Eh, not likely. How fast do you think the banks will be to make new loans?Originally Posted by RickyJ
All of the people who had no mortgage will now be unable to ever get one. What about new businesses? Would the banks trust those loans wouldn't be canceled?
Last edited by enoch150; 04-14-2012 at 12:32 PM.
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan, 1981
Exactly. People who made decisions they might not have been able to afford would be getting free houses, while we would continue paying rent forever for being prudent.
That is a pretty heavy punishment on those who rent. Especially so when property tax raises the bar of home ownership, and thus gives encouragement to rent.
This is just the government dumping on renters, first by raising the bar for home ownership, and secondly by giving away free houses to anyone who happened to chose to get into the debt of a mortgage.
And then to top it all off, this would probably raise the bar even further for home ownership, as banks try to recoup the loss. So prudent renters could possibly from that point forward have a harder time getting a house even though they would still have to pay it off, while those who shouldered debt get free houses. The additional income the home owners would then have would just be an additional insult to the new underclass of renters.
Last edited by Yieu; 04-14-2012 at 02:16 PM.
No, this has made the playing field further uneven by creating a new underclass of renters over there, who continue to pay while the mortgage bearers get a free ride.
If anything, this is government manipulation to oppress a certain class of people (people who can't afford houses, and don't buy one because of that).
Thing is, not everybody would be the equivalent of "out of debt". It would be true for the mortgage holders, but the renters would have to continue paying a portion of their income while the mortgage holders would not. This is just government manipulation... granting privileges (positive "rights") to some but not all based on personal life decisions.
Last edited by Yieu; 04-14-2012 at 02:26 PM.
So if I bust my ass to pay rent for an apartment I can afford and you have a 900K loan on a 1 million dollar home that you can't afford - you should be outright given that 1 million dollar home while I continue to pay rent on my apartment?
$#@! - I need to stop busting my ass and start taking on debt I can't afford.
Ron Paul: "For those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do."
That is the moral of the story.
I think that says it more clearly than I did.
The money that was used to fund these debts, where did it come from? Was it real? backed by real tangible assets?
Or was it invented into existence by those who gave themselves the power to do so?
I agree with you.
Exactly who is it that made this decision? The government? So, they decided to stiff the banks who lent money at the homeowners' request? How is that just?
This whole deal just smells a bit to me. I want to see if they are going to accept more money from the IMF. US.
Something tells me that there is much more to this story.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
This is just like student loan debt forgiveness.
If student loan debt is forgiven, the cost should be the degree.
If a mortgage is forgiven, the cost should be the house.
Because this just means volunteering to pay for something, then snubbing those who you promised to pay.
Such a breech of contract should end it, and its benefits.
It is nothing but socialism and no, it isn't a good thing. People are not owed free houses. Not now, not ever.
If the debt is forgiven, then the people should also lose their houses.
Last edited by LibertyEagle; 04-14-2012 at 02:53 PM.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Can I print my own money, backed by nothing to pay off my mortgage? It has value because I say it does, really it does.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin
"Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of his country ... by knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them."
~Chief-Justice John Jay, 1777
U.S. Constitution
//
Last edited by specsaregood; 04-14-2012 at 10:34 PM.
It should belong to whoever owns it.
In a truly free market with sound currency circulating, and banks that actually lend their own assets, I would agree. This scenario presents a conundrum, however, as there are no clean hands. We have a privatized/collectivized/socialized currency, a form of socialism in the monetary system itself, which already dictates that if you cannot pay for the house that the bank provided a collectivized fiction for you to finance, the bank then becomes the owner and recipient of unearned wealth. Banks are not owed free houses either.
Do banks provide a service?
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan, 1981
They entered into the contracts with their own free will. End of story.
I honestly cannot believe we are having this discussion on RPFs, but how would it be right for people to keep a house that they did not pay for? How are houses different than investments gone sour because of the crap pulled by the government, Wall Street and the FED? What about all the lost savings of people fleeced by the debasement of the currency and artificially low interest rates? What about the people who have been paying higher rent because of the same. What about....
But yet, some here want to give special favor to mortgage holders. Sounds way too much like the favors that our government is so fond of handing out to special interests.
Last edited by LibertyEagle; 04-14-2012 at 06:14 PM.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Agreed.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
//
Last edited by specsaregood; 04-14-2012 at 10:33 PM.
They didn't forgive loans they revalued them. One, was outstanding mortgages over 110% of present value, and the other were mortgages pegged to foreign currencies. People from iceland have confirmed this as well.
It doesn't matter one bit whether they knew or not, they made a CHOICE so they MUST take responsibility for it & not screw up the savers by consuming more than they've produced
It's irrelevant in this context, money isn't capital, it's PURCHASING-POWER than savers create within the economy, that's the real capital & that capital & economic resources were consumed to build those houses so it's only meet that the borrowers produce goods/services to that extent & repay that purchasing-power back into the system
OF COURSE, if someone makes a stupid, uninformed decision then they must deal with the consequences, that's what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is about, not about asking a dole from government at the expense of others!
It's irrelevant, what money is or isn't, it's the resources that they consumed at the expense of the savers that's what I'm talking about
Yes, governments & toilet-paper-money is already screwing the savers but that doesn't justify the borrowers screwing the savers
You're arguing for free houses or at least underpriced house so consider where it puts you
Freedom & free market capitalism is first & foremost about CHOICE & PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, it'll never exist in societies where people aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions period
Sure, & that also includes the borrowers who took on more debt than they were capable of paying back
Again, they made a CHOICE, they should pay for it
Nobody forced them to take the loans, they CHOSE to take them because they believe in the institutionalized idea of freeloading & free lunch
Again, if borrowers won't borrow then banks can't lend, it's pretty simply!
Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 04-15-2012 at 03:17 AM.
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
All +1
If such bad precedents are set by pardoning loans then there could be more & bigger housing-bubbles in the future if the people realize that they can get a free-ride so long as enough of them are doing it; just like how bailing out TBTF set precedents for more & bigger bubbles & bigger bailouts
This is just another government scam where people who made good economic choices get screwed to subsidize those who made bad economic choices; this is completely bereft of personal responsibility!
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
Firstly, money is NOT capital by itself, that's why you can't just create "capital" by creating more money, it's the stupid Keynesians who believe that we can "create capital" by creating money, hence they ask for government spending & socialism & that crap; BUT the real capital is the purchasing-power rendered by the savers by foregoing their present consumption
When someone borrows from banks & spends it, that PERSON brings "new money" into existence by the act of borrowing, increases moneysupply so he's essentially taking purchasing-power from all existing savers to buy whatever goods/services he's going to buy so it's incumbent upon him to produce goods/services worth that much & repay the loan & thereby decrease the increased moneysupply & thereby, put the purchasing-power he'd consumed earlier, back into the system; if he doesn't repay then the increase in moneysupply he'd caused, isn't decreased back, the purchasing-power he'd taken from the savers isn't returned to the system
Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 04-15-2012 at 03:44 AM.
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
triple post
Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 04-15-2012 at 03:43 AM.
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
triple post
Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 04-15-2012 at 03:44 AM.
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
You really think that all borrowers were given true information?
That's funny.
You can argue that every person who has been defrauded by the mortgage industry should repay the bankers and whine about the poor savers, but when the bankers themselves are the ones destroying savers it rings hollow.
Keep supporting the failed system if that's what you want to live with, I think the bankers are as much at fault in many situations as the borrowers and that they should also be held accountable.
Why do you think I want to take money away from 'savers', that's foolish.
I want to take money from criminals,not savers, and one way is through re-valuation of some existing mortgages at their expense.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
The banks are all insolvent anyway. The houses they take ownership of when they foreclose on them should be liquidated in bankruptcy. That is the answer. Not stealing from those without debt to bail out the ones with debt.
What "true information"? If they didn't know that prices would fall then that's their fault, just like when banks went belly up that was their fault; again, where's personal responsibility?
Yes, banks are destroying the savers alright & you want savers to be destroyed even more by the borrowers as well???
Again, had borrowers acted responsibly & not borrowed so much, banks wouldn't have lent so much so borrowers are hardly the "victims", nobody forced them to take loans, they did it of their own volition; it's the savers who are the victims!
You're the one who wants to continue the failed system of excessive lending & borrowing, I believe people should learn their lessons from this episode & learn to LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS!
This mentality of borrowing at the expense of future is what's detrimental to the society & the state of the government & debt only reflects the mentality of the society, government afterall is that which the people are willing to put up with & pardoning the debt will only re-inforce such bad mentality & people won't learn personal responsibility at all
Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking for! Those houses didn't fall from the sky, they were made from the capital & purchasing-power of the savers!
Again, you don't seem to grasp the distant interconnectedness of the economic web! Whether there's honest money or dishonest money, borrowers are always borrowing purchasing-power from savers so it's their responsibility to produce that many goods/services & repay because that way they return the purchasing-power back to the system
Again, every time you borrow, irrespective of the money-system, you're taking purchasing-power from savers, if you don't repay then it costs the savers by way of fewer goods/services, higher prices & lower living-standards while you've gotten stuff at their expense, free or at below market price; banks only get the tiny portion of what you pay them back, most goes back to the savers as increased purchasing-power by reducing the moneysupply which you'd increased when you'd borrowed
+1
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
All I see is you arguing for the status quo.What "true information"? If they didn't know that prices would fall then that's their fault, just like when banks went belly up that was their fault; again, where's personal responsibility?
Yes, banks are destroying the savers alright & you want savers to be destroyed even more by the borrowers as well???
Again, had borrowers acted responsibly & not borrowed so much, banks wouldn't have lent so much so borrowers are hardly the "victims", nobody forced them to take loans, they did it of their own volition; it's the savers who are the victims!
You're the one who wants to continue the failed system of excessive lending & borrowing, I believe people should learn their lessons from this episode & learn to LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS!
This mentality of borrowing at the expense of future is what's detrimental to the society & the state of the government & debt only reflects the mentality of the society, government afterall is that which the people are willing to put up with & pardoning the debt will only re-inforce such bad mentality & people won't learn personal responsibility at all
Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking for! Those houses didn't fall from the sky, they were made from the capital & purchasing-power of the savers!
Again, you don't seem to grasp the distant interconnectedness of the economic web! Whether there's honest money or dishonest money, borrowers are always borrowing purchasing-power from savers so it's their responsibility to produce that many goods/services & repay because that way they return the purchasing-power back to the system
Again, every time you borrow, irrespective of the money-system, you're taking purchasing-power from savers, if you don't repay then it costs the savers by way of fewer goods/services, higher prices & lower living-standards while you've gotten stuff at their expense, free or at below market price; banks only get the tiny portion of what you pay them back, most goes back to the savers as increased purchasing-power by reducing the moneysupply which you'd increased when you'd borrowed
+1
That's ok, we all need to observe the rational used to support the current corrupt system, so go right ahead making the case for it.
Oh, and for what it's worth, it matters not one whit to me if anyone forgives my debt, I'm after the system itself.
I'm already on my way out of the game, and I'm not leaving my children with debt, and despite what differences my wife and I have this isn't one of them, so I'm very much in the position of a saver who stands not to gain so much if there were some kind of worldwide debt repudiation, which isn't even what I'm advocating if you'd bother to read what I write, and it would suit me just fine to 'lose' like you are describing.
Last edited by WilliamC; 04-15-2012 at 08:23 AM.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
All I see is lack of understanding of the economics & where the capital comes for borrowers to buy stuff with
Again - borrowers borrow - new money created & moneysupply increases - savers lose purchasing-power - borrowers buy goods/services with it for themselves - fewer goods/services for savers - so - borrowers should produce goods/services - repay the loan - moneysupply decreases - purchasing-power of savers is returned to them
There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
Start listening at 57 min 30 seconds.
You ignore or belittle the premise that the system itself is deliberately set up to create debt slaves, even if it is via manufactured consent.
You want personal responsibility? Let's start with arresting and trying those responsible for the current corrupt system for the crimes they have committed, and see where the mortgage problem falls out from there eh?
Until then I'll not judge too harshly those who were mislead into some level of excessive debt, even though I fully agree that anyone willfully using the system to take on more debt than they knew they could repay are just as criminally liable as those who knew they were selling a fraudulent product to begin with.
Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.
NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us