Mortgages are illegal?

mrginge

I saw a dog that could say 'sausages' on youtube.

antrobus

TheGonza wrote: »

The reason I call it illegal because it was never a loan in the first place the bank never gave up any money for the property the buyer of the house created the funds so charging intrest for money that fell outof the sky is not a loan thefore should not be suseptable to interest, no money has been loaned.

Fair enough.

But what's the point of waffling on about it on an internet forum? You might as well make practical use of your new found knowledge. Simply buy a house with a mortgage and don't pay it back. Poor old bank won't know what's hit them when you present them with your argument that the mortgage was illegal.

John1993_2

TheGonza wrote: »

i am definatley not a troll and secondly this is very real,
Its hard to get my point across when people already have a beleif system in mortgages themselves thats why I keep asking people to view

youtube/watch?v=fOj_xp2jHl0 so I can show people backing up what i've said

Here at work, in the bank, we can't watch Youtube.

TheGonza

mrginge wrote: »

I saw a dog that could say 'sausages' on youtube.

very funny but becuase youtube is a mass media centre it doesnt take credibility away from noam chomksy videos neither

WTFH

Can't you reply to my post where I explained how it was a loan and that money changed hands?

zagfles

TheGonza wrote: »

i am definatley not a troll and secondly this is very real,
Its hard to get my point across when people already have a beleif system in mortgages themselves thats why I keep asking people to view

youtube/watch?v=fOj_xp2jHl0 so I can show people backing up what i've said

I'm not going to view it because I know exactly what it'll be saying. The usual rubbish about the fractional reserve banking system creating money out of thin air, by people who don't understand the concept of negative numbers.

Let me guess, £1000 of real cash deposited at the bank will result in £100,000 of credits and debits. Er, yes, so what? The sum of all the credits minus the debits will equal the real cash, so nothing is created out of thin air.

SternMusik

TheGonza wrote: »

The reason I call it illegal because it was never a loan in the first place the bank never gave up any money for the property the buyer of the house created the funds so charging intrest for money that fell outof the sky is not a loan thefore should not be suseptable to interest, no money has been loaned.

Your logic is very confused. Commercial banks don't create money from thin air. The central bank does. Commercial banks take deposits from savers, and borrow money from other commercial banks, the central bank and international capital markets in order to lend the money out again for loans, mortgages etc. Of course the bank gives up money if it makes a loan: if you get a mortgage the bank has less funds to lend to other people. You might want to study the balance sheet (i.e. the assets and liabilities) of a commercial bank. Equally in the case of a bank run (where depositors withdraw their money in great numbers) the bank is on a very sticky wicket as it has lent most of the (very real) deposits in the form of loans which might not be recallable.

Following your logic the salary you receive every month is non-existent (paid from your company's bank account into your bank account thus the money doesn't actually exist according to your logic) so you should pay it back because it's illegal.

TheGonza

zagfles wrote: »

I'm not going to view it because I know exactly what it'll be saying. The usual rubbish about the fractional reserve banking system creating money out of thin air, by people who don't understand the concept of negative numbers.

Let me guess, £1000 of real cash deposited at the bank will result in £100,000 of credits and debits. Er, yes, so what? The sum of all the credits minus the debits will equal the real cash, so nothing is created out of thin air.

it has been from my exprience when people take stance such as yours being, not viewing material that goes against there ideas shunning it totally then we would have an endless discussion that would be led by stubborness and not actual rational thought. if you are curious of what I say and you want to disprove it then you must disprove my sources

zagfles

TheGonza wrote: »

it has been from my exprience when people take stance such as yours being, not viewing material that goes against there ideas shunning it totally then we would have an endless discussion that would be led by stubborness and not actual rational thought. if you are curious of what I say and you want to disprove it then you must disprove my sources

Are you trying to get your view rate up :rotfl:I'm not interested in some clueless moron wittering on about banks creating money out of thin air, I've heard it all before and it's bulls**t. Nor am I going to watch any video which proves Elvis is alive, or that we never landed on the moon. Because I've misplaced my tin-foil hat

Let us know when you get your mortgage written off!

antrobus

TheGonza wrote: »

.... if you are curious of what I say and you want to disprove it then you must disprove my sources

Then provide some sources.

Hint: a youtube video is not a 'source'.:)