The Immorality of Money Printing and Why It's Driving the World To Socialism

[PetraG]

No, actually, if we are speaking of who actually owns the asset of a home, we need to stick to that goal post for a proper comparison.

If the banks are the de facto owners of a property in 2000, you cannot claim that home ownership on the part of the individual has risen. They may hold the title, but that, in no way, means they actually own the property.

The comparison of actual debt-free ownership between 1940 and 2000 would be telling the real story.

The best figure I can find is 32% have paid off their mortgage as of 2103.

The banks do not set home prices, excepting that they do an assessment to be sure the house would re-sell for a price that won’t leave the bank at a loss if the buyer defaults. The only reason banks are at fault is that they’ll give people enough rope to hang themselves with. They aren’t forcing people to buy more house than they can comfortably afford.

I’m frankly surprised that a third of all houses are paid for.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Only 9% of housing debt was less than 20% of the property value. 15% were in debt to more than what the property was worth.

Again: People do not buy houses that they even intend to pay off. They buy houses that have payments they think they can afford.

That doesn’t amount to “ownership” in any real sense. They do not have sufficient assets to claim real ownership.

Again, a comparison of that reality to 1940 would be much more revealing regarding your claim.

People weren’t more likely to own their own homes back then than they are now.

By “own” we would mean actual debt-free ownership, not the fiction of “on paper” title.

Got comparables?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

No, actually, if we are speaking of who actually owns the asset of a home, we need to stick to that goal post for a proper comparison.

If the banks are the de facto owners of a property in 2000, you cannot claim that home ownership on the part of the individual has risen. They may hold the title, but that, in no way, means they actually own the property.

The comparison of actual debt-free ownership between 1940 and 2000 would be telling the real story.

The best figure I can find is 32% have paid off their mortgage as of 2103.

The banks do not set home prices, excepting that they do an assessment to be sure the house would re-sell for a price that won’t leave the bank at a loss if the buyer defaults. The only reason banks are at fault is that they’ll give people enough rope to hang themselves with. They aren’t forcing people to buy more house than they can comfortably afford.

Not claiming they “set home prices,” although they do greatly influence prices by making money readily available and providing long term mortgages.

If the bank owns the mortgage, it effectively owns some portion of the asset. It would be incorrect to insist that holding a title is the same thing as owning the home, if the bank effectively owns 50% or more of the asset.

 

[PetraG]

That doesn’t amount to “ownership” in any real sense. They do not have sufficient assets to claim real ownership.

This is the bank’s fault? What did you want the banks to do that they’re not doing? Lower the amount they’ll let people borrow? Well, Congress did that. Then Trump got into office and they un-did that.

Yes, un-doing that will raise home prices and lower the average fraction of homes that is paid off, because it allows people to buy more home than they can afford, which drives up bidding even on the same house. You won’t find me arguing with that. I don’t think that has anything like the same effect as people just expecting much bigger houses than they used to expect to have. There just isn’t evidence for that, if you look at the change in average price per square foot and average square footage per house over time. Family sizes are dropping but the square footage per family member has about doubled. That is a consumer demand thing, not something the banks did.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

That doesn’t amount to “ownership” in any real sense. They do not have sufficient assets to claim real ownership.

This is the bank’s fault? What did you want the banks to do that they’re not doing? Lower the amount they’ll let people borrow? Well, Congress did that. Then Trump got into office and they un-did that.

Yes, un-doing that will raise home prices and lower the average fraction of homes that is paid off, because it allows people to buy more home than they can afford, which drives up bidding even on the same house. You won’t find me arguing with that. I don’t think that has anything like the same effect as people just expecting much bigger houses than they used to expect to have. There just isn’t evidence for that, if you look at the change in average price per square foot and average square footage per house over time. Family sizes are dropping but the square footage per family member has about doubled. That is a consumer demand thing, not something the banks did.

This is a red herring. You claimed “People weren’t more likely to own their own homes back then than they are now.”

I am saying that to show that you have to provide data where people actually owned (debt free) their home then as compared to now. The common sense view of OWN means “to have paid for” the asset. Only then can a person be said to actually OWN the home.

This is totally independent of the issues as to why people don’t actually OWN the property they ostensibly have title to. That is irrelevant as regards the meaning of the word OWN.

 

[Rau]

And how did this occur? Not through capitalism, but through crony capitalism where the wealthy began to use, by buying off the political class, political regulation in their favour.

Regulation in their favour, or simply lack of regulation to moderate behavuours. We do well to remember that capitalism needs to be regulated.

The next step is globalism, where national sovereignty is being undermined in order to remove all encumbrances to creating more wealth for those with sufficient wealth to dictate policy.

Globalism and free trade can be beneficial, but in the long term, the most benefit accrues to the most wealthy and best endowed nations.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And how did this occur? Not through capitalism, but through crony capitalism where the wealthy began to use, by buying off the political class, political regulation in their favour.

Regulation in their favour, or simply jack of regulation to moderate behavuours. We do well to remember that capitalism needs to be regulated.

By whom, and for what ends? Politicians who benefit from their cronies? How are the politicians regulated in terms of their vested interests?

By the media? So why the sudden urge to silence one side of the media (independent voices) while giving free and unfettered rein to the side (95+%) owned by large corporate interests?

 

[Rau]

The only reason banks are at fault is that they’ll give people enough rope to hang themselves with. They aren’t forcing people to buy more house than they can comfortably afford.

Banks, and their brokers, have certainly encouraged and/or approved loans beyond the capacity of borrowers to manage - this in jurisdictions that require lenders to properly assess borrowers’ capacity.

 

[Rau]

By whom, and for what ends?

By law, and for the betterment of society as a whole.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

By whom, and for what ends?

By law, and for the betterment of society as a whole.

How is that working for us?

Savings and Loan Crisis: Definition, Cause, Cost

The crisis cost $160 billion. Taxpayers paid $132 billion, and the S&L industry paid the rest. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation paid $20 billion to depositors of failed S&Ls before it went bankrupt. More than 500 S&Ls were insured by state-run funds. Their failures cost $185 million before they collapsed.

Bankers forked out a total of $20 billion , while the rest (~$165 billion in total ) was covered by “We the People.”

Yeah, let’s not keep this “betterment of society” going shall we? This to say nothing of the bailouts of the auto industry which cost taxpayers another $10.2 billion.

 

[Rau]

How is that working for us?

I detect a cynicism or hopelessness in you approach? I’d rather not give up on the west just yet, but changes are necessary.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Presumably the ones in need aren’t working two jobs. Maybe not even one. If there’s just enough work to go around and half the people are doing two jobs to meet their necessities then the other half are out of work. Those are the people you are sharing with.

What a strange conclusion…right now, there’s plenty of work for anyone who wants to work, and wanting to work is key. The system works when everyone does a fair share, and there are no slackers.

It honestly has me scratching my head that anyone who has admitted needing to work two jobs for twenty years to cover the necessities appears to think that it’s a normal state of affairs.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

How is that working for us?

I detect a cynicism or hopelessness in you approach? I’d rather not give up on the west just yet, but changes are necessary.

Not hopeless, just not about to place hope in the same sectors that clearly aren’t working on behalf of the people.

Ergo, quoting from the article…

First, leave your masters and don’t accept their powers anymore, which means today: don’t accept the Fed’s poisoned credit offer.

Second, enter the desert: Live a modest life and take care of your family, the only institution that can reliably provide support in difficult times.

Third, destroy the golden calf: Reject all promises by political parties or the government of paradise on earth in exchange for your taxes. Instead, take responsibility for your own actions and deal with the risks of living together with your family.

 

[Freddy]

I’m frankly surprised that a third of all houses are paid for.

Owner occupied when the mortgage is paid would be more applicable. Which was a shade under 20%. And as mortgages are taken out for around 25-30 years, we are then looking at people who are either at retirement age or close to it. And the perecentage of retired people aged 65 is around 16%.

So we are looking at a small proportion of the population who are still working who have paid off their mortgage. And I think we can assume that they are reasonably well off to be able to do that and could not be considered your ‘average home owner’.

 

[boldlygo]

It honestly has me scratching my head that anyone who has admitted needing to work two jobs for twenty years to cover the necessities appears to think that it’s a normal state of affairs.

I’m a geezer…‘The necessities’ included a mortgage at 11%, helping younger siblings get started, and saving and investing so that we could retire comfortably, young enough to enjoy retirement. It’s called ‘being responsible’.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

We need capitalism, but we need regulated capitalism.
Historically speaking, back when taxes on the rich were in the 90 percent range, when Dwight Eisenhower was president (1950s), the middle class in this country began to grow.
But following the Ronald Reagan years, the extremely wealthy were taxed less and less and the middle class began to diminish.

 

[HarryStotle]

We need capitalism, but we need regulated capitalism.
Historically speaking, back when taxes on the rich were in the 90 percent range, when Dwight Eisenhower was president (1950s), the middle class in this country began to grow.
But following the Ronald Reagan years, the extremely wealthy were taxed less and less and the middle class began to diminish.

Ah, the myth of the 90% tax rate. You likely don’t realize that the effective rate (what the wealthy actually paid) back then was closer to 41%. That isn’t much different than what they pay today at 37%.

Back in the days of high taxes for the rich, there were enough loopholes intentionally left open for them to cut their actual tax rates tremendously. According to Magness, the actual average rate paid by millionaires back then was around 41%. With fewer loopholes available today, the highest tax bracket of 37% is close to what is actually paid by those earning the most money. But what would happen if the high tax rates of the past were combined with the lack of loopholes of today? We’d have an economic collapse that would hit so swiftly, there’s no way Democrats would have time to react.

The bottom line is this: the best producers in America will no longer have an incentive to produce here. Some would leave. Others would simply stop producing. It’s easier for them to reduce their revenue and live off their accumulated riches than to earn money for the government to take. Even at a “more reasonable” 70% tax rate, as proposed by some of the top Democrats today, the increase would be too great for most wealthy Americans to bear. We saw this play out in France. We could see it play out here if the Democrats get their way.
Source: Busted: The myth that old 90% tax rates actually worked

The truth is that when you hike taxes beyond a reasonable share, the wealthy will simply leave the jurisdiction for locales that do not tax at irrational rates. With free trade agreements in place and manifold ways of “investing” money to make it tax exempt, the wealthy can quite easily move money to where it will better serve their ambitions.

Laffer Curve: History and Critique

The problem with simplistic solutions is that they are, well… simplistic.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Obviously another rich person trying to justify more money than he can possibly spend in a lifetime.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

1. 
   You are living in another century.

 

[HarryStotle]

Obviously another rich person trying to justify more money than he can possibly spend in a lifetime.

You have no idea.

I am a retired educator with modest assets, (we own our own home) paid off by hard work and careful budgeting. Even though I am retired and receive pensions into which I have paid all my life (along with some retirement savings,) I still work part time seasonally and rent out part of our house to earn additional income.

We raised three children who are all in professional careers or completed higher level university degrees without accruing any debt.

I just don’t think that the coveting of wealth that is vogue in our current culture will benefit anyone, least of all those most angry about having less of it. The eighth, ninth and tenth commandments are there for a reason.