The law is the law

First.Aspect

Okay, I'm lost. Explain it to a numpty.

rick_chasey

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, I'm lost. Explain it to a numpty.

This does a better job than I can - not the best at explaining stuff.

Essentially when you make a loan, the bank adds a few zeros or whatever to you bank account.

They don't actually give you £100,000 or whatever of bank notes (unless they're a dodgy Swiss private bank....).



http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money- ... ate-money/

First.Aspect

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

Oh, well that's quite a limiting definition these days isn't it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, I'm lost. Explain it to a numpty.

This does a better job than I can - not the best at explaining stuff.

Essentially when you make a loan, the bank adds a few zeros or whatever to you bank account.

They don't actually give you £100,000 or whatever of bank notes (unless they're a dodgy Swiss private bank....).



http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money- ... ate-money/

Not really sure why that matters, TBH, other than as an academic point of interest or a lightning rod for idiot conspiracy theorists. You can spend it in just the same way as folding notes, and if you use it you have to repay it ...

First.Aspect

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, I'm lost. Explain it to a numpty.

Okay, I've done some reading. Holy sh!t.

So let me get this right - the total amount of money is the amount of the bank's assets multiplied by the risk they are willing to take by lending out IOU notes. So if every bank was the RBS ca. 2008, we'd all be fantastically rich, but utterly unable to move any of the money around because the RBS would immediately go bust for failure to be able to pay enough if its IOU notes and all the money would cease to exist.

I think I agree with Manc. I'm popping down to the HSBC to tell them to suck my balls.

rick_chasey

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Okay, I'm lost. Explain it to a numpty.

This does a better job than I can - not the best at explaining stuff.

Essentially when you make a loan, the bank adds a few zeros or whatever to you bank account.

They don't actually give you £100,000 or whatever of bank notes (unless they're a dodgy Swiss private bank....).



http://www.positivemoney.org/how-money- ... ate-money/

Not really sure why that matters, TBH, other than as an academic point of interest or a lightning rod for idiot conspiracy theorists. You can spend it in just the same way as folding notes, and if you use it you have to repay it ...

It was broadly the former tbh.

Somewhere on the thread someone said that banks don't create money when they do.

That was all.

It's hardly like this topic is remotely on topic, so I figured I'd go nuts.

First.Aspect

Rick Chasey wrote:

Somewhere on the thread someone said that banks don't create money when they do.

That was all.

In fairness, it does seem to be a common misconception. :oops:

Okay, I now need to understand why, because the money is created by a bank, rather than say by a bloke with a furnace and a stamp, not paying it back is actually legal. So I'm going to go on a mental journey.

I am going to call myself "Banc33" and start issuing IOUs and thereby create more money. All that would be required is for the rest of the world to understand that I'm good for it.

I learn to my horror that an IOU I received from "Banc32" and which I then gave to this bloke called Dave in exchange for my house, needs to be paid back, and then some. I think, wow this Banc32 fellow is a real tosser.

I could, I suppose, give Banc32 one of my IOUs, so I take a post-it and write "IOU £10" on it. But I'm not sure that they would believe I'm good for it unless its the same IOU he gave me, in which case I've paid him back. After all, he might know that I have a house and Dave has their IOU.

I could give them my house, I suppose, because this bloke Dave seemed to think it was worth about the same as the IOU. But that would mean that Banc32 would own my house, so I'd have to move out. Of course, they let me stay in exchange for paying them back slowly, which is what I'm already doing.

Or, I could get an IOU from someone who Banc32 trusts is good for it. Yeah, this sounds promising. Like another Banc. But wait, then I'd owe the other Banc. Unless its the Bancofmumndad I can't see how that would be any better.

Nope. I've tried really really hard to agree with Manc33 and its damaging my mental health.

Kieran_Burns

So, did this little girl borrow some money - or have I got this argument wrong?

tgotb

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So, did this little girl borrow some money - or have I got this argument wrong?

I think she tried to buy a house and pay with lollipop sticks, but the police had to intervene because the lollipop sticks didn't really exist.

First.Aspect

TGOTB wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So, did this little girl borrow some money - or have I got this argument wrong?

I think she tried to buy a house and pay with lollipop sticks, but the police had to intervene because the lollipop sticks didn't really exist.

But where does the home made lemon tort come in to all of this? Did she try to sell some?

Kieran_Burns

TGOTB wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So, did this little girl borrow some money - or have I got this argument wrong?

I think she tried to buy a house and pay with lollipop sticks, but the police had to intervene because the lollipop sticks didn't really exist.

You mean there are no such things spokey dokes? :shock:

First.Aspect

Manc33 has gone really quiet. I think the bailiffs might have taken his computer, even though he hadn't accepted the terms of their contract.

tgotb

First Aspect wrote:

But where does the home made lemon tort come in to all of this? Did she try to sell some?

How is this relevant?

Kieran_Burns wrote:

You mean there are no such things spokey dokes? :shock:

The suggestion isn't that there's no such thing as lollipop sticks, merely that these particular lollipop sticks didn't exist. There again, maybe no lollipop sticks exist. Or maybe they grow on trees. I don't know, I don't understand legalese.

veronese68

There's one thing that concerns me, shouldn't it be lemon torte?

First.Aspect

Veronese68 wrote:

There's one thing that concerns me, shouldn't it be lemon torte?

It was a deliberate pun. Manc33 was banging on about there being no crime unless a tort had been committed. Based on all of the nasty things he seemed not to regard as being a tort, such as theft, my guess is that he doesn't know much about the subject. Neither do I, but I do know you can have lemon ones.

First.Aspect

TGOTB wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

But where does the home made lemon tort come in to all of this? Did she try to sell some?

How is this relevant?

Kieran_Burns wrote:

You mean there are no such things spokey dokes? :shock:

The suggestion isn't that there's no such thing as lollipop sticks, merely that these particular lollipop sticks didn't exist. There again, maybe no lollipop sticks exist. Or maybe they grow on trees. I don't know, I don't understand legalese.

That's uncanny. You are he.

veronese68

First Aspect wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

There's one thing that concerns me, shouldn't it be lemon torte?

It was a deliberate pun. Manc33 was banging on about there being no crime unless a tort had been committed. Based on all of the nasty things he seemed not to regard as being a tort, such as theft, my guess is that he doesn't know much about the subject. Neither do I, but I do know you can have lemon ones.

I like the lemon ones, at that point I was only thinking with my belly so forgot everything else.

The Rookie

I don't think Manc has heard of the balance of probabilities either....

First.Aspect

The Rookie wrote:

I don't think Manc has heard of the balance of probabilities either....

Stop with the legalese. If I was a lawyer I'd smite you. But I'm not so that means I'm right because someone said so.

[serious] Its scary how much of this sort of thing has in common with religion.[/serious]

The Rookie

Civil cases are decided on a balance of probabilities, so if the judge looks at someone living in a house where the deeds are held by a mortgage company who they happen to have been paying a sum of money to every month for several years, then he can decide on the balance of probabilities (it's more likely than not) they have signed up to a mortgage even if the mortgage company can't produce an application and contract.

Manc33

First Aspect wrote:

Based on all of the nasty things he seemed not to regard as being a tort, such as theft, my guess is that he doesn't know much about the subject.

I randomly pulled out this post and I am being misrepresented as usual. I said "harm or loss" is wrong - where loss to someone means a theft occurred.

Not much point talking to people that misrepresent what I say, but why would you need to do that if there was no validity to it?

All along I have said causing harm or loss is wrong and you're posting "he thinks theft is OK" etc etc. What are you... an orangutan?!

Was it because I said you have no lawful or legal obligation to pay your mortgage in cases where the mortgage lender cannot provide a signed copy of your mortgage agreement? I think you'll find in that case, it is the mortgage lender thieving from the homeowner until some signed paperwork is shown.

The fact that the courts might unlawfully side with the mortgage company in certain cases is irrelevant and is again helping to cause an unlawful financial loss to the homeowner if the signed documentation that would prove the claim has still not been produced.

chris_bass

Drink driving? Should that be illegal? No loss and (probably) no damage

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

Was it because I said you have no lawful or legal obligation to pay your mortgage in cases where the mortgage lender cannot provide a signed copy of your mortgage agreement? I think you'll find in that case, it is the mortgage lender thieving from the homeowner until some signed paperwork is shown.

I think you'll find that you are spouting utter gobshite, from first to last.

Manc33

Chris Bass wrote:

Drink driving? Should that be illegal? No loss and (probably) no damage

It already is illegal. Yes it should be illegal, as a deterrent.

The law however is that harm or loss has to occur, otherwise there cannot be a crime.

It is done this way for the exact purpose of knowing where you stand at all times. The fact that hardly anyone knows this these days has nothing to do with anything. So to pull someone in a car and say something "could" have happened, still doesn't equate to a crime. Everything like this has to be done under statutes, because it isn't lawful to prosecute on a "what if" in Common Law, which trumps Statute Law.

MisterMuncher

Doesn't common law recognise statute law as extant and binding as well, or is that bit conveniently forgotten?

Manc33

MisterMuncher wrote:

Doesn't common law recognise statute law as extant and binding as well, or is that bit conveniently forgotten?

Yes there's nothing unlawful about Statute Law, under Common Law. Its just that no one is educated about Statute Law regarding consent. This is easy to check, by asking people the difference between Common Law and Statute Law, they don't know and don't care, yet are quite happy to support paying out fines for parking "illegally" and so on. Illegally yes, unlawfully... no.

What would a cop would say if someone said to him:

"I agree that this is illegal but I do not agree that it is unlawful"

After he gets pulled without a seat belt on?

You could fine the guy £80 but he didn't cause anyone to lose £80 in the real world so how can he be losing £80 himself? It doesn't add up. Somebody somewhere gets £80 for doing nothing. Its the same with swearing, a word is spoken and someone loses £80? Silly. No criminality, no damage, no theft.

hamish_mctavish

So in your world the drink-driver can use the same "I agree that this is illegal but I do not agree that it is unlawful" formulation and, as long as he says his legalese in the correct order, can and should suffer no sanction as there has been no damage and no theft?

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

The fact that the courts might unlawfully side with the mortgage company in certain cases is irrelevant and is again helping to cause an unlawful financial loss to the homeowner if the signed documentation that would prove the claim has still not been produced.

Yet the Courts, in such case, have based it on contract and equity. You know, common law.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

Doesn't common law recognise statute law as extant and binding as well, or is that bit conveniently forgotten?

Yes there's nothing unlawful about Statute Law, under Common Law. Its just that no one is educated about Statute Law regarding consent. This is easy to check, by asking people the difference between Common Law and Statute Law, they don't know and don't care, yet are quite happy to support paying out fines for parking "illegally" and so on. Illegally yes, unlawfully... no.

What would a cop would say if someone said to him:

"I agree that this is illegal but I do not agree that it is unlawful"

After he gets pulled without a seat belt on?

You could fine the guy £80 but he didn't cause anyone to lose £80 in the real world so how can he be losing £80 himself? It doesn't add up. Somebody somewhere gets £80 for doing nothing. Its the same with swearing, a word is spoken and someone loses £80? Silly. No criminality, no damage, no theft.

Rather than circling back to the nonsense that you started with in order to try to reboot the thread, it would be more productive if you addressed some of the numerous issues and questions that have arisen as it has developed, and that you have shamelessly run away from.

You know, because having participated in this thread you've made a promise with the other posters to engage with them, like a contract, with consent and everything at Common Law. And they are suffering financial loss each time they check for a reply and find you haven't given any. And that's unlawful and illegal. And probably against Statute Law, but that doesn't matter because of Common Law.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Manc33 wrote:

What would a cop would say if someone said to him:

"I agree that this is illegal but I do not agree that it is unlawful"

After he gets pulled without a seat belt on?

"You're under arrest"?