[Debt Slavery] Credit card debt now secured by government.

[TECSHARE]

Way to completely avoid the point. There are lots of perfectly innocent reasons one might be left destitute regardless of you willful ignorance and deconstruction of an example rather than the premise itself.

Well, that's what bankruptcy's for.

Bankruptcy is increasingly not an option for most people.

Just because you don't understand the results of the policies you support, doesn't mean you don't support those results.

Which policies would those be, again? I never said anything about applying criminal penalties for civil judgements. In fact, I explicitly stated that I don't support that, and will not repeat it again.

So how is my improper choice of investment any different than a bank making a loan to an unfit party? Banks can sue debtors who default on their loans, why do banks get to imprison people as well ON TOP of the lawsuit?

I never said anything about imprisoning people.

Really? So whats this below VVV

With freedom comes responsibility. In particular, I expect any free person to be responsible enough to not harm or steal from other people. I see no problem with denying freedom to people who deny their responsibilities. Most civilised justice systems function on this concept. There are worse alternatives.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

-Benito Mussolini

You know the definition of fascism better than Mussolini?

I know there's no citation for that quote earlier than 2002, 57 years after Mussolini's death, and that it is inconsistent with his actual ideology. Do you have any evidence that he actually said or believed that?

Again now you are using revisionist deconstruction of the example, rather than the premise.

[TaunSew]

Nobody was blind sided by the recession.  Boom and busts has been a characteristic of capitalism (mercantilism) since the 1640s.

[TECSHARE]

Nobody was blind sided by the recession.  Boom and busts has been a characteristic of capitalism (mercantilism) since the 1640s.

Nobody except the majority of the home owning population, and most tax payers and USD holders. The over leveraged fractional reserve lending system had nothing more to spend to keep propping up this nearly endless money machine, so they created derivatives packages out of all the loans and mixed the bad ones with the good ones from paying customers so no one could even tell the difference any more. As a result most home owners took a huge loss on what is the largest investment most Americans will ever make. The majority of people had no idea that such a solid asset like a home could be deflated so heavily with what amounts to a very complicated system of fraud.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/08/1024313/-What-Are-Derivatives-And-what-makes-some-of-them-Toxic
http://seekingalpha.com/article/301260-bank-of-america-dumps-75-trillion-in-derivatives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval
http://www.globalresearch.ca/freeze-the-1-5-quadrillion-derivatives-bubble-as-a-first-step-towards-world-economic-recovery/12947

[EternalWingsofGod]

So in other words people will be doomed to pay back their debts
Sort of a debt slavery system considering that money is just created in modern economics
That said it will be interesting to see what happens the next economic downturn and how many people complain about it when the economy stays down for a long duration of time.

[arteleis]

  CEO of Capital One Financial in 2009, Richard D. Fairbank earned a total compensation of $6,076,805, which included no base salary, no cash bonus, $2,000,019 in stock awards, $4,000,001 in option awards, and $76,785 in other compensation.  In 2012, Fairbank's total compensation was $22.6 million.  Fairbank receives a base salary of $1.
    Yet..
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/credit_cards/capital_one.htm   
http://consumerist.com/2006/07/31/complain-mailing-address-for-capital-one-ceo-richard-fairbank/
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/CapitalOne-360-Bank-Capital-One-Financial-Corporation-/McLean-Virginia-22102/CapitalOne-360-Bank-Capital-One-Financial-Corporation-Richard-Fairbank-CEO-Unreasonabl-1129056

Meanwhile at the office..
"The bureaucracy is far crazier than anything I've seen in any other company. It can be very difficult to get through the red tape and get things done. Half of the people who work here are there to prevent the other half from doing their jobs."
   
"There is a weak approach to expense management. As a result. Most of the office is traveling at any given time even though they don't need to be. People will habitually fly from Toronto to Richmond Virginia for a single short meeting. People go on trips simply because they are young and like to travel."

"management is ridiculous; managers are promoted without any training - they micromanage
-promotions are the motivator for everything; individuals are not committed to company or values"

  Well..  course there's this too..

"Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond have reappointed Richard D. Fairbank, chairman and chief executive officer of Capital One Financial Corp. of McLean, Va., to a second term as the Fifth Federal Reserve District's representative on the Federal Advisory Council. The new term begins Jan. 1, 2011.

The Federal Advisory Council, composed of a representative from each of the 12 Federal Reserve Districts, confers periodically with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on business conditions and issues related to the banking industry. It also makes recommendations regarding System policies. Representatives are selected annually by the boards of directors of each Reserve Bank."

..  and who's the federal reserve again??..  oh right..  shadow shareholders..

   Guess the Boston tea party didn't work after all...   

  And for every moron.. that says...  pay back your debt! It's as simple as that..  we'll don't worry.  They're coming for everything you own too.. oh and also everything your entire bloodline to come owns too..

   Oh yeh..  that microchip implant payment system is getting close.. and will make it much easier to manage all of that personal debt the corporate elite need to fly to their tea parties...

 Great vid for kiddies that don't like to read. Could be wrong, but I think there's some illiteracy in this thread..
The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind - Hidd…: http://youtu.be/iFDe5kUUyT0

[CoinCube]

So in other words people will be doomed to pay back their debts
Sort of a debt slavery system considering that money is just created in modern economics
That said it will be interesting to see what happens the next economic downturn and how many people complain about it when the economy stays down for a long duration of time.

Agreed and this is just the beginning. In most states if you lose your home or car and the mortgage the lender can go after you for any remaining outstanding debt. We are sure to see wage garnishments in this area too. Garnishing the wages of someone who just lost their home is no different really.  

It completely baffles me how otherwise intelligent conservative people cheer for this this gutting of the working Joe. Where are all these newly destitute formerly middle class folks going to turn? They will of course turn to whomever promises to raise taxes on the "rich" and help them. This economic impoverishment drives the growth of socialism and government like like fuel for a wildfire.

Finance Part III: Divide, Conquer, Enslave

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Responding to public demand government steps in and tries to halt finance induced crashes. However, government does not simply print money to mitigate the cyclical monetary crunch. True money printing would harm vested financial interests and is taboo. Instead government enters the arena meekly as the sucker borrower of last resort. Once government is ensnared the triumph of finance is complete.  Government debt is paid via taxation and taxation primarily targets the upper classes. Thus with the capture of government finance gains the ability to siphon wealth from the debt free productive class.

A time honored strategy in war is divide and conquer. It is easier to subjugate a people who are fighting among themselves. Finance and fractional reserve divides the public into two competing blocks of victims. The poor as we have seen become ever poorer with each "business cycle". They  look at the relatively well off and cry Thief! The entrepreneurs and productive increasingly suffer under ever higher tax burdens. They point to government and the welfare recipients and cry Thief!

Government does not handle this conflict well. Unable to decide between competing citizen demands it waffles. It spends to support the poor but does not raise taxes. The result is ever larger government debt. Each attempt by government to buffer the finance induced downturn simply delays the liquidation of middle classes assets by transferring that liability to the government and eventually to the upper classes via increased taxation.  Bailouts are thus a transfer wealth from the productive upper classes to well-connected financial interests. Finance uses the business cycle to harvest the  poor, and bailouts to harvest the rich.

The long-term costs of all this are borne out by the majority of the ill-informed public who are too busy fighting over a myriad useless conservative versus liberal disputes to address the root cause of their suffering. Meanwhile government in its misguided attempt to "help" becomes so indebted that eventually it can no longer service its loans.

Impressive summary on Capital One. I had no idea their CEO was so deeply enmeshed in the FED.

[ScryptAsic]

So in other words people will be doomed to pay back their debts
Sort of a debt slavery system considering that money is just created in modern economics
That said it will be interesting to see what happens the next economic downturn and how many people complain about it when the economy stays down for a long duration of time.

People will be doomed to be forced to pay back their debts? In this community anyone who borrows money and does not repay (regardless of the reason) will be labeled a scammer. Why should traditional fiat based lending be any different?

I have made a good number of P2P based loans on prosper, and a good number of them have defaulted (and/or declared bankruptcy) after making >3 payments. I personally consider this activity to be criminal and deserving to be put in jail

[CoinCube]

So in other words people will be doomed to pay back their debts
Sort of a debt slavery system considering that money is just created in modern economics
That said it will be interesting to see what happens the next economic downturn and how many people complain about it when the economy stays down for a long duration of time.

People will be doomed to be forced to pay back their debts? In this community anyone who borrows money and does not repay (regardless of the reason) will be labeled a scammer. Why should traditional fiat based lending be any different?

I have made a good number of P2P based loans on prosper, and a good number of them have defaulted (and/or declared bankruptcy) after making >3 payments. I personally consider this activity to be criminal and deserving to be put in jail

ScryptAsic you are confusing fraud with bankruptcy

Fraud is the intentional use of deceit a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his or her money.
It absolutely sounds like you were the victim of fraud with some of your prosper loans. You problem in proving that is that prosper loans are more or less high risk by definition. It is primarily used by people who have been cut off from the regular banking industry due to bad credit high debt. This makes fraud hard to prove but I understand why you are rightfully pissed.

You said such individuals should be labeled scammers. This is the appropriate response to such behavior.
This used to happen when someone declared bankruptcy. Once upon a time when people declared bankruptcy their debts were wiped clean, their hard assets seized, and their credit was ruined. This is the proper response. Label them a scammer/deadbeat and cut them off from future debt and the ability to default on others. The only role for the state should be gross criminal fraud and the bar for intervention must and should be very high.

What many fail to realized is that our entire economic system is fraudulent. You worked very hard for your money and are justifiably very angry when someone walks away with it after making only three payments. But this is small time fraud. Any financial entity can essentially create the same money you worked so hard to collect and fund that same prosper loan. However, instead of having to work for it like you did they can essentially just create it almost for free. Each time they do so they are stealing from me you and everyone else. This theft is no different from the theft of the deadbeat prosper lender who takes out a loan with the intent of defaulting right away.

Fractional reserve allows financial interest to load us up with student debts, credit card debts, car loans, prosper loans. There is no limit to the amount of debt they can create. Each created debt steals a little more from the productive members of society who actually produce and earn their living.

The only risk such finance faces is default. If a mistake is made and money is lent to someone without enough assets to seize finance could face a loss. This is why we are seeing and will continue to see a gradual tightening of the noose around the indebted masses.

Before 1976 all debt could be discharged when you were bankrupt. First non profit student loans were exempt from protection in 1976. Then in 1986 private student loans were exempt from bankruptcy. In 2005 chapter 7 bankruptcy protection was denied for anyone earning over the median income in their state regardless of how much debt they were in. Now in 2014 case law is gradually being created allowing 25% automatic wage garnishments for all debts. The rules are being rewritten and the masses are gradually being led into slave pens built using money that was stolen from us all.  

The future trend is obvious. Gradual and continued tightening of debt slavery. Options and the ability to free yourself will become more and more limited. When the masses go through periodic mini revolts the financial interest will shift gears for a few years and back their "people" in the other party. Then we can expect cycles of higher taxes government bailouts and asset seizures from the "rich people" who can afford to fund prosper loans and are not paying their "fair share". Back and forth it will go with ever higher taxes ever higher debt and growing debt slavery until the system either collapses or maybe just maybe we evolve into something better.

[Argwai96]

Before 1976 all debt could be discharged when you were bankrupt. First non profit student loans were exempt from protection in 1976. Then in 1986 private student loans were exempt from bankruptcy.

Think about this for a little bit. If you are a student and take out a student loan, what assets do you have?....Generally you will have on assets other then your future earnings potential that results from your college degree. Any person acting rationally would declare bankruptcy as soon as they received their college degree if they took out student loans as the consequences of filing bankruptcy are much less then the benefits. This would result in lenders loosing all the money lent and students getting a free education.

In 2005 chapter 7 bankruptcy protection was denied for anyone earning over the median income in their state regardless of how much debt they were in.

This is not true. There are more strict requirements to filing bankruptcy as a result of the 2005 bankruptcy reform, but you can still file chapter 7 bankruptcy under certain circumstances. Your comment about 'regardless of how much debt someone is in' just shows how people abuse bankruptcy by taking on excess amounts of debt in order to only have it discharged later in time.

Now in 2014 case law is gradually being created allowing 25% automatic wage garnishments for all debts. The rules are being rewritten and the masses are gradually being led into slave pens built using money that was stolen from us all.  

Also not true. Creditors have long been able to garnish a debtor's income in assets (usually to the tune of 25%) if they receive a judgment against them. This is what gives a borrower an incentive to pay, as if the creditor was not able to force repayment by a borrower then the borrower would have no reason to repay, other then the fact that they would have difficulty borrowing additional money in the future, which would not matter because they would have just received "free money"

You also need to remember that any time someone borrows money they must "promise to repay" the amount borrowed plus interest; the creditor relies on this promise when they give the loan. If someone were to borrow money with no intention of repaying (as evidenced by them not repaying) then they are committing fraud as they made a promise they did not wish to keep

[CoinCube]

Before 1976 all debt could be discharged when you were bankrupt. First non profit student loans were exempt from protection in 1976. Then in 1986 private student loans were exempt from bankruptcy.

Think about this for a little bit. If you are a student and take out a student loan, what assets do you have?....Generally you will have on assets other then your future earnings potential that results from your college degree. Any person acting rationally would declare bankruptcy as soon as they received their college degree if they took out student loans as the consequences of filing bankruptcy are much less then the benefits. This would result in lenders loosing all the money lent and students getting a free education.

If your theory was correct we would expect to see a massive drop off in personal bankruptcies after 1976. All of those college students getting a free ride and bailing out on their student loans right?



If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy as they absolutely should be then lenders would be much more careful about giving them out. Strong students at good schools would still be able to get loans. Week students at fly by night for profit diploma mills not so much. Some students would have to work a little to finish school. Schools would not be able to ramp up tuition as much as they wanted without losing enrollment. College in general would be much much cheaper then it is today. Lets look at what happened to the cost of college after this change.



The cost of college has increased by more then 12 fold since 1976 grossly exceeding inflation. What allowed this to happen? Those nonchargeable government guaranteed student loans.

In 2005 chapter 7 bankruptcy protection was denied for anyone earning over the median income in their state regardless of how much debt they were in.

This is not true. There are more strict requirements to filing bankruptcy as a result of the 2005 bankruptcy reform, but you can still file chapter 7 bankruptcy under certain circumstances.

I stand corrected. If after paying your fiat overlords and buying groceries you have less then $117 dollars left
the state will generously allow you to file chapter 7 bankruptcy. Click here if you want to read exactly how this is calculated. If you have $118 dollars, however, off to the slave pens you go.

Coming soon: Lenders work with the IRS. Generously reduce loan payments! Struggling borrowers now given deferred payment options to ensure they have at least $120 dollars in disposable income each month. Adoring masses cheer.

[Argwai96]

If student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy as they absolutely should be then lenders would be much more careful about giving them out. Strong students at good schools would still be able to get loans. Week students at fly by night for profit diploma mills not so much. Some students would have to work a little to finish school. Schools would not be able to ramp up tuition as much as they wanted without losing enrollment. College in general would be much much cheaper then it is today. Lets look at what happened to the cost of college after this change.

Why would a good student at a good college pose a lower credit risk if student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy? I would say it would be the opposite, as the better informed student would be more likely to declare bankruptcy, as they know the consequences and affects of bankruptcy, and a good student is more likely going to be well informed.

You previously mentioned that bankruptcy will take away a debitor's assets, however students do not have any assets and do not use student loans to purchase additional assets; student loans are used to pay for an education and for living expenses while a student is in school.

If student debt could be discharged in bankruptcy then any rational student would declare bankruptcy as soon as they are sure they are finished with school (they do not want to get any additional advanced degrees). Since the student would have no assets, and would have a lot of debt, the student would lose nothing because there would be nothing to lose, but would gain the fact that s/he no longer needs to repay the amount s/he promised to pay their lender

[CoinCube]

Why would a good student at a good college pose a lower credit risk if student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy? I would say it would be the opposite, as the better informed student would be more likely to declare bankruptcy, as they know the consequences and affects of bankruptcy, and a good student is more likely going to be well informed.

You previously mentioned that bankruptcy will take away a debitor's assets, however students do not have any assets and do not use student loans to purchase additional assets; student loans are used to pay for an education and for living expenses while a student is in school.

If student debt could be discharged in bankruptcy then any rational student would declare bankruptcy as soon as they are sure they are finished with school (they do not want to get any additional advanced degrees). Since the student would have no assets, and would have a lot of debt, the student would lose nothing because there would be nothing to lose, but would gain the fact that s/he no longer needs to repay the amount s/he promised to pay their lender

The situation you are describing a good student deliberately defaulting on loans can be handled in much better ways then the government enforced debt slavery we have now.

If this became genuine problem, and that is a big if as we seemed to do just fine before 1976 a much better solution is name and shame. If people who have the ability to repay start defaulting on student loans just extend the period of time such a default stays on your credit report for as long as it takes to minimize the problem.

If you had a good job and good income prospects would you default on your student loans if it meant being cut off from the credit markets for 15, 20 or even 30 years. Most of these individuals would see the wisdom of maintaining access to the credit markets.
Poor suckers who go to fly by night diploma mills and have no hope of paying off their loans would have an out.  

Costs of tuition and the size of these loans would also drop dramatically if we get rid of the government guarantees and government enforced debt slavery. That alone would drastically mitigate the problem.

 

[Argwai96]

Why would a good student at a good college pose a lower credit risk if student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy? I would say it would be the opposite, as the better informed student would be more likely to declare bankruptcy, as they know the consequences and affects of bankruptcy, and a good student is more likely going to be well informed.

You previously mentioned that bankruptcy will take away a debitor's assets, however students do not have any assets and do not use student loans to purchase additional assets; student loans are used to pay for an education and for living expenses while a student is in school.

If student debt could be discharged in bankruptcy then any rational student would declare bankruptcy as soon as they are sure they are finished with school (they do not want to get any additional advanced degrees). Since the student would have no assets, and would have a lot of debt, the student would lose nothing because there would be nothing to lose, but would gain the fact that s/he no longer needs to repay the amount s/he promised to pay their lender

The situation you are describing a good student deliberately defaulting on loans can be handled in much better ways then the government enforced debt slavery we have now.

If this became genuine problem, and that is a big if as we seemed to do just fine before 1976 a much better solution is name and shame. If people who have the ability to repay start defaulting on student loans just extend the period of time such a default stays on your credit report for as long as it takes to minimize the problem.

If you had a good job and good income prospects would you default on your student loans if it meant being cut off from the credit markets for 15, 20 or even 30 years. Most of these individuals would see the wisdom of maintaining access to the credit markets.
Poor suckers who go to fly by night diploma mills and have no hope of paying off their loans would have an out.  

It was until recently that declaring bankruptcy would be a big social stigma. Prior to recently declaring bankruptcy is something that many people would be ashamed of. Now, today, people tend to be proud of declaring bankruptcy. People are no longer ashamed of not following through with their promise to pay their debts as agreed.

The thing is that as of the day a student graduates college they will almost never have a job (they may have one lined up, but will have not started work yet). This would mean that students would likely not qualify for your "penalty". Also to say that someone has a "good job" or "good income prospects" is very subjective and would likely be found to be unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable.

[CoinCube]

It was until recently that declaring bankruptcy would be a big social stigma. Prior to recently declaring bankruptcy is something that many people would be ashamed of. Now, today, people tend to be proud of declaring bankruptcy. People are no longer ashamed of not following through with their promise to pay their debts as agreed.

The thing is that as of the day a student graduates college they will almost never have a job (they may have one lined up, but will have not started work yet). This would mean that students would likely not qualify for your "penalty". Also to say that someone has a "good job" or "good income prospects" is very subjective and would likely be found to be unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable.

Once upon a time when money was not fiat defaulting on a loan meant you had lost someone else's hard earned capital.
That was regarded as shameful and rightly so.

Personally I would never in a million years default on a peer to peer loan like a prosper loan regardless of my financial circumstances. Defaulting on such a loan is stealing from someone who worked and earned their money and is trying to earn a return lending it out.

It would not bother me at all, however, to default on a home mortgage. That money is in no way someones hard earned savings. The bank simply created it from nothing. In effect they are lending me stolen money and I have no problem defaulting on thieves.

People are proud to declare bankruptcy because they feel that they are screwing over a bunch of crooks. Truth be told they are largely correct in this judgement.

Regarding student loans the policy would have to be applied to all student loans for it to be effective.
 

[ScryptAsic]

It would not bother me at all, however, to default on a home mortgage. That money is in no way someones hard earned savings. The bank simply created it from nothing. In effect they are lending me stolen money and I have no problem defaulting on thieves.

You are contradicting yourself here. In order for something to be stolen, someone would first have to own it. However if something is created out of thin air then no one could have previously owned it.

There is also the fact that fractional reserve banking does not create money out of thin air. When a bank lends out money, they still owe the same amount of money to their depositors. If fractional reserve banking is able to create money out of thin air then why do we need the FDIC? Also why would a bank ever fail? Couldn't the bank just create additional money out of thin air whenever they run into trouble?

People are proud to declare bankruptcy because they feel that they are screwing over a bunch of crooks. Truth be told they are largely correct in this judgement. 

I would disagree. I would say that people are 'proud' to declare bankruptcy because of the lower moral standards that our country has.

[CoinCube]

You are contradicting yourself here. In order for something to be stolen, someone would first have to own it. However if something is created out of thin air then no one could have previously owned it.
There is also the fact that fractional reserve banking does not create money out of thin air. When a bank lends out money, they still owe the same amount of money to their depositors. If fractional reserve banking is able to create money out of thin air then why do we need the FDIC? Also why would a bank ever fail? Couldn't the bank just create additional money out of thin air whenever they run into trouble?

Just because the theft is a minuscule theft spread across millions of victims does not make it any less of a theft.
What is stolen is purchasing power aka value. The value of all of the other money in the economy drops whenever new money is created by banks.

A banks does not need deposits to make a loan. If a bank with no extra deposits wanted to give out a million dollar loan they just do it. Its not completely cost free. They are required to keep 10% of loans on reserve with the FED. However, if they are short the $100,000 they can simply get that money from the FED itself where it is lent to them at the Federal Funds Rate (currently 0.25). That done they simply credit the borrowers electronic account with a million dollars. Simultaneously all other existing money is diluted in value.

Finance Part I: Understanding the Parasite
Finance Part II: The Parasitic Cycle
Finance Part III: Divide, Conquer, Enslave

I would say that people are 'proud' to declare bankruptcy because of the lower moral standards that our country has.

In an economic system that is systemically rotten yet sanctioned by law as good and normal a population with a declining moral standard should not come as a surprise.