Tuesday, 12 August 2008

Teddy Bears And Where To Stick Them

Is it possible to give someone something they already have in their possession, for example the teddy bear I mentioned in my last blog?

Of course not. The idea is ridiculous.

Can they be owed anything?

Sure, they can be owed any interest or fee that was agreed for the loan of the teddy bear. What you might notice is that in the real world the bankers claim for a new bear plus the fee/interest. This means that there is a river of wealth flowing to them that they are simply not entitled to.

It is possible, however, that the bankers are simply in ignorance of this global perspective. From my conversations with various banking staff, any consideration beyond their immediate job isn't usually entered into. The banker is no more able to follow the chain of transactions than anyone else. All he knows is that he gave someone some money on Monday and someone else gave him a deposit on Tuesday. He has a contractual obligation to the depositor and the borrower has a contractual obligation to him.

While this is true for the general staff who work in banks - the cashiers, tellers, even managers and so on it's a bit of a stretch to think that the central bankers or heads of the large high street banks are in ignorance of how the system works.

As we can see, there is one major, major problem in all this - in order for the banker to be "paid back" he has to give the depositors money away again so that the people who owe him money can acquire it and return it to him in order to cancel their "debts." the fact that the debts aren't really valid isn't relevent - if the banker is ignorant of the circle then he will cease lending when he runs out of people with good credit ratings, which will begin an implosion resulting in everyone who he can prove owes him losing their assets due to a lack of available funds.

If he is malicious.......he can deliberately lend to this or that sector and take control of it through debt default, repossession, or just steer it towards the things he personally likes and finds valuable through loan offers to that sector.

They are malicious.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone lend the bear if there was nothing in it for them?

What makes the debts not valid?

The terms are understood by both parties who agree under a contract. Unfortunately, although you may see such debts as ill-conceived, that very agreement makes the debts valid, if any contract can be valid (and if you say a contract is just a piece of paper and can't be held as valid, you're sorely mistaken).

Alternative universe is the word mate.

Injin said...

You cannot contract to do the impossible. I can't contract to jump to the moon, I can't contract to pick up a chair I am standing on.

It's impossible to give a person something they currently possess.

In the cas eof a frustrated contract, both parties are returned to where they were before the contract was forme.d

Happily, they are already there.

Builder said...

This post talks about bears as if the bear context and meaning has already been mentioned. The very first mention of bear is in the title where Teddy bear is mentioned but that gives no meaning to the reader. The next use of bear suggests some part of the post is missing prior to this mention.

You need to reword the post to make it clear where the bear came from so that your meaning about the bear later in the article makes sense to us.

You might know what you mean but it is not clear to this reader.

Injin said...

Yep, fair enough.

I've edited it a bit and hope that makes it more transparent. or less opaque, whichever is prefered.

Builder said...

"What you might notice is that in the real world the bankers claim for a new bear plus the fee/interest."

What do you mean a "new" bear? The banker lends you a bear equivalent and wants a bear equivalent back plus the agreed interest and fees.

The banker gets the bear equivalent as a loan from another bank or its depositors or its original start up wealth of bear equivalents.

I dont understand your meanings of a new bear or the implication you have to return to the banker something the banker never gave to you.

Can you clarify what you mean?

Injin said...

Put simply - the contract between you and the banker is invalid. He wants you to give him something that he already has.

This is impossible. In the event of a void contract, both parties are supposed to be returned to where they were before the contract signed.

As everyone concerned is already are where they were precontract nothing need happen.

In the real world the bankers have their bear back and then ant another one + interest as "repayment."

This is our engine for economic growth, this mad scramble to provide something that doesn't need ot be provided.

builder said...

I am not following you.

If borrow a million from a bank then the bank now has one million less to lend to other people.

Do we agree on that?

If i deposit one million with the bank then the bank can lend the same amount to another person that they lent to me. I owe the bank nothing.

Do we agree on that?

However we agreed that i ill borrow one million at X rate and we agreed they will borrow one million at the the lower Y rate. I still have an outstanding agreement with the bank to borrow one million and i get charged the privelage of x-y% for the ability to have that loan until such time as the loan agreement is terminated.

What part of the contract is morally invalid?

Injin said...

Can you give me a Teddy Bear I have in my hand already?

Nope.

Can you owe me the teddy bear that I have in my hand already?

Nope.

Are contracts to do the impossible valid?

Nope.

What happens to a contract that has failed?

The people concerned are supposed to be returned to the position they were in pre contract.

Where are the people?

Where they were precontract.

Builder said...

as i explained, your teddy bear example was created by you exchanging a teddy bear not owned by you for a cigarette.

That was a fraud by you.

A court would enforce some outcome based on the the presented evidence.

Injin said...

What a court would enforce isn't relevent to the facts. You can canely any bank "debts" just by asking where the money came from.

Courts will stitch people up left and right and centre on the bankers behalf, that's what they are there fore.

The thing is, when the banks loan you "their" money they will tell you that it is then "yours."

If you don't just assume you have acquired ownership and actually ask them, they will lie to your face.

I know, I've done it. Give it a go at your local branch and see.

The fact is that people do not know anything about banking and do not ask. Both the courts and the banks are happy to leave the average person in the dark - after all they both exist to exploit.

Builder said...

You need to back up a bit and look at what money is.

The money represents a claim to a countries wealth. If there is too much money the claim is devalued.

Banks have claims to the wealth of a country and they lend you those claims and if you are able then you can then earn for yourself the right to have claims to the countries wealth.

A bank loan is the banks claims to the wealth of the country that they allow you to use and profit from to your advantage if you are able to profit from them. They are not your claims. If you spend those claims to the wealth of the country then they become somebody elses claims (even when bank deposits) the banks still wants its own claims back.

Injin said...

Countries don't exist.

Builder said...

I was watching a video the other day where this man believed that lions wont harm him. It was a bit disturbing to see him eaten alive and i am still having unpleasant thoughts about that.

On the one hand we can believe the world is the way we think it is and on the other hand we can see it the way it actually really is.

As Shakespear? said "when i was a child i thought as a child. When as a man i thought as a man"

Our thoughts dont create reality exactly.

A person can believe that there is only one world order but it does not make it so.

Injin said...

If you are saying that corrput and powerful men can overpower you, bribe judges and so frth, you are completely correct, they can.

Doesn't change any facts though.

People have been tortured into saying all kinds of mad and false things. Torture doesn't make false things true.

Anonymous said...

What if I borrow a bear from the banker and then bury the bear. I tell everybody that I swapped the bear for a cigarette with a vagrant I met. Do I owe the banker a bear plus a cub?

How do you ensure the bear IS passed back to the banker? I think you rely on this fact, which cannot be proved, especially when bears look identical.

At the very least, there will be an unknown time delay when the banker will be without their bear.
--------------
I do agree the analogy and your point works better when borrowing virtual bears!

Anonymous said...

wait a minute.

what about the bus driver?

he exchanged his ticket for a teddy bear (now in your possession). so the driver could ask for it back, because as far as he is concerned, it is his..?

otherwise, it seems to me that the bus driver has been scammed.