Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[letissier14]

Thanks for the lesson but I'm quite able to understand how money is created.

What I have trouble understanding is how all you experts out there are so good at explaining a system that clearly doesn't work?

The reason why the world is in a financial mess is because we use a system that is based on false premise

Who says it clearly doesn't work? I can go to an ATM almost anywhere on earth and get pieces of paper which I can then within a short distance trade for food, shelter, sustenance, hookers and blow.... or beanie babies

The reason the world is in a financial mess (a premise I don't agree with, but as much as it is) is because governments, companies, people, spend more than they can pay back without making sacrifices that they sometimes later cannot or will not make. The system is not only working but working damn well thank you very much, because outside of Somalia, North Korea and a few other pretty phucked up places, anyone with a few hundred dollars spread out into US Dollars, Euros, Yuan, Yen and Pounds Sterling can buy pretty much anything he needs to survive. And a check written in Kansas to a person in Poland can clear funds within 48 hours of being presented for payment at a bank anywhere in Europe (the bank will freeze it 10 days, but its clear in less than 48 hours)

That sounds like working to me.

You're "not working" isn't the money system, its people's income and payments problems, which is another kettle of tea.

If the system is so great and working so wonderfully well, why are so many banks in financial trouble?

And are banks and government, companies and people not all intertwined by money?

[Gregg]

And with that, we're off the pitch and need to start a new topic.

NO MORE MONEY CREATION stuff here, I am creating a new topic, out of thin air, with a just a few keystrokes, to discuss how money is created...I am going to start it by digging up some past posts, at random, and will eventually get around to moving the posts from here to there, which is going to make the first few pages a jumble, sorry, but the forum will put them in order by date, and the stuff I'm starting with is from a time ago...

So please, do me a favor, and wait 24 hours before coming over and adding to it. I know, hold it in....

Thanks!

[Joinder]

Yes, if you borrow, you repay.
But what if you say, gamble your house and lose ?....you obviously forfeit the house.

Would you expect someone else to pay ?

To a certain extent Tom gambled his house because he believed the freeman woo woo crap. He forfeited his house but instead of expecting someone else to pay.....he thinks that he should be given the house back.

He intentionally made himself homeless. He gambled and lost. He needs to get over it.

Yes, he gambled and lost, taxpayers are not forced to cover his bad debt.
However, his original lender also gambled and lost....billions....... But the taxpayer was forced to stump up billions to repair their balance sheet

[NG3]

Yes, he gambled and lost, taxpayers are not forced to cover his bad debt.

No, but we're forced to pay 100 times more than his bad debt to cover the costs of his antics

[fat frank]

the tax payer is paying for the police, all because of a man and his lies, the tax payer is paying for the court cases, it will also end up paying to protect the new owners from camp Crawford and its supporters

[Joinder]

the tax payer is paying for the police, all because of a man and his lies, the tax payer is paying for the court cases, it will also end up paying to protect the new owners from camp Crawford and its supporters

Yes we are.
However. we will not have austerity imposed upon us, and welfare cuts and job losses because of his shenanigans.

[FatGambit]

Yes, he gambled and lost, taxpayers are not forced to cover his bad debt.

No, but we're forced to pay 100 times more than his bad debt to cover the costs of his antics

Four and a half million for what? 2-3 days of riot control? (I'm being serious, how has this cost been broken down?)

Sounds like the Police is being run like a business.

[fat frank]

the police cost for the eviction was £6,600, I think, its in a FOI

[Joinder]

Yes, he gambled and lost, taxpayers are not forced to cover his bad debt.

No, but we're forced to pay 100 times more than his bad debt to cover the costs of his antics

I doubt its that much, the Bank got its money back and Tom lost the home.
Toms original lender was bailed out by us to the tune of £27 billion.

[FatGambit]

the police cost for the eviction was £6,600, I think, its in a FOI

So how is six and a half grand 100x £42k?
I think I'm missing something here.

[YiamCross]

Yes, he gambled and lost, taxpayers are not forced to cover his bad debt.

No, but we're forced to pay 100 times more than his bad debt to cover the costs of his antics

I doubt its that much, the Bank got its money back and Tom lost the home.
Toms original lender was bailed out by us to the tune of £27 billion.

I doubt the bank has got anything like it's money back and unless Sue's mum's house is worth a few bob with plenty of equity left in it there's very little chance they will.

I personally would not have like to have been around to see what happened if the banks hadn't been bailed out and a collapse of the banking system had followed. Nor would you I expect. Sadly that necessity may have created some injustice but I don't think there's any doubt that the greater good was ultimately served, bitter as the pill may have been to swallow.

[fat frank]

think they give tom a bill for 98k, plus the 55k they sold the house for, remember tom had 2 years of not paying any interest on it, plus the security costs, court costs,

[Joinder]

No, but we're forced to pay 100 times more than his bad debt to cover the costs of his antics

I doubt its that much, the Bank got its money back and Tom lost the home.
Toms original lender was bailed out by us to the tune of £27 billion.

I doubt the bank has got anything like it's money back and unless Sue's mum's house is worth a few bob with plenty of equity left in it there's very little chance they will.

I personally would not have like to have been around to see what happened if the banks hadn't been bailed out and a collapse of the banking system had followed. Nor would you I expect. Sadly that necessity may have created some injustice but I don't think there's any doubt that the greater good was ultimately served, bitter as the pill may have been to swallow.

You are probably correct.
The thing that's puzzled me is that we were forever being told that you can't just print money, it would cause massive inflation , yet we have poured billions into the banking sector, and then further billions in Q.Easing, but inflation and interest rates stay at historical lows.
And all that money has had no benefit to any of us, except to repair balance sheets.

[wanglepin]

Well it's off to court tomorrow for the silly hat six. I hope this doesn't affect any decisions concerning the outcome.

[/quote]
Would it be too late for the police to add this incitement to the charges? Or would that come as a separate charge?[/quote]

[Bones]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 60#p426956

Re: New Group looking into mortgage securitisation

Postby Ybs » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:07 am
Hi, All
Just to let you know that Mr Guy Taylor and Mr Tom Crawford will be speaking at the meeting as well
so it looks like a very good line up!.

A good line up for a pub crawl may be but not much else

[PeanutGallery]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 60#p426956

A good line up for a pub crawl may be but not much else

I doubt it, I mean neither are likely to be especially flush, which means they won't be getting their share of rounds in.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Do any of the Nottingham Massive on this forum know if the usual suspects are Guy Fawkes'ing it in the town tonight?

[YiamCross]

The thing that's puzzled me is that we were forever being told that you can't just print money, it would cause massive inflation , yet we have poured billions into the banking sector, and then further billions in Q.Easing, but inflation and interest rates stay at historical lows.

I suppose this really belongs on the money supply thread now but since I'm here. If only it were that simple. Sure, if the banks really could just produce money by tapping a few keys then our national currencies would quickly achieve parity with the Re where they would not have sufficient value to buy the paper they're printed on. Quantitative easing is, as best I can understand it, a kind of trick to produce new money from nothing without simply printing it and putting it into circulation.

We are teetering on the edge of deflation, which sounds pretty cool with prices going down but what that means is no one will spend unless they have to so they keep their money in the bank and industry dies. Stagnation, or stagflation as the pundits like to call it. Low interest rates encourage those with money to do something with it rather than leave it laying around in banks chalking up interest. I believe I read recently that there's negative interest somewhere, that's where the bank charges you to keep money in your account which is simple spend it or lose it. Putting money into the system even when it doesn't all prime production as intended does keep things moving so money gets spent, people have jobs, they have money, they spend it. The merry go round keeps going around.

And all that money has had no benefit to any of us, except to repair balance sheets.

It's not gone quite the way it was intended but these things never do. I would contend that all that money has produced huge benefits for us because if the banking system had collapsed, and we all know that it only exists because we believe it does, then the world would quite literally have descended into the kind of chaos beyond the imagination of the most distopian fiction writers. Walking Dead? where do they always find gas and food and ammo for their guns? It would be far more medieval if it ever happened, the world would quite likely belong to the preppers.

Sound like fun to you? Not to me, so while we can never prove the trillions it cost to shore up the system is all there was between us and Armageddon I think there's a strong chance it is so and I think that was the bargain of the century.

[grixit]

It's probably safe to assume that in the den of government shill trolls that your super secret PMs to other secret rebel freedom fighters are subject to unreasonable search and seizure with the delicacy of a TSA full cavity examination. Papers please.

Or perhaps nobody really cares what you post in private to others.

Indeed, my posts are so inconsequential that dozens have been deleted so outsiders, Tom, GOODF can't read them.
We have to maintain the vision of perfect harmony over here.... No dissent tolerated.

Bag it. You have been here long enough to know we tolerate plenty of dissent. Just not abuse. That's the only thing that'll get a post deleted. Even severely off topic posts tend to get moved.

Banter is allowed, subject to moderator whim.

And it takes an extraordinary amount of effort to get fully banned. Indeed there have been fewer than 20 people banned in the entire history of Quatloos. How do those other places stack up?

What is really easy, as we were reminded recently, is we all have the ability to ban someone from our own reading. That is to say, put them on ignore. AKA the amish death penalty. To get that you just have to be tedeous and annoying.

Which is where you're headed.

You want to engage, we'll engage. But bring something substantial, not this petty sniping.

[grixit]

RE: sub prime loans in amerca

they was giving people mortgage in America who didn't work, then moaned when they didn't pay it back,

I once had a long (but friendly) argument with a former Vice-President of a US Bank who insisted that it was the US Government that insisted that banks make these loans and that securitisation was just the banks trying to protect themselves. He insisted that very few people made any money out of the process. Mind you we were having dinner on this at the time ...


... where he was just going round the two week Caribbean cruise for the third time on the bounce!

The hell? 5 masts of 5 rectangular sails each, plus at least 5 triangular sails-- that's a galleon pretending to be a schooner, but apparently being used as a yacht. How many crew does it take?