there for lenders to access when running their applications.

Unfortunately, the bankers decided to ignore it all, and gave their commission based sales people carte blanche to lend to all and sundry. We all know what happened next.

This is the fact of pre credit crunch lending my friend, which I’m afraid pi$$es all over your above statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>We gave the bankers one of the most important roles in our society- that of credit allocation- and they f*cked it up. They are responsible and they did for reasons of personal >greed.

>You have bought into the bankers corrupt world view that they are entitled to do whatever it takes to enrich themselves and their clients- this is self serving bullshite.

I actually have some sympathy for this point of view: medicine, law even politic seems to have some residual sense of morality where as financial services has become 100% profit driven with no room for the moral dimension. Wouldn't it be great if banks were like the one in a wonderful life - really knowing their customers, occasionally protecting people from themselves and supporting good businesses through think and thin.

I interviewed someone who worked in a bank during the boom and she told me that rejecting a mortgage application even for a really ropey borrower went down internally like a bag of sick. Her boss had short term targets, set by his boss that had short term targets, all the way up to the CEO who was constantly under pressure to grow the business from shareholders. Bank employees probably have zero discretion about lending and simply enter data into a computer and tell the customer the results.

again - my point is not that banks are blameless its that society has to take its fair share

Fair post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the tooth fairy is real. :lol:

Think for five seconds about what you are saying here. How would it be possible for someone to con a bank into lending them money?- after all- as soon as the bank asked for proof of income, assets and certified accounts the truth would become instantly apparent.

Unless- of course- the banks didn't ask to see such documentation or didn't bother to check it if they did.

Why would they do this?- one word:

Securitisation.

The simple truth is that the banks did not care who they lent money too because they knew the risk would be passed onto pension funds and other trusting investors- all they cared about was a ready supply of mortgages and other loans to feed their securitisation scam.

So blaming goverenment or regualtion misses the core issue- the bankers believed they had finally managed to achive the holy grail of banking- risk free lending.

And they got drunk on this new found wealth creating machine. And when it finally blew up in their faces those hero's of the free market came running back to daddy state to bail them all out. :lol:

At the end of the day no amount of traffic law or patrol cars can really stop someone who wants to drive head first into a brick wall because they believe they are a master of the universe and cannot fail.

So the surveyors who deliberately overvalued properties are completely free from blame are they?

And this practice was done on an industrial scale

If a surveyor values a property at a certain level, a bank will lend money based on this

The bank is not to blame.

Your analysis is simplistic in the extreme and the only reason I am bothering to reply is because when I was young and naive I thought the same way you do now.

At the end of the day no one on the right OR left is going to destroy the finance and banking industry in this country because if they did our economy would never, ever recover.

So you are just p*ssing in the wind I'm afraid.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

With each and every post, you discredit yourself further (even without the moronic :blink: after every post)

There's hundreds of credit bureau information on file on everyone who's previously accessed credit. All defaults, credit limits over drafts, mortgages, arrears, CCJs etc past and present, are all there for lenders to access when running their applications.

Unfortunately, the bankers decided to ignore it all, and gave their commission based sales people carte blanche to lend to all and sundry. We all know what happened next.

This is the fact of pre credit crunch lending my friend, which I’m afraid pi$$es all over your above statement.

The left actively encouraged this both here and in America because they believed it was wrong to exclude poor people from access to credit which would enable them to become home owners who therefore had a stake in a property owning democracy.

And Der.............

It obviously happened BEFORE the credit crunch because this was one of the factors that led to the credit crunch

In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA

were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet

community credit needs.

These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the

number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home

loans.

At the end of the day the actions of commercial banks were just a symptom of the disease - not the disease itself

The cause of the problem was Mervyn King stoking two credit booms to win Labour two election victories, by cutting base rate when he should have raised base rate in order to deflate an asset price bubble in the housing market.

:blink:

Edited by Game_Over
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that certain people who tell us that society or groups or countries or whatever do not exist - are also more than happy to stick banking and bankers into one greet big grouping.

Strange that. Surely they are just individuals too like the rest of us...;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that certain people who tell us that society or groups or countries or whatever do not exist - are also more than happy to stick banking and bankers into one greet big grouping.

Strange that. Surely they are just individuals too like the rest of us...;)

Now who could you possibly be referring to??????

:huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The left actively encouraged this both here and in America because they believed it was wrong to exclude poor people from access to credit which would enable them to become home owners who therefore had a stake in a property owning democracy.

:lol::lol::lol:

Priceless, absolutely priceless.

Nothing to do with sub prime extending debt for more investment vehicles then?! No it was that shadowy cabal of socialists again, socialists who like to deregulate the fincancial sector...for the benefit of unemployed Americans wishing to 'own' their home?!

:lol:

In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA

were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet

community credit needs.

And who was advising Clinton at the time? Who was the main body lobbying for this deregulation? Clue it wasn't the American poor.

Edited by PopGun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 442 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.