How the banks steal your money in the form of a loan

That's how it works. Mr. A is happy because he gets a car for what he considers a reasonable interest rate. The car dealer is happy because she makes a sale and the people who make the car are happy because they have jobs that pay. The bank is happy because they earn some interest.

This is a system that benefits everyone. I recently took out a loan to get a new car at a decent rate. It was a good deal for me, the interest I am paying on my car loan is far less than the cost of taking savings out of my retirement account... and the cost of me not having a car is pretty steep.

Now, how is that stealing?

Here is an interesting read concerning the issue of money:

http://www.thetwofacesofmoney.com/files/money.pdf

I had trouble reading that Glenn. Could you just answer these questions.

1) How did it hurt me to be able to borrow money for my car at a really good interest rate? I bought my car with money I haven't earned yet. This was a really good thing for me... how do you think it hurt me?

2) I need a car to work. I need to work to get a car. Without the ability to borrow money I haven't earned yet, how do you propose I solve this problem?

That's really not my problem.

Do you disagree with the OP's claim that the bank created the money out of thin air to loan a person for the purpose of buying a house? And if you don't disagree, then I assume that you approve of the practice.

Tell me specifically what segment of the information at the link I provided gave you a problem.

The problem is that it doesn't answer my questions. It seems to be making a very convoluted point, but it doesn't explain why borrowing on credit is bad for the lender, or how a modern economy would possibly work without it.

Without answering these two simple questions, it is just political nonsense.

And that doesn't answer my question of what segment of the text you have a problem understanding. I'll make it easier for you. What part did you specifically disagree with?

Either you didn't read it or you miss the point completely. It doesn't purport to show how borrowing on credit is bad for the lender. On the contrary, it shows that it is very good for the lender.

If I loaned you $250,000.00 by simply printing it up on my printing machine for just the cost of the paper, and then told you to pay me back with your hard-earned money, of course that would be good for me, since I never really loaned you anything real. And on top of that, I'm going to charge you somewhere in the neighborhood of $150,000.00 for the privilege of trading your hard-earned cash for my funny money. What part of that don't you understand?

You are missing the fact that when I borrow money, I get purchasing power ( either access to cash or something of value like a house to live in or a car to drive). I am not going to loan money from you unless it benefits me.

Let's use a real life exsmple. I got a $19000 car loan at under 3% interest rate. Now I have a car I can use to drive to work.

This is a good thing for me, and a good thing for the hard working men and women at the car factory.

What I fail to understand is why getting a car loan hurts me, and how you could possibly make a modem economy work without this type of credit.

Again, direct me to the specific segment from the link below that gave you trouble.

http://www.thetwofacesofmoney.com/files/money.pdf

No, you are missing the point that if I loaned you $250,000.00 by simply printing it up on my printing machine for just the cost of the paper and ink, and then told you to pay me back with your hard-earned money, and charge you $150,000.00 on top of that for the privilege of trading your hard-earned cash for my funny money, you're being robbed.

On a related note, who has the power to coin money?

To be robbed, you have to lose something. Let's go back to his Max's car analogy since your house example has many more moving parts. Max needed a car. A bank gives him a loan, he buys a car, he pays the bank back, principle plus what he considers a fair interest. Max hasn't been robbed, he has a car. The car dealer hasn't been robbed, he has money in his account. Who did the bank rob?

You tell me. The bank didn't issue any real labor-backed money; the money was simply created out of nothing. And yet the bank received the amount for the car or house, plus a lending fee for the money it never really issued. Do you understand?

OK, no one was robbed.

The bank has real money on deposit from customers and investors. The bank pays interest and dividends to use that money. Again, who was robbed? In a zero sum game, if someone wins, then someone loses. Who lost? Not Max (has a car), not the car dealer (has money in the bank), not the bank (made some interest), not the bank customer (has money in the bank plus a little interest) - no one was robbed.

There is a scene in the Christmas movie It's A Wonderful Life where the main character explains it all in simple terms. You should watch it.

You actually believe that real value-backed currency changed hands between the bank and the borrower, don't you?

Here is something you should watch. When you've finished, tell me what part you disagree with, and explain the reason for your disagreement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9IH-XKQpOI

No, I believe the primitive days of passing slips of paper and little piece of metal back and forth to buy stocks are gone and the days of doing so for commercial purchases are quickly going away. If I didn't have to give my kids money on occasion I doubt I would ever spend cash and I can't imagine walking into a car dealership with a suitcase full of cash to buy a car.

I have a new car with a low interest loan. I don't care. The dealer sells a car and gets intsrant revenue. He doesn't care. The factory workers get good work making my car. They don't care.

It seems like everyone benefits from this system.

Who cares?

You're deliberately missing my point. The money that was lent was never there to lend, but the lender of this nonexistent money was enriched.

Your point is wrong. The money was deposited in the bank before it was lent and the depositors are paid for the use of their money.

But even if your point had some validity (it does not), it would be GREAT! Everyone wins! What is the scenario where someone loses here?

From "It's a Wonderful Life"

Let's start at the top. Where does the money come from to pay the national debt?

While you're thinking about that, I have some leaves to rake.

No, let's stay here. Who loses in Max's car loan?