Just call a spade a spade..
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Banks Are Enslaving Humans
- Thread starter pro4life
- Start date
Just call a spade a spade..
Yes slavery is working for 20-30 years to pay off a debt.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Good one, but then would your mom ask for a big interest rate on top of what you already owe her ?.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Declaring a randomly selected fallacy is in play does nothing for your credibility.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Your definition of "slavery" makes pretty much every thing "slavery" which reduces the word to meaninglessness.
Everything?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Look at all the slaves god has...
The idea that one must pay back money borrowed is definitely not slavery.
Anyone who thinks so has the option of not borrowing it in the first place.
Last edited:
Then don't borrow. It's very simple.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hello again.....
Yes........ to the above.
Also, Where I live there is a very heavy inheritance tax on any Estate larger than about £250,000, so the million dollar home would only be about 2/3 of the beneficiary's. But I think that this is good, because the richer (and super rich) get reduced, and if that taxed money would only be spent more wisely by our government then this would all be fantastic.
I am more interested in poor couples.... couples who have just been left a whole house, which many borrowers would take a lifetime to pay off, don't keep me awake, worrying for them, at night.
Where I live first time buyers do not pay stamp duty, get preferable mortgage rates and as much help as possible.
But the Estates of the richer folks do need to be taxed because we need to secure the quality of life for the poorer folks, like your young couple.
Where I live, all of the above is provided to the needy, free of charge. And more! Which pleases me.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Our Bank of England does........ it lends to our major banks which lend to us.
You do need lawyers. Probably fatter than bankers, lawyers.
But our legislation and revenue law only gets complicated for the wealthy and high earners.
.
I have done neither since 1983. But I have been lucky. I keep a current account so that people can send me as much money as possible.... that's it. If you would like to make a donation to the 'save a badger' foundation I could send you the numbers!
For decades all (most of) our banks were automatically charging borrowers for insurance policies which were intended to protect borrowers in the event of illness, loss of job or injury. It was a total scam, and for the last several years these banks have been made to pay back every penny of that money to anybody who ever borrowed. It has cost the Banks billions........... I'm just sad that some of the fat cats aren't breaking rocks, or cleaning toilet floors with a tooth brush.
I do believe in fair returns for lenders, and reasonable rates for borrowers, but every time I hear that a Bank boss has had to pay back their million pound bonus it does give me a nice happy feeling deep inside!
Sorry, hope you feel better.
No, but they do have a function when it comes to banking. The question remains whether they should remain private or even if they're necessary at all.
If government was really as evil as many capitalists seem to believe, no lawyer could ever protect anyone. Nevertheless, if lawyers are needed as you say, then those who can afford to hire them have an advantage over those who can not. That may or may not be a problem with government, although it seems the law itself may be the real problem - not "government" per se.
That may be a valid solution for an individual, but it doesn't help society as a whole. Even for an individual, it may not be all that feasible to opt out of the banking system unless there is some alternative available. Perhaps a government-owned bank could be set up to supplement the privately-owned banks, so that those who don't trust the private sector could utilize banking services offered by the government.
I agree that it's not slavery, although I can understand why some people might think of it as an undue burden placed upon working people. Perhaps a solution would be to clip the banks' wings and reduce their ability to collect on any debts. That is, they would be prohibited from foreclosing, seizing any property, garnishing wages, sending nasty letters/phone calls, or anything at all for that matter. If a person refuses to pay back the loan, then the banks will just have to sit on their hands and eat it.
If they don't like it, they always have the option of not lending money in the first place.
Aye, but ther're removed from the process of lending it to us little folk, ie, our "enslavement".
We have a severe problem with our court system encouraging frivolous & vexatious lawsuits. Tis a system designed by lawyers for lawyers.
Yes! Please send me your bank accountt info: names, account number, routing number, mother's maiden name, etc.I have done neither since 1983. But I have been lucky. I keep a current account so that people can send me as much money as possible.... that's it. If you would like to make a donation to the 'save a badger' foundation I could send you the numbers!
I don't mix my insurance with my banking.
I too love it when the high & mighty are brought low for their sins.
Better today!
The Fed Reserve & inter-bank lending are really separate issues from consumer borrowing. None of my banking successes & problems resulted from them (eg, refusing to extend current loans.
Ref:
Many many decades ago, even home mortgage loans were term loans, ie, the loan had to be renewed ever so many years, or be paid in full. If the bank refused to renew, then the borrower had to find another lender. If they couldn't, then the bank foreclosed upon the property, even if the borrower was current on payments. That mischief ridden situation was remedied by making all loans self-amortizing, ie, the principal was entirely paid off by the end of the term (15, 20 or 30 years). Commercial loans are still of renewable type, with terms ranging now from 3 to 5 years. If the fed directs banks to not renew risky loans (which happened recently), then the borrowers are sent into foreclosure. Dim witted fed regulators thought the system would be more stable if banks shed risky loans, but the real effect was to turn loans with a 20%-80% risk of going bad into loans which experienced a 100% probability of going bad. Add to this the fact that the IRS taxes us on phantom "income
from a refinance.
Those who can't afford lawyers also have a big advantage. They can sue anyone as they please (in pro se), & they have nothing at risk but their own time, while causing great expense to the defendant. I've been thru this, having been subject to several bogus $1,000,000 (a popular amount) fair housing suits. There are people whose sole business is filing nuisance suits. They don't have to pay the legal costs of the other side, & wouldn't be collectible anyway. They're utterly immune.
How would a government owned bank be any different from a privately owned bank? Borrowed money must be paid back. But the worst lender I ever dealt with was a government owned bank, ie, the Royal Bank Of Scotland. And the worst of their behavior (foreclosing upon current loans) was the result of fed regulation.
Anyone who feels like a slave cuz they must repay money they borrowed is a whiney, deluded, miserable little victimhood wallower.
I can only hope that they're too lazy to vote in elections.
One must always look at unintended consequences.
What would happen if banks had reduced ability to collect on loans?
- The risk of each loan failing would increase.
- Losses due to failed loans would increase.
- Banks are in the business of making a profit, so if costs go up, then prices must do the same.
This means either a higher interest rate with higher closing costs, or greatly reduced lending (to only the very best borrowers with very low LTV ratios).
This would suck.
This also points out the problem of having politicians in office who have never been in the real estate biz. They regulate from inexperience, thinking their simplistic boneheaded solutions will work as they envision. The market is more complex than they understand.
For a few years, banks weren't lending at all.
That, combined with fed regulators telling banks not to renew commercial loans added to the economic crisis.
Here's how it is....
Those of us who want to borrow will do so from those willing to lend.
Anyone who doesn't want to borrow or lend should refrain from doing so.
I don't want government protecting me from the obvious inevitable consequences of my own decisions.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
The way Banks enslave humans is by creating more debt than there is actual money, thus ensuring many, many people always have to do something to pay off said debt.
Here's how it works (at least in America), translated from Bankese to English from my personal copy of the Federal Reserve's Modern Money Mechanics.
Now when the US Government decides that it needs some money, it calls up the Federal Reserve and requests - let's say - 10 Billion Dollars. The Fed agrees to this by buying 10 Billion in Government Bonds from the US Gov. The US Gov sends the Bonds and the Federal Reserve prints what they call Federal Reserve Notes. The US Government places these Federal Reserve notes into a bank account, and upon doing so, they become Dollars to the tune of 10 Billion.
All of this happens electronically.
Now a Government Bond is, fundamentally, debt. When the Government gives the Federal Reserve these bonds, they are in effect promising to pay back the 10 Billion in Federal Reserve Notes (note: Reserve Notes are not considered Dollars until deposited in a Bank Account).
In other words, the money was created at a debt.
Now according to the Fractional Reserve System, that 10 Billion Dollars has become part of the Bank's Reserves (just as all deposits do - even your money). And regarding Fractional Reserve requirements:
"A bank must maintain legally required reserves, in the form of vault cash and/or deposits at its Federal Reserve Bank, equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits." - Modern Money Mechanics.
It then goes on to say:
"Under current regulations, the reserve requirements against most transactions is 10 Percent." - Modern Money Mechanics
This means that out of that 10 Billion Dollars, 1 Billion is considered 'Required Reserve' while the other 9 Billion is considered 'Excessive Reserve' and can be used as the basis for new loans.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that this 9 Billion dollars is coming from the existing 10 billion dollar deposit, but this is actually not the case.
What really happens is that the 9 billion dollars is created from nothing on top of the existing 10 billion dollar deposit ($19,000,000,000) and this is how the money supply is expanded.
"Of course they [The Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." - Modern Money Mechanics.
Simply put, the 9 Billion Dollars can be created from nothing simply because there is a demand for such a loan, and the reserves satisfy the Fractional Reserve System's requirements.
So what happen if someone were to borrow this newly created 9 Billion? They would most likely put it in their own bank account. The process then repeats as now that 9 Billion has become part of the Bank's reserves. 10% and the remaining 90% (or 8.1 billion) is then made available as newly created money available for loans. And, of course, that 8.1 Billion can be loaned out to create an addition 7.2 Billion and on and on and on.
This process can go on forever. Theoretically 90 Billion dollars can be created on top of the original 10 Billion. In other words, for every deposit made within the Banking system, nine times that amount can be created from nothing.
So that's how the Fractional Reserve System works. But this raises an interesting question: What gives this newly created money value?
The answer is: the money that already exists.
The new money leeches value from the existing money supply because the pool of money is being increased irrespective to the demands for goods or services and, as supply and demand find an equilibrium, the prices of goods and services rise lowering the purchasing power of every dollar.
This is what we call 'Inflation', which is essentially a hidden tax on the public. This is why you always hear bankers talking about inflating the currency, or lower the interest rates etc. But how can you expect to solve the problem of inflation with inflation? You can't.
The Fractional Reserve System and monetary expansion is inherently inflationary because the act of expanding the money supply, without a corresponding expansion of goods and services, will always debase the currency and cause inflation. So $1 in 1913 would require $21.13 in 2007 to match it's value. A 96% devaluation.
Now if you're thinking, but that's ridiculous! You haven't heard anything yet.
In America, Money is Debt and Debt is Money. If you examine the National Debt in relation to the increase of the Money Supply in America over the years, you'll find a corresponding increase in both because the more money there is, the more debt there is, and the more debt there is, the more money there is.
So every single dollar in your wallet and bank account is owed to someone by someone. And if everyone paid off their debts, including the Government, there wouldn't be a single dollar left in circulation.
There's only one time in history when America paid off its national debt, and that was after President Jackson shut down the Central Bank that preceded the Federal Reserve in 1835. That was pretty much Jackson's entire campaign.
"The bold efforts the bank has made to control Government, are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into the perpetuation of this institution, or the establishment of another like it." - Andrew Jackson, 1835.
So all money is debt, and this causes people to compete for labour to pool enough money out of the money supply to cover their cost of living.
But that's not all...
Now when the Government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, or a person borrows money from the Bank, it almost always has to be paid back with a crude interest. Almost every single dollar that exists must eventually be returned to a bank with interest paid as well.
But if all money is borrowed from the Fed, and that money is expanded in commercial banking through loans, only the 'Principal' is being created in the money supply. So where is the money to cover all of the interest that is charged?
It doesn't exist.
This means that the amount of money owed back to the Banks (and Federal Reserve) will always exceed the amount of money that actually exists. This is why inflation is a constant in the US economy. New money is always needed to cover the perpetual debt created by the need to pay the interest.
In short, there isn't enough money in existence to pay back the US National Debt because any attempt to pay back the debt creates more debt with interest.
This also means that defaults, bankruptcy, housing repossessions are inherently built into the system, and there will always be poor people. It's like musical chairs.
And that's how the US Money system works.
Here's how it works (at least in America), translated from Bankese to English from my personal copy of the Federal Reserve's Modern Money Mechanics.
Now when the US Government decides that it needs some money, it calls up the Federal Reserve and requests - let's say - 10 Billion Dollars. The Fed agrees to this by buying 10 Billion in Government Bonds from the US Gov. The US Gov sends the Bonds and the Federal Reserve prints what they call Federal Reserve Notes. The US Government places these Federal Reserve notes into a bank account, and upon doing so, they become Dollars to the tune of 10 Billion.
All of this happens electronically.
Now a Government Bond is, fundamentally, debt. When the Government gives the Federal Reserve these bonds, they are in effect promising to pay back the 10 Billion in Federal Reserve Notes (note: Reserve Notes are not considered Dollars until deposited in a Bank Account).
In other words, the money was created at a debt.
Now according to the Fractional Reserve System, that 10 Billion Dollars has become part of the Bank's Reserves (just as all deposits do - even your money). And regarding Fractional Reserve requirements:
"A bank must maintain legally required reserves, in the form of vault cash and/or deposits at its Federal Reserve Bank, equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits." - Modern Money Mechanics.
It then goes on to say:
"Under current regulations, the reserve requirements against most transactions is 10 Percent." - Modern Money Mechanics
This means that out of that 10 Billion Dollars, 1 Billion is considered 'Required Reserve' while the other 9 Billion is considered 'Excessive Reserve' and can be used as the basis for new loans.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that this 9 Billion dollars is coming from the existing 10 billion dollar deposit, but this is actually not the case.
What really happens is that the 9 billion dollars is created from nothing on top of the existing 10 billion dollar deposit ($19,000,000,000) and this is how the money supply is expanded.
"Of course they [The Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." - Modern Money Mechanics.
Simply put, the 9 Billion Dollars can be created from nothing simply because there is a demand for such a loan, and the reserves satisfy the Fractional Reserve System's requirements.
So what happen if someone were to borrow this newly created 9 Billion? They would most likely put it in their own bank account. The process then repeats as now that 9 Billion has become part of the Bank's reserves. 10% and the remaining 90% (or 8.1 billion) is then made available as newly created money available for loans. And, of course, that 8.1 Billion can be loaned out to create an addition 7.2 Billion and on and on and on.
This process can go on forever. Theoretically 90 Billion dollars can be created on top of the original 10 Billion. In other words, for every deposit made within the Banking system, nine times that amount can be created from nothing.
So that's how the Fractional Reserve System works. But this raises an interesting question: What gives this newly created money value?
The answer is: the money that already exists.
The new money leeches value from the existing money supply because the pool of money is being increased irrespective to the demands for goods or services and, as supply and demand find an equilibrium, the prices of goods and services rise lowering the purchasing power of every dollar.
This is what we call 'Inflation', which is essentially a hidden tax on the public. This is why you always hear bankers talking about inflating the currency, or lower the interest rates etc. But how can you expect to solve the problem of inflation with inflation? You can't.
The Fractional Reserve System and monetary expansion is inherently inflationary because the act of expanding the money supply, without a corresponding expansion of goods and services, will always debase the currency and cause inflation. So $1 in 1913 would require $21.13 in 2007 to match it's value. A 96% devaluation.
Now if you're thinking, but that's ridiculous! You haven't heard anything yet.
In America, Money is Debt and Debt is Money. If you examine the National Debt in relation to the increase of the Money Supply in America over the years, you'll find a corresponding increase in both because the more money there is, the more debt there is, and the more debt there is, the more money there is.
So every single dollar in your wallet and bank account is owed to someone by someone. And if everyone paid off their debts, including the Government, there wouldn't be a single dollar left in circulation.
There's only one time in history when America paid off its national debt, and that was after President Jackson shut down the Central Bank that preceded the Federal Reserve in 1835. That was pretty much Jackson's entire campaign.
"The bold efforts the bank has made to control Government, are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into the perpetuation of this institution, or the establishment of another like it." - Andrew Jackson, 1835.
So all money is debt, and this causes people to compete for labour to pool enough money out of the money supply to cover their cost of living.
But that's not all...
Now when the Government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, or a person borrows money from the Bank, it almost always has to be paid back with a crude interest. Almost every single dollar that exists must eventually be returned to a bank with interest paid as well.
But if all money is borrowed from the Fed, and that money is expanded in commercial banking through loans, only the 'Principal' is being created in the money supply. So where is the money to cover all of the interest that is charged?
It doesn't exist.
This means that the amount of money owed back to the Banks (and Federal Reserve) will always exceed the amount of money that actually exists. This is why inflation is a constant in the US economy. New money is always needed to cover the perpetual debt created by the need to pay the interest.
In short, there isn't enough money in existence to pay back the US National Debt because any attempt to pay back the debt creates more debt with interest.
This also means that defaults, bankruptcy, housing repossessions are inherently built into the system, and there will always be poor people. It's like musical chairs.
And that's how the US Money system works.
This doesn't follow from the preceding description of the system.
Of course, this is now how consumer lending works. It's about government monetary policy, so proposing additional regulations on the banks we deal with won't affect the Fed Reserve System.
Glad to hear it.
So, then, it may be a matter of how the government interferes rather than just the interference itself. I have mixed feelings about the Fed, although some have pointed up the problem of it being a private entity and not under direct governmental organizational control. These are supposedly world-renowned experts in finance and banking and quite well-respected even among conservative economists. They're not anti-business, and just as most in our government, they're ideologically/politically committed to the principles of free market economics.
It may differ from state to state. I've heard of people getting stuck with court costs if they bring forth a nuisance suit and lose. More often than not, the courts around here tend to favor landlords and developers over tenants and average citizens.
In any case, I think you're referring to people who are already bureaucratically slick and have learned ways of gaming the system without actually being a lawyer. Plenty of people like that, although I would think the majority of people still wouldn't do that - either because they don't know how or their moral principles would prohibit them from bringing forth bogus lawsuits.
Still, if a rank amateur can game the system and pick up some change along the way, think of how much damage can be caused by trained professionals.
If it's in Scotland, then it's not our government. Since I'm not a citizen of Scotland or the UK and don't live there, I don't have any say about their government. I do have some say about the US government, and technically, I have more say about what a US government agency does than I would over a private company (such as a bank).
Aye, that's the trick. We too often hear ill considered calls for more regulation, with no analysis to determine unintended effects. (I remember a big tax on yachts some decades ago, which ruined the industry. It was repealed because of deleterious effects which were foreseeable.)
Regulations....
- Should discourage aggressive speculative investment.
- Should encourage loan renegotiation.
- Should not tax loan renegotiation.
The Fed Reserve Banks are still set up by government, which exercises control as it sees fit.
Remember that the prez appoints the chairman.
I've seen hundreds of court cases, & only once did I see the defendant awarded court costs. This was because the plaintiff offended the judge. (Never **** off a judge....you'll find out just how much leeway they have.) While it's theoretically possible for a judge to award costs, the net effect is that it just doesn't happen. And even then, can one collect upon that ruling?
Facing untrained lawyers (pro se) is quite damaging precisely because they know so little. All their blundering about (with spurious motions) requires a response. I'd much rather be sued by a competent attorney.
Parenthetical aside....
I was once sued for over $1M in a land contract dispute, & I got to really like & respect the other side's lawyer.
RBS is owned (mostly) by the British government. The name notwithstanding, they operate around the globe. And the US gov regulates their (& their subsidiaries, Citizens & Charter One) operation here.
Last edited: