Log in

View Full Version : Our homes should cost £1.00 a week



Forward Union
24th July 2008, 19:01
Our homes should cost £1.00 a week



To give an example of how corrupt banking, taxes, usury (the charging of interest on money) actually is, here’s a simplified look at how much our homes should cost.

3 bricklayers working 40 hours a week for 3 weeks = (360) man hours to build in brick and block a 6 bed roomed house. Carpentry first and second fix, 2 men working 40 hours a week for 3 week = (240) man hours. As its new build, plumbing and electrics 4 men working one week 40 hours = (160) man hours. Roof tiles felt and lath 2 men working an 8 hour day working for 2 days = (32) man hours. Put a good slate roof on and it will last 200 years. Many homes (buildings) last for hundreds of years if built with care and quality materials and skilled workers.

360
240
160
032

That’s 792 man hours of labour, 19 weeks at 40 hours for the actual building.

So applying the same principles to building materials, with modern technology used diligently, for simplicity sake 708 hours

708 hours plus 792 hours.
1500 man hours total to build a 6 bed roomed house.


£10.00 per hour as an example to keep it simple and easier to understand. But really it’s about the amount of work we put into the community. And how usury devalues our spending power, of whatever currency, paper, metal, credit (numbers on a computer screen, your bank account) it is applied to.

If you needed to borrow money say £15,000 (the total in this case) as you pay no interest (usury) you pay back just the £15,000 if you do that over 50 years. = >6 pounds a week. Or even better pay, one pound a week to start, gradually pay more as you get you new work of the ground then after 25 years start to decrease the payments back so as to meet the original sum.
If after 50 years you can’t repay any remaining money back due to unforeseen circumstances and I’m sure you should get some help from your family and local community and there would not be much to pay back at that point in time, because we should have shared our work and wealth. In fact with the help of our family, friends and local community this would not be difficult at any time. And never the less All Debts Forgiven.

Some might say that its 6 pounds a week and not one pound. But remember that these homes can last many generations for only (1500 man hours)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Example:
Six bed roomed detached house in surrey built in the 1970’s on a small! plot in suburbia.
http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&pid=6 52320 (http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&pid=652320)
(Probably an expired link now as it was written in 2007)

£899,950

2007 bank rate rise to 5.5%.This can change any time the bank decides.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/article.html?in_article_id=4201 99&in_page_id=8 (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/article.html?in_article_id=420199&in_page_id=8)


Loan repayment calculator
MONTHLY PAYMENT This calculator shows what your monthly payments would be for a given loan, where interest is compounded monthly. Payment protection insurance is excluded.

http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/calculators/calcLoanPay.html
Amount borrowed
e.g. 5000, no commas
Term Months Years 50 years
Interest rate % 5.5%
(Actual interest rate & not the APR) %
RESULT Calculate
Total monthly payment £ 4408.36 < £ 1000.0 per week (more than one thousand per week)
Total charge for credit £ 1745068.6
Total repayment £ 2645018.6

£2 million 6 hundred and 45 thousand, 18 pounds 6p
For something (your home and shelter) 6 men could build in 3 weeks and six men in 3 weeks make the materials.

How Much Can I Borrow? http://www.mortgagesorter.co.uk/mortgages_amount_you_can_borrow.html
Please fill in the following details so we can calculate the mortgage loan value you should be able to borrow:
Annual Income of Applicant
Enter any amount in '000s
£ 260,000 thousand per year or £125 pounds per hour based on a 40 hour week
Annual bonus/commission of Applicant
Enter any amount in '000s OR leave blank
£

You are entitled to borrow up to £ 910,000

----------------------------------------------------
Example only:
Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Wales 2007Where once child poverty in Wales exceeded the UK average,.... At all ages, at least a third of part-time employees are paid less than £6.50 per hour. ...
http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/2096.asp

In the UK it would need at the moment (2007)Ten average earners to get together and work about 25/30 years of there life to achieve the same.
1500 hours as opposed to 500000 hours. 333.3r times more. In this case as far as housing goes and “this example only".

We work 333 days and benefit 1 DAY.

Also we pay Tax, income tax V.A.T. and many more various taxes. So for “example only” if we pay about 50% in taxes.
(And we continue to pay these various taxes when we think we own our homes after the mortgage has been paid off)

We are working 666 days and only benefit 1 DAY.

Allowing for weekends and so called holidays 222 days worked per year that’s
Three years to benefit ONE day.
Very large scale corrupt slight of hand extortion, maintained by the “benefits system” enough to fool most of the people and just enough to get by on for most people (for now)

Titles purposely designed to deceive.
National Economy - a national economy in the western world is totally wasteful; where most products are consumed and thrown away as quickly as possible and are actually manufactured to be waste within a very short space of time; so a National Economy is the opposite of its definition.

Deuteronomy:
23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

FREE LAND AT NO COST. Also with Torah LAW, land should be shared out and not owned.


Green, Sustainable
Economics a Phase of Divine Law

Excerpt only:
When Israel obtained the promised land, it was divided as fairly as possible so that EVERY family should receive its portion. The land was free from debt and the only tax was a tenth part of the fruit of the soil, the tithe being the inheritance of the Levites, who, being engaged in work of national importance, had no land.

The land was inherited, free of death duties, from generation to generation. It had no money value, and must not be sold for ever. The possessors of the land were regarded, not as the owners (for the land was God’s, Leviticus 25:23), but as God’s guests.

Should circumstances compel, it was permitted to sell the land, but the price should be adjusted according to the number of years to the Jubilee. The price was not for the land itself, but for its produce. In the fiftieth, the Year of Jubilee, every family must return to its inheritance. This great event must take place on the 10th day of the 7th month, the Day of Atonement, on which all the people made confession of their sins; it was a day for national repentance. Thus were closely related the economic and religious life of the nation. It was not a day of bondage, but a day of freedom, a day of new beginnings.

"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." (Leviticus 25:10.)
If we are to retain the (questionable) blessings of machine power (and the pollution created by them), the system of finance capitalism with debt and interest must be abolished. In building a new system we must bear in mind the foundation principle of God’s Law * that every person is entitled to a share in the fruits of the soil. It is not possible for every man to possess land and to work entirely on it, but every secondary industry also depends upon the land for its raw materials and the workers for their food from it. Every worker contributes to the wealth of the nation. Those who do not actually produce add their services to the common pool. The sum total of national constructive effort is the true basis of the issue of money, whether in the form of currency or of credit. If the total productive power of the nation can be computed and the national income distributed in fair proportion to every person, irrespective of the nature of the employment, the result would be the same as giving everybody a share in the land itself.

Thus would the first principle of Divine Economic Law be obeyed * economic freedom and security for ALL. (No deprivation and therefore no reason to steal or commit crime in order to survive - JAH). It is not God’s Law that is out of step with mankind, but mankind that is drastically and criminally out of step with God and His Laws (James 4).





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


1 dollar a week home.

To give an example of how corrupt banking, taxes, usary, actually is here’s a simplified look at how much our homes should cost.

3 bricklayers working 40 hours a week for 3 weeks = (360) man hours to build in brick and block a 6 bed roomed house. Carpentry first and second fix, 2 men working 40 hours a week for 3 week = (240) man hours. As its new build, plumbing and electrics 4 men working one week 40 hours = (160) man hours. Roof tiles felt and lath 2 men working an 8 hour day working for 2 days = (32) man hours. Decorate and garden to suit.

(edit2)put a good slate roof on and it will last 200 years.

320 (edit3)darn it that muck mixer went for so many tea breaks lost 40 hours
240
160
32 (edit1) defaulted to edge of page)

752 man hours total 19 weeks at 40 hours for the actual building.

So applying the same principles to building materials for simplicity sake, with modern technology used Diligently.

1500 man hours total to build a 6 bedroomed house.

And a Free plot of Land.

10 Dollars an hour as example.

If you needed to borrow any money say $15,000 as you pay no intrest you pay back just the $15,000 if you do that over 50 years. = >6 Dollars a week. Or even better pay

1 Dollar a week to start, gradually pay more as you get you new work of the ground then after 25 years start to decrease the payments back so as to meet the original sum.
If after 50 years you can’t repay any remaining money back due to unforeseen circumstances and I’m sure you should get some help from your family and local community and there would not be much to pay back at that point in time, because we should have shared our work and wealth. All Debts Forgiven.

And Torah LAW is even better still,(edit) and also FREE LAND AT NO COST.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&pid=652320

£899,950

2007 bank rate rise to 5.5%. (edit 2) this can change any time the bank decides

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/article.html?in_article_id=420199&in_page_id=8


Loan repayment calculator
MONTHLY PAYMENT This calculator shows what your monthly payments would be for a given loan, where interest is compounded monthly. Payment protection insurance is excluded.

http://img.thisismoney.co.uk/calculators/calcLoanPay.html
Amount borrowed
eg. 5000, no commas
Term Months Years 50 years
Interest rate % 5.5%
(Actual interest rate & not the APR) %
RESULT Calculate
Total monthly payment £ 4408.36 (edit 1) < £ 1000.0 per week (one thousand per week)
Total charge for credit £ 1745068.6
Total repayment £ 2645018.6

£2 million 6 hundred and 45 thousand,18 pounds 6p
For something 6 men could build in 3 weeks and six men in 3 weeks make the materials.

How Much Can I Borrow? http://www.mortgagesorter.co.uk/mortgages_amount_you_can_borrow.html
Please fill in the following details so we can calculate the mortgage loan value you should be able to borrow:

Annual Income of Applicant
Enter any amount in '000s
£ 260,000 thousand per year or £125 pounds per hour based on a 40 hour week
Annual bonus/commision of Applicant
Enter any amount in '000s OR leave blank
£

You are entitled to borrow up to £ 910,000

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

Monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Wales 2007Where once child poverty in Wales exceeded the UK average, .... At all ages, at least a third of part-time employees are paid less than £6.50 per hour. ...

http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/2096.asp

Apologies, i thought it would be easy to understand. The cost to build that house would be 1500 man hours of labour.In the UK it would need at the mo, Ten average earners to get together and work about 25/30 years of there life to achieve the same.

1500 hours as opposed to 500000 hours. 333.3r times more. (edit) In this case as far as housing goes "only".

You work 333 days and benefit 1 DAY.

And tax takes even more from yet again because it is not distributed fairly or appropriately.


Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of
money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:


Andrew:Warwickshire,UK.

jake williams
24th July 2008, 22:28
Well first off I know a lot of it is paying for the land rather than paying for the building. So one should at least consider that.

Lost In Translation
25th July 2008, 00:04
Well first off I know a lot of it is paying for the land rather than paying for the building. So one should at least consider that.
Yes, that's true. In my neighbourhood, the land accounts for at least 85% of the total cost. Interesting article. I never looked at it that way (actually, I never looked at it at all) :cool:.

Robert
25th July 2008, 00:32
Are you Brits allowed to buy a piece of land in the country and build the house yourself?

Bud Struggle
25th July 2008, 00:36
No offence, but the whole OP post is a pile of rubbish.

For example, listen to this:
Deuteronomy:
23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

FREE LAND AT NO COST. Also with Torah LAW, land should be shared out and not owned.


Are you Commies going to start using the Old Testament as your economic guide? Want to go with the Ten Commandments, too?

Anyway--kind of cute. :cool:

Joe Hill's Ghost
25th July 2008, 01:47
No offence, but the whole OP post is a pile of rubbish.

For example, listen to this:

Are you Commies going to start using the Old Testament as your economic guide? Want to go with the Ten Commandments, too?

Anyway--kind of cute. :cool:

Hence why its in OI you bloody twit. If you believe the bible and the silly man with the flamboyant hat in Rome. Might as well counter argue you with your own moronic, fantasy land, superstitious drivel.

Bud Struggle
25th July 2008, 01:52
Hence why its in OI you bloody twit. If you believe the bible and the silly man with the flamboyant hat in Rome. Might as well counter argue you with your own moronic, fantasy land, superstitious driven.

Hey, you believe in a reporter for the New York Tribune--how funny is that? :lol:

It was a Commie Cluber that posted it. As I said, kind of cute.

534634634265
25th July 2008, 05:57
Hence why its in OI you bloody twit. If you believe the bible and the silly man with the flamboyant hat in Rome. Might as well counter argue you with your own moronic, fantasy land, superstitious driven.

i can't understand the last sentence, am i missing anything or is it more of his usual ranting?



EDIT: also, for Tom, i would think the reason he chose to include biblical verses is to indicate that even an evangelical(reactionary/right-wing) person should feel bad when they fuck people on their housing. my problem with all of this accounting and such is that i see nothing included to pay for the materials, only the labor. did i miss something?:D:D

Forward Union
25th July 2008, 20:56
No offence, but the whole OP post is a pile of rubbish.

For example, listen to this:

Are you Commies going to start using the Old Testament as your economic guide? Want to go with the Ten Commandments, too?

Anyway--kind of cute. :cool:

The person that wrote it isnt a communist.

Bud Struggle
25th July 2008, 23:33
i can't understand the last sentence, am i missing anything or is it more of his usual ranting?

Don't blame Joe, it's hard to speak clearly when your mouth is foamiing. :D




EDIT: also, for Tom, i would think the reason he chose to include biblical verses is to indicate that even an evangelical(reactionary/right-wing) person should feel bad when they fuck people on their housing. my problem with all of this accounting and such is that i see nothing included to pay for the materials, only the labor. did i miss something?:D:D



The person that wrote it isnt a communist.

Yea, that's fine--I guess I didn't quite know who wrote it.

Robert
25th July 2008, 23:44
i would think the reason he chose to include biblical verses is to indicate that even an evangelical(reactionary/right-wing) person should feel bad when they fuck people on their housing. my problem with all of this accounting and such is that i see nothing included to pay for the materials, only the labor. did i miss something?

The bank does not want anyone's house. When a bank forecloses, it almost invariably loses money.

Do you understand why this is?

Bud Struggle
25th July 2008, 23:54
Mercy, you miss so many things. The most basic is this: the bank does not want anyone's house. When a bank forecloses, it almost invariably loses money.

Do you understand why this is?

Actually Brother Robert--you know there is a business there. I'm not sure how it could go--but somehow if one could start a company to take foreclosed houses off the the hands of the bank for a substantially reduced rate--and then resell them.

I think it could turn a fair profit.

Robert
26th July 2008, 00:09
Oh, sure. If you want to take the risk. But if the current owner couldn't flip it quickly for a profit to pay the loan, you may or may not be able to.

The comster's point was that people are being"fucked" by the bank in these foreclosures, or at least I think that was his point.

In the scenario you describe, a third party (you) is buying the house from the bank at a discount. The bank loses money on the deal, and that's the point that (Joe?) misses.

People buy too much house in too many cases. Lots of these people that got "screwed" were speculating themselves.

Bud Struggle
26th July 2008, 00:15
People buy too much house in too many cases. Lots of these people that got "screwed" were speculating themselves.

The people that got screwed deserved exactly what they got. If sommeone doesn't know what thaey can afford--they shouldn't but a house. In the end it's not the responsibility of the mortage companies or the banks to look out for people--people should be smart enough to look out for themselves.

On the other hand I can't believe that the mortage companies and the banks that bought these finance instruments didn't know how risky they were taking on.

534634634265
26th July 2008, 00:46
i still dont see how the cost that was quoted is correct without cost of materials.:(
and Robert, i understand how banks foreclose on houses, but if you think there aren't already systems in place for the quick liquidation of foreclosed homes and all things inside them then its YOU whose missing something. ever been to an auction? people makes LOADS of money on foreclosed homes, banks included, or the system wouldn't work like that. thats capitalism right, squeeze the nickels out of your pennies and whatnot?

Robert
26th July 2008, 00:55
It was really unreal how much house a broker wanted to put us in based on our income one time, this was back in the 90's. Under the lending guidelines, we qualified for a much bigger house than we needed or wanted. Apparently nothing has changed.

The problem is that everybody is on the make. The bigger the house, the bigger the realtor commission and the bigger the loan. The bigger the loan, the more closing costs and fees and interest you pay.

You just have to know when to say no. There are plenty of perfectly comfortable small houses that couples of average income can afford. Here, anyway. Cheaper to heat and cool too.


on edit: crackedlogic, yes, there are speculators who make out big buying and selling cars, houses, antiques, you name it. I acknowledge that. And some who lose their asses because they bought before the property hit bottom or because it hit bottom and there's STILL no one to resell it to. But there's no conspiracy among bankers to force people into foreclosure on the original bank loan. The bank wants your money, not your house. If the banker plays too fast and loose approving bad loans, he can lose control of the whole bank.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:JG-RyqH8BsgTkM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/FdicLogo.png/800px-FdicLogo.png

534634634265
26th July 2008, 07:52
But there's no conspiracy among bankers to force people into foreclosure on the original bank loan. The bank wants your money, not your house. If the banker plays too fast and loose approving bad loans, he can lose control of the whole bank.

i agree, i didn't say that. maybe you misunderstand me or i wasn't clear enough. i think its all about money, and thats why i like you and Tom so much.

Shekky Shabazz
26th July 2008, 13:46
The people that got screwed deserved exactly what they got. If sommeone doesn't know what thaey can afford--they shouldn't but a house. In the end it's not the responsibility of the mortage companies or the banks to look out for people--people should be smart enough to look out for themselves.


This is not entirely true. There is such a thing as fraud. Whether perpetrated by banks, mortgage companies, brokers, etc, shrugging your shoulders while thinking people are just stupid is very short-sighted.



On the other hand I can't believe that the mortage companies and the banks that bought these finance instruments didn't know how risky they were taking on.

I can believe it because they knew exactly how much risk is involved. Very little. With limited liability provided by the state, offering 'creative' financing through artificially lowered interest rates during a boom period in the business cycle makes a lot of sense.

Bud Struggle
26th July 2008, 14:17
This is not entirely true. There is such a thing as fraud. Whether perpetrated by banks, mortgage companies, brokers, etc, shrugging your shoulders while thinking people are just stupid is very short-sighted.I'm sure some some fraud went on, thing's like that always hahhen even in the best of times, but 95% of the home forclosures are on people that didn't pay attention to the fine print of the papers that they were signing. They didn't understand "credit" and how it works and most importantly when housing prices were on the rise, thought they were getting a free ride, without understanding the market or the financing involved. People have to take responsibility for their own mistakes. No one forced anyone to sign any papers.


I can believe it because they knew exactly how much risk is involved. Very little. With limited liability provided by the state, offering 'creative' financing through artificially lowered interest rates during a boom period in the business cycle makes a lot of sense. It didn't make sense, and that's why the banks are in the problem that they are in--banks don't want houses, they want securitized income. Just like when you buy pork belly futures--you don't want someone driving up to your house with a tractor trailor of bacon. Besides, most of the banks didn't originate the bad loans--they bought them on the secondary market--all absed on a housing correction in the market, that was obvious to anyone in the business, was going WAY overboard.

Both banks and homebuyers speculated on a bubble--it's been done before, and it will be done again.

Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs make nothing.

Robert
26th July 2008, 14:26
There is such a thing as fraud.I'll go half way on this. The young couple buying the house balks at the price, and then the realtor says something like "if you can come up with the downpayment, we'll make it work!" Big smile and all. Then the appraiser is hired to make sure the house has enough value to support the loan, and then the loan officer wants to make his quota and so he may raise an eyeborw, but then reassures himself that the house, over time, will go up in value, which is not completely untrue.

Everybody signs on the line, the rates go up as disclosed in the contract (so it's not hard fraud), the couple defaults, tries to flip it, but now there's a glut of houses as the builders all get in on the boom, the bubble bursts, and down she goes!

Soft fraud by everybody. Actionable? I don't know. Sue them and find out.



With limited liability provided by the state, offering 'creative' financing through artificially lowered interest rates during a boom period in the business cycle makes a lot of sense.Okay.

Dean
26th July 2008, 14:39
No offence, but the whole OP post is a pile of rubbish.

For example, listen to this:

Are you Commies going to start using the Old Testament as your economic guide? Want to go with the Ten Commandments, too?

Anyway--kind of cute. :cool:

Oh, come off it. Its a legitimate look at socialist economics, how a rational system of cost could work if we didn't have overhead and such filth to pay. And I think you know theres a lot more to it than you are letting on.

Robert
26th July 2008, 14:59
if we didn't have overhead and such filth to pay.Every single player in the chain of home acquisition has a role to play: either the builder, the buyer, or the seller wants him there to protect his interests. That doesn't mean there's no abuse, greed, or waste. But the borrower/buyers can be just as guilty as the sellers. They misrepresent their current income. They submit phony tax returns. It happens every day. These are "The People," are they not?

The main thing you guys are missing is that no one is forcing you to buy a particular home, and nothing stops you from picking up a pen and striking through unacceptable terms. I actually had a lessor shriek once when I picked up a pen and started striking through unacceptable terms in the lease.

She: "What are you doing? A lawyer wrote that!"

Me: "That's why I'm crossing it out."

That was a joke, of course, but I was serious about not signing as it was written. You can do the same. You don't want a loan from the greedy banker? Save up and pay cash for a smaller house.

Dean
26th July 2008, 15:04
Save up and pay cash for a smaller house.

Right. I can barely pay rent as it is. This exemplifies how detached you are from the reality of the working class.

Robert
26th July 2008, 15:18
Oh, cry me a river, Dean. Smart as you are and you cannot save money in the United States? I just do not believe that. Get a roommate or a second job or move into a smaller apartment. I've done it. It won't kill you.

What are you doing on the computer right now anyway? Besides wrongly assuming I am "detached from the reality of the working class"? Are you absolutely sure you've done more labor than I have?

Dean
26th July 2008, 15:23
Oh, cry me a river, Dean. Smart as you are and you cannot save money in the United States? I just do not believe that. Get a roommate or a second job or move into a smaller apartment. I've done it. It won't kill you.

What are you doing on the computer right now anyway? Besides wrongly assuming I am "detached from the reality of the working class"? Are you absolutely sure you've done more labor than I have?

You could be dead in the middle of the workign class and still be ignorant of your situation. I don't know what that is, and I can only judge your words - and that is all I have done.

I have 2 roommates. My brtoher pays for the internet. The computer I ahve had for five years, I got it when I was a junior. I have saved money - 600 dollars to be exact. That is over 6 months, and I've tried very hard. I ahve two jobs. So, no, I think I am being very accurate when I say how hard it is to get by, and how unreasonable it is to "become the master" in a home-buying situation. Most peopel who do much better than I are strugglign just the same with their house payments.

Robert
26th July 2008, 15:45
Okay, Dean. I'm sorry if you're hurting and I apologize if I was flippant about it. I have honest to god been there and may well be again.

I think $600 in six months is damned good, depending on your age and other expenses.

Here's my question, and I won't smart off in response: do you believe that if you continue working and saving in the USA as you have been, that in ten years you'll be worse off than you would have been, ten years hence, if the system were to come crashing down tomorrow to be replaced by "socialism," however you personally define the term? Yes I realize that the struggle is for the entire working class, not just you personally. Still, I am curious as to your perspective on this.

p.s. are you talking two part time jobs while you're still in school? Or are you working full time in one place and moonlighting elsewhere?

Shekky Shabazz
26th July 2008, 15:57
I'm sure some some fraud went on, thing's like that always hahhen even in the best of times, but 95% of the home forclosures are on people that didn't pay attention to the fine print of the papers that they were signing. They didn't understand "credit" and how it works and most importantly when housing prices were on the rise, thought they were getting a free ride, without understanding the market or the financing involved. People have to take responsibility for their own mistakes. No one forced anyone to sign any papers.

When I mentioned fraud, I wasn't refering to dishonest salespeople or anything of that sort, although of course that happened too. The conditions that created the existing market are fraudulent, and without a method of recourse for those affected. Through manipulations of the lending interest rate, the Federal Reserve creates an artificial 'bubble' that is continuously extracting and contracting credit through member banks. This deceives consumers as to the true nature of the market at any given time. It also affects many banks negatively, but they don't have as much to worry about due to extremely limited liability, provided of course by the almighty state.


It didn't make sense, and that's why the banks are in the problem that they are in--banks don't want houses, they want securitized income.

It made sense for some of these decisions to be made, being shielded from risky speculations leads to otherwise nonsensical decisions. Generally, yes, banks want money not land.


Just like when you buy pork belly futures--you don't want someone driving up to your house with a tractor trailor of bacon.

Please speak for yourself


Besides, most of the banks didn't originate the bad loans--they bought them on the secondary market--all absed on a housing correction in the market, that was obvious to anyone in the business, was going WAY overboard.

Well, not totally obvious, at least not timimg the market.


Both banks and homebuyers speculated on a bubble--it's been done before, and it will be done again.

Yes, the bubble created by the state through manipulating the monopolized currency will be speculated upon again. Doesn't mean I have to like it

Dean
26th July 2008, 16:08
Okay, Dean. I'm sorry if you're hurting and I apologize if I was flippant about it. I have honest to god been there and may well be again.

I think $600 in six months is damned good, depending on your age and other expenses.

Here's my question, and I won't smart off in response: do you believe that if you continue working and saving in the USA as you have been, that in ten years you'll be worse off than you would have been, ten years hence, if the system were to come crashing down tomorrow to be replaced by "socialism," however you personally define the term? Yes I realize that the struggle is for the entire working class, not just you personally. Still, I am curious as to your perspective on this.

p.s. are you talking two part time jobs while you're still in school? Or are you working full time in one place and moonlighting elsewhere?

I think I would do ten times as well if I was involved in labor for which I got back my fair return, i.e. a socialist system. As for the school thing, I had to quit that last year under soem pretty bad conditions.

Also, if about a hundred a month is good, htne please show me where I can find a house for 12,000 dollars - adjusted for 10 years of inflation!

It's very important to understand what people can and cannot do, not just based on the solid restraints of the system that they live in, but by understanding what one can expect from a human in such conditions. I see captialists all too often speak of things as if the economy allows it, but to be honest, that only works if you play with the numbers, not if you are living it.

Thanks for being nicer in this post, it changes a lot :)

Bud Struggle
26th July 2008, 16:40
When I mentioned fraud, I wasn't refering to dishonest salespeople or anything of that sort, although of course that happened too. The conditions that created the existing market are fraudulent, and without a method of recourse for those affected. Through manipulations of the lending interest rate, the Federal Reserve creates an artificial 'bubble' that is continuously extracting and contracting credit through member banks. This deceives consumers as to the true nature of the market at any given time. It also affects many banks negatively, but they don't have as much to worry about due to extremely limited liability, provided of course by the almighty state.

Sorry, I missed your point before, and I see where you are coming from. I recently heard an argument that the reson the 1929 Depression was so big and lasted so long was because of government intervention. The 1986 Crash was just as big but because the Government (Ronaldus Magnus) did nothing, the market corrected itself and the problem went away in no time.

Though, I don't have that much trouble with government regulation as I thing you do--I agree that the Fed should take a more hands off approach to the market--it's seems to be doing all it's business based on political not economic trends.

Robert
26th July 2008, 16:40
Okay, Dean. Good luck.

Shekky:


Through manipulations of the lending interest rate, the Federal Reserve creates an artificial 'bubble' that is continuously extracting and contracting credit through member banks. This deceives consumers as to the true nature of the market at any given time.When you say "manipulation," are you ascribing venality on the part of the Federal Reserve in this? They have no incentive to cause a collapse in the housing or credit markets, and I think they work hard, yes within the existing system, to avert collapse.

Ben Bernake is a really bright guy, PhD economics from MIT. Has spent more time in academia than business, looks like. Probably isn't very wealthy. He ain't a commie, but hey, who's perfect?

Shekky Shabazz
26th July 2008, 18:12
I recently heard an argument that the reson the 1929 Depression was so big and lasted so long was because of government intervention.

deleted

Shekky Shabazz
26th July 2008, 18:21
When you say "manipulation," are you ascribing venality on the part of the Federal Reserve in this? They have no incentive to cause a collapse in the housing or credit markets, and I think they work hard, yes within the existing system, to avert collapse.


Not really. I'm sure the job doesn't attract the most altruistic characters, but I don't believe there is any overall 'evil' plan. It's simply impossible to centrally plan a gigantic market economy, doomed to failure.



Ben Bernake is a really bright guy, PhD economics from MIT. Has spent more time in academia than business, looks like. Probably isn't very wealthy. He ain't a commie, but hey, who's perfect?

As smart as he might be, hes certainly in over his head, smashing pieces of gum on leaks in the Hoover Dam. From the few excerpts I browsed from A.Greenspan's book, I kinda got the sense he felt this way too.

Joe Hill's Ghost
26th July 2008, 18:52
i can't understand the last sentence, am i missing anything or is it more of his usual ranting?

Crackedlogic, which side are you on anyway?

Bud Struggle
26th July 2008, 19:45
Crackedlogic, which side are you on anyway?

He's on the side of the Revolution--as are we all. :hammersickle::star3::hammersickle: