Iceland forgives mortgage debt of its population

[Brian in Maryland]

Can I print my own money, backed by nothing to pay off my mortgage? It has value because I say it does, really it does.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[The Gold Standard]

Let's just say IF more than half those mortgages are owned by foreign corporations or even countries. (don't know in this instance)
Is it an act of socialism, war or independence? Or should all that land belong to foreigners?

It should belong to whoever owns it.

 

[Steven Douglas]

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

In a truly free market with sound currency circulating, and banks that actually lend their own assets, I would agree. This scenario presents a conundrum, however, as there are no clean hands. We have a privatized/collectivized/socialized currency, a form of socialism in the monetary system itself, which already dictates that if you cannot pay for the house that the bank provided a collectivized fiction for you to finance, the bank then becomes the owner and recipient of unearned wealth. Banks are not owed free houses either.

 

[enoch150]

In a truly free market with sound currency circulating, and banks that actually lend their own assets, I would agree. This scenario presents a conundrum, however, as there are no clean hands. We have a privatized/collectivized/socialized currency, a form of socialism in the monetary system itself, which already dictates that if you cannot pay for the house that the bank provided a collectivized fiction for you to finance, the bank then becomes the owner and recipient of unearned wealth. Banks are not owed free houses either.

Do banks provide a service?

 

[LibertyEagle]

In a truly free market with sound currency circulating, and banks that actually lend their own assets, I would agree. This scenario presents a conundrum, however, as there are no clean hands. We have a privatized/collectivized/socialized currency, a form of socialism in the monetary system itself, which already dictates that if you cannot pay for the house that the bank provided a collectivized fiction for you to finance, the bank then becomes the owner and recipient of unearned wealth. Banks are not owed free houses either.

They entered into the contracts with their own free will. End of story.

I honestly cannot believe we are having this discussion on RPFs, but how would it be right for people to keep a house that they did not pay for? How are houses different than investments gone sour because of the crap pulled by the government, Wall Street and the FED? What about all the lost savings of people fleeced by the debasement of the currency and artificially low interest rates? What about the people who have been paying higher rent because of the same. What about....

But yet, some here want to give special favor to mortgage holders. Sounds way too much like the favors that our government is so fond of handing out to special interests.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It should belong to whoever owns it.

Agreed.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[RonPaulIsGreat]

They didn't forgive loans they revalued them. One, was outstanding mortgages over 110% of present value, and the other were mortgages pegged to foreign currencies. People from iceland have confirmed this as well.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

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.

It doesn't matter one bit whether they knew or not, they made a CHOICE so they MUST take responsibility for it & not screw up the savers by consuming more than they've produced

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.

It's irrelevant in this context, money isn't capital, it's PURCHASING-POWER than savers create within the economy, that's the real capital & that capital & economic resources were consumed to build those houses so it's only meet that the borrowers produce goods/services to that extent & repay that purchasing-power back into the system

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?

OF COURSE, if someone makes a stupid, uninformed decision then they must deal with the consequences, that's what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is about, not about asking a dole from government at the expense of others!

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.

It's irrelevant, what money is or isn't, it's the resources that they consumed at the expense of the savers that's what I'm talking about

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

Yes, governments & toilet-paper-money is already screwing the savers but that doesn't justify the borrowers screwing the savers

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

You're arguing for free houses or at least underpriced house so consider where it puts you

Freedom & free market capitalism is first & foremost about CHOICE & PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, it'll never exist in societies where people aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions period

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.

Sure, & that also includes the borrowers who took on more debt than they were capable of paying back

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.

Again, they made a CHOICE, they should pay for it

Nobody forced them to take the loans, they CHOSE to take them because they believe in the institutionalized idea of freeloading & free lunch

Again, if borrowers won't borrow then banks can't lend, it's pretty simply!

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

They entered into the contracts with their own free will. End of story.

I honestly cannot believe we are having this discussion on RPFs, but how would it be right for people to keep a house that they did not pay for? How are houses different than investments gone sour because of the crap pulled by the government, Wall Street and the FED? What about all the lost savings of people fleeced by the debasement of the currency and artificially low interest rates? What about the people who have been paying higher rent because of the same. What about....

But yet, some here want to give special favor to mortgage holders. Sounds way too much like the favors that our government is so fond of handing out to special interests.

All +1

If such bad precedents are set by pardoning loans then there could be more & bigger housing-bubbles in the future if the people realize that they can get a free-ride so long as enough of them are doing it; just like how bailing out TBTF set precedents for more & bigger bubbles & bigger bailouts

This is just another government scam where people who made good economic choices get screwed to subsidize those who made bad economic choices; this is completely bereft of personal responsibility!

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

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.

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?

Firstly, money is NOT capital by itself, that's why you can't just create "capital" by creating more money, it's the stupid Keynesians who believe that we can "create capital" by creating money, hence they ask for government spending & socialism & that crap; BUT the real capital is the purchasing-power rendered by the savers by foregoing their present consumption

When someone borrows from banks & spends it, that PERSON brings "new money" into existence by the act of borrowing, increases moneysupply so he's essentially taking purchasing-power from all existing savers to buy whatever goods/services he's going to buy so it's incumbent upon him to produce goods/services worth that much & repay the loan & thereby decrease the increased moneysupply & thereby, put the purchasing-power he'd consumed earlier, back into the system; if he doesn't repay then the increase in moneysupply he'd caused, isn't decreased back, the purchasing-power he'd taken from the savers isn't returned to the system

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

triple post :o

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

triple post :o:

 

[WilliamC]

It doesn't matter one bit whether they knew or not, they made a CHOICE so they MUST take responsibility for it & not screw up the savers by consuming more than they've produced



It's irrelevant in this context, money isn't capital, it's PURCHASING-POWER than savers create within the economy, that's the real capital & that capital & economic resources were consumed to build those houses so it's only meet that the borrowers produce goods/services to that extent & repay that purchasing-power back into the system



OF COURSE, if someone makes a stupid, uninformed decision then they must deal with the consequences, that's what PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is about, not about asking a dole from government at the expense of others!



It's irrelevant, what money is or isn't, it's the resources that they consumed at the expense of the savers that's what I'm talking about



Yes, governments & toilet-paper-money is already screwing the savers but that doesn't justify the borrowers screwing the savers



You're arguing for free houses or at least underpriced house so consider where it puts you

Freedom & free market capitalism is first & foremost about CHOICE & PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, it'll never exist in societies where people aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions period



Sure, & that also includes the borrowers who took on more debt than they were capable of paying back



Again, they made a CHOICE, they should pay for it

Nobody forced them to take the loans, they CHOSE to take them because they believe in the institutionalized idea of freeloading & free lunch

Again, if borrowers won't borrow then banks can't lend, it's pretty simply!

You really think that all borrowers were given true information?

That's funny.

You can argue that every person who has been defrauded by the mortgage industry should repay the bankers and whine about the poor savers, but when the bankers themselves are the ones destroying savers it rings hollow.

Keep supporting the failed system if that's what you want to live with, I think the bankers are as much at fault in many situations as the borrowers and that they should also be held accountable.

Why do you think I want to take money away from 'savers', that's foolish.

I want to take money from criminals,not savers, and one way is through re-valuation of some existing mortgages at their expense.

 

[The Gold Standard]

The banks are all insolvent anyway. The houses they take ownership of when they foreclose on them should be liquidated in bankruptcy. That is the answer. Not stealing from those without debt to bail out the ones with debt.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You really think that all borrowers were given true information?

That's funny.

What "true information"? If they didn't know that prices would fall then that's their fault, just like when banks went belly up that was their fault; again, where's personal responsibility?

You can argue that every person who has been defrauded by the mortgage industry should repay the bankers and whine about the poor savers, but when the bankers themselves are the ones destroying savers it rings hollow.

Yes, banks are destroying the savers alright & you want savers to be destroyed even more by the borrowers as well???
Again, had borrowers acted responsibly & not borrowed so much, banks wouldn't have lent so much so borrowers are hardly the "victims", nobody forced them to take loans, they did it of their own volition; it's the savers who are the victims!

Keep supporting the failed system if that's what you want to live with, I think the bankers are as much at fault in many situations as the borrowers and that they should also be held accountable.

You're the one who wants to continue the failed system of excessive lending & borrowing, I believe people should learn their lessons from this episode & learn to LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS!
This mentality of borrowing at the expense of future is what's detrimental to the society & the state of the government & debt only reflects the mentality of the society, government afterall is that which the people are willing to put up with & pardoning the debt will only re-inforce such bad mentality & people won't learn personal responsibility at all

Why do you think I want to take money away from 'savers', that's foolish.

Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking for! Those houses didn't fall from the sky, they were made from the capital & purchasing-power of the savers!

I want to take money from criminals,not savers, and one way is through re-valuation of some existing mortgages at their expense.

Again, you don't seem to grasp the distant interconnectedness of the economic web! Whether there's honest money or dishonest money, borrowers are always borrowing purchasing-power from savers so it's their responsibility to produce that many goods/services & repay because that way they return the purchasing-power back to the system

Again, every time you borrow, irrespective of the money-system, you're taking purchasing-power from savers, if you don't repay then it costs the savers by way of fewer goods/services, higher prices & lower living-standards while you've gotten stuff at their expense, free or at below market price; banks only get the tiny portion of what you pay them back, most goes back to the savers as increased purchasing-power by reducing the moneysupply which you'd increased when you'd borrowed

The banks are all insolvent anyway. The houses they take ownership of when they foreclose on them should be liquidated in bankruptcy. That is the answer. Not stealing from those without debt to bail out the ones with debt.

+1

 

[WilliamC]

What "true information"? If they didn't know that prices would fall then that's their fault, just like when banks went belly up that was their fault; again, where's personal responsibility?

Yes, banks are destroying the savers alright & you want savers to be destroyed even more by the borrowers as well???
Again, had borrowers acted responsibly & not borrowed so much, banks wouldn't have lent so much so borrowers are hardly the "victims", nobody forced them to take loans, they did it of their own volition; it's the savers who are the victims!

You're the one who wants to continue the failed system of excessive lending & borrowing, I believe people should learn their lessons from this episode & learn to LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS!
This mentality of borrowing at the expense of future is what's detrimental to the society & the state of the government & debt only reflects the mentality of the society, government afterall is that which the people are willing to put up with & pardoning the debt will only re-inforce such bad mentality & people won't learn personal responsibility at all

Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking for! Those houses didn't fall from the sky, they were made from the capital & purchasing-power of the savers!

Again, you don't seem to grasp the distant interconnectedness of the economic web! Whether there's honest money or dishonest money, borrowers are always borrowing purchasing-power from savers so it's their responsibility to produce that many goods/services & repay because that way they return the purchasing-power back to the system

Again, every time you borrow, irrespective of the money-system, you're taking purchasing-power from savers, if you don't repay then it costs the savers by way of fewer goods/services, higher prices & lower living-standards while you've gotten stuff at their expense, free or at below market price; banks only get the tiny portion of what you pay them back, most goes back to the savers as increased purchasing-power by reducing the moneysupply which you'd increased when you'd borrowed


+1

All I see is you arguing for the status quo.

That's ok, we all need to observe the rational used to support the current corrupt system, so go right ahead making the case for it.

Oh, and for what it's worth, it matters not one whit to me if anyone forgives my debt, I'm after the system itself.

I'm already on my way out of the game, and I'm not leaving my children with debt, and despite what differences my wife and I have this isn't one of them, so I'm very much in the position of a saver who stands not to gain so much if there were some kind of worldwide debt repudiation, which isn't even what I'm advocating if you'd bother to read what I write, and it would suit me just fine to 'lose' like you are describing.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

All I see is you arguing for the status quo.

All I see is lack of understanding of the economics & where the capital comes for borrowers to buy stuff with

Again - borrowers borrow - new money created & moneysupply increases - savers lose purchasing-power - borrowers buy goods/services with it for themselves - fewer goods/services for savers - so - borrowers should produce goods/services - repay the loan - moneysupply decreases - purchasing-power of savers is returned to them

 

[WilliamC]

All I see is lack of understanding of the economics & where the capital comes for borrowers to buy stuff with

Again - borrowers borrow - new money created & moneysupply increases - savers lose purchasing-power - borrowers buy goods/services with it for themselves - fewer goods/services for savers - so - borrowers should produce goods/services - repay the loan - moneysupply decreases - purchasing-power of savers is returned to them

Start listening at 57 min 30 seconds.



You ignore or belittle the premise that the system itself is deliberately set up to create debt slaves, even if it is via manufactured consent.

You want personal responsibility? Let's start with arresting and trying those responsible for the current corrupt system for the crimes they have committed, and see where the mortgage problem falls out from there eh?

Until then I'll not judge too harshly those who were mislead into some level of excessive debt, even though I fully agree that anyone willfully using the system to take on more debt than they knew they could repay are just as criminally liable as those who knew they were selling a fraudulent product to begin with.