The law is the law

Manc33

Not much use having the mortgage lenders taking people to court on the basis of nothing. They still have to produce paperwork signed by you to prove you owe them it.

What's to stop me setting up a £20 company on paper and then claiming thousands of people aren't paying me their mortgage money? I can just say "Look they did all get mortgages honest" when I can't show why.

It seems mortgage companies thought decades ago its OK, no one ever asks for a copy of their mortgage agreement so they don't matter, just shred it or whatever. Who knows what happens to them, they don't have the space to store them all maybe, you know how tight they are. Either way, they ain't got it in a lot of cases.

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

Not much use having the mortgage lenders taking people to court on the basis of nothing. They still have to produce paperwork signed by you to prove you owe them it.

What's to stop me setting up a £20 company on paper and then claiming thousands of people aren't paying me their mortgage money? I can just say "Look they did all get mortgages honest" when I can't show why.

It seems mortgage companies thought decades ago its OK, no one ever asks for a copy of their mortgage agreement so they don't matter, just shred it or whatever. Who knows what happens to them, they don't have the space to store them all maybe, you know how tight they are. Either way, they ain't got it in a lot of cases.

I guess what's stopping you is registering the fraudulent mortgage at, say, the land registry? Or do you mean loan?

Manc33

bendertherobot wrote:

Most criminal law is based on statute.

Criminal activity of the unlawful kind only falls under Common Law.

Illegal activity only falls under Statute Law.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Someone borrowing £50,000 to buy a house and having to pay back £150,000 is exactly what usury is.

Oh really.

You borrow £100 from your mate. You agree that you will pay him 10% interest a year. At the end of the year, do you have to repay him £100, or £110, and why?

Manc33 wrote:

Yes, if you write off to your mortgage lender and they cannot provide you with your signed mortgage, they have no lawful basis to be claiming money from you, in any way, shape or form. If they provide that proof, there's no problem.

You and your mate didn't write anything down about this loan. So does that mean you don't have to repay it?

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Most criminal law is based on statute.

Criminal activity of the unlawful kind only falls under Common Law.

Illegal activity only falls under Statute Law.

So, what about the Offences against the Person Act?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Do you have a mortgage?

How is this relevant?

Just answer the question. Yes or no. No need to be evasive. It's not a trap.

Still waiting.

Manc33

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You borrow £100 from your mate. You agree that you will pay him 10% interest a year. At the end of the year, do you have to repay him £100, or £110, and why?

You're talking about a 10% hike. I am talking about a 300% hike.

If you stuck to my example instead of using a played down version of what I said, you'd not owe the mate £110 from borrowing £100 (which sounds like a good deal to me) you'd owe him £300 for borrowing £100. No one in their right mind would do this between mates because the interest is ridiculous.

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You and your mate didn't write anything down about this loan. So does that mean you don't have to repay it?

If it went to court and there's nothing the mate can do to prove you owe him the money, no, you don't have to pay it. Otherwise anyone could say anyone owes them money and successfully get away with it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You borrow £100 from your mate. You agree that you will pay him 10% interest a year. At the end of the year, do you have to repay him £100, or £110, and why?

You're talking about a 10% hike. I am talking about a 300% hike.

If you stuck to my example instead of using a played down version of what I said, you'd not owe the mate £110 from borrowing £100 (which sounds like a good deal to me) you'd owe him £300 for borrowing £100. No one in their right mind would do this between mates because the interest is ridiculous.

A ha. So you're happy with the principle of paying interest on borrowed money. Good. We're making real progress now.

So you borrow £100 at 10% a year, and repay it in 20 years (not an unusual term for a home loan). 10% per annum, not compounded, for 20 years, comes to, errr, £200 in interest. So you have to repay £300. £100 that your borrowed, and £200 in interest for having kept your mate out of his money for 20 years.

Happy with that? Thought so.

Now tell the group why paying £150,000 back on a 20 year £50,000 home loan is a Big Bad Thing.

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

You and your mate didn't write anything down about this loan. So does that mean you don't have to repay it?

If it went to court and there's nothing the mate can do to prove you owe him the money, no, you don't have to pay it. Otherwise anyone could say anyone owes them money and successfully get away with it.

"If it went to court"? Well, it would only go to court if you forced your mate's hand. So we have got as far as the mate asking to be repaid, and you saying no. Then the mate demands to be repaid, and you say no. So he takes you to court. You say to the Judge "he cannot prove that I owe him anything".

And the Judge says "well, that's very interesting, but let's start at the beginning. Do you accept that he lent you £100 or not".

Answer yes - you have to repay. Answer no - you've just lied in court.

Thanks for confirming that you fall into the lying shit group of respondents to that question.

bompington

Manc33 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Ha, Fractional Reserve Lending doesn't exist!

Now please keep your promise.

Its a chore to have to think isn't it, I get that. You could just skim past my posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Like most reasonably well-educated people with a mortgage, a degree, and a responsible job passing on vital knowledge to young people and teaching them how to think, I have a reasonable working knowledge of the banking system, both in how it involves me and in its inner workings.
What’s more - get this! - my degree happens to be in Computer Science, so I have all the necessary skills and knowledge to Google “Fractional Reserve Lending” for myself.

Thankyou for confirming in such a pleasing way that my little joke went right over your head. But I am afraid you are wrong in claiming that thinking is a chore: on the contrary, you have provided an elegantly plenitudinous body of evidence for the proposition that, as long as you are prepared to overlook simple matters like logic and evidence, any fool can do it.

Wunnunda

Veronese68 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I don't live in a house I am orbiting the Earth in a capsule.

That's the most plausible thing you've written in this thread.

Then can we take it as confirmed that he is a space cadet?

pblakeney

Manc33

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

A ha. So you're happy with the principle of paying interest on borrowed money. Good. We're making real progress now.

So you borrow £100 at 10% a year, and repay it in 20 years (not an unusual term for a home loan). 10% per annum, not compounded, for 20 years, comes to, errr, £200 in interest. So you have to repay £300. £100 that your borrowed, and £200 in interest for having kept your mate out of his money for 20 years.

Happy with that? Thought so.

Now tell the group why paying £150,000 back on a 20 year £50,000 home loan is a Big Bad Thing.

Because when banks lend money it is on a fractional reserve basis thus doesn't really exist, I have already told you this over and over again, but you're just ignoring it.

If a mate lent you money, did he conjure it out of nowhere? Didn't think so. He either worked for it or he sold something of his... but whichever way he supplies that money he is paying something tangible out in the real world in order to lend you that money.

Banks just type a number in and it magically means that amount of "money" is in an account. They do this when the "money" they lend you is backed on nothing, which sounds impossible but it happens, under Fractional Reserve Lending. In the UK it is typically 10:1 leverage and in the US they go up to 26:1.

So a dollar in the bank means a US bank can lend out $25 it does not possess. Thats fair. :roll: It is legalized counterfeiting.

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

"If it went to court"? Well, it would only go to court if you forced your mate's hand. So we have got as far as the mate asking to be repaid, and you saying no. Then the mate demands to be repaid, and you say no. So he takes you to court. You say to the Judge "he cannot prove that I owe him anything".

And the Judge says "well, that's very interesting, but let's start at the beginning. Do you accept that he lent you £100 or not".

Answer yes - you have to repay. Answer no - you've just lied in court.

You could lie in court if the prosecution had literally zero evidence, because that's all you'd have to do. You can argue about the morals of that if you want but the fact is the defendant is working off physical evidence and there isn't any. So theoretically he could lie in court, how can anyone prove it is a lie if there's zero evidence?

The judge could probably fine the prosecutor for bringing a case to court that has no evidence to it. No evidence... why is it in court, how is it in court, it can't be.

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Thanks for confirming that you fall into the lying shoot group of respondents to that question.

Right.

Thanks for ignoring Fractional Reserve Lending as if it just doesn't exist.

There's usury, then there's Fractional Reserve Lending. Both are being used together.

Buying one house but paying for three is obviously wrong and it certainly is a "usury" rate of interest.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

A ha. So you're happy with the principle of paying interest on borrowed money. Good. We're making real progress now.

So you borrow £100 at 10% a year, and repay it in 20 years (not an unusual term for a home loan). 10% per annum, not compounded, for 20 years, comes to, errr, £200 in interest. So you have to repay £300. £100 that your borrowed, and £200 in interest for having kept your mate out of his money for 20 years.

Happy with that? Thought so.

Now tell the group why paying £150,000 back on a 20 year £50,000 home loan is a Big Bad Thing.

Because when banks lend money it is on a fractional reserve basis thus doesn't really exist, I have already told you this over and over again, but you're just ignoring it.

<snip>

It is legalized counterfeiting.

Right-o. Now we're rocketing along.

We've established that you don't object to paying interest.

We've established that you don't object to paying an amount of interest which is much more than the principal sum lent.

But your point is that you shouldn't have to repay a bank, because a bank lends money it doesn't have, and that money doesn't exist.

That money - the money that the bank lent you, the money that doesn't exist. What did you do with it? Oh yes, that's right. You used it. You spent it on a house/car/food.

So when the bank comes calling for it, and you "nyah nyah nyah, you can't get me because I don't owe you money that never existed", you're going to have to do some confessing, aren't you? You're going to have to go to the person you have paid that money to, in exchange for a house, or a car, or your weekly food shop, and say "Um, I'm really sorry. I paid you with non-existent money. We can work this out in one of two ways, I can either pay you again with real money, or I can give you your house/car/food back. Which would you prefer?"

You *would* do that, right? Otherwise you'd just be a common thief. You know, of the sort who's caused financial loss to someone. A criminal, of the commonest common law variety...

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

"If it went to court"? Well, it would only go to court if you forced your mate's hand. So we have got as far as the mate asking to be repaid, and you saying no. Then the mate demands to be repaid, and you say no. So he takes you to court. You say to the Judge "he cannot prove that I owe him anything".

And the Judge says "well, that's very interesting, but let's start at the beginning. Do you accept that he lent you £100 or not".

Answer yes - you have to repay. Answer no - you've just lied in court.

You could lie in court if the prosecution had literally zero evidence, because that's all you'd have to do.

Nice. A thief and a perjurer. True colours shining through now.

Manc33 wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Thanks for confirming that you fall into the lying shoot group of respondents to that question.

Right.

Thanks for ignoring Fractional Reserve Lending as if it just doesn't exist.

If it makes a difference, you've stolen someone's house. If it doesn't, you've stolen from the Bank.

So which is to be, my thieving, lying friend? Who exactly have you stolen from?

This Freeman on the Land stuff is really very interesting. It's sort of like a guide on how to be a fraudster by appearing to be utterly bonkers in the head. Sold by, errr, fraudsters, who are bonkers in the head.

Weird.

Manc33

You don't need to look at whom that man paid money to for a house or car or whatever else. What have they got to do with it?

I never said money you eventually end up with isn't real anyway (in that it is at least paper cash we all agree has value). I said the money the bank lent you never existed. You're not lending it to yourself.

The bank created the money on the back of no assets and yet you're now trying to call the person borrowing the money... a thief? Well, he isn't operating on a fractional reserve basis like the bank is, he can't, because he doesn't have a bank licence.

Even now you're still confusing nothing with something. It is right that the money becomes real to the lender because he/she is using their own hard work to pay it back. All of this is sticking to what exists in the real world.

What doesn't exist in the real world is the numbers on a screen they initially "lend" you. They don't need assets therefore it is counterfeiting, which if a member of the public does it, is illegal. What happens to the cash after that point is totally irrelevant.

From what I can gather then it sounds like you're saying just because the lender can spend that money on real world goods or services, we can just allow banks to counterfeit money. Its OK because once it comes out of a cash machine it becomes real money, right?

Wunnunda

The money that comes out of a cash machine has no more intrinsic value (other than the residual value of the paper itself, of course) than the money you are lent by the bank, or the money that you spend using a credit card, or the money that you spend using contactless methods. It's just a matter of trust.

The potential breakdown of that trust is why governments and central banks get so exercised about inflation and genuine counterfeiting. Currently (I believe but may be wrong) anything up to 30% of £1 coins in circulation are fake. At a practical level it doesn't matter since nobody notices (and £1 has little value). However the principle is serious enough that the government has finally been forced to do something about it, at huge expense. It's not the value of the £1 that matters, it's the trust that it is what it's supposed to be.

The idea that money is backed by hard assets ceased to be the case at least 250 years ago.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

at least paper cash we all agree has value

I'm not so sure that is true, have you looked at what it says on paper money recently?

"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of... "

Do you know who is promising this? The bank of England with all their non existent money! Uh oh

pblakeney

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

at least paper cash we all agree has value

I'm not so sure that is true, have you looked at what it says on paper money recently?

"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of... "

Do you know who is promising this? The bank of England with all their non existent money! Uh oh

Pretty much sums up 2008.

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

You could lie in court if the prosecution had literally zero evidence, because that's all you'd have to do. You can argue about the morals of that if you want but the fact is the defendant is working off physical evidence and there isn't any. So theoretically he could lie in court, how can anyone prove it is a lie if there's zero evidence?

Why are the CPS conducting claims in the Civil Small Claims Court?

Kieran_Burns

Manc33 wrote:

I never said money you eventually end up with isn't real anyway (in that it is at least paper cash we all agree has value). I said the money the bank lent you never existed. You're not lending it to yourself.

<snip>

Even now you're still confusing nothing with something. It is right that the money becomes real to the lender because he/she is using their own hard work to pay it back. All of this is sticking to what exists in the real world.

<snip>

From what I can gather then it sounds like you're saying just because the lender can spend that money on real world goods or services, we can just allow banks to counterfeit money. Its OK because once it comes out of a cash machine it becomes real money, right?

Given that 'cash' is a promissory note granted by the bank I believe you're the one getting confused about what is real and what is not. You *really* need to establish some base facts before running off and building a massive structure based on no foundation whatsoever.

I would suggest Cogito ergo sum, but I fear there is little cogito going on with your good self.

orraloon

Chris Bass wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

at least paper cash we all agree has value

I'm not so sure that is true, have you looked at what it says on paper money recently?

"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of... "

Do you know who is promising this? The bank of England with all their non existent money! Uh oh

Manc33, what's your view on cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin? "Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks....nobody owns or controls Bitcoin" (quoted from bitcoin.org).

Good thing? Bad thing?

itboffin

Can anyone lend me a £20 i appear to have left my wallet in the Jag ...

PS. I'll pay you back on Monday :roll:

surrey_commuter

I will take it upon myself to explain mortgage lending to him.

The lender keeps the deeds which means if you bang your head and announce that you have no mortgage with them and will not be paying them anymore money then they will evict you and sell the property.

So imagine you borrow money from a friend to buy a car. This friend has reason to believe that you have the morals of a guttersnipe so registers the car in his name, Lo and behold a year later you announce that he never lent you the money so will not be paying him back as he does not have a signed contract to prove that he did. He shrugs his shoulders pops round with the spare keys and sells the car that he legally owns.

rick_chasey

Manc33 wrote:

You don't need to look at whom that man paid money to for a house or car or whatever else. What have they got to do with it?

I never said money you eventually end up with isn't real anyway (in that it is at least paper cash we all agree has value). I said the money the bank lent you never existed. You're not lending it to yourself.

The bank created the money on the back of no assets and yet you're now trying to call the person borrowing the money... a thief? Well, he isn't operating on a fractional reserve basis like the bank is, he can't, because he doesn't have a bank licence.

Even now you're still confusing nothing with something. It is right that the money becomes real to the lender because he/she is using their own hard work to pay it back. All of this is sticking to what exists in the real world.

What doesn't exist in the real world is the numbers on a screen they initially "lend" you. They don't need assets therefore it is counterfeiting, which if a member of the public does it, is illegal. What happens to the cash after that point is totally irrelevant.

From what I can gather then it sounds like you're saying just because the lender can spend that money on real world goods or services, we can just allow banks to counterfeit money. Its OK because once it comes out of a cash machine it becomes real money, right?

Why is it counterfeiting?

Banks do create money when they lend. That's a given. Anyone who works in finance will tell you that.

In case you're not clear, the definition of counterfeiting is...: Counterfeiting is the practice of manufacturing goods, often of inferior quality, and selling them under a brand name without the brand owner's authorization.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

I said the money the bank lent you never existed.

<snip>

...the money becomes real to the lender because he/she is using their own hard work to pay it back.

You're going to have to run that one by me again.

The money that the bank lends you does not exist.

But you make it exist by using "hard work to pay it back".

You're producing money out of thin air? Is that it? I thought it was just the banks that did that. Now you're saying everyone does it?

Wowzer.

greg66_tri_v2.0

itboffin wrote:

Can anyone lend me a £20 i appear to have left my wallet in the Jag ...

PS. I'll pay you back on Monday :roll:

Just in case anyone is tempted by this, make sure ITB tells you which Monday.

Specifically, the date. And the month. And the year.

And don't be surprised if it turns out that a "cousin" of his, who looks very very much like him, was the one who borrowed the money. He has a lot of cousins like that, I've heard. Might be best to get a fingerprint. Or a retinal scan.

Just sayin'...

bendertherobot

bendertherobot wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

You could lie in court if the prosecution had literally zero evidence, because that's all you'd have to do. You can argue about the morals of that if you want but the fact is the defendant is working off physical evidence and there isn't any. So theoretically he could lie in court, how can anyone prove it is a lie if there's zero evidence?

Why are the CPS conducting claims in the Civil Small Claims Court?

Well?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Do you have a mortgage?

How is this relevant?

Just answer the question. Yes or no. No need to be evasive. It's not a trap.

In your own time. When you're ready.

First.Aspect

I don't suppose its worth pointing out that when banks lend money the money doesn't pop out of nowhere, but is infact borrowed from somewhere else, like a government, or another bank, or Germany?

Pretty sure that the notion that central banks can create money would, however, introduce further confusion to Manc's numpyverse.

rick_chasey

First Aspect wrote:

I don't suppose its worth pointing out that when banks lend money the money doesn't pop out of nowhere, but is infact borrowed from somewhere else, like a government, or another bank, or Germany?

Pretty sure that the notion that central banks can create money would, however, introduce further confusion to Manc's numpyverse.

Banks create money when they lend. That's a given.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicat ... eation.pdf

The first bullet points of that link are as follows:

This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial
banks making loans.
• Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply
as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’
central bank money to create new loans and deposits.
• The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the
central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can
also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.

and

In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank
deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often
misunderstood: the principal way is through commercial
banks making loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it
simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the
borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.

rick_chasey

and let's make things even clearer, by defining money:

money
/ˈmʌni/


noun: money
a current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.
"I counted the money before putting it in my wallet"

synonyms: cash, hard cash, ready money; etc