Stinking, greasy cog in a soulless and corrupt machine

[mbarrick]

So I got a call from the Student Loan Nazi's today. In all the years I have been faithfully paying back this debt I have never had the same cubicle monkey twice. The stinking, greasy cog in the soulless and corrupt machine du jour was one Chad Manning, "Collector Assistant Supervisor" (or "Super Ass" for short). From the word go he took a condescending tone with me that immediately raised my hackles. In the course of trying to pay back this loan I have been lied to by the banks and subsequently had my loan defaulted through no fault of my own (I even still have all the correspondence to prove it was their error, not mine - not that it is of any use at all). Thereafter I have been harrassed, threatened and lied to by the American owned collection agency that has the exclusive contract to collect on the Canadian government's debt (and pocket a whopping 20% in the case of student loans, per the Cananda Student Loans Act). I've had them reneg on agreements, fail to follow instructions, and even process post-dated cheques ahead of the date they were written for. I'm sick of explaining my life to an endless parade of Edmontonian hicks. Given what I expect to not get back as a tax return this year should pretty much, if not completely, elimitate what's left of this loan I have it in mind to give my new pal Chad (I wonder if he is any relation to Preston?) Manning a call and express my heart-felt opinion of him and his profession.

Student loans should be abolished, as should consumer credit, and even credit on a whole. Credit just artifically inflates prices and further floats along an untimately untenable system. Do you think a "starter" home in Vancouver would go for $250,000 if people actually had to pay up front for it? Without credit you would see apartments selling for $10,000, houses for $20,000, new cars for maybe $2,500 or so... The average North American has about a $15,000 USD credit card debt alone, let alone student loans and mortgages. And while they wallow in their debt they go ahead and do things like "invest" in "ethical funds" and think they are being smart and good. I don't care whose stock one buys into, it's just feeding an even more fucked-up part of the same fucked-up system. Those stocks are effectivly loans to companies. Public companies operate with a mind to feeding the debt they owe to their stockholders, not with a mind of actually producing any real wealth. That's all it comes down to: produce more than you consume.

I'm 35 years old and my fondest financial wish right now is to have, on paper, $0. No loans, no credit card balances, no money in the bank. From that point on my money is entirely my own business.

Comments

[seymour-glass.livejournal.com]

i agree about the abolition of debt...i was there about two years ago, not owing anyone, paying for everything with cash...i'm not in a bad way, and much better of than most, but still i wish i was back there...it is true that our entire society is run on debt...corporate debt has never been higher in history, and while they were harping on governments to pay off their deficits because they "were out of control" they just kept piling up their own...mergers have made it even worse, because often profitable companies are sold off, and the corporation that buys them rolls the money they borrowed to buy them into that companies bottom line often rendering them unprofitable and reducing their staff, selling them again, or folding them up and moving them to mexico...and stocks are artifically inflated anyways, as their price in no way reflects their value...there will come a day when this house of cards will come crumbling down and it will be interesting as i'm sure it would make the great depression look petty in comparison...but that may not be in our lifetimes...they should also go back to the system in which banks could only lend out what they held in deposits...for they have fueled this massive debt load which plagues our society...then corporations would have to be accountable for their actions and spending...and money wouldn't be lent to just anyone who asked...we can dream, but this system won't change unless it collapses...as our society doesn't fix anything until it completely collapses...

[mediavictim.livejournal.com]

I say we just call the whole thing off ....

Erase the debt record .. clean slate for everyone.
Consumers,Companies,Countries.

Consider that EVERYONE is in debt .. and No-one
can get ahead becuse a portion of their income
goes to interest alone. And this money is a loss
to society because NO-ONE is getting rich off it.
and it cannot get re-invested into economies.

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't that be nice.

Here's a little reductive example of why credit-based money is inherently flawed:

100 people live on an island. They all have professions of some sort, carpenter, farmer, tailor, etc. Initially they get on just fine by trading value for value, i.e. the farmer gets new pants from the tailor in exchange for a chicken. Unfortunately the situation soon arises where the farmer needs his chicken coop fixed by the carpenter, but the carpenter doesn't need a chicken. What the carpenter needs is a new pants. But the tailor doesn't need any carpentry services. So a 101st person, a banker, lands on the island and says, "I have the answer to this dilemma. I will print up money and you can use it a medium of trade in situations like this. We'll say the value of a ten pound chicken is 10£. I'll print off 1000 1£ notes and lend everybody 10. Then, Mr. Farmer, you can just give Mr. Carpenter 10£ to fix your coop, and you, Mr. Carpenter can then give that 10£ to Mr. Tailor for a pair of pants. Nice and simple."

So the people agree this makes things a lot easier and go for it, but then the banker says, "Of course, I need to make a living, too, so in return for providing you with this credit I will charge you some interest on the loan. I'm fair so I'm only looking to get my 10£ out of it all, so I will only charge 1% intrest. Isn't that reasonable?"

The people agree that the banker is entitled to his fair share and should get his 10£, too. So at the end of the year the people owe the banker the 1000£ he lent them, plus the 10£ interest. Problem is, there is only 1000£ in circulation because that's all the banker lent out in the first place. It is impossible to pay back the loan at the end of the year unless the banker loans out more money, which, of course, he does, and he charges interest on that, too.

But since each year there is extra money in circulation when 10£ was to be worth the same as a 10 lb. chicken or a pants what happens? Either the price of goods inflates, and 10£ will soon only buy a 7 lb. chicken and a pair of pants costs 13£ or new chickens and material for pants have to be brought in below cost, or both. Soon 10£ hardly buys a chicken wing and the tailor has sweat shops on another island pounding out pants. What with the price of chicken is such a sorry state the farmer has to mass-produce and needs way more chicken coops. The carpenter gets in the business of making arrows so that he can threaten farmers on other islands and force them to hand over their chicken coops. And of course the islanders don't actually need all the chickens so the farmer uses every marketing ploy he can to manufacture a bogus market for chicken, encouraging as much waste as possible.

And there you have it: perpetual inflation, exploitation, war, consumerism, and super-size chicken burgers no one can finish. All thanks to credit-based money.

[mediavictim.livejournal.com]

Yeah .. then PETA would go after the chicken farmer

Poeple will protest the tailors sweatshops

the carpenter would be protested for detroying farm land
with all these chicken coups

and soon Apple will step in to help the farmer
to introduce

.......the iChicken Cluck Different

Lending

[mbarrick.livejournal.com]

Yes, I wholly agree that banks should be returned not being able to loan more than they have in depostits. For one, depositors would be treated a lot better again. Instead of being consumers buying bogus "services" (and the more services the more service-charges... upsell, upsell, upsell!) we'd once again be lenders paid by the bank. Our deposits would be their bread and butter so instead of "spend, spend, spend" they'd be calling "save, save, save" like they used to.

Not only that, but they money on deposit would have to have some solid basis in reality again, i.e. real value. We'd *have* to go back on a gold standard or something similar. Money would only exist if there was real value to back it up.

Re: Lending

[seymour-glass.livejournal.com]

yeh well we can thank mr. nixon for the "floating" currency we are currently saddled with and the resulting snake in europe...although the european union is taking care of that somewhat...the other nice thing would be that if banks needed deposits to lend they would actually have to give a reasonable return on your deposit to encourage you to deposit in their bank...so instead of a mark you would become an important part of their business...john ralston saul brings up a lot of these points in his writing, that's one of the reasons i've been drawn to it...