powder Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Good point Powder. And I really like your avatar by the way. Cat’s rule! But, it doesn’t matter if you’re afraid of grizzly bears. You can’t out run them. But you can grab a spear and stand your ground. If you run your dead, if you fight, at least you have a chance. I agree, the fed isn’t the source of the abuse. The source is the man on the other side of the mirror. thanks, but perhaps my analogy wasn't clear enough. it is very rational to be afraid of a grizzly bear, it is not a good idea to go and pick a fight with one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think it would be great if there was a world-wide tea party event for debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Befree Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 thanks, but perhaps my analogy wasn't clear enough. it is very rational to be afraid of a grizzly bear, it is not a good idea to go and pick a fight with one. I think this sums up my feeling on the subject. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Liberty was the American dream, not money - John Taylor Gatto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think this sums up my feeling on the subject. OK, got it. you did understand the analogy then. that speech is insane - fighting for the freedom to be a scottish countryman, unreal. how did that work out? not too good for braveheart either. I have been called a pacifist, I prefer to think of myself as an empiricist instead - violence, war, and violent revolutions never work to create more freedom, never have, quite the opposite in fact, the evidence is abundant. Liberty was the American dream, not money - John Taylor Gatto Yes, it was the dream of a handful of oligarchs. freedom is our natural state, liberty is that which is granted by the overlords. freedom is not taken from us, we give it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think it would be great if there was a world-wide tea party event for debt. Liberty was the American dream, not money - John Taylor Gatto Oh come on man, I stood up for you with this, don't do this to me now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 It's poetic! haha This is where the JTG quote was from: hold people accountable! - John Taylor Gatto - you are powerful [media[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leevan Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I think it would be great if there was a world-wide tea party event for debt. Taxes are imposed. Debt is voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Cruz Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 "There is no such thing as a free lunch."- Milton Friedman Hi There! Certainly an interesting post, I have read this sort of response being advocated for homeowners that are underwater. The distinction would be that they were borrowing against an asset and not more or less your integrity to repay them for your higher education. Not knowing your personal circumstances I can't definitely say this is a reasonable thing to do. I'd like to address a few things with you; Corruption, Integrity and Outcome. I would not be surprised if everyone active in these forums believes the monetary system/banking system/financial sector are corrupt; I know I do. Despite the fact that they are corrupt I still use the banking sector to purchase a car. Credit that was created into thin air by my signature and at interest for a period of time. I use a credit card to purchase gas. I realize the money is being created the moment I run the card. Sure the Financial System is rigged, but they do still provide services that I need and enjoy. I'd go so far as to say higher education is rigged too! Yet you were more than happy to attend and utilize their services in spite of the corruption right? Integrity-The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness(I love the internet remember having to use a dictionary?). Nothing about this whole scenario seems honest. Monetary System is manipulated, Financial Interests and in this instance Higher Education Institutions "game" the system to maximize costs on you the consumer. Again not knowing your circumstances, you agree to borrow to attend the institution. Assuming you did the whole cap n gown thing here you are repaying what you said you would owe for services rendered. I can imagine its fairly burdensome. Not knowing the severity of your circumstance I can't say it's keeping you from eating or putting a roof over your head. I can say its not honest behavior. At the end of the day it will always be a dishonest act that you performed in the name of civil disobedience. I can also say it's still technically your name on the loan. It's still your credit that is going to become increasingly more worthless. In today's world of Mortgages for 30 years, Car Loans for 6 years, I believe you're still doing yourself a disservice. It's not just here and now but 20 to 30 years from now that this sort of decision can adversely affect you. If the loans are underwritten with Federal Money then you are not just 'sticking it to the man.' In our society the most productive members of society pay the bulk of Uncle Sam's Pillaging. So students who dismiss their federally subsidized student loans are ensuring that someone else is will pay for them, more or less the most productive members of society. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no free lunch, or education, or dodge charger hellcat with 700 hp and looks amazing in white and runs 10's with only racing slicks.... L PS May I ask the name of the doggie! . 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Befree Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 OK, got it. you did understand the analogy then. that speech is insane - fighting for the freedom to be a scottish countryman, unreal. how did that work out? not too good for braveheart either. I have been called a pacifist, I prefer to think of myself as an empiricist instead - violence, war, and violent revolutions never work to create more freedom, never have, quite the opposite in fact, the evidence is abundant. Yes, it was the dream of a handful of oligarchs. freedom is our natural state, liberty is that which is granted by the overlords. freedom is not taken from us, we give it away. If only you could see yourself, little house cat, and truly see that you are a lion. Sorry, you should educate yourself on history. “Violence, war, and violent revolutions” have achieved freedom many times. Like Scottish independence and sovereignty from the brutal occupation of England, which I alluded to in the video, which you called “insane”. Or how about the American revolutionary war, which was very violent. That violence created, arguably, the greatest human experiment of freedom the human race has ever known. History is full of violent revolutions, some leading to tyranny and others to freedom. Like any tool humans have within themselves, it is the intent behind that tool that is virtuous or non-virtuous. Sorry, those people who call you a pacifist are misinformed. The next time they call you that, tell them that you are the opposite. And if you don’t know what to say to clear up their confusion, tell them this: Imagine a world not like the one we live in, but one that is violent. And imagine that in this violent world, in every handbag, there was a 357 magnum and the will to use it. Imagine that tucked under every shirt was a Beretta and a constitution to back it up. And strapped on every ankle a Smith and Wesson Governor and a declaration to the world that this pacifist is willing, at any moment, to have a funeral. And in that violent world, you wouldn’t have to put “blind faith” in the illusion that people share your values of pacifism. The reciprocity of staring down the barrel of a gun would be enough. And ironically, the unintended consequences of this more violent world, is that the world would be far less violent. Funny how that works out. The problem with the world isn’t that it is too violent. The problem with the world is that it’s not violent enough. Ask the Swiss. They love a good fight. The problem is nobody likes to fight them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It's not an issue of seeing yourself as a cat or lion. It's the acceptance that you are mortal. That banging your head on a brick wall might manage your anxiety in the moment, but it doesn't address the problem. Not that a problem has been identified; For all we know, the loan came from his uncle. At the risk of sounding like a fortune cookie: Man who makes conclusion without information not speak truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tritonx Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It's poetic! haha This is where the JTG quote was from: hold people accountable! - John Taylor Gatto - you are powerful Are you serious or really full of yourself? Hold people accountable, what you are doing is the oposite of being accountable. You claim to have high morals and ethic but you haven't shown it yet. If you ever have the chance of opening the books of a bank you will see that it is real people behind it who help grow the economy. Not just some, magic and mirrors printing wealth. It sure get weird at federal level, but on the ground, credit is amongst the best tool we've had to grow as a society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Great post, Lee! Is there ever a circumstance where you personally wouldn't fulfill a commitment based on your own integrity? There is no way to separate yourself from a voluntary agreement with integrity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Befree Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 It's not an issue of seeing yourself as a cat or lion. It's the acceptance that you are mortal. That banging your head on a brick wall might manage your anxiety in the moment, but it doesn't address the problem. Not that a problem has been identified; For all we know, the loan came from his uncle. At the risk of sounding like a fortune cookie: Man who makes conclusion without information not speak truth. Than enlighten me by speaking the truth. Answer the question I asked, for the third time now, and I shall lift your status as “fortune cookie” by conceding to empirical evidence. Did the bank have rightful claim to the money it lent out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If my circumstances change during a long transaction, I re-negotiate... but I'm an old database guy, it's kinda expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentb Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 The U.S. government, and governments around the world can't pay their own debts without massive money printing. The beast is dying. Why poke at it? They're going to inflate away the value of your loan along with all of your paper assets anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted November 26, 2014 Author Share Posted November 26, 2014 The U.S. government, and governments around the world can't pay their own debts without massive money printing. The beast is dying. Why poke at it? They're going to inflate away the value of your loan along with all of your paper assets anyway. That's at least a reason to pay after the currency is inflated , inflation is worst for creditors. I think its a little insane that the currency we are forced to use is almost dead. The going concern of the currency is at risk. The corporations and governments have no expectation of "integrity" beyond shareholder value...why would I give more than that from my position as well. Not paying is merely a hedge in a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cynicist Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I'm curious about the severity of the debt in question. If it were bad enough then I too might want to convince myself that I shouldn't have to pay it. I know it's fun to hate bankers but technically they didn't create the money either, they just get it at really low interest rates from the fed and are allowed to leverage by law. So if you are going to blame them and say you don't have to pay them back because the monetary system is messed up, then I don't see how the same doesn't apply to personal loans too. It's all the same inflated worthless currency. Depending on interest rates you may actually be getting the better deal, since the money they loan you is going to be worth more than what you pay them back with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Befree Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 The U.S. government, and governments around the world can't pay their own debts without massive money printing. The beast is dying. Why poke at it? They're going to inflate away the value of your loan along with all of your paper assets anyway. I agree 100%. But to answer your question, we “should” poke the beast, and here’s why. If we don’t, “they” will continue to use the federal reserve to control the narrative, by choosing when to pop the dollar bubble. And, as the deflationary swings occur, like the small one we are seeing now. They will use that to buy up the real assets at the cheap, while giving the illusion to everybody else that there is a small recovery. Meanwhile, in Russia, they will force Putin to play his hand and drop the dollar. Making all those dollars come home to the US of A, and that will cause a hyperinflation/inflation type scenario, causing everybody to sell stock and loose their minds. Meanwhile, at the stock exchange, they buy everything on the cheap and before anybody realizes the slide of hand, the banks and the people in the know, will own nearly everything. And to make things worse, they will blame it on their enemy, so they can kill two birds with one stone. That’s why we need to control the narrative and cause deflation on our terms. And we cause deflation by not paying our stolen loans. And of course, this is my opinion. I’m sure there are a hundred variables I’m not seeing and it could go many ways. I’m curious to hear how you think it will play out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 If only you could see yourself, little house cat, and truly see that you are a lion. Sorry, you should educate yourself on history. “Violence, war, and violent revolutions” have achieved freedom many times. Like Scottish independence and sovereignty from the brutal occupation of England, which I alluded to in the video, which you called “insane”. Or how about the American revolutionary war, which was very violent. That violence created, arguably, the greatest human experiment of freedom the human race has ever known. History is full of violent revolutions, some leading to tyranny and others to freedom. Like any tool humans have within themselves, it is the intent behind that tool that is virtuous or non-virtuous. I have studied lots of history. scottish independence, really? the greatest experiment in freedom the human race has every know has turned into one of the biggest tyrannies the world has ever seen, simply because people are blind to the root problem - and it isn't about standing up to the beast. At the risk of fogging with another analogy - you don't fight the beast, you starve it to death. None of the violence has worked, less freedom with each passing century and war; what world are you looking at? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellisante35 Posted November 26, 2014 Author Share Posted November 26, 2014 I have studied lots of history. scottish independence, really? the greatest experiment in freedom the human race has every know has turned into one of the biggest tyrannies the world has ever seen, simply because people are blind to the root problem - and it isn't about standing up to the beast. At the risk of fogging with another analogy - you don't fight the beast, you starve it to death. None of the violence has worked, less freedom with each passing century and war; what world are you looking at? Yes! Starve the beast! Join the rebellion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yes! Starve the beast! Join the rebellion! looks like I had better quit with the metaphors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 And we cause deflation by not paying our stolen loans. Can you please elaborate a little on this statement? As far as I know, paying off the loan will cause a deflation in the money supply. Not taking out the loans in the first place is the best possible option if you want to constrain the Leviathan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Befree Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Can you please elaborate a little on this statement? As far as I know, paying off the loan will cause a deflation in the money supply. Not taking out the loans in the first place is the best possible option if you want to constrain the Leviathan. I think this is a question of, do I want to die slow or fast (economically speaking). I’m not sure I want to choose either of those options, but faster seems better. I could be wrong here, but if we starve the beast (by paying the principle on our loans and slowly deflating), it will still lead to a collapse, eventually. Am I right? Because banks/governments are still going to “print” and inflate until we get there eventually. And worse, if we drag it out, the infrastructure we have, will have degraded to the point of being worthless (and more war/state like), when we “do” reset the markets. And that infrastructure includes all the atrophied young workers who are currently clawing desperately to hold on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. The longer we wait, the more zombies we’ll have on our hands later. And that zombie hunger will work it’s way up from the bottom. First the hunger will devour the poor, and then the lower middle class, and then the upper middle class, and so on until eventfully the upper, upper, upper class will be left with all the power in the world. Currency wont matter at that point, we’ll all be willing to hand over our lives to the first dictator who offers us a meal. Or am I wrong? Do you think we can correct the market by paying our loans and just not creating new ones? And if you do, do you think that will stop them from printing and stealing? And if not, aren’t we still going to end up at the inevitable conclusion of hyperinflation, leading to that inevitable deflationary zero? Sorry, if my statement wasn’t clear. When I said “deflation”, I meant the eventual deflationary zero (or collapse to be more clear). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I suppose you could also look at it this way: By paying for education, you've turned something of very-little-to-no value into skills that increase your own value; likewise, if you use fiat currencies to purchase gold/silver/bitcoins/other businesses/means of production/real estate/etc., you'll have value stored (to an extent) outside of the fiat system. (Do as the rich do, no?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I'll add my two cents... First, I'd be very careful messing around with student loans. That, in my opinion is almost as bad as playing around with not paying taxes. If you received value through your transaction then I feel not paying is wrong. However, lets assume that you were promised unrealistic things about your degree, the job opportunities and / or the salary delivered. So if the college made a claim that they would guarantee you a job at a specific salary in exchange for specific performance and payment then I believe you have a claim. I will also assume you did everything you could to excel in your studies and received a 4.0 GPA or damn close. Promises from the school don't have to be in writing, but that would make it easier. You would then make the case that the college failed to deliver it's part and that absolves you of your obligation. In the end, if you could prove they breached their contract then a settlement rather than an all out default would likely be the outcome - i.e. what they did deliver was worth X% of what they promised and you'll pay them a discounted rate. The reality is that you likely were not overtly promised fame and fortune for your degree and you likely didn't get a 4.0 GPA therefor you end up somewhere in the middle and in this environment almost certainly at fault and the collection attempts will be biblical. Now, that covers school, but what about the banks? A few years ago when I learned that banks really didn't loan out Grandma's savings, they instead fabricated the money out of thin air with a few pecks at a keyboard and my promise to pay was the asset on their books that balanced it out I did my best to get my credit card companies to answer my questions. After repeatedly ignoring my I withheld payment in attempts to talk to them through collections. When that didn't work I sent an offer and compromise that they didn't have to answer my question and instead could accept a small fee to consider things settled. Otherwise they could return my check uncashed and answer my questions. They cashed the check and that was it. Well, not entirely, they sold the debt off to a debt buyer whom I informed that the case was settled and sent copies of the settlement agreement and canceled check. Six months later I was contacted by their attorney whom I also sent the same info to. Six months after that, a whole two years after the settlement, I was summons to court. I received a judgment in my favor and that was the end of it. I have not and will not open another credit card account and I have been steadily getting rid of my other debts. Pretty soon I will be rid of my mortgage and other that a couple thousand of student loans I'll be debt free. I do not see any moral problems with what I did as I believe I was prayed upon by the unscrupulous bankers. Once I found it out I tried to confirm, then I settled and have not engaged in debt any more. Now, if I were to get another credit card then I could not make the same claim. I know full well what I'm getting into and feel it would be morally wrong to later decide not to pay. Its also fraud to knowing take out a debt that you don't intend to pay. Defaulting on your student loans will not stop the steam roller, it will only result in you being thrown under it. If you are going to pursue this I would recommend coming from the angle that the college didn't meet it's obligations and go from there. It won't be easy, but you at least have a valid chance. Anything less and you're just whining about having a hang over despite knowing full well that boozing it up all night was likely to result in said hangover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorBlux Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 If you borrowed money stating you would repay it, to not repay it would not be civil disobedience. It wouldn't be civil because theft is the initiation of the use of force and it wouldn't be disobedience since the obligation you're shirking is one you imposed upon yourself. I don't think it's relevant. The funds were loaned because he agreed to the contract. How the lender obtained the funds is of no consequence to the transaction. The lender could have done anything with the funds, but they chose to lend to him. Does theft justify theft? Perhaps. But the means of his theft is actualized and concrete. The means of his lender's alleged theft are questionable. We do not know how the funds were derived. We do not know to what extent they were inappropriately gained. No, I don't see how the funds' origin is of any relevance. What loan? If I give you a twenty and you give me two tens how is that a loan? The bank accepted his note and gave him notes in return. Paper for paper does not a loan make. To collect the purported lender needs to establish harm, some account that was decreased or asset that was given up. However the way banks actually work is that they directly monetize the promissory note through the federal reserve rather than pulling money from their own reserves. So if getting two tens for a twenty doesn't make a loan, why does getting $10,000 of notes for a $10,000 note make any more of a loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agalloch Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 What loan? If I give you a twenty and you give me two tens how is that a loan? The bank accepted his note and gave him notes in return. Paper for paper does not a loan make. To collect the purported lender needs to establish harm, some account that was decreased or asset that was given up. However the way banks actually work is that they directly monetize the promissory note through the federal reserve rather than pulling money from their own reserves. So if getting two tens for a twenty doesn't make a loan, why does getting $10,000 of notes for a $10,000 note make any more of a loan. Where'd you find that definition of a Loan? You made that up to fit the narrative. It's not even a consistent narrative, are you claiming the receivers bank account doesn't gain $10,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVinci Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 This has been an interesting thread. I'm not sure quite how to respond without rambling. I understand that honesty is important and paying back the loan is in his best interest, but I find it odd that so many people are advocating for the repayment of the loan as if we are not drowning in a world built on lies, illusions, mysticism and tyranny. This is clearly not utopia. I think everyone here knows the truth about the world we were all born into, and yet what I hear is, well you consumed the resources of the Matrix, so plug back in and pay your due. It just sounds... off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 as if we are not drowning in a world built on lies, illusions, mysticism and tyranny. "Drowning in a world built on lies, illusions, mysticism, and tyranny" doesn't place us in a separate moral category where theft is moral. OP voluntarily created a positive obligation and refuses to satisfy it. If you try to add to the equation, you're essentially trying to make the prejudice that theft is moral fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorBlux Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Where'd you find that definition of a Loan? You made that up to fit the narrative. It's not even a consistent narrative, are you claiming the receivers bank account doesn't gain $10,000? The bank doesn't lose/give up anything. They've taken a paper from you, traded it for other paper, and then give that other paper to you. To have standing to sue anyone, a plaintiff must present a cause of action to the court. The elements of a cause of action are 1. some loss injury or harm 2. specific to the plaintiff, 3. caused by 4. unlawful action of the defendant. If I take a hundred dollars out of my bank account and you don't repay, I would have cause to sue as could show the debit on an asset, and the contract to pay. The bank however can't or won't show such a debit as that's not how they generate cash for purported loans. They accept the contract to pay (the promissory note) as an asset and credit your deposit account. They don't touch their on-hand reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVinci Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 "Drowning in a world built on lies, illusions, mysticism, and tyranny" doesn't place us in a separate moral category where theft is moral. OP voluntarily created a positive obligation and refuses to satisfy it. If you try to add to the equation, you're essentially trying to make the prejudice that theft is moral fit. It seems the message of this place is a bit mixed based on what you are saying. What I keep hearing from Stef and others here is that the world is built on an illusion. A narrative. A fiction. We are told to see the farm is to leave it. But, you have made "positive obligations", so stay in the farm and pay them or else be immoral. So is leaving the farm just an idea to make me feel good about the state of my life like religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I hope I'm not too far off the mark here, but it sounds like you started a game of Jumanji... So, we recognize that it is a game, a fiction, but now the game will play on even if you don't, and to your peril do you decide to refuse to play. ("In the jungle you must wait, 'til the dice read five or eight.") Similar to the magic circles of divorce courts, it's easier to recommend avoiding the institutions altogether than recommending what to do once you've passed that threshold. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVinci Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I suppose you could compare it to Jumanji in that sense. Maybe Jumanji is just as potent a story as the Matrix for describing the perils of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 you have made "positive obligations", so stay in the farm and pay them Them who? You are assuming that the people he got the loan from are the people subjugating every person in a nation. How can you make such an assumption when we do not know the details of his loan? All we know about it is that he agreed to the terms (so there's no need to put positive obligation into quotes) and he is choosing not to make good on it. Theft. Making assumptions as to the details of the loan is, as I already pointed out, adding to the equation for the purpose of trying to make a prejudice fit. Since this is continuing after being pointed out, it's now not just prejudice, but bigotry. You mentioned "this place," so I should also point out that to try and make a prejudice/bigotry fit while not acknowledging that this is what you are doing is a profound lack of self-knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts