A Fat Cat
Michael O'Bernicia and Michael O’Deira have made a film called, The Great British Mortgage Swindle. Both had defaulted on their properties due to bankruptcy and both had been brutally evicted. Michael O'Bernicia was 18 years old at the time when his family was evicted because of his father's bankruptcy and the bailiffs treated his family like criminals coming along with 21 policeman is squad cars. After turning them out, the bailiff said to Michael O'Bernicia as he got into his car that if he hadn't got the last of their stuff out of the house by the time he returns he will throw it all out in the street. Michael saw red and have him 10 seconds to leave, or otherwise, and he shot off in seconds.
The whole incident deeply upset Michael O'Bernicia, who felt that something about this was wrong, and so he started researching it where he found out, thanks to Richard Werner, that the banks have no actual money and just create it out of thin air on the spot. And this made him wonder why his family was turfed out on the street, when, in fact, his family didn't owe anyone any money.
And so thousands of people have their homes repossessed everywhere year when their default has not lost anyone a single penny. So. surely a better system could be put in place where people can stay in a property until they are financially solvent again, and also, not be hit by any crippling compound interest?
Michael O'Deira says creating money out of thin air is fine if the banks are run by honest, law abiding, decent people, but not when they are run by psychopaths who want to enslave the world by using the system to suck all the wealth of the 99% to themselves, the 1%. Michael O'Bernicia and Michael O’Deira say they want to reverse this so the wealth goes back to the 99% where it belongs.
Michael O'Deira says how he studied an A-level in economics but never once was he told how the banks make money. He believed the banks and the establishment keep this a secret on purpose, otherwise the public would be outraged and want a better deal.
Michael O'Bernicia says the courts are on the side of the banks, even though a lot of what they do is illegal. His family won their house back when they tricked the judge into admitting there were banking irregularities, but the judge still tried his hardest to settle the case in the favour of the bank.
"And so thousands of people have their homes repossessed everywhere year when their default has not lost anyone a single penny."
ReplyDeleteActually when a bank finds out that someone it has loaned to is bust, the bank's assets fall by the amount of the loan. Initially it's the bank's shareholders who lose, but that loss probably "trickles down" to all those with a stake in the bank eventually: e.g. the bank may pay less interest to depositors to make good the loss.
Thank you, Ralph. I did think the film makers had a simplistic view of banking. I too used to think once that as the banks invented the money out of free air they were therefore conning people - that they were earning interest on a lie - a free lunch. But then I saw that they were providing a service -by running and facilitating the money supply - and were charging a small fee for doing so, which is the interest.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know, though, that the loan was on the bank's assets book, and that their shareholders do lose that money if someone defaults.
I remember when I wrote my 'money equals work' articles I was thinking how if bank loans someone £100,000 and they default on that loan then that 100,000 still exists in society as numbers in people's bank accounts. These were the people that the person who borrowed the money had paid, e.g, when buying a house and buying furniture for it.
ReplyDeleteBut even thiugh the house owner had gone bankrupt, the £100,000 still existed somewhere in society and was 'counterfeit' as I called it, because it had no goods and services backing it, i.e, no work was backing it. When the bank takes back the House and sells it, the new owner borrows the money from a bank and pays the bank that owns the house with it which can now extinguish the loan.
The new house owner earns money and so slowly removes the 100,000 from society - as he earns it each year. In this way that £100,000 floating about society is now being backed by work, or rather, work that will be done in the future, and so it's not counterfeit anymore.
But if the loan - that was lent to the person that had gone bankrupt - now fell on the bank's investors, then it was never counterfeit when the money still existed somewhere out in society - as I had said - as it was backed by people, the bank's investors, who had lost purchasing power until the bank found a new buyer. That purchasing power was in the £100,000 that existed in society due to the loan. In this way, the work equals money equation balances. The banks investors had done work, or people in their businesses had, or people they had invested in had, but those investors could not claim that £100,000 of work because they had lost it until the house was resold. I hope that makes sense?
“I didn't know, though, that the loan was on the bank's assets book, and that their shareholders do lose that money if someone defaults.” ~ Kaivey
ReplyDeleteNo Kevin. Don’t let the criminal banks off the hook. Banks use accounting sleight-of-hand. Since banks create loan money out of thin air, the only way a bank “loses money” is by not making as much a profit out of that loan money as the bank had hoped.
“Michael O'Deira says how he studied an A-level in economics but never once was he told how the banks make money.”
ReplyDeleteBanks create loan money out of thin air. As the loan is paid back, the loan money is destroyed. Banks make their profit off the interest that is paid in addition to the principle. Also, banks collect money from myriad fees.
“Michael O'Bernicia says the courts are on the side of the banks, even though a lot of what they do is illegal. His family won their house back when they tricked the judge into admitting there were banking irregularities, but the judge still tried his hardest to settle the case in the favour of the bank.”
Banks own judges. If a judge cannot be bought, then his superiors are bought. And besides, most judges see the public as an enemy to be crushed.
Here in the USA, a property owner must pay property taxes. If he or she has a mortgage, then the property tax is included in the monthly mortgage payment. When a bank repossesses a house, the bank becomes the new owner. However banks are not required to pay property taxes, since banks own the judges.
For this reason, and many others, I say that MMT cannot help us as long as bankers rule. The more money the central government creates, the more money is sucked up by the banks.
“Michael O'Bernicia believes that the banks and the establishment keep this a secret on purpose, otherwise the public would be outraged and want a better deal.”
It’s no secret. The peasants want to be enslaved. If you explain the facts to them, the peasants are indifferent, or else they attack you as a “conspiracy theorist.”
The peasants want to be enslaved because they get something out of it. No one stays in an abusive relationship unless he gets something out of it. For example, many people stay in abusive relationship because they are terrified of being on their own, or else because they love being a martyr and a “victim.” They always get something out of it. The same thing happens collectively with the peasants.
The one condition that motivates people to end an abusive relationship is physical hunger. If we don’t have enough to eat, then whatever benefit we get out of an abusive relationship is outweighed by the anguish of hunger. This is why hunger is always the one and only thing that moves the peasants to revolt.
Society’s rulers have always known this. That’s why they usually ensure that just enough peasants have just enough to eat to keep all the peasants from revolting. For example, in ancient Rome, average citizens were given a monthly allotment of bread. In the USA today, 43 million Americans get food stamps so they don’t revolt against their rich owners.
When idiots like Trump talk about cutting food stamps, they are bluffing. They dare not do it.
In 2011 the “Arab Spring” broke out in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. In all these nations, the motivating factor was hunger. A combination of drought and neoliberal speculation had made food scarce, or too expensive to buy.
The USA and its allies hijacked the “Arab Spring” and used it to destroy Libya, and to launch proxy wars against Syria, Yemen, etc.