Iceland Jails Bankers, Erases Citizens’ Debt, Recovers STRONG !!

[Tiso0770]

Iceland Jails Bankers, Erases Citizens’ Debt, Recovers Strongly

For all of you who are pessimistic about the chances of real government reform, take a look at what the great citizens of Iceland have managed to accomplish.

In Iceland, the people have made the government resign, the primary banks have been nationalized and it was decided not to pay the debt that these created with Great Britain and Holland due to their bad financial politics, and a public assembly has been created to rewrite the constitution.

And all of this has been done in a peaceful way. A whole revolution against the powers that have created the current crisis.

This is why there hasn’t been any publicity during the last two years: What would happen if the rest of the EU citizens took this as an example? What would happen if the US citizens took this as an example?

This is a summary of the facts:

2008. The main bank of the country is nationalized. The Krona, the currency of Iceland devaluates and the stock market stops. The country is in bankruptcy

#####

Iceland Forgives Mortgage Debt for the Population

Posted by JacobSloan on July 19, 2012

Seriously, the most advanced place on Earth. Bloomberg writes:

Icelanders who pelted parliament with rocks in 2009 demanding their leaders and bankers answer for the country’s economic and financial collapse are reaping the benefits of their anger.

Since the end of 2008, the island’s banks have forgiven loans equivalent to 13 percent of gross domestic product, easing the debt burdens of more than a quarter of the population.

The island’s steps to resurrect itself since 2008, when its banks defaulted on $85 billion, are proving effective. Iceland’s economy will this year outgrow the euro area and the developed world on average, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates.

read more....

http://2012patriot.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/iceland-forgives-mortgage-debt-for-the-population-2/

[GeorgiaAvenger]

What did laws did the "bankers" in the U.S. break?

[alucard13mmfmj]

What did laws did the "bankers" in the U.S. break?

US bankers were smart. they rewrote the law so they'd be safe.

[jkr]

I WOULD BUY ALL KINDS OF AWESOME STUFF AND GET MY HOME OFF THE GRID

oh well, i live in the land of the "free"

ha!

[dannno]

What did laws did the "bankers" in the U.S. break?

Stealing is stealing whether it is legal or not.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

read more....

http://2012patriot.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/iceland-forgives-mortgage-debt-for-the-population-2/

The utilization of "Watkinsian Socialism" is a classic American solution as it works along the principle of checks and balances. As it breeds to extinction both the evils of capitalist banking and social communism, it also kills two birds with one stone.

Watkinsian Socialism -- Putting an end to capitalist banking and social communism by restricting the political spread of social communism to within the endeavor of capitalist banking solely. In this American solution, every employee in the banking industry, from top to bottom, should make the same exact wage with no bonuses, stock options, perks, or any benefits whatsoever.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Stealing is stealing whether it is legal or not.

Jesus blessed the law against His Will as the very institution of it had led to horrible persecution towards his mother as an adulterer. So, as us shallow Christians might view it, stealing was indeed blessed as something officially sanctioned by the Lord. This put the slaves, those who would become the future Christians, at a disadvantage to the Jews, those who established the ten commandments beforehand and those Jesus blessed by fulfilling the prophecies.
He then turned his attention to the slaves with a secret giving to them "a New Covenant" of Love thy neighbor as thyself bettering the situation for them by narrowing the ten commandments to one.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Stealing is stealing whether it is legal or not.
Well, we cannot jail generic bankers. We must preserve the rule of law.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, we cannot jail generic bankers. We must preserve the rule of law.

And just why exactly do you consider yourself as a member of the people who is against tyranny?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

And just why exactly do you consider yourself as a member of the people who is against tyranny?

Well, without the rule of law there is tyranny.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I WOULD BUY ALL KINDS OF AWESOME STUFF AND GET MY HOME OFF THE GRID

oh well, i live in the land of the "free"

ha!

When liberty becomes our quest, we fall short every time. As the law has led us to believing that we have to aim directly at the target, so we always miss the apple in the tree. However, when the goal we are aiming for is the blue sky of our Civil-Purpose, then emotional catch words like rights, liberty, and equality all become mere prerequisites.
Why can't people understand this enough to quit wasting their time and energy?

[Elwar]

theft = the "unlawful" taking

legal taking is just as bad though

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well, without the rule of law there is tyranny.

We didn't seperate ourselves becoming a Democratic Republic by the utilization of legal precedence; but, to the contrary, our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law overturning every persecuting legal precedent established in the past.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

theft = the "unlawful" taking

legal taking is just as bad though

Not in the Jewish tradition. Look, the Jewish traditions were tribal. Why do we still incorporate the tradition of the Jewish Jubilee? Figure we aren't just beyond that as a nation! No! Even beyond that, we are supposed to be acting as a Democratic Republic of individual nation-states! The concept of a nation was created in ancient Greece in an attempt to help the disadvantaged people gain control over tyranny. Meanwhile, the concept of a tribe represents the old tyranny.

[jmdrake]

Well, without the rule of law there is tyranny.

Lawbreaking terrorists!

http://edu.glogster.com/media/4/25/19/29/25192948.jpg

[GeorgiaAvenger]

My whole point is, are you advocating arresting random bankers? What are you arresting them for?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

US bankers were smart. they rewrote the law so they'd be safe.

But the bankers didn't write the lie that, while they are an integral part of the free enterprise system, they aren't part of the government. No, we are the ones who accept that fairy tale. Watkinsian Socialism! That is the American solution to this hideous problem!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

My whole point is, are you advocating arresting random bankers? What are you arresting them for?

But why ask that question when you aren't even being represented by any commercial media? We have become sovietized. Therefore, first, picket the police to regain the ground to express your right to peacefully assemble. Second, then picket the commercial media to regain the ground to express your right to a free press.

Then go fishing. Why waste time doing what isn't necessary?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

But why ask that question when you aren't even being represented by any commercial media? We have become sovietized. Therefore, first, picket the police to regain the ground to express your right to peacefully assemble. Second, then picket the commercial media to regain the ground to express your right to a free press.

Then go fishing. Why waste time doing what isn't necessary?
I have no clue what you are talking about.

[Brian Coulter]

Arrested the bankers and engineered a strong economic recovery? Sounds like someone's asking for a good old-fashioned carpet bombing.

[DamianTV]

This is exactly what we need to do.

Debt Reset.

STIFF THE FED.

[donnay]

This is exactly what we need to do.

Debt Reset.

STIFF THE FED.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DamianTV again."

[GeorgiaAvenger]

This is exactly what we need to do.

Debt Reset.

STIFF THE FED.

Ridiculous.

You don't get a free lunch.

[dannno]

My whole point is, are you advocating arresting random bankers? What are you arresting them for?

Are you under the impression they were arresting bank tellers or managers or something?

[dannno]

Ridiculous.

You don't get a free lunch.

Why do the bankers get millions of free lunches?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Why do the bankers get millions of free lunches?
You cannot just put all bankers in one group.

What about John Allison, the libertarian CEO of BB&T now in charge of CATO.

His bank was FORCED by the government to take bailout money. They protested against it. Not all bankers are evil.

[KingRobbStark]

Well, without the rule of law there is tyranny.

The law is tyranny in essence. Respect is freedom in essence.

[dannno]

You cannot just put all bankers in one group.

What about John Allison, the libertarian CEO of BB&T now in charge of CATO.

His bank was FORCED by the government to take bailout money. They protested against it. Not all bankers are evil.

Ok, he doesn't go to jail.

We are talking about doing investigations into execs of Goldman Sachs and different companies and finding corrupt ties to government institutions and prosecuting for specific actions, I believe.

[ShaneEnochs]

Alright, let's come up with a game plan. At what level do we start prosecuting guys? Branch manager? Regional manager? I once had a teller look at me like a terrorist because I withdrew $4,000 at once. I want her to be tried as well.

[torchbearer]

Alright, let's come up with a game plan. At what level do we start prosecuting guys? Branch manager? Regional manager? I once had a teller look at me like a terrorist because I withdrew $4,000 at once. I want her to be tried as well.


don't start from the bottom, start from the top.
start at bernake and the governors of the federal reserve, start with the ceo's and board members of the banks who can be proven cronies of said governors.

[The Gold Standard]

Iceland's economy is "growing" the same way ours is. Central planners moving money around to hide their inflation. The people are happy that their mortgages are gone, but when the cost of food approaches their old mortgage payments they won't be so happy anymore.

[ShaneEnochs]

don't start from the bottom, start from the top.
start at bernake and the governors of the federal reserve, start with the ceo's and board members of the banks who can be proven cronies of said governors.

I was trying to convey a sense of sarcasm.

[torchbearer]

I was trying to convey a sense of sarcasm.

i'm making a list.

[LibertyEagle]

Stealing is stealing whether it is legal or not.

Your local bank did not steal from the homeowner. The homeowner sought them out for a loan and willingly signed a contract. The deal was struck and because of the loan they had received, they chose to buy a house.

Your local bank did not cause the housing boom and bust cycle.

Borrowers should honor their contracts. There is no free lunch, even if people want it REALLY badly.

[LibertyEagle]

don't start from the bottom, start from the top.
start at bernake and the governors of the federal reserve, start with the ceo's and board members of the banks who can be proven cronies of said governors.

There ya go.

Don't you imagine that is why they don't want an audit of the FED.

[torchbearer]

There ya go.

Don't you imagine that is why they don't want an audit of the FED.

all the suspects would be known.

[LibertyEagle]

all the suspects would be known.

Yup and boy would that be a glorious day. :)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I have no clue what you are talking about.

You ask a great question at a time when there really isn't any media corporations representing you. So, save the question for now and picket the police instead and then the media corporations second. Picketing the police stations reestablishes our right to peacefully assemble; meanwhile, picketing the media corporations reestablishes our right to freedom of the press.

[RickyJ]

What did laws did the "bankers" in the U.S. break?

Are you serious?

It would be easier to ask what laws they didn't break!

Counterfeiting money is a federal crime. The Federal Reserve has counterfeited at least a hundred trillion dollars since 1913.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Refusing to pay back the interest owed to the Fed would be a start (like what Paul proposed).

[RickyJ]

Well, without the rule of law there is tyranny.

Well that is why we have tyranny right now in the USA.

[RickyJ]

Stealing is stealing whether it is legal or not.

It isn't legal according to the Constitution so they can still be arrested by those upholding the Constitution.

[MJU1983]

What did laws did the "bankers" in the U.S. break?

Article One of the United States Constitution, Section 8: Powers of Congress:


To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/bernanke-paulson-geithner.jpg

[Yieu]

Your local bank did not steal from the homeowner. The homeowner sought them out for a loan and willingly signed a contract. The deal was struck and because of the loan they had received, they chose to buy a house.

Your local bank did not cause the housing boom and bust cycle.

Borrowers should honor their contracts. There is no free lunch, even if people want it REALLY badly.

Yes indeed, and all this really does is reward bad choices by giving away free houses to people who couldn't afford them, while people who knew they couldn't afford one get no free houses because they had been renting. It would create a new upper class of people with free houses, living the high life off the banks and the people who didn't tank out loans, while the renters would carry an additional burden and their rent may even raise to compensate for the poor housing market that would result and the subsequent rush to renting due to housing prices being unstable that would happen due to all the people that weren't handed a free house by the government. I am certainly not saying that even more people than proposed should get free houses. I am proposing no free houses, you get something if you buy it.

[Origanalist]

This is exactly what we need to do.

Debt Reset.

STIFF THE FED.

And why not. Haven't they been the ones doing all the stiffing? Hell, they have stiffed my unborn great grandchildren. America aught to be getting really sore by now with all the stiffing it's been getting.

[RickyJ]

Arrested the bankers and engineered a strong economic recovery? Sounds like someone's asking for a good old-fashioned carpet bombing.

It sure sounds that way. I pray for Icelanders, they may not know the monster they have enraged against them. The next "false flag" event could very well be in Iceland.

[RickyJ]

Your local bank did not steal from the homeowner. The homeowner sought them out for a loan and willingly signed a contract. The deal was struck and because of the loan they had received, they chose to buy a house.

Your local bank did not cause the housing boom and bust cycle.

Borrowers should honor their contracts. There is no free lunch, even if people want it REALLY badly.

Of course there is no free lunch, but no one in their right mind is going to turn down super low interest rates even below inflation and 60 year mortgages to buy a house. Nope, smart thinking people will jump on that. The banks knew they would, they knew the situation it would produce, they knew they would never recover their money created out of think air and didn't care, they wanted their land and assets on their balance sheets.

[Yieu]

Of course there is no free lunch, but no one in their right mind is going to turn down super low interest rates even below inflation and 60 year mortgages to buy a house. Nope, smart thinking people will jump on that.

It sounded like a pretty bad deal to me, taking on such a large loan without putting much down. It looks like a huge market risk to me. And the rates were not fixed, and that was known. It seems like a bad choice to me so I didn't go forward with that.

[seraphson]

US bankers were smart. they rewrote the law so they'd be safe.

It's been quoted many times but bears repeating.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, International Banker

[RickyJ]

It sounded like a pretty bad deal to me, taking on such a large loan without putting much down. It looks like a huge market risk to me. And the rates were not fixed, and that was known. It seems like a bad choice to me so I didn't go forward with that.

What would you lose even if you lost it all later after the bust? Just what you put into it, that's all. The less you put down and the less your monthly payments were the less you lost. For those people it wasn't that bad of a deal even with the bust. They got a house to live in for the monthly price of an apartment and only lost whatever their down payment was.

[RickyJ]

Ridiculous.

You don't get a free lunch.

The Federal Reserve and the elite are the ones who have been getting the free lunch. Not the everyday working folks in America trying to just survive one day at a time. The bankers got a debt reset to the tune of trillions while the people who work for a living did not. Do you understand now why bankers should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes?

[RickyJ]

This is exactly what we need to do.

Debt Reset.

STIFF THE FED.

+ trillion :)

Yes, we need to start over again. New currency, new representatives, new judges, new media, to name just a few. We need a total reset the sooner the better.

[MJU1983]

Your local bank did not steal from the homeowner. The homeowner sought them out for a loan and willingly signed a contract. The deal was struck and because of the loan they had received, they chose to buy a house.

Your local bank did not cause the housing boom and bust cycle.

Borrowers should honor their contracts. There is no free lunch, even if people want it REALLY badly.

Moral Hazard. Malinvestment.

The banks didn't care if the homeowners paid them back, they had guarantees from Fannie/Freddie, Treasury, Congress, The Fed, and President.

Perhaps the best speech on the housing bubble if you haven't seen it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

[Yieu]

What would you lose even if you lost it all later after the bust? Just what you put into it, that's all. The less you put down and the less your monthly payments were the less you lost. For those people it wasn't that bad of a deal even with the bust. They got a house to live in for the monthly price of an apartment and only lost whatever their down payment was.

No, it also damages your credit history and ability to get more loans. I do not want to be on the hook for something that I know I cannot pay for. That would be irresponsible of me. What would be the point of buying a house with the intention of letting it get foreclosed due to knowing there might be problems paying if the rate goes up or there are other issues? If you already know that information, then it makes more sense to rent a house if you want a house over an apartment, that way you do not have the liability of the loan. Unless the whole point was to buy a house you can't afford in hopes that the government will give it to you for free?

[Yieu]

The Federal Reserve and the elite are the ones who have been getting the free lunch. Not the everyday working folks in America trying to just survive one day at a time. The bankers got a debt reset to the tune of trillions while the people who work for a living did not. Do you understand now why bankers should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes?

So you think only those Americans who happened to chose to have a mortgage are worthy of bailing out to give free houses away to?

Why do you think even those who have mortgages are "worthy" of me bailing out for you while I continue to rough it out?

I don't want to be cut a break, and my back is not a place for the government to cut a break for you on.

[RickyJ]

So you think only those Americans who happened to chose to have a mortgage are worthy of bailing out to give free houses away to?

Why do you think even those who have mortgages are "worthy" of me bailing out for you while I continue to rough it out?

I don't want to be cut a break, and my back is not a place for the government to cut a break for you on.

What are you talking about? No one is getting free houses. No one took out a mortgage thinking, gee, maybe they will let me have it for free if there is a bust. Please, that rhetoric is ridiculous.

Most, if not all, who took out mortgages before the bust only saw the benefit, not the downside. The benefits were low interest, low monthly payments, and the biggest benefit of them all, rising house prices! Many people who got a house then saw it as a solid investment. Of course they were wrong, very wrong, but they were misled by the talking heads and so-called experts. The banks knew the situation quite well. They knew they were creating an artificial housing boom with their loans and kept doing it anyway. They did not care, they wanted the bust to occur to lower everyones property value so they could eventually step in a buy large tracts of land for pennies on the dollar. It was all planned out from the start to occur exactly the way it has been occurring.

The majority of Americans having too much debt affects ALL Americans, including the debt free Americans. If you bought a house before the bust and paid for it without a loan then you have lost quite a significant amount of capital. There is a good reason there is so much debt today, it is primarily caused by there not being enough jobs that pay a living wage left in America. Outsourcing, insourcing, and shipping whole plants overseas has killed the American economy. No one, except the bankers, is getting anything for free.

[Yieu]

What are talking about? No one is getting free houses. No one took out a mortgage thinking, gee, maybe they will let me have it for free if there is a bust. Please, that rhetoric is ridiculous.

Some here have proposed having the government eliminate all mortgage debt, which means proposing having the government give mortgate holders free houses. They don't care that this would negatively impact the economy and put further strain on the non-mortgage holders that still have to pay. That is what I am talking about. There is no reason this random section of the population should be given free houses over any other section of the population.

Is it well known that asking for the elimination of mortgage debt is asking for free houses specifically for mortgage holders? This is section 8 housing specifically for mortgage holders. What reason would there be to give free houses to that subsection of the population, in particular? Why not just claim you can print everything from thin air and give everyone mansions? The point is, being a mortgage holder is an arbitrary reason for the government grant you a house over. The housing market would raise prices to try to compensate for the massive loss, and those who are currently not mortgage holders would have a much tougher time ever going from renting to owning due to the government giveaway. A government mortgage debt relief program is the same as a government free housing program.


The benefits were low interest, low monthly payments, and the biggest benefit of them all, rising house prices!

Rising housing prices indicated instability to me, which was a big factor in why I chose not to buy a mortgage. It's not buying a house, it's buying a mortgage. The bank owns the house, so until you have purchased it from the bank you do not have a claim of ownership.


The banks knew the situation quite well. They knew they were creating an artificial housing boom with their loans and kept doing it anyway. They did not care, they wanted the bust to occur to lower everyones property value so they could eventually step in a buy large tracts of land for pennies on the dollar. It was all planned out from the start to occur exactly the way it has been occurring.

Yes, I have seen that, and that is a problem that should be prevented, and the plan has not executed yet so there is time for things to not go that badly.

[tangent4ronpaul]

How many here actually clicked through and read the articles at the link? I suspect not many or this would be a different thread.

Iceland did not forgive home loan debt, just anything above 110% when the home was underwater. They still had to pay off the home.

Toward the bottom of that web page they discuss what happened to banking in Iceland. I believe it was 2002 when 85% of the banks were privatized and this resulted in economic growth. They pushed easy electronic banking and low interest rates, so attracted international business. They also took on huge loans from big European banks (Britten/Holland) and the the IMF. This all ties back to the FED as a main source of money. So we had the international monetary crisis and they got dragged down by it and the country declared bankruptcy. Iceland then decided to tax their citizens to pay off this huge debt. The citizens revolted, and threw out the government. It was largely peaceful, some rock throwing and such. They elected a new government who selected people to rewrite their constitution and, did the home debt forgiveness and then nationalized the banks. The citizens put to a vote whether to repay the British and Dutch banks and 96% said no. International pressures threatened to freeze the accounts of Icelandic citizens held in their banks, a IMF loan to Iceland was frozen and threats were made to embargo the country - making it the Cuba of the north...

What happened then? Well, from the first video on the page: The economy tanked. Going down 6.8% or something the first year. The next year it went up 2.6%, the next year it went up 2.6% and it's still going up today. This country broke with the International banking community and is prospering.

In case anyone is thinking about it: Icelandic is one of the hardest languages to learn. The weather cold, land barren. The women are hot! Alcoholism is common. Don't know about job prospects, immigration, getting citizenship, gun rights, cost of living or any of that. Never looked into it. But it is starting to look like one of the freest countries in the world.

I've seen a lot of ignorant comments in this thread about banks and the FED. Banks do not like to make loans to people that do not look like good risks to pay them back. The housing crisis was created because Congress passed the "Community Reinvestment and Development Act". This forced banks to give loans to people they deemed high risk for default. To what extent the CRDA (or is that CDRA?) was a liberal agenda and to what extent did some big banking interests lobby for it is a different question. But no, your local bank does not want to re-possess your home, car or whatever. They like people that pay off their loans.

As to the FED - how are you going to starve it? seriously??? Your bank deals with the FED, not you. It loans them money at low interest rates and your bank charges higher interest rates and is allowed to "create money out of thin air" for every dollar it has deposited. It loans something like 8$ for every one in it's accounts, because they expect the loaned money to be paid back with interest. Besides, even if you could "stave it" - they loan money to banks and very low interest rates and create that money from "thin air". ie: they print it. So they don't get their measly interest back - they would just print more money and you would end up paying for it anyway through inflation - the other tax! $20 a gallon milk sound good to you? Your cost of living increase has not and won't keep up - if you can find a job, that is...

-t

[DamianTV]

Ridiculous.

You don't get a free lunch.

Then why are you paying for theirs?

[Liberty74]

Totally against the Iceland model.

It will not work out in the end. Forgiving debt only encourages more people to take on more stupid debt. Instead, people who can't pay need to go bankrupt. You aren't entitled to shit and have such paid for by others. Very bad model.

Also, why brag about a 2% growth and out growing the Euro area? Socialism is collapsing all around Iceland due to massive debt loads so in essence it's not hard to outgrow the rest of Europe.

Besides, Iceland's GDP is a whopping $15 billion. Apple alone makes more money than that. So there really isn't much to brag about.

[kathy88]

I have no clue what you are talking about.I NEVER have any idea what unc is talking about. Makes me feel dumb.

[Dr.3D]

I have no clue what you are talking about.
And all this time, I thought I was the only one without a clue.

[Philhelm]

Alright, let's come up with a game plan. At what level do we start prosecuting guys? Branch manager? Regional manager? I once had a teller look at me like a terrorist because I withdrew $4,000 at once. I want her to be tried as well.

Don't forget their families too!

[ShaneEnochs]

Totally against the Iceland model.

It will not work out in the end. Forgiving debt only encourages more people to take on more stupid debt. Instead, people who can't pay need to go bankrupt. You aren't entitled to shit and have such paid for by others. Very bad model.

Also, why brag about a 2% growth and out growing the Euro area? Socialism is collapsing all around Iceland due to massive debt loads so in essence it's not hard to outgrow the rest of Europe.

Besides, Iceland's GDP is a whopping $15 billion. Apple alone makes more money than that. So there really isn't much to brag about.

I <3 bankruptcy. I just wish it cleared student loans as well.

I have a couple friends who live in Iceland. They were telling me that a Big Mac there costs the equivalent of $12 USD.

[DEGuy]

The Federal Reserve and the elite are the ones who have been getting the free lunch. Not the everyday working folks in America trying to just survive one day at a time. The bankers got a debt reset to the tune of trillions while the people who work for a living did not. Do you understand now why bankers should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes?

Advice from Office Space: Just fix the "glitch" and stop the paychecks, and once that's done, it'll work itself out naturally.

[jmdrake]

Your local bank did not steal from the homeowner. The homeowner sought them out for a loan and willingly signed a contract. The deal was struck and because of the loan they had received, they chose to buy a house.

Your local bank did not cause the housing boom and bust cycle.

Borrowers should honor their contracts. There is no free lunch, even if people want it REALLY badly.

Actually in some cases the homeowners were sought out. My mother is in real estate. She told me of one real estate broker that talked about how he convinced an elderly lady who was comfortably renting to go in debt to buy a house. He had to prod her into it. Oh sure, she "willingly" signed the contract, the same way someone "willingly" buys crack...at least the first time. But it's not fair to say that all homeowners just forced themselves on the banks. Also the meltdown wasn't caused simply by homeowners. There's the whole derivatives scheme. http://seekingalpha.com/article/198197-why-derivatives-caused-financial-crisis

Edit: And once you understand derivatives (and I admit I only partially understand them) you can see why predatory lending was a necessity for the shell game the international banksters were playing. Derivatives (as I understand them) are "bets" as to whether or not an actual security is valuable. Remember the 9/11 airline "put" options? Same thing here. In order to place a 'bet" on whether or not someone will default on his mortgage, you have to have someone at risk for defaulting on his mortgage.

[jmdrake]

You cannot just put all bankers in one group.

What about John Allison, the libertarian CEO of BB&T now in charge of CATO.

His bank was FORCED by the government to take bailout money. They protested against it. Not all bankers are evil.

I'd be happy with seeing Hank Paulson go to prison. Seriously, how did he get away with engineering a bailout for Goldman Sachs when he had half a billion invested in Goldman Sachs?

[Zippyjuan]

Iceland was also helped by allowing their currency to collapse- that increased demand for their exports and made imports more expensive. They also imposed very strict controls on the flow of capital.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/world/europe/icelands-economy-is-mending-amid-europes-malaise.html?pagewanted=all

But not even Mr. Arnason says he believes that all is perfect. Inflation, which reached nearly 20 percent during the crisis, is still running at 5.4 percent, and even with the government’s relief programs, most of the country’s homeowners remain awash in debt, weighed down by inflation-indexed mortgages in which the principal, disastrously, rises with the inflation rate. Taxes are high. And with the country’s currency, the krona, worth between about 40 and 75 percent of its pre-2008 value, imports are punishingly expensive.

Strict currency controls, imposed during the crisis, mean that Icelandic companies are forbidden to invest abroad. At the same time, foreigners are forbidden to take their money out of the country — a situation that has tied up foreign investments worth, according to various estimates, between $3.4 billion and $8 billion.

“The capital controls are worse and worse for companies, but the fear is that if we lift them, the value of the krona will collapse,” Professor Matthiasson said.

He said the only solution would be for Iceland to dispense with the krona and join a larger, more stable currency. The choices at the moment seem to be the euro, which is having its own difficulties, and the Canadian dollar.

Not everyone buys into the rosy picture presented by officialdom. Jon Danielsson, an Icelander who teaches global finance at the London School of Economics, said that both the I.M.F., which bailed Iceland out during the crisis, and the government had a vested interest in painting a positive picture of the situation.

“When I hear people say that everything is fine, it’s colored by P.R.,” Mr. Danielsson said. “They have clearly stabilized the economy and gotten out of the deep crisis, but they have not yet found a way to build a prosperous country for the future.”

A visit to Iceland late last month revealed a far different place from the shellshocked nation of 2008. Stores and hotels were full. The Harpa, a glass-and-steel concert hall and conference center designed in part by the artist Olafur Eliasson and opened in 2011, soared over the Reykjavik skyline, next to a huge construction site that is to house a luxury waterside hotel. Employers said that instead of having to lay off workers, they were in some cases having trouble finding people to hire.

[Brian4Liberty]

Your local bank did not steal from the homeowner.

Some of them stole from the taxpayers: TARP. Many of them engaged in fraud by giving out ultra-high risk loans and selling the crap off as triple A rated investments. The biggest Wall St firms engaged in wholesale fraud by packing the crap and reselling it as AAA.

As far as forgiveness of mortgages, that is just another bailout, and more theft. Houses that are in default need to be sold. Of course the bankers and the homeowners believe they have a vested interest in restraining the supply of houses on the market so that prices can be artificially raised. In reality, this once again only benefits the largest Wall St banks, who are sucking up all that property behind closed doors in Washington.

[seraphson]

Actually in some cases the homeowners were sought out. My mother is in real estate. She told me of one real estate broker that talked about how he convinced an elderly lady who was comfortably renting to go in debt to buy a house. He had to prod her into it. Oh sure, she "willingly" signed the contract, the same way someone "willingly" buys crack...at least the first time. But it's not fair to say that all homeowners just forced themselves on the banks. Also the meltdown wasn't caused simply by homeowners. There's the whole derivatives scheme. http://seekingalpha.com/article/198197-why-derivatives-caused-financial-crisis

Edit: And once you understand derivatives (and I admit I only partially understand them) you can see why predatory lending was a necessity for the shell game the international banksters were playing. Derivatives (as I understand them) are "bets" as to whether or not an actual security is valuable. Remember the 9/11 airline "put" options? Same thing here. In order to place a 'bet" on whether or not someone will default on his mortgage, you have to have someone at risk for defaulting on his mortgage.

And that right there is one of wicked functions of our debt-based, central bank controlled monetary system. It's actually designed so that no matter what someone will default. Money as Debt (http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/) explained this pretty well and I thought it was a very enlightening learning experience. Theoretically if given sufficient time the banks would eventually own everything. Of course in reality the system will bust far before that occurs.

[MJU1983]

I'd be happy with seeing Hank Paulson go to prison. Seriously, how did he get away with engineering a bailout for Goldman Sachs when he had half a billion invested in Goldman Sachs?

Tax cheat Tim Geithner (who was President of the NY Fed and Vice-Chairman of the FOMC helping fuel the housing bubble) as US Treasury Secretary hires a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist as his chief of staff to dole out bailout money to......Goldman Sachs.

LOL

You can't make this shit up!

[thequietkid10]

This is so stupid and devoid of libtertarian thought

Nobody makes anyone take out a morgage, nobody made the old lady buy a house. No one made anyone buy a house if the fed makes the interest rate 3 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent or 0 percent interest rate. If you dont have the income to pay off a house you shouldnt sign the CONTRACT promising to pay a bank 150,000 over the next 30 years peroid.

[RickyJ]

This is so stupid and devoid of libtertarian thought

Nobody makes anyone take out a morgage, nobody made the old lady buy a house. No one made anyone buy a house if the fed makes the interest rate 3 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent or 0 percent interest rate. If you dont have the income to pay off a house you shouldnt sign the CONTRACT promising to pay a bank 150,000 over the next 30 years peroid.

Nobody makes you or I post here either. However anyone that would turn down a 0, or very low interest rate loan would not be thinking clearly when inflation is about 10 percent a year at bare minimum.

[LibertyEagle]

Of course there is no free lunch, but no one in their right mind is going to turn down super low interest rates even below inflation and 60 year mortgages to buy a house. Nope, smart thinking people will jump on that. The banks knew they would, they knew the situation it would produce, they knew they would never recover their money created out of think air and didn't care, they wanted their land and assets on their balance sheets.

Actually, if they were in their right mind, they would have known that it was a huge bubble getting ready to burst and wouldn't have bought something they couldn't afford to pay for, if and when the bubble burst.

If they did, they CHOSE to sign the contract. No one forced them and they should honor that contract. Local bankers did not create the bubble. They were providing a service that you paid them to provide.


smart thinking people will jump on that
How "smart thinking" were the people whose houses are now under water, eh?

[LibertyEagle]

Some of them stole from the taxpayers: TARP. Many of them engaged in fraud by giving out ultra-high risk loans and selling the crap off as triple A rated investments. The biggest Wall St firms engaged in wholesale fraud by packing the crap and reselling it as AAA.

As far as forgiveness of mortgages, that is just another bailout, and more theft. Houses that are in default need to be sold. Of course the bankers and the homeowners believe they have a vested interest in restraining the supply of houses on the market so that prices can be artificially raised. In reality, this once again only benefits the largest Wall St banks, who are sucking up all that property behind closed doors in Washington.

True, but the vast majority of them did not.

Regardless, giving away houses free of charge is not the way to address this. This is just so wrong.

[thequietkid10]

Nobody makes you or I post here either. However anyone that would turn down a 0, or very low interest rate loan would not be thinking clearly when inflation is about 10 percent a year at bare minimum.

I dont know why you are so fixated on interest rates. What matters is the monthy bill. if the morgage is 1000 per month and you make 1500 per month, you shouldnt have gotten the house. Whether it is a cheaper house with a high ingerest rate or a nicer house with a low interest rate, makes no difference

[RickyJ]

No one forced them and they should honor that contract. Local bankers did not create the bubble. They were providing a service that you paid them to provide.





I disagree. Contracts can be terminated legally in the USA at any time, corporations do it all the time when it suits them, the general public is entitled to do the same. Filing for bankruptcy is not just for corporations. And you are very wrong that bankers did not create the bubble, they were primarily responsible for it with their low interest loans given out to people they knew couldn't pay them back. This created an artificial housing bubble that could only have occurred with their lending practices. They knew exactly what they were doing and what the result would be.

[RickyJ]

How "smart thinking" were the people whose houses are now under water, eh?

The smart ones got out early before the bust, the others just let the banks take it. The bust didn't happen till about 2008, if you bought mid to late 1990s and sold around 2006 or 2007 you did fairly well.

[anaconda]

What did laws did the "bankers" in the U.S. break?

Mortgage fraud up the yin yang. Document forgery up the yin yang.

[Hospitaller]

There is alot of support for government in this thread and i would put forth a vountaryist argument into the mix


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU

[specsaregood]

This is so stupid and devoid of libtertarian thought

Nobody makes anyone take out a morgage, nobody made the old lady buy a house. No one made anyone buy a house if the fed makes the interest rate 3 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent or 0 percent interest rate. If you dont have the income to pay off a house you shouldnt sign the CONTRACT promising to pay a bank 150,000 over the next 30 years peroid.

The problem is you are trying to build a libertarian argument on top of an unstable, non-libertarian foundation. That foundation is the money. The interest rate is important because it is related to how they are constantly devauling the currency through inflation. Taking a long term loan beneath the inflation rate just makes perfect investment sense.