Debt As A Weapon

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hello cawacko,



The secret to wealth is home ownership. By helping the poor with child care for instance, it allows them to work and earn, build credit, qualify for a mortgage.

Vote for Build Back Better and that is what we will do.

Voting for Republicans only increases wealth inequality, stifles the economy.

Home ownership isn't really the secret to wealth. Rather home ownership with a traditional mortgage acted as a savings plan. Every time one made their mortgage payment some of that money was going toward equity on the house. They didn't have to think about saving. It was built into the mortgage. Some of the new mortgage instruments no longer act as a savings plan. An interest only loan is a speculative instrument. You only make money if the value of the home increases.

Ultimately the secret to wealth is to save money. Either on your own in a some way where you don't have to think about it because it happens automatically. The real problem is the inability of so many people to save on their own. They don't have the financial education to understand how the financial system works. They buy into the consumerism fallacy where they want to live for today and end up living beyond their means. That is where debt becomes a weapon. Companies and the unscrupulous prey upon the financially naive. The plan to require an opt out on 401K plans would go a long way toward helping a lot of people build wealth. It's too complicated for many to think about it so they would just let that money be taken out of their check and they would never notice it in their day to day life.

What government should be doing is helping people become wealthy. Instead government often makes it difficult and enables those that would steal from those that are trying to get ahead. In the 1970's South Dakota had usury laws that restricted the interest that could be charged. They repealed that in the early 80's in order to attract all those credit card companies that could suddenly charge 20-25% interest if based in SD. While it may have brought a lot of low paying jobs to SD for debt collecting it ended up harming a lot of people across the country.

Ultimately debt is a tool for those that understand it but a weapon to be used against those that don't understand it. The problem is when the tool is used to harm others.

 

[cawacko]

Home ownership isn't really the secret to wealth. Rather home ownership with a traditional mortgage acted as a savings plan. Every time one made their mortgage payment some of that money was going toward equity on the house. They didn't have to think about saving. It was built into the mortgage. Some of the new mortgage instruments no longer act as a savings plan. An interest only loan is a speculative instrument. You only make money if the value of the home increases.

Ultimately the secret to wealth is to save money. Either on your own in a some way where you don't have to think about it because it happens automatically. The real problem is the inability of so many people to save on their own. They don't have the financial education to understand how the financial system works. They buy into the consumerism fallacy where they want to live for today and end up living beyond their means. That is where debt becomes a weapon. Companies and the unscrupulous prey upon the financially naive. The plan to require an opt out on 401K plans would go a long way toward helping a lot of people build wealth. It's too complicated for many to think about it so they would just let that money be taken out of their check and they would never notice it in their day to day life.

What government should be doing is helping people become wealthy. Instead government often makes it difficult and enables those that would steal from those that are trying to get ahead. In the 1970's South Dakota had usury laws that restricted the interest that could be charged. They repealed that in the early 80's in order to attract all those credit card companies that could suddenly charge 20-25% interest if based in SD. While it may have brought a lot of low paying jobs to SD for debt collecting it ended up harming a lot of people across the country.

Ultimately debt is a tool for those that understand it but a weapon to be used against those that don't understand it. The problem is when the tool is used to harm others.

You bring up some interesting points. The argument was made earlier that we need more consumption for our economy to grow and that the rich don't consume (spend) enough thus why we should tax them more and distribute it to those who will spend. But if the person making that argument is also complaining about inequality how can one increase their net worth if all they do is consume? You can redistribute money to me and I can have a nicer car, better electronics, a few nicer meals etc. but that isn't increasing the bottom line of my personal balance sheet. That whole mindset for the economy is saving = bad; consumption = good. It's basically the opposite of The Millionaire Next Door and the idea of living below your means, watching your spending and making yourself save. That's almost frowned upon.

 

[Scut Farkus]

I was listening to Podcast #104 on Ben Franklin's World. Awesome website, btw. There is a new episode every week! They are all about early American history. Fascinating...

This episode was about the original interface between Europeans and Native Americans along the salt water coasts of New England.

I never knew the Native Americans had large sailing canoes capable of carrying 40 people! The invaders made quick work of them with cannons before driving the Natives from the coast. But a lot of trading also happened, each side learning what the other was interested in. The Europeans wanted furs, fish and lumber. The Native Americans wanted beads, knives, mirrors.

I was very surprised to learn that a sort of debt system emerged. "I'll give you this if you do that for me when you get the chance."

Whaling emerged because everyone saw the benefit of oil. The knowledge of whales was known to the Native Americans. The Europeans learned how to exploit it for profit. The Native Americans would use every part of whales that beached, but never set to sea to hunt them until the English and Dutch brought advanced seafaring technology. Together, whaling was invented. Early 17th Century whaling ships had crews of largely Native Americans.

Got me to thinking about debt. Debt is used as a weapon to force others to do things which benefit the loaner. Either do work directly for the loaner, or in order to earn profits to be paid back.

That system is still in place, except now the biggest egregious example is the super-rich who finance everything for everyone else, to their benefit. It makes them richer, giving them even more power over others.

The entire middle to lower middle class of America is pretty much in debt to the rich. This forces them to work like dogs, forgo family life, remain committed to earning and production.

Debt is really a soft form of slavery. Maybe that's why Muslims hate it.

The main weapon in the American Class War is debt.

Lately, in the pandemic, people are asking: "What is freedom?"

What does freedom mean? Freedom to make up your own pandemic response?

Well, this podcast made me realize what freedom really is.

Freedom is freedom from debt.

Being in debt is like an ankle iron with a big Iron Ball. Or perhaps like an ankle monitor, these days.

The super-rich have freedom. (mostly) Some of them are over-extended, and do not know freedom. (The king of debt?)

And many in the middle actually have freedom. People who get all their stuff paid off. House, cars, possessions, everything. That's freedom.

And even some homeless people have freedom! (not that their form of it is very desirable.)

I hope you find your own form of freedom.

yes. and fiat currency means infinite debt creation, and infinite power.

fiat currency is the lynchpin in the globalist control system.

 

[Stringfellow Hawk]

Government debt is a tool. Personal debt is a weapon. Debt is the single reason that the wage/wealth gap got so large without anyone paying attention. In the 1980's credit flowed like water and regulations on lenders disappeared. This was the perfect opportunity for the wealthy to get huge tax breaks while working class stiffs bought everything in site and built up huge credit card debt. Rome had bread and circuses. We had chicken wings and football. When the credit cards were maxed out, the rich said 'hey, no worries, just pay us back by borrowing against your home'. By doing so they pushed the day of reckoning further into the future. In 2008, the entire house of cards collapsed, but by that time, the rich had created such an enormous wealth gap that they hardly felt the impact.

Republicans cheered on this entire process. It has crippled the country.

Republicans pay shit off, Democrats spend money they don't have then cry foul. Democrats are their own worst enemies

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

I’m going to make this partisan, but it’s also true, if home ownership is the key to wealth why do I want to vote for people for whom NIMBYism is practically a religion?

It is due to prejudice and looking for a reason to support your side. Thinking that NIMBYism only exists on one side of the political spectrum is an opinion which is unsupported.

If I vote against my own interests by voting Republican, how does it benefit me to vote for people who prevent new supply and thus work to increase values for already well to do homeowners making it more difficult for me to have the opportunity to purchase?

That is a regional issue. There are plenty of very affordable homes in other parts of the country. And besides. I hope you don't really believe that a growing metro area is going to see home prices do anything but rise. Trying to pin that on one party or the other is definitely partisan.

If everyone votes Democratic, then we Build Back Better. We get more programs, more opportunity, more jobs, more wealth in the hands of more people, more consumer demand, more business to meet that demand, more jobs, more wealth spread around the economy, thus a healthier economy and more options for everyone.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello evince,

And a buying opportunity for those rich enough to weather it



The wealthy LOVE a boom and bust cycle


It’s why they keep helping create it

And for those who become bonded to their debt obligations it becomes weaponized by the lender.

It was a trick question. Debt is both a tool and a weapon, depending on how it is used.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



It is due to prejudice and looking for a reason to support your side. Thinking that NIMBYism only exists on one side of the political spectrum is an opinion which is unsupported.



That is a regional issue. There are plenty of very affordable homes in other parts of the country. And besides. I hope you don't really believe that a growing metro area is going to see home prices do anything but rise. Trying to pin that on one party or the other is definitely partisan.

If everyone votes Democratic, then we Build Back Better. We get more programs, more opportunity, more jobs, more wealth in the hands of more people, more consumer demand, more business to meet that demand, more jobs, more wealth spread around the economy, thus a healthier economy and more options for everyone.

It's not there are no right-wing NIMBYs but look at progressive view towards development in a conservative state like Texas (outside of Austin) vs California.

I understand the conundrum, you don't want to knock Democrats but you understand their policy on housing is to the benefit of the well to do so its a conundrum.

 

[evince]

Hello evince,



And for those who become bonded to their debt obligations it becomes weaponized by the lender.

It was a trick question. Debt is both a tool and a weapon, depending on how it is used.

Yes the intent of the user

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

You bring up some interesting points. The argument was made earlier that we need more consumption for our economy to grow and that the rich don't consume (spend) enough thus why we should tax them more and distribute it to those who will spend. But if the person making that argument is also complaining about inequality how can one increase their net worth if all they do is consume? You can redistribute money to me and I can have a nicer car, better electronics, a few nicer meals etc. but that isn't increasing the bottom line of my personal balance sheet. That whole mindset for the economy is saving = bad; consumption = good. It's basically the opposite of The Millionaire Next Door and the idea of living below your means, watching your spending and making yourself save. That's almost frowned upon.

The government isn't telling people to spend above their means. That's capitalism doing that. Democrats would like to empower the government to help people to not only afford the things they need but to have a little extra discretionary money. For a given population, some are going to spend for the day, others will put some away. Better education will increase the percentage of the people who will use wealth wisely.

Overall, when the government helps the general public to afford things, and some save. The more government helps, the more saving there will be.

The economy needs a combination of saving and spending. The general public with more discretionary wealth in their hands will provide what the economy needs.

Better government regulation of the market will reign in the over zealous marketers, reduce predatory capitalism such as unregulated social media thriving on sensationalism to the detriment and disregard of teen girls who are killing themselves and feeling badly because they are bullied 24-7 about their appearance. All to get more volume, present more ads, to try to get people to buy things they do not need nor really want until the desire is 'sold' to them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Is debt a weapon or a tool?

It can be either. Anything can be weaponized and mankind is very adept as a tool-user.

Let's not forget that most debt is incurred freely.

Two college students.

Student A racks up $200,000 college debt attending a four year University for a business degree.

Student B lives at home, works part time, attending community college then a city university from home and ends up with a $10,000 debt for the same degree from an equally accredited college.

Is it fair to Student B to have US taxpayers pay the debt of both Student A and Student B?

What kind of message does that send?

IMO, We the People are better served if the Federal government focused upon making education cheaper and more accessible to all rather than finding new ways to spend taxpayer money.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

It's not there are no right-wing NIMBYs but look at progressive view towards development in a conservative state like Texas (outside of Austin) vs California.

I understand the conundrum, you don't want to knock Democrats but you understand their policy on housing is to the benefit of the well to do so its a conundrum.

I disagree. I believe Democrats seek to increase home ownership. I am perplexed why you think they favor limiting supply. Is that a San Francisco thing?

Conversely, Republicans support the super-rich who are causing market melt-downs, limiting the size and scope of government programs, which squeezes people out of owned homes and into rentals which are the new emerging market for the Republican super-rich.

Democrats support government assisted day care which allows couples to work and earn more, stay in homes. This increases home ownership, thus increasing wealth. The number one vehicle to family wealth is home ownership. People in rentals have a more difficult time building wealth. Rent is thrown away. Mortgage payments are buying a valuable asset.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch Uncle,

It can be either. Anything can be weaponized and mankind is very adept as a tool-user.

Let's not forget that most debt is incurred freely.

Two college students.

Student A racks up $200,000 college debt attending a four year University for a business degree.

Student B lives at home, works part time, attending community college then a city university from home and ends up with a $10,000 debt for the same degree from an equally accredited college.

Is it fair to Student B to have US taxpayers pay the debt of both Student A and Student B?

What kind of message does that send?

IMO, We the People are better served if the Federal government focused upon making education cheaper and more accessible to all rather than finding new ways to spend taxpayer money.

It would be desirable to have government-run colleges which provide an adequate degree for free tuition to those who get the grades to cut it. Any who seek a name-drop school diploma are free to pay for it.

The government should also run free tuition trade schools for certifications in lucrative non-college trades, once again, available only to those who qualify. (Basically, you show up. You don't flunk out or cause trouble. You are able to pass tests on the required material.)

Trying to make money off the general population just seeking the education or certification to work is the wrong place to be trying to profit. The nation will do better when these people are given what they need to enter the workforce ASAP.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You bring up some interesting points. The argument was made earlier that we need more consumption for our economy to grow and that the rich don't consume (spend) enough thus why we should tax them more and distribute it to those who will spend. But if the person making that argument is also complaining about inequality how can one increase their net worth if all they do is consume? You can redistribute money to me and I can have a nicer car, better electronics, a few nicer meals etc. but that isn't increasing the bottom line of my personal balance sheet. That whole mindset for the economy is saving = bad; consumption = good. It's basically the opposite of The Millionaire Next Door and the idea of living below your means, watching your spending and making yourself save. That's almost frowned upon.

It shouldn't be giving people money but taxing to create opportunities for workers. Mostly R&D but also infrastructure, which is been around for 20 years now.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



I disagree. I believe Democrats seek to increase home ownership. I am perplexed why you think they favor limiting supply. Is that a San Francisco thing?

Conversely, Republicans support the super-rich who are causing market melt-downs, limiting the size and scope of government programs, which squeezes people out of owned homes and into rentals which are the new emerging market for the Republican super-rich.

Democrats support government assisted day care which allows couples to work and earn more, stay in homes. This increases home ownership, thus increasing wealth. The number one vehicle to family wealth is home ownership. People in rentals have a more difficult time building wealth. Rent is thrown away. Mortgage payments are buying a valuable asset.

I know this because I live in California and work in the real estate industry. And it's not just unique to California. Many of the big coastal cities suffer the same fate (as does Austin).

When you take a strictly partisan position like you do it's a conundrum because the positions you claim your party advocates are in direct contrast. Every now and then, it is ok to step back and look at the big picture and say maybe my political party isn't perfect and acknowledge there are areas where you disagree or they fall short.

 

[zymurgy]

Government debt is a tool. Personal debt is a weapon. Debt is the single reason that the wage/wealth gap got so large without anyone paying attention. In the 1980's credit flowed like water and regulations on lenders disappeared. This was the perfect opportunity for the wealthy to get huge tax breaks while working class stiffs bought everything in site and built up huge credit card debt. Rome had bread and circuses. We had chicken wings and football. When the credit cards were maxed out, the rich said 'hey, no worries, just pay us back by borrowing against your home'. By doing so they pushed the day of reckoning further into the future. In 2008, the entire house of cards collapsed, but by that time, the rich had created such an enormous wealth gap that they hardly felt the impact.

Republicans cheered on this entire process. It has crippled the country.

your revisionist history is hilarious

debt is the engine of our economic system. Democrats brought this to us. We removed sound money and replaced it with debt. We no longer must save to spend, we borrow and spend.

If we ever see our consumption slow, we panic, miassivley expand our supply of money, and we reinflate the bubble. and yes, the rich and powerful benefit the most when we do this

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch Uncle,



It would be desirable to have government-run colleges which provide an adequate degree for free tuition to those who get the grades to cut it. Any who seek a name-drop school diploma are free to pay for it.

The government should also run free tuition trade schools for certifications in lucrative non-college trades, once again, available only to those who qualify. (Basically, you show up. You don't flunk out or cause trouble. You are able to pass tests on the required material.)

Agreed. Why not set up a government online university with testing stations in most cities? In some cases labs or onsite application classes would be held. Reducing the cost of textbooks, room & board removes a major cost of college.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

your revisionist history is hilarious

debt is the engine of our economic system. Democrats brought this to us. We removed sound money and replaced it with debt. We no longer must save to spend, we borrow and spend.

If we ever see our consumption slow, we panic, miassivley expand our supply of money, and we reinflate the bubble.

Why do you think the Democrats did this? If businessmen were against it, why didn't the Republicans do something?

IMO it's more like a feeding frenzy between the greedy rich and the greedy poor to see who can rob the treasury the most before it stops.

 

[zymurgy]

Why do you think the Democrats did this? If businessmen were against it, why didn't the Republicans do something?

IMO it's more like a feeding frenzy between the greedy rich and the greedy poor to see who can rob the treasury the most before it stops.

democrats are constantly fooled. they pushed for this primarily to "soak the rich". they co0ntinue to give the rich more power, thinking they will benefit. just dumb voters

 

[Dutch Uncle]

democrats are constantly fooled. they pushed for this primarily to "soak the rich". they co0ntinue to give the rich more power, thinking they will benefit. just dumb voters

Then you agree the rich have too much power. Do you think they have too much power or should they be allowed to take over government?

 

[Concart]

Hello cawacko,



The government isn't telling people to spend above their means. That's capitalism doing that. Democrats would like to empower the government to help people to not only afford the things they need but to have a little extra discretionary money. For a given population, some are going to spend for the day, others will put some away. Better education will increase the percentage of the people who will use wealth wisely.

Overall, when the government helps the general public to afford things, and some save. The more government helps, the more saving there will be.

The economy needs a combination of saving and spending. The general public with more discretionary wealth in their hands will provide what the economy needs.

Better government regulation of the market will reign in the over zealous marketers, reduce predatory capitalism such as unregulated social media thriving on sensationalism to the detriment and disregard of teen girls who are killing themselves and feeling badly because they are bullied 24-7 about their appearance. All to get more volume, present more ads, to try to get people to buy things they do not need nor really want until the desire is 'sold' to them.

I agree it isn't the government doing it. But one party is an enabler, the other is not. I'm not a big 'team' guy, but that is undeniable.