The complexity of money is not apparent to us until we parent a child who asks about it. It doesn’t take long for us to get stuck, not knowing the answer to the child’s questions. What is money? Where does it come from? Where does it go? Where is our money? Does the bank have all our money? What does the bank do with it?
And then the question of why we keep our money at the bank — and how we squirm trying to explain safety to our child without scaring them half to death that a burglar is likely to come in and steal our property and even hurt us.
Now we have entered an era where the safety of banks is largely a myth. This is because the Banks have become our overlords. It is now commonplace for financial institutions to meddle in transactions that have nothing to do with them. Sure they have our money — and they are supposed to keep our money safe and have it available when we need it or want it.
When we want to buy a TV we use a card or check that is a demand on our bank to pay the merchant. It is unthinkable that our bank would demand delivery of the TV — and even worse suing for possession of the TV — showing the fact that they transferred money to the merchant’s bank. In fact, they might argue, you have no right to even bring up the matter in court because you were not part of the transaction between your bank and the merchant’s bank.
The result would be that your bank gets the TV and the merchant’s bank gets the money. The merchant is left with nothing and so are you. Ridiculous, isn’t it? But is it? Both banks can show the transaction between them. They would argue that the burden is on the stupid merchant and the deadbeat depositor who are trying to scam money and a TV out of the Banks. And the Banks, having established brand names and reputations for hundreds of years, might be believed because of their reputation for honesty and conservatism.
They would argue that this was a matter between them. And the merchant’s bank would agree, taking the position that the money they received was their own, so the merchant had no claim to it.
Right now, in court, both banks would be thrown out and sanctioned for making such a ridiculous claim.
The proof would show that you deposited the money in an account and that you bought the TV with a card or check that ordered the bank to pay the merchant. Your deposit contract with the bank clearly spells out those duties. And common sense would not have it any other way.
The merchant would easily prove that the bank’s claim was false. But both you and the merchant would be fighting an uphill battle caused by the false presumptions in the marketplace that Banks can be trusted — indeed many have the word “Trust” in their brand names.
It is hard to imagine how the banks would even dare to take your TV and take the merchant’s money. It is difficult to believe that if they made that claim you would need a lawyer to get what should have been automatic. It is shameful that bank regulators would stand by and let the banks make such claims.
But what would happen if the Courts, relying on the reputations and honesty of banks, actually prevented you from introducing evidence of the real transaction between you and the merchant?
You would have spent money on a TV that the bank now owns.
The merchant would have sold you the TV without any hope of receiving the money unless they sue you for the price of the TV and win.
You might not have enough money to pay for the TV again, since the money you had was already withdrawn from your account once. Too add insult to injury you might be portrayed as a deadbeat and forced into bankruptcy! You can see how this would spiral out of control based upon one simple wrongful assumption: trust in banks.
Yet all of that is true in the world of mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit card loans, health care etc.. The banks have taken the money of depositors and claimed it as their own. Then they have sold mortgage products as if they were the lender. And they bought insurance payable to the bank if there was ever a loss — even though they used the depositor’s money instead of their own money.
And now, after making wild promises to borrowers about the value of the property and the viability of the loans, they are claiming the TV — in this case the homestead of a family, leaving the buyers with nothing and giving the depositors nothing.
They call it foreclosure, but we all know it is outright theft by banks cashing in their reputations. They steal the deposits, they steal the investments made with the money on deposit, they steal the insurance they get when the investments fail, they steal the gains made from payments and trading with the depositor’s money, they steal homes, mortgages, debts of all kinds and leave the consumer without a voice and without money and property that was promised to them by the Banks. The buyer of fake loan products is left without a home and the depositor of money in the bank is left with no money at all or less — all while the banks gleefully report “profits” from trading.
The Torah, Bible and other writings speak of a Jubilee in which every 50 years the deck is reshuffled, everyone gives back what they have accumulated and we start over again. This is what Thomas Jefferson wrote about as well for this country, only he said it should happen every 20 years. He recognized what the sages from long ago understood — that as the rich get entrenched, they get to control the levers of power. That means they make the rules so they can keep their gains whether ill gotten or justly earned.
The Jubilee is intended to be a joyful time for everyone. It is long overdue. Let’s start with the reputation of banks — with all of the lies they have been telling for the last 20 years, their account in the court of public opinion is overdrawn. Being in NSF status they should welcome a return to normalcy and honesty as it would give them a new opportunity to become trusted.
Filed under: foreclosure