Iceland forgives mortgage debt of its population

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Not really. It's just a tax on people who rent (like I do)

I'm surprised and disturbed by the mindset being expressed in this thread. It's very un-libertarian. Two wrongs do not make a right. While the bank bailouts were wrong and never should have happened, a government mandate forcing debt forgiveness would be equally as wrong, because there is someone on the other end of that transaction being given the shaft. One of the most important characteristics of a free society is protection of private property. A government mandate which forces people (lenders) to give away their money to borrowers who lent it to them in good faith that it would be returned with interest is the antithesis of a freedom. Mortgage debt is a voluntary agreement between two parties. No one was pointing a gun at the head of the borrowers saying "take our money or else."

And make no mistake, if this mandated debt forgiveness really happened (which I doubt), there will be severe unintended consequences. Who in their right mind would want to lend money to the people of Iceland knowing that the government can come in at any time and prevent them from ever getting it back again? The stifling of lending that would no doubt follow would have a devastating impact on the economy.

It's theft when bankers get bailouts at the expense of the people.

It's theft when the people get bailouts at the expense of the bankers.

+1

I see people dancing in the aisles for they think it's the bankers who got screwed but wait...........it's NOT JUST the bankers........it's also the SAVERS that get screwed

The people who worked, produced goods & services, & SAVED, did NOT go into debt -
The capital & economic resources that were spent on building those houses, which now these UNSOUND BORROWERS are going to get for below par prices; that capital, those economic resources would've been used more fruitfully to produce other goods/services which would've enhanced the lives of the SAVERS.......but instead they were spent on building these houses & now the borrowers aren't willing to pay up, they SHOULD pay up, those resources didn't fall from the sky, they were expended at the expense of SAVERS

And as usually happens, it's another thing where the productive people get the shaft for the sake of unproductive & less productive

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The people standing up for themselves against theft is not theft.

Irresponsible behavior isn't "standing up", they've essentially taken purchasing-power from the SAVERS; when they borrowed & spent, it increased moneysupply & they took purchasing-power at the expense of others so it's incumbent upon them to repay & extinguish the increase in moneysupply they caused, by being productive & producing goods/services

Banks can't lend if borrowers don't borrow, it's pretty simple! So why did they take on debt in the first place? Where's personal responsibility?

You are assuming that the system in place is in any ways fair or representative of a free-market.

It doesn't matter whether there is a "free market" or not, there may never be but that doesn't mean people act irresponsibly & then not take responsibility for their actions! This is what's wrong with most people, they don't want to take on responsibility for themselves & blame everything on others

They made a CHOICE to borrow so they should take responsibility, if such irresponsible behavior is rewarded then it only sets bad precedents; just as banks shouldn't be bailed out, neither should the borrowers, they're just as much responsible for themselves; it's only going to cost the savers!

Many many individuals who are currently holding various types of debt deserve to be paid nothing for their paper, absolutely nothing.

Well, they consumed & caused misallocation of capital & economic resources, they must pay, otherwise it's just indirect socialism at the expense of the savers

Now I'm not saying that everyone who goes out and willfully runs up consumer debt should be forgiven, don't think this,

Sorry but that's EXACTLY what you're proposing, look at these TBTF, once the precedent was set that they'll get bailed out every time, they cost the savers & productive people, & pardoning loans on such a massive scale will only set further bad precedents; & who gets more bills - as usual the honest & productive savers

Everyone should watch what Iceland has done in the last year. They basically told England, IMF, EU, and all of the other globalists to FUCK OFF!

Oh, so they consumed all the stuff facilitated by their socialist systems & now they're going to make people in other countries pay for it, be it England or anyone? Again, this will just set precedent for more irresponsible borrowing & more socialism at the expense of the savers in the future

They borrowed, they should pay, nobody forced them, it was a CHOICE & they should take responsibility for it!

Confirmation it is a socialist country

+1

You bet it is!

 

[RickyJ]

It's theft when bankers get bailouts at the expense of the people.

It's theft when the people get bailouts at the expense of the bankers.

True, but if the banks have already been bailed out, then it is a double standard to not bail out the people too. This is just making the playing field somewhat even again.

 

[WilliamC]

I agree with you here. But the default should be to those holding government debt, because that is an involuntary contract. The government promises lenders money at the expense of future taxpayers, who do not explicitly consent to the arrangement. People who hold government debt know this and are acting immorally. They deserve to get stiffed.

Mortgages, on the other hand, are voluntary. And defaulting on them is theft.

My understanding is that the 26 trillion that the FED has created in the last several years could have actually paid off all of the outstanding single family private residence real estate in the USA. I'm not saying mortgage holders deserve free money, but it would have been better to actually pay off the mortgages than for the FED to give that money away to the already uber wealthy, which they did.

If the entire system is corrupt then government can reach into your fixed mortgage and change the terms if it so chooses, and there's nothing you nor I could do about it.

Not trying to argue for a fire sale scenario, but simply restoring sound money and removing the psychopathic parasites at the top of the financial pyramid will go a long way to alleviating the economic problems systemic in the world, and this could include forgiveness of some mortgage debts.

But no, people who deliberately set out to borrow more money than they can afford shouldn't be allowed to benefit at the expense of others either.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I agree with you here. But the default should be to those holding government debt, because that is an involuntary contract. The government promises lenders money at the expense of future taxpayers, who do not explicitly consent to the arrangement. People who hold government debt know this and are acting immorally. They deserve to get stiffed.

Mortgages, on the other hand, are voluntary. And defaulting on them is theft.

I think most people, if not everyone, who wants to know why they have this big, bad government & all the mess it's creating, then they should just buy a damn mirror - & look closely where the problem lies; I think if they realized where the real problem is then it would be easier to solve rather than looking for scapegoats, those who want freedom must first learn to take responsibility for their own actions, otherwise there's no freedom to be had, just tyranny!

 

[The Gold Standard]

They aren't screwing the bankers. The bankers got their bailouts and will get them again when they are needed (which will be soon if this story is true, unless the government is just printing the money to pay off these mortgages). They are screwing everyone who does not have any mortgage debt. It is their purchasing power that will be lost to plug the holes this creates. If you want to screw the bankers, take away their printing press, eliminate deposit insurance, and let people rush to get their money out.

The free market punishes bad decisions. Government bailouts punish random groups of people who had nothing to do with the bad decisions.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

True, but if the banks have already been bailed out, then it is a double standard to not bail out the people too. This is just making the playing field somewhat even again.

At the expense of whom? - THE SAVERS

But no, people who deliberately set out to borrow more money than they can afford shouldn't be allowed to benefit at the expense of others either.

Once you set the precedent for this then you'll see more & more people doing EXACTLY that because they'd know that if enough people do it then the government will cave in & pardon the loan - at the expense of the savers

Again, how about people taking some responsibility for their own actions?

 

[WilliamC]

Irresponsible behavior isn't "standing up", they've essentially taken purchasing-power from the SAVERS; when they borrowed & spent, it increased moneysupply & they took purchasing-power at the expense of others so it's incumbent upon them to repay & extinguish the increase in moneysupply they caused, by being productive & producing goods/services

Banks can't lend if borrowers don't borrow, it's pretty simple! So why did they take on debt in the first place? Where's personal responsibility?

It doesn't matter whether there is a "free market" or not, there may never be but that doesn't mean people act irresponsibly & then not take responsibility for their actions! This is what's wrong with most people, they don't want to take on responsibility for themselves & blame everything on others

They made a CHOICE to borrow so they should take responsibility, if such irresponsible behavior is rewarded then it only sets bad precedents; just as banks shouldn't be bailed out, neither should the borrowers, they're just as much responsible for themselves; it's only going to cost the savers!

First, I'm not arguing that people who have deliberately borrowed more than they can afford to repay should get an automatic free ride, so don't think otherwise.

I am arguing that in an economic system where there is not even a definition for what a dollar is it is virtually impossible sometimes to assign real values to things, including real estate.

If you found out that you had paid, say, $100,000 for a property actually valued at $5,000, and took out a mortgage to do so, but then come to find that the lawyers, tax collectors, and everyone but you knew this, would you feel obligated to repay the entire loan or not?

I am not suggesting that this is how fraud occurs, but when the actual money itself if based on nothing but a ponzi scheme the same level of fraud exists in the system from the top down.

Well, they consumed & caused misallocation of capital & economic resources, they must pay, otherwise it's just indirect socialism at the expense of the savers

It is the central bankers and the inflationary nature of our money supply that ultimately is responsible for impoverishing savers actually.

I'm not arguing for socialism to replace fascisim, but for free-market capitalism to replace both.

Sorry but that's EXACTLY what you're proposing, look at these TBTF, once the precedent was set that they'll get bailed out every time, they cost the savers & productive people, & pardoning loans on such a massive scale will only set further bad precedents; & who gets more bills - as usual the honest & productive savers

No, it's time for those responsible to be charged, arrested, and brought to trial for the actual crimes they have already committed.

At least that's what I would like to see happen.

Oh, so they consumed all the stuff facilitated by their socialist systems & now they're going to make people in other countries pay for it, be it England or anyone? Again, this will just set precedent for more irresponsible borrowing & more socialism at the expense of the savers in the future

They borrowed, they should pay, nobody forced them, it was a CHOICE & they should take responsibility for it!

If you think I am arguing against personal responsibility you are mistaken.

I want for those who caused, are causing, and who are proffiting from the economic crisis to be held responsible first and foremost, and except for a minority of home-buyers who deliberately set out to scam the system, mortgage holders aren't them.

 

[roho76]

Doesn't Europe hold pretty much all their debt? This is hilarious.

 

[RickyJ]

At the expense of whom? - THE SAVERS

It may seem that way, but with everybody out of debt the economy would start to take off again and this would benefit everybody, including the savers. Oh, and only a fool would be saving dollar bills these days.

 

[enoch150]

It may seem that way, but with everybody out of debt the economy would start to take off again and this would benefit everybody, including the savers.

Eh, not likely. How fast do you think the banks will be to make new loans?

All of the people who had no mortgage will now be unable to ever get one. What about new businesses? Would the banks trust those loans wouldn't be canceled?

 

[Yieu]

Not really. It's just a tax on people who rent (like I do)

Exactly. People who made decisions they might not have been able to afford would be getting free houses, while we would continue paying rent forever for being prudent.

That is a pretty heavy punishment on those who rent. Especially so when property tax raises the bar of home ownership, and thus gives encouragement to rent.

This is just the government dumping on renters, first by raising the bar for home ownership, and secondly by giving away free houses to anyone who happened to chose to get into the debt of a mortgage.

And then to top it all off, this would probably raise the bar even further for home ownership, as banks try to recoup the loss. So prudent renters could possibly from that point forward have a harder time getting a house even though they would still have to pay it off, while those who shouldered debt get free houses. The additional income the home owners would then have would just be an additional insult to the new underclass of renters.

 

[Yieu]

True, but if the banks have already been bailed out, then it is a double standard to not bail out the people too. This is just making the playing field somewhat even again.

No, this has made the playing field further uneven by creating a new underclass of renters over there, who continue to pay while the mortgage bearers get a free ride.

If anything, this is government manipulation to oppress a certain class of people (people who can't afford houses, and don't buy one because of that).

It may seem that way, but with everybody out of debt the economy would start to take off again and this would benefit everybody, including the savers. Oh, and only a fool would be saving dollar bills these days.

Thing is, not everybody would be the equivalent of "out of debt". It would be true for the mortgage holders, but the renters would have to continue paying a portion of their income while the mortgage holders would not. This is just government manipulation... granting privileges (positive "rights") to some but not all based on personal life decisions.

 

[BlackTerrel]

The people standing up for themselves against theft is not theft.

So if I bust my ass to pay rent for an apartment I can afford and you have a 900K loan on a 1 million dollar home that you can't afford - you should be outright given that 1 million dollar home while I continue to pay rent on my apartment?

Fuck - I need to stop busting my ass and start taking on debt I can't afford.

 

[The Gold Standard]

So if I bust my ass to pay rent for an apartment I can afford and you have a 900K loan on a 1 million dollar home that you can't afford - you should be outright given that 1 million dollar home while I continue to pay rent on my apartment?

Fuck - I need to stop busting my ass and start taking on debt I can't afford.

That is the moral of the story.

 

[Yieu]

So if I bust my ass to pay rent for an apartment I can afford and you have a 900K loan on a 1 million dollar home that you can't afford - you should be outright given that 1 million dollar home while I continue to pay rent on my apartment?

Fuck - I need to stop busting my ass and start taking on debt I can't afford.

I think that says it more clearly than I did.

 

[specsaregood]

Doesn't Europe hold pretty much all their debt? This is hilarious.

The money that was used to fund these debts, where did it come from? Was it real? backed by real tangible assets?
Or was it invented into existence by those who gave themselves the power to do so?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I agree with you here. But the default should be to those holding government debt, because that is an involuntary contract. The government promises lenders money at the expense of future taxpayers, who do not explicitly consent to the arrangement. People who hold government debt know this and are acting immorally. They deserve to get stiffed.

Mortgages, on the other hand, are voluntary. And defaulting on them is theft.

I agree with you.

Exactly who is it that made this decision? The government? So, they decided to stiff the banks who lent money at the homeowners' request? How is that just?

This whole deal just smells a bit to me. I want to see if they are going to accept more money from the IMF. US.

Something tells me that there is much more to this story.

 

[Yieu]

This is just like student loan debt forgiveness.

If student loan debt is forgiven, the cost should be the degree.

If a mortgage is forgiven, the cost should be the house.

Because this just means volunteering to pay for something, then snubbing those who you promised to pay.

Such a breech of contract should end it, and its benefits.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It may seem that way, but with everybody out of debt the economy would start to take off again and this would benefit everybody, including the savers. Oh, and only a fool would be saving dollar bills these days.

It is nothing but socialism and no, it isn't a good thing. People are not owed free houses. Not now, not ever.

If the debt is forgiven, then the people should also lose their houses.