Clear Full Forecast

Invasion of the Moneylenders - Part 4 – “Sixteen Tons”

By Peter Ewart

Monday, November 05, 2007 03:45 AM

    This is the fourth in a series of articles on the banking and credit industry.  The other articles were:   “Invasion of the Moneylenders – Part 1,”Invasion of the Moneylenders – Part 2,” and “Invasion of the Moneylenders – Part 3.”

“You haul Sixteen Tons, whadaya get?

Another day older and deeper in debt

Saint Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go

I owe my soul to the company store.

[If ya] See me comin’ better step aside

A lot of men didn’t and a lot men died

I got one fist of iron and the other of steel

And if the right one don’t get ya, the left one will.”

Back in 1946, when country singer Merle Travis first recorded his song “Sixteen Tons”, the miner in the song had few options other than continuing to live a life of quiet desperation.

But are things much different in 2007 in Appalachia or other parts of the U.S.?  Yes, today, the miner would probably be sent off to an anger management class, and, afterwards advised by a credit counselor to invest in mutual funds.  When he got home and checked his mailbox, there might be a credit card application offering to consolidate his existing loans into a new one at a lower interest rate, or he might get a phone call from a call center inviting him to sign up for yet another card.

Whether it was 1946 or 2007, however, he’d still be “another day older and deeper in debt,” although probably much deeper today.  Indeed, American household debt now stands at $11.4 trillion and is rising rapidly.  The personal savings rate has dipped below zero.  And wages are stagnant.  According to James Scurlock, author of “Maxed Out,” the current bankruptcy rate is 10 times the rate of the Great Depression of the 1930s. (1)

Other countries, like Britain and Canada, have similar problems.  The Certified General Accountants Association points out that, in Canada, household debt has been increasing by 4.7% each year for the past 30 years, and now amounts to over $1 trillion. (2)

It’s as if a great net has been cast over our society that few escape.   The size of this net has been greatly expanded since 2001, especially in the U.S., when, with the combination of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank drastically lowering interest rates and the increasing “deregulation” of the financial sector, the “debt industry” went on a major offensive to entangle millions more people, especially lower income ones, in credit card, mortgage and other types of debt.  As a result, the so-called “subprime loans” have, in the course of a decade, gone from being a small fraction of the U.S. market to an estimated $800 billion today. (3)

The result has been a huge transfer of assets from the most vulnerable sections of the population into the hands of finance capital.  According to one analyst, this amounts to “a form of class warfare” (4).  Practices that were once labeled “predatory” or “loan sharking” have become the norm because of deregulation in the financial sector and conscious policy of the moneylenders.

Who have been the targets?  Just about everyone in the U.S.  But, too often, it has been lower paid workers, blacks and immigrants, the elderly, the disabled, soldiers, and young college students.  Even established business publications like Business Week are acknowledging that “an explosion” of predatory lending activities has been going on, targeting “subprime” borrowers. (5)

Over the last few years, people have been bombarded by direct mail campaigns and deceptive advertising of various kinds, as well as besieged by brokers “trolling the backroads” of states like Mississippi looking for easy pickings.  According to one documentary, unscrupulous brokers “cheated, scammed and lied to get people to take out mortgages they couldn’t afford.”  Even the head of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke, has acknowledged that “abusive lending practices and outright fraud” took place (6).

Often, the people who were sold these mortgages could barely read or write and had limited financial knowledge.  Sometimes they were elderly people with diminished capacity.  And other times, even disabled people were targeted.  James Scurlock gives the example of CitiFinancial, which is a branch of CitiBank, the largest banking institution in the U.S., “suing a mentally retarded woman and her severely retarded son for default, which would force them out of the modest house they’ve shared for years.” (7)

There are those who try to lay the blame on unscrupulous real estate and mortgage brokers for these activities.  As various analysts have noted, however, it is wrong to single out these lower level brokers and others in the industry as being the main culprits.  Indeed, it was the big banks and credit card companies “who invented the scams that are bleeding the borrowers” (8).  

Honest real estate and mortgage brokers in the U.S. have seen the reputation of their professions dragged into the mud because of lack of regulation and the power of the financial institutions.  Some of the most damning indictments, in fact, of what has gone on in the house selling business come from industry insiders such as Carol Trowell, a former real estate broker in Detroit, who charges that “there was a lot of fraud, jacked up appraisals, people starting off at extremely high rates” (9).  These predatory lending policies were developed, put in place, and insisted upon, by top officials in financial institutions, while government turned a blind eye. 

Predatory practices that have been used against lower income people include “steering” unfamiliar clients to agree to unnecessary and usurious debt agreements that they could never afford.  For example, “teasers” were promoted by financial institutions which “loudly advertise” a low initial interest rate, but buried in small-type somewhere in the document that these were, in fact, ‘adjustable rate mortgages,’ which means “that the interest rate will explode to 11% or more after a couple of years, causing the families’ monthly payments to jump by half or more.”  According to various sources, clients would simply never be informed of these interest rate “triggers” and their consequences. 

Other techniques have been developed to target people whom the finance industry ridicules as “ninjas” (no income, no job, no assets).  According to one real estate agent, the “only criterion” to determine loan eligibility was to make sure that the client was “breathing” (10).  Thus thousands of low income people have been steered into taking out “interest only” loans, whereby the borrower only pays the interest on the loan for several years, but then, after a while, the monthly payments are upped to pay off both interest and principal.  In certain cases involving house assessments and car loans, evidence has emerged that forged documents were put together by crooked brokers with the full knowledge of lending institutions (11).

Some people were also invited to take out loans for much more than the house costs, i.e., instead of the loan being for 100%, it was marked up to 125%.  The extra amount of the loan allowed the “ninja” to keep up with the monthly mortgage rates on the house – for a while, that is.  But the chicken inevitably comes home to roost. 

Many people who were sucked into buying houses for the first time have since defaulted, thus losing any equity they put into their home, as well as any other assets or savings.  In addition, their credit rating has been ruined.  Where do they live now?  It’s a good bet that not a few are homeless and living on the street.

Especially tragic are those who were conned into taking out second mortgages that they could not afford in order to pay for medical bills and other expenses.  The end result has been that the equity that these people have built up in their houses over many years, and sometimes over several generations, has become hopelessly ensnared in the web of finance capital.  Many have defaulted and seen their houses sold off at auctions which are now happening all over the country.  Thus, instead of parents passing on their property to their children, the banks and finance companies become the new “heirs” to the estate. 

As a result of all this flim-flammery, at least two million people in just about every part of the U.S. are expected to lose their homes this year and next.  As journalist Alan Farago notes about Florida, “The building boom is in cinders.  It is going to take a long time to tally the costs and devastation to the public interest” (12). 

In states like Colorado and California, block after block of new houses sit empty after being repossessed.  Neighbourhoods have been destroyed, as in Cleveland, Ohio, “where the streets are lined with empty houses, dead gardens and demolition notices pinned to the front doors.”  One real estate agent who was interviewed on a television documentary, doesn’t believe “that Cleveland can be saved.” According to Cleveland lawyer, Ed Kramer, “This is American capitalism at its worst” (13).

So the net has been cast, and now it is being hauled in.  Huge amounts of houses, cars and other property in the U.S. will be repossessed in the months and years ahead, ending up in the hands of finance capital.  Yes, even some banks and hedge funds will go bankrupt – only to be swallowed up by the bigger ones.  There is some irony in the fact that these very moneylenders who cheated, swindled, and lied, and, as a result, have harmed the livelihood of millions of people, are now angling with government to get bailouts, using taxpayer’s money, of course.

On the other hand, many ordinary people, who have worked hard all their lives and contributed productively to society, will end up – once this scandal plays itself out - the same as the miner in “Sixteen Tons” They will “owe their souls to the company store.”  And, they, like the miner, will be as angry as hell. 

Next in this series of articles:

“The Invasion of the Moneylenders – Part 5 – A Pound of Hamburger”

Peter Ewart is a college instructor and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
1.      Scurlock, James.  Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit, and the Era of the Predatory Lenders.  2007.
2.      “Where does the money go?  The increasing reliance on household debt in Canada.” Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.
3.      Hightower, Jim. “Subprime loans – Primetime for Vampire Lenders.”  Alternet. Aug. 23, 2007.
4.      Yates, Michael D. “Where money rushes to the top: Travels across Greenspan’s America.”  Counterpunch.  Oct. 10, 2007.
5.      Grow, Brian and Keith Epstein.  “The Poverty Business.”  Business Week.  May 21, 2007.
6.      “Mortgage Meltdown.”  CBC Passionate Eye Documentary.  CBC Newsworld.  Oct. 29, 2007.
7.      Scurlock, James
8.      Hightower, Jim
9.      Damon, Andre.  “The social toll of the US home mortgage crisis.”  World Socialist Web Site. Aug. 21, 2007.
10.   “Mortgage Meltdown.”  CBC Passionate Eye Documentary.  CBC Newsworld.  Oct. 29, 2007.
11.  Grow, Brian and Keith Epstein.  “The Poverty Business.”  Business Week.  May 21, 2007.
12.  Farago, Alan.  “This Is Florida: Epicenter of the Housing Bust and Public Corruption.”  Counterpunch.  Sept. 14, 2007.
13.  “Mortgage Meltdown.”  CBC Passionate Eye Documentary.  CBC Newsworld.  Oct. 29, 2007.

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Peter for Premier...hell,Prime Minister!
A VERY sharp guy!
As we've heard from numerous financial analysts, Canada's banking sector isn't as riddled with bad subprime debt as in the U.S., U.K and other countries. Who knew our highly-conservative, ologopopolistic banking sector was good for something?

Canada is also the only G8 nation which is actually paying off its national debt on an annual basis, rather than running operational deficiets. Provincially Alberta is, in effect, debt-free.

Unfortunately, B.C., is not as on the ball as our eastern neighbours. We continue to rack up operational deficiets at a rate slower than GPD growth. That's better than some jursidictions but not good enough. What happens if/when there is a slump in the economy? Then that debt will come back to bite us. We should be following Alberta, and the federal government's, example of reducing our actual debt. Not just our debt to GDP ratio.

I agree Andy. I've even mentioned that in person to Peter a few years back, but he doesn't seem intrested in running for office. I would vote for him if he put his name on the ballot....
I agree that the lenders are much more aggressive in their giving of credit, sometimes to unqualified people. The individual needs to take responsibilty for getting into these lending 'programs'. I to get a mailbox full of 'great lending' deals but choose to ignore them and discard them. No one is holding a gun to anyones head forcing them to go further in debt.
Look at the American news broadcasts showing the houses that have been foreclosed upon. By and large these are not places that were bought by 'poor' people 'conned' into going into unrepayable debt by the unscrupulous 'moneylenders'.

They're houses that are very 'upscale'. 2-3,000 + square foot abodes, many complete with swimming pools, air conditioning, and all the latest conveniences. They were bought by people who were 'banking' on 'inflation' ~ on housing prices continuing to rise.

People who hoped to live 'the good life', by financing in a way to afford payments that would otherwise have been beyond their means, while counting on piling up some equity through the inflation of real estate prices. And then 'cashing in'.

The only problem being, real estate prices DIDN'T continue to rise as they had been doing, and they got caught.

So far this whole series of articles has dealt solely with the 'effects' of individual indebtedness. While that's all very interesting, and possibly as varied as there are differences between all of us as individuals, when are we going to get to the 'causes' of overall, unrepayable debt? I hope Peter isn't going to make all the effort he's made so far just to tell us it's "interest".

By the way, for those who are interested, this present 'boom' we're told we're supposed to be having here in BC, the one that's supposed to have made us "Number One" again according to the twit we have for Premier, is pure real estate 'inflation'. True prosperity is when your 'standard of living' rises faster than your 'cost of living'. Our 'standard of living' may indeed be risisng (for many), but our 'cost of living' (for everyone) continues to outpace it, and the gap is widening, not shrinking.
From Arthur Williams;- "Canada is also the only G8 nation which is actually paying off its national debt on an annual basis, rather than running operational deficiets. Provincially Alberta is, in effect, debt-free."

And every dollar that's paid off on the National Debt is a dollar that's just been sent to oblivion. For what was created out of 'nothing' by the Banking system, on repayment goes back to the 'nothing' from whence it came.

In a 'creditary' money system, which ours most definitely is, Bank "loans and/or the purchase of securities create deposits, and the repayment of those loans and/or sale of securities destroys those deposits."

If our Natioanl debtis paid off from money 'in circulation', as the phrase goes, then there are likely some 'goods' with a dollar's price tag on them out in the economy that then can't be sold, unless, of course, someone 'borrows' another dollar to enable their sale.

Paying off a "National Debt" is a farce, since in reality all it does is transfer the debt from the people collectively as 'Government' back to the people 'individually' as you, and I, and everyone else.

One of the greatest mistakes we make is our belief that what applies to the 'books' of the 'government', or community as a whole, is the same as what applies to individual consumers and firms within that community. Ask your 'Government' where we might find the 'capital account' (shareholder's equity) on their Balance Sheet.
Peter mentions "deregulations in the financial sector". The phrase is an oxymoron. I can't think of any. Care to expand?
'socredible' is talking about big government spending for the now and I assume goes under the argument that government debt is good because it allows interest to be earned by pensioners and contracts to be awarded to government programs. IMO its a bankers mind set that looks to planned market sector inflation as its friend in whole market sector banker lead pump and dumps designed to acquire monopoly through credit manipulation.

The banksters are not just limited to the housing market asset pump-through-credit in order to increase their interest payments on the next generation of home owners. Thereby increasing the cost of living through debt slavery.

The banksters are also monoplizing whole industries via seeding whole industries with corporations that use, as little as, 5% secured credit from the banksters, to raise, through bankster bond offerings to equity markets, mutual funds, or other pension holdings, the remaining 95% required to start up a infrastructure build out with unsecured credit and a higher rate of return. All good until one realizes when the plug is pulled on the asset bubble it is the banksters pulling the plug, the banksters on the inside information, and the banksters that are collecting all the corporate infrastructure build out assets for 5% of cost and the ability to convert the secured debt to equity and then reap all the rewards of the corporate infrastructure build out through a plan of predatory pricing competitors out of business, with bankster owned corporations now having little to no debt loads to service, as opposed to their remaining competitors who paid full dollar for their assets. Eventually the bankster plan is designed to graft a monopoly to the management team which best is able to work for the banksters interest in using bankruptcy courts to legally strip investors of their assets when an asset bubble is created and then destroyed.

In this way fractional banking is taken to the extreme and is used in conjunction with bankruptcy courts and corrupted judges to strip billions from rightful investors in the conversion of public ownership of entire industries into the monopoly of bankers.

'socredible' is right how ever about a government balance sheet, or an absence of a government balance sheet. I think if ever there was such an accounting for a government 'capital account' (shareholder equity), then it would clearly show a government being stripped of its assets through shady bankster abuse of government investment funds among many other ways our government is pilfered.

The 'socredible' idea is one of limiting government revenue for future generations by not only burdening the government with debt, but also striping the government of its ability to service its prior obligations after leakage of potentially profitable income assets that can include monopoly infrastructure.


Dow7500 says, ""deregulations in the financial sector". The phrase is an oxymoron. I can't think of any. Care to expand?"

----------

Hedge funds that make their money ruining good start-ups with negative stock manipluation.

--------------

Investment bankers that are allowed to invest and make market recommendations on their investments as if independent.

-------------

The stream lining of bankruptcy laws to enable the easier transfer of equity to secured lenders in the event of manipluted by management corporate liquidations.

------------

The round trip reciprical revenue scheme where 'company A' buys a 25 year contract with 'company B' to cover services in a blind spot, but reports the revnue all up front in a single year, and 'company B' does the exact same in reverse. Typically this would be ammortized over the period the services were rendered, but not so in the bankster debt driven multi billion dollar asset grabs like Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom and 360 Networks. Typically the round trip reciprical reveneue contracts are done through contracts like Indefeasale Rights of Use (IRU) contracts.

For example in March of 2001 one such deal took place between 360 Networks and Global Crossing worth $250 million. The details of this deal were rushed together on the final day before the end of the quarter in order to ensure the revenue was recorded for the previous quarter, and thus meet market revenue expectation. Market expectations are thus meet through fictitious deals in which no actual cash trades hands. This deal was one among many others with Qwest, including three way deals involving 360 Networks and Global Crossing.

By mid 2001 these deals were all the rage across the entire telecom sector showing up in large part through the huge disconnect between the EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation & Amortization), and a companies actual operating cash flows. The common connection is Aurther Anderson and the JPM Chase Manhatten Bank.

---------

Using fake revenue via round trip reciprical revenue to raise capital in the capital markets to match with debt from the banksters to acquire real assets with fake money. Bankster driven and enabled.

-----------

IPO spinning. IPO spinning is the art of creating wealth through the spinning of IPOs whether they have successful business models in place or not. From 1998 through 2001 the Top Wall Street firms earned more than $13 Billion in telecom underwriting and investment banking fees related to IPO banking. In the late 90s more than half of the IPOs saw their share value go up by 100% in the first week alone.

-------------

EBITDA and Accounting Manipulation under GAAP. . With EBITDA the intent is to take the focus away from actual cash flow, and the cash flow bottom line. A company can show great EBITDA numbers and still go bankrupt if the cash flow is not managed properly.

Warren Buffett once said, “Pay close attention to cash flow because, among other reasons, cash is hard to fudge. That’s why creative accountants hate it – and why you should love it.”

-------------

No cost to the company stock options. Obvliously banksters love this one because it allows managment to work for the banksters and not the shareholders.

------------

Duel Role Investment Bankers, Advisors, and “The Chinese Wall”

Now you’re getting close to the source of most fraudulent IPO offerings of the last few years. The Investment Bankers had always been required to work independently of the Research Departments until the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in November 1999. This gave the green light to the large investment banks to merge with the retail bankers, and use the combined power of the funds managed by the bank, having insider information on companies that were involved in the Investment banking branch.

A Industry regulated Chinese Wall was supposed to prevent this exchange of information from taking place, but the only real assurance the public had was the banks word that the Chinese wall was in effect between the Investment Banking, and the Retail Research Department. Jack Grubman of Salomon Smith Barney was one of the worst violators of the Chinese wall, and held a lot of power over the whole telecom industry by doing so.

----------------

The derivatives ponzi schemes now legalized.

“Derivatives are designed to enable buyers of other assets – such as stocks and bonds – to retain ownership of those assets while passing part of the risk of owning that asset to someone else.” Writes Jim Jubak of MSNBC.

Currently 85% of all contracts in the derivative market are interest rate related, and are involved in currency trading, and manipulation, with the rest making up every thing from gold speculation, to stock market options.

The derivative side of the market can almost be considered the dark side of the market (I call it the casino market), as its contracts are confidential between the buyer and the seller, and thus this market has no external regulation from any level of government. A derivative market is almost like an insurance market in that you buy contracts on future conditions, with defined terms, in order for a contract to be exercised.

The secrative bankster derivative market is how money was made on 9/11 and how corporate management was bought off for the compliant acquistion of entire economic sectors of the corporate economy. To say nothing of our politicians.....

JPM Chase Manhatten it is estimated has over $40 Billion in outstanding derivative contracts backed up by the American tax payer through the bankster controlled US Federal Reserve. Its the bankster casino where you could be the winner with the right contract privately negotiated between you and your friendly bankster agent.

------------------

The drive by bond offerings. Junk bond offerings are mostly pushed by the secured lenders of high cost build out intensive companies. They act to supply capital to these companies with out diluting the secured lenders entitlement to the assets of the company should it default under the load of a strict interest payment plan from excessive debt. Junk bonds equal liquidity risk.

In a drive by bond offering, a Wall Street firm buys unsecured debt, and sells it very quickly to its retail clients in the market such as pensions and mutual fund holders for a slight premium.

--------------

Chapter 11, and, or Chapter 7 bankruptcy used by bankster agents in management as a strategy to eliminate debt and compensate management for guiding a failed company through the liquidation of its debt and into the equity control of the secured lenders.

When a company fails to make financial obligations to its creditors, the creditors have the option of a creditor-initiated bankruptcy after a given grace period of 30 days. In most cases the company never waits till the creditors initiate the bankruptcy, and the company executives will file for a company initiated bankruptcy.

The difference between a company initiated bankruptcy and a creditor initiated bankruptcy is a company initiated bankruptcy usually involves the current management staying on to guide the company back into a viable operating position. Bankruptcy courts often value a plan that keeps the company operational at the expense of the equity holder or non secured lenders rights.

When the creditors initiate bankruptcy they usually have no faith in the current management team, and will want to appoint their own management team to recover the most value out of the company and its assets as possible.

Going back to the company initiated bankruptcy, the current management usually gets a time period in which they can develop a plan of their own, and present this to the creditors quorum for their approval before the creditors would have the chance to appoint their own management team.

In a bankruptcy it’s the secured creditors who have to be paid in full first, and then any left over assets in theory should to go towards paying out the trade creditors, then unsecured bond holders next, followed by the preferred shareholders, and then if anything is left the common shareholders. Most cases end with the secured creditors getting the majority of the company assets, with a small amount going to the bondholders, and shareholders get nothing. The thing about a bankruptcy is just about anything can happen as long as first and foremost 2/3rd’s of the creditors quorum agree to the reorganization plan, and it is deemed within the bounds of a bankruptcy proceeding by a bankruptcy judge.

Often int he case of secured lender JMP Chase related bankruptcies the secured lender is successful in having the companie devalued to the amount oweing to JPM Chase alone as the secured lender and thus acquiring the entire asset after which it is common practive to give as much as 20% of the companies new equity to the corporate managment team that guided the company through the bankruptcy process.

----------

This is too long to edit, hope it reads well... although long....
JPM Chase Manhatten it is estimated has over $40 Billion in outstanding derivative contracts.

Make that $40 Trillion in derivative contracts backed up by American tax payers for one bank alone.
No, Chadermando, I didn't say "big government spending is good because interest can be earned by pensioners, etc."
That's not my position at all.

We do have "big government spending" on stupid inanities like that steroid circus we'll witness at Whistler in 2010, and a host of other such like essentially useless perversions, because the current financial system could not be kept going without it.

Nor could any financial system that confuses its true and proper purpose, the production and delivery of first needed and then desired goods and services, with a supposed primary need for "full employment" and ever greater "financial return".

If you look back at Peter's articles on "value-added" wood manufacturing my criticism of the current financial setup may be clearer. Nowhere in those articles was a definition given of what "value-added" really is. Properly, I believe, it could be defined as "any further process carried on beyond the initial stages of any product's manufacture that can return its costs plus an additional profit."

Notice in that definition there is nothing that mentions "employment", or "job creation". Two of the main themes of Peter's article. Yet it stands to reason that if "any further process" were being carried on there would likely be more "employment" or "job creation". But the whole point is, that is a SECONDARY feature, as would be the "additional profit".

The PRIMARY purpose is, and has to be in any sane economic system, to fill a genuine consumer demand for the product that's going to be "value-added". Without that 'consumer demand', or even with it, if it cannot be made an "effective demand", there is no sane point whatsoever in doing 'value-added'.

If it's being done, as so many things are currently being done, just to provide "employment", i.e., to provide a 'moral excuse' for paying someone, we don't have to have anything more elaborate than a piece of bare earth and a pick and shovel to do that. Just tell the new "employee" to dig a hole. And when he's done, fill it in again. We can create endless "employment" doing just that. And it makes just as much sense as having an Olympic Games or building "value-added" wood plants to turn out products for which there is neither consumer demand, nor, more likely, sufficient "effective demand".

"Finance" is supposed to be a numerical reflection of "reality". If it's not based on physical facts, then it's based on a delusion. In regards to the physical facts, our overall 'wealth' as a Province or a nation is 'appreciating' each year at a far greater rate than it is 'depreciating'. It has to be, otherwise we couldn't 'physically' progress.

But our national finances do not adequately 'reflect' this salient fact.
We do not have a properly constructed National Balance sheet which would encompass the 'physical facts' of actual 'wealth' creation and destruction. Had we such a device, it would become immediately clear that far from being mired hopelessly in 'debt', our ASSETS are vastly in excess of our LIABILITIES. And the difference is made up by the increase in 'equity' each and every one of us has an equal share to as a citizen.

In a limited company, which our government is so often compared to by those who say it must 'balance its books', (while failing to realize the differences just described), this increase in 'equity' should provide a fund from which 'dividends' could be paid. To each of us, as 'shareholders' of "British Columbia Limited". Such 'dividends' would bridge the current widening 'gap' between overall 'prices' and overall 'incomes' available, (primarily now from 'wages and salaries') necessary to fully meet those prices.

Such a policy need not be 'inflationary', but rather could be set up to be 'deflationary'. It would allow us to fully draw upon the wealth our collective efforts have created. It has nothing to do with 'ownership' or the 'administration' of private property. What it does is provide a means to fully beneficially 'credit' each individual with the greater increase of overall capital appreciation that generally exceeds overall capital depreciation. The latter being something we currently pay, at the expense of more debt, in the price of everything we now consume.
Socredible:"And every dollar that's paid off on the National Debt is a dollar that's just been sent to oblivion. For what was created out of 'nothing' by the Banking system, on repayment goes back to the 'nothing' from whence it came."

Not quite! It's true that the money was created by the lenders out of thin air, but the interest that we must pay them annually is REAL money generated by the sweat of the brow of labour and industry, trade and commerce.

A debt is a debt. Paying it in the usual way will reduce and eventually eliminate the interest obligation.

We can't go legally into default by declaring bankruptcy because the value of Canada's assets (the country!)far exceeds the amount of the national debt.

There is another way, though. The Bank of Canada (owned by us, by our government) could create an amount of money equal to the national debt. Then, with THAT money it could pay off the debt owed to the lenders.

After that, the Bank of Canada holds the debt, interest free if it wishes, forever.

The lender banks wouldn't be very happy!

Diplomat, the 'interest' is simply a subtrahend from overall system flow. Same as 'profit' and 'savings'. These are just different descriptions of exactly the same thing as it applies to different sectors of the economy. "Interest" CANNOT cause DEBT to grow on any loan that is being serviced in agreement with the repayment provisions made when it was incurred. No 'debt' is repayable until it's due.

Even if the Bank of Canada could do as you've proposed it would not solve the problem. Anymore than the elimination of "interest" entirely, (or "profit" and "savings" too, would, for that matter.)

To correct what's really wrong we need to understand that as long as ALL costs enter prices, yet the primary means to most people to liquidate those prices are their 'labor incomes', which are only a PART, (and a diminishing part, of those costs, then the ongoing flow of Prices in the aggregate CANNOT be liquidated without recourse to further DEBT.

When floating debt held in the private sector cannot be totally repaid, (which it increasingly cannot), it is transformed into fixed debt to be repaid by the public sector, i.e. "government". And so we have "olympic Games", and ultimately, war.

Socredible, you are arguing for public debt and therefore legitimizing debt spending.

History is full of examples where the banksters were dumped in favour of a national currency created by government. Abraham Lincoln (source of British Rothschilds BOE financed American civil war) and Napoleon (until Waterloo and the Rothschilds triumph of the banking system) are great examples of patriots that did away with the banksters and their debt usury systems of currency. In a more modern example the rise of Germany in the 1930's was done valuing the currency to the labour market rather than the debt markets.

Also your last paraghraph makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Unless your talking about Skeena Celulous type bailouts? And we all know how much credibility those kinds of policies have. Your second last paraghraph however was bang on IMO. It seems a contradiction in your reasoning from my view.
chader, most if not all of your points are not from any form of deregulation. They are the exploitation of the current system.
But I'll stop there, I can see you are quite passionate on this topic and nothing I say will change your sentiment.
Chadermando, what is 'debt' in the books of one party is 'credit' in the books of another. Go back to the beginning of any 'money' system in any civilization you like, and I believe you will find that 'money' was originally devised to account for the differences of 'time' in barter-type transactions. One party extended 'credit' to another, who was then in 'debt' for what was extended until that obligation was met. 'Debt' is simply a financial tool, not something Satanic. Our problem today is that with ongoing generic 'labor displacement' debt cannot be totally self-liquidating as each production-consumption cycle occurs.

There is a great deal of 'myth' surrounding 'governments' that have 'created their own currency' and supposedly worked wonders because of it. Most of it is just that, 'myth'.

Any 'government' could do the same, and many do, even in our times. Zimbabwe's is one that comes to mind. Everyone there is probably a 'millionaire' by now, thanks to Comrade Bob (Mugabe), the "Father of his country who abuses all his kids" as a local hit song describes him. The question is, would we really want to give any 'government' such a power?

On the surface, when we look at the 'effects' the current "Bankster" controlled system has wrought, many would say they would. Personally, I don't believe the worst features of any 'monopoly', and we do presently have a 'monopoly of credit'in the hands of the Banking system, could ever be improved by making that 'monopoly' still more absolute.

Which is exactly what would happen, even in more responsible regimes than that of Zimbabwe, if we were to vest ALL credit creation into the hands of the "government".

The key, in my opinion, is 'decentralization' of credit creation, not further concentrating into 'government' what is already too 'centralized' privately. In the mistaken notion that it could be better ADMINISTERED 'publicly'. We would find, I believe, that the same people who are in control of it now would still be in control of it, "in the name of the public", of course, but the POLICY would still be set by THEM, not us, and would remain exactly the same.

And no, I wasn't talking about Skeena Cellulose type 'bailouts', but rather what happens in the economy as a whole. When private debt levels become unrepayable to too high a degree, the 'government' borrows and spends, (and later, taxes), and it is this 'government' spending which enables the private debts to be more fully liquidatable.
(Diplomat:-) "...the money was created by the lenders out of thin air, but the interest that we must pay them annually is REAL money generated by the sweat of the brow of labour and industry, trade and commerce."

Socredible answers:- There is no difference between the 'principal' and the 'interest' in the way inferred, Diplomat. We 'borrow' to spend, not to 'have'. No one ever claims to be a millionaire just because he's 'borrowed' a million bucks. And we 'repay' both 'principal' and 'interest' through future earnings. Which involves the "sweat of the brow, etc."

ALL 'money' is 'credit', though not all 'credit' is 'money'. The 'interest' is no more nor less REAL money than the 'principal' is. In the overall economy, virtually all 'money' comes into existence as 'credit' created by the banking system. In the totality of continually ongoing credit creation and destruction, interest, profits and savings simply represent sums that have been created but have not yet returned to the source of their creation, the Banking system, for cancellation. It is the 'dynamic' nature of the system that allows this to happen.
(Chadermando said:-) "The 'socredible' idea is one of limiting government revenue for future generations by not only burdening the government with debt, but also striping the government of its ability to service its prior obligations after leakage of potentially profitable income assets that can include monopoly infrastructure."

No, I'm afraid that's not right. The 'socredible' idea is that a 'government' should be able to normally fund its operations through taxes, not borrowing. Pay-as -you-go. And this it would be able to if we used the Bank of Canada properly.

Not to create money for the funding of "government" INTEREST-FREE, as many often suggest.

But rather to create sufficient money DEBT-FREE, (not 'costed' into any production, as is all private bank created money now). To be paid to CONSUMERS to AUGMENT private bank created money and enable each cycle of production to be fully financially self-liquidating. Something it cannot ever be currently with ongoing 'labor income displacement'.

Pay this money, part by way of a 'dividend' directly to each of us as citizens of the country, and also as a discount or rebate to us as CONSUMERS on every retail purchase price paid. That's all we need do.

Debt that CAN be fully serviced is not a problem, nor is paying the interest on it. If we don't do this, debt, and the interest payable on it, will indeed reach unmanageable proportions. And all the financial perversions you've so very well illustrated will continue apace.

We need to deal with the fundamental CAUSE of UNREPAYABLE debt growth. Not try to change things by attempting only to deal with some of the 'effects' of it. Which is like putting a band-aid on a sore that turns out to be flesh-eating disease.
Is that a trick question? Because the CAUSE can be created through any number of hypothetical scenarios. In this case 'regulation of manipulation' is the answer one should be looking for.

Socredible writes, "In the totality of continually ongoing credit creation and destruction, interest, profits and savings simply represent sums that have been created but have not yet returned to the source of their creation, the Banking system, for cancellation. It is the 'dynamic' nature of the system that allows this to happen."

There in lies the problem. Bankers with vested interest and profits on the investment and lending portfolio they manage, are making the insider decisions on interest policy as well as liquidity policy. The so call hidden hand of the man. The all seeing eye that moves markets with the inside knowledge of a broken Chinese Wall that the banker talks about, but in reality has never existed. All the while they use this insider knowledge to be on the right side of momentum as they aquire equity and use that voting equity to manipulate the political regulatory relm in their favor.

The bankers decide policy based on what is in their best interest and not what is in the interest of society as a greater whole in an equitible to production type of mannor. Thus the creation of sector bubbles and sector bankruptcies (boom-bust) in the pusuit of capitalist monopoly for the banksters.

BTW Interest is good when you earn more on your investment then you owe on your debt... Imagine if the government had a true Income Statement and not just an Operating Statement....
By and large I agree with everything you've written above, Chadermando. But..."regulation of manipulation", (as it might aply to all the various scenarios you so ably listed in reply to dow7500, won't quite 'cut it' alone. We need it, no doubt, but it won't solve the underlying problem.

Many of those perverted financial scenarios exist because there is a need, at the macro-economic level, to continually find ways to interject 'new credit' into the economy.

And the "Banksters" and their cohorts, including their good buddies in ALL our political Parties who would "lead us", are running out of ways to do that. "War" is generally their final solution.

Since the end of WW II their favorite vehicle was the new 'home mortgage. But with overall US (and Canadian) home ownership now approaching unprecedented levels, the 'pool' of normally eligable candidates for a mortgage is continually shrinking.

Just as future 'expansions' of industrial capacity, the one time previous favorite, makes little sense when, in a 'boom period' like we're said to be 'enjoying' now, all our needs are being met with our presently existing plant working at only 83% of its rated capacity. And that's in a 'boom' period. Normally it's considerably less than that. Hardly an incentive to "invest" in new plant, is it?

It is this continuing interjection of 'new credit', under the current system, that allows the totality of existing bank loans to continue to be serviced. For awhile.

The fundamental problem is as I stated. Generic 'labor displacement' (automation, 'outsourcing' to the Third world, etc.) Currently, we can not totally pay FOR what we've done FROM what we've done. That can only be paid now by way of FROM WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IN FUTURE. But the problem is cumulative, it grows in proportion each time we do this.

The whole system of "credit issue" becoming business "costs" becoming "consumer incomes" that through "consumer spending" fully liquidate those business "costs" through "prices" that enable the business to then "repay the credit issued" is not currently fully self-liquidating over any given 'time' period.

It becomes less so as "capital" costs, (for new and improved plant and equipment)continually increase relative to "labor" costs. Which are, for most people, still the main source of "consumer incomes".

To make it work, we must 'augment' CONSUMER incomes with 'new credit' which has NOT been 'COSTED' into the price system. This 'new credit' is based on the continual excess of overall 'capital appreciation', (with which we currently are NOT credited), over overall 'capital depreciation', with which we are (properly) charged in the 'price' of everything we consume.

When we do this, CONSUMERS, (and everyone of us is a 'consumer', though fewer and fewer of us are, or even 'physically' need to be, 'producers' anymore), can then afford to fully access "financially" all the things that are currently "physically" possible, including funding whatever we desire our 'government' to do for us.
socredible, I wrote"...the money was created by the lenders out of thin air, but the interest that we must pay them annually is REAL money generated by the sweat of the brow of labour and industry, trade and commerce."

The difference between the REAL money and the money that private banks create out of thin air is: the Real money was NOT created out of thin air, it is the product of labour, industrial production, trade and commerce.

If income taxes on my paycheque would be lower because the government wouldn't have to collect an additional amount to help pay the annual interest on the national debt I would spend some of the REAL earned money in the economy, to the benefit of everyone.

socredible: "War" is generally their final solution.

I completely agree. Now they have created the ultimate *enemy* - the war on terror. The more efforts one puts into that war the more terrorists are created. Backlash, blowback, revenge - whatever one may call it. It can last for decades.
Diplomat, 'credit issue' (by the Banks), and 'price-making' (by 'industry'), are the positive and negative side of the same thing. What is created in credit is taken back and cancelled in price, as goods and services are produced, delivered, and then consumed. No money system could survive without an industrial system behind it.

"Money", "credit", "debits", "debt" ~ whatever you want to call it are simply means to facilitate the production and distribution of REAL WEALTH. All the various things that by their necessity or usefullness to us add to our overall 'well-being'.

Now a Banker does not get to simply create money out of 'thin air' and just use that money to claim whatever he pleases in available 'goods and services' for himself. The system doesn't work that way. It may be hard to believe sometimes, but he has to "earn" his money, same as you and I, and everyone else. There is a separation between Bank as "bank", and Bank as "business".

No doubt he'd love to be in a position where he could, which is one reason, of many, you'll never see those at the upper echelons of international bankerdom's pyramid of power oppose a 'nationalisation' of Banks. They know full well in such an instance what such a move would REALLY obtain would be a 'bankisation' of 'government'.

For a 'government' CAN create money out of 'thin air', and use what it's created to claim ("steal", would be a more aprropriate word, I think), your property and mine. Which is one reason, again of many, why we ought to be very careful to avoid vesting ALL credit creation in ANY 'government'. Especially when WE have such ineffective means of ever controlling "OUR" 'governments'

As to the saving in 'income tax' if there were no 'interest' to pay, you are undoubtedly correct. But there'd be NO 'interest' to pay if there were no ongoing DEBT to pay it on in the first place.

And if our current financial system were made 'fully self-liquidating' in each cycle of production, as I've previously described, the totality of 'unrepayable' Debt, charged against whoever is indebted, would be eliminated.

Socredible, I agree with some of what you say, especially your last paragraph, but when you state,

"No doubt he'd (bankster) love to be in a position where he could, which is one reason, of many, you'll never see those at the upper echelons of international bankerdom's pyramid of power oppose a 'nationalisation' of Banks. They know full well in such an instance what such a move would REALLY obtain would be a 'bankisation' of 'government'."

I think that is all balderdash. Since day one after Waterloo when Nathan Rothschilds consolidated the major banks of England into the Bank of England now run from the 'City of London' (sovereign bankster city state in the center of the British capital of London) it has been Rothschild policy to control the major reserve banks of the world, so as to control the money supply, and thus the nation through its funding of the political class. The trail of dead bodies they left in their wake is testament enough to prove they have no interest in ever allowing a nationalized monetary system.

IMO you can have a nationalized monetary system regulated by democratic controls and still have national banks and credit unions that operate under the rules and regulations of the nationalized monetary system that implements and enforces banking policy for the protection of Citizens and not an elite international bankster cabal.

I also disagree with the notion that Socredible stated,

"It may be hard to believe sometimes, but he has to "earn" his money, same as you and I, and everyone else. There is a separation between Bank as "bank", and Bank as "business"."

This is a fallacy of the bankster mythology. There is a separation in appearance only as has been proven on numerous occasions. The banksters acquire their power through their insider knowledge and manipulation of interest rate and lending policies. One look at the telecom boom-bust and how it was financed with a dropping interest rate - spun to the retail investor by bankster advisors - and then crashed and consolidated into bankster control, has made short work of any notion of a Chinese wall between bankster policy and practice.

I could go on, but I have limited time right now... more specifics later....

PS I liked your analysis of the credit cycle. Very relevant to the discussion IMO.
socredible:" As to the saving in 'income tax' if there were no 'interest' to pay, you are undoubtedly correct. But there'd be NO 'interest' to pay if there were no ongoing DEBT to pay it on in the first place."

That is precisely my point. My other point is that the government at one time had the exclusive privilege to create money and it was backed by something tangible. Then the government gave that privilege to private bankers and they don't have to have any collateral whatsoever on hand to back what they created.

I see it as a modern system of slavery when annually a percentage of our earnings are skimmed off this way to enable banks to make insane profits - like Canadian banks who think it is a bad year when they don't rack up quarterly net profits of 1 or 2 billion dollars (that's with a *B*)!

Most people I talked to have no idea that this has been going on for 90 years already with no end in sight.

I agree with Chad that banks do not *earn* the money the same way we do. The banker earns his/her salary alright, but the banking SYSTEM is an animal of a different breed altogether.

Cheers!



To really understand what goes on with the "Rothschilds" et al, Chadermando, I believe we have to recognize that such people have a definite 'philosophy' on which their actions are based.

Those actions are the 'policy' of their philosophy.

Fundamentally, their 'philosophy' is based on a belief that Man was made to serve the 'System'. THEIR 'System', which has a definite 'goal'. And that goal is both 'elitist' and 'exclusionary'.

"Money" to THEM, is simply a 'means' to a far greater 'end', the attainment and retainment of 'power' by THEM over others.

Theirs is a philosophy that is incompatible completely with any alternate philosophy which believes that 'systems', including 'money systems', were made to serve Man. Each of us, as 'individuals'.

For "money" is, in reality, ultimately a system of administration. It is fundamentally just an "accounting-demand" system, and that's about it.

But because it is such a perfect means of administration, of 'control', that is one reason why THEIR control over the world's 'money' is so important to them.

And why they would like nothing better than to 'centralize' that control into 'governments', and thence into a 'one- world government'.

Which, though either may well operate in the 'name' of "the People", both will, in actuality, be then completely under their ultimate control. For they will be the 'chosen', simply because they understand some things about "money" most of us do not.

What stands in the way of this idea coming to complete fruition, (it is already well advanced), is anything which promotes 'de-centralization' of the control of 'credit'.
I would add that 'de-centralization' of the control of 'credit' should have democratic accountability and be tied closer to the real tangibles, which would then require that we all live in a democracy, which we don't (not even in Canada), and hence another complication for another debate.

My view in short is things like the UN, WTO, the Federal Reserves, and the IMF are all anti-democratic and therefore not part of the solution.

I think a new body needs to be created that is a member body based on principles for membership like local grass roots minimum democratic standards, environmental, and labour standards for membership. Kind of a global libertarian with responsibilities kind of constitution.

This new global trade and environmental governing organization of democratic states would be accountable in democratic fashion to those states for the regulatory enforcement in areas of global trade and exchange across international boarders. In my vision provinces and states would be members of such an organization and not national governments. If China wanted to join only its states could and they would have to be democratic.

Internal national trade policy would trump all international trade rules for local control of things like currency and national trade policy, but the frame work would be in place for open free trade when fair and advantageous for provinces or states to opt in as members. Currency exchange rate ranges could then be arbitrated in this new organization openly and involving public discussion.

Time Will Tell
(Diplomat wrote:-) "My other point is that the government at one time had the exclusive privilege to create money and it was backed by something tangible. Then the government gave that privilege to private bankers and they don't have to have any collateral whatsoever on hand to back what they created."

Socredible answers:- That's because the concept of modern "money" is 'creditary', Diplomat. It's based purely on "belief". It's like 'Black magic', or even 'religion'. It has a power over you because you want to believe it does.

Most modern money exists only as "account balances". The visible 'token' of 'credit', the coin of old, is now but a miniscule portion of the overall money supply.

Even 'banknotes', ("cash") and 'orders to pay' ("cheques"), are rapidly diminishing in importance as we move fully to a real time 'electronic' exchange of those "account balances".

Many Firms already pay their employees, and other accounts, by 'direct deposit'. And the employees in turn pay their bills the same way. 95 % of 'banking' is simply "bookkeeping" in any case, whether it's done by computer or the old-fashioned way. The continuous adjustment of "account balances", that's all most of it is.

As to the initiation of 'credit creation', banking is highly akin to the concept behind 'insurance'. Both developed and evolved somewhat in tandem with one another, Both are actuarial. They involve the assessment, and pooling, and sharing of "risk".

The power that the banker has, is really the exclusive power to provide the 'symbols' of "credit" in a form that will be universally accepted by the general community as "effective demand" for goods and services and securities.

"Effective demand" is the ability of the CONSUMER to pay,in "money", for the articles he requires or desires, the "price" asked by a willing seller before the transfer from seller to buyer can be effected.

There has long been a mistaken concept that "money" needs to be "backed" by something 'tangible', like gold. That otherwise it can't be a "measure of value". Well, to make a long story short, it can't ever really be a "measure of value" in any case. That's not, and never was, it's primary function.

What "money" is really "backed" by is, as old J P Morgan once said, "Character". Not "gold", nor "silver", but "character". The 'credibility' each borrower has when he promises to 're-pay' what he has borrowed at, or over, some time in the future.

What he 'repays' his loan from are his 'earnings'. The 'earnings' that his loan, and every other ongoing loan, enable to be re-paid in "money". In reality, "money" is just "figures", and the whole money system is based on the state of mind, the "belief" if you will, that it 'works'.

The 'problem' with what Chadermando calls, correctly IMHO, "Banksters", is that the Bank is currently in the position of being both the "deal maker" as well as the "terms maker" in the overall course of its business.

It determines, as an individual Bank, and as it properly should, whether you as a 'borrower' are 'creditworthy'. Whether you, in the Banker's assessment, actually do have any likelihood of obtaining future 'earnings' sufficient to repay the credit he's being asked to advance you. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this.


If Banking is 'de-centralized', if there are many Banks, and one turns you down, you can always go to another. Until you find one who will help you.

The "problem" is, the Banking "system", ALL the Banks together, can then prevent the repayment of what you have borrowed by effectively refusing to grant more loans in the future.

The only "money" from which your loan will be re-paid will come from these future loans. And if they are NOT granted, if there is a "credit contraction", your ability to re-pay is immediately at greater risk, and you face insolvency. Even though your 'plant' may be of the finest, and your 'product' may be something in real 'demand', without "money" the demand for it cannot be made an "effective demand". And you can't repay your loan.

The "correction" of this problem will not be found in having the 'government' create ALL our money. Though the 'government' very definitely has a role to play in preventing what is currently happening from prevailing any longer.
Chadermando, I totally agree with your last post. My sentiments exactly. Very well put.