Front Loaded Interest is Criminal - Modern Feudalism & the Banksters

Perhaps the greatest financial conspiracy of the modern era is front loaded interest. This is fairly easy to show, and doesn't need a great deal of hyperbole, or claims of WWIII or predictions of Mayan doomsdays. It's the other kind of conspiracy, the one that is SO MUNDANE, that no one even questions it, when in fact we should be gathering our arms to defend ourselves from this enslavement, from this feudal enterprise. And I will show quite clearly that this is indeed a means of financial enslavement, otherwise known as feudalism.

1. What is front loaded interest? When you have an interest rate on a loan, it is how the interest is amortized, where you pay a huge percentage of your payment of interest in the first years of the loan, and pay most of the principle in the last years of payments on the loan. Nearly all bank loans are constructed in this manner.

2. Who owns nearly everything of serious value? Who owns nearly the entire means of production in our society? The banks do. Even the large corporations are financed in great part on debt. This debt represents bank ownership. The bank owns most homes, cars, education, factories (through loans to build the facilities), etc. We could make a list the length of a book, but I think you get the implications. The banks own the overwhelming percentage of everything. If there is a loan on something, they own it.

3. This is the crux of capitalism. When capital is so unevenly distributed that the banks own nearly all the capital, then one must BORROW from them to do anything. To own a car, to own a home, to start a business. Where one small group owns everything, and allows you to use it for a fee that never allows one to really escape their self-entitled ownership is feudalism, or it's modern equivalent. Who says that these few people get to own everything? Why do THEY get to own it? What right do they have? These are the dangerous questions that they do not want you to ask.

4. Not only do the banksters own the means of production in society, but they also own the means of transactions, through the Federal Reserve system. You can only gain access to the means of production through the use of their currency, which they also own and control without oversight. So, even if you do manage to finally "own" something, they still in fact own it as long as it is valued using their currency. Bascially, that's not your money in your pocket, it's theirs. They could make it valueless tomorrow if they chose to.

5. Now, it's time to look at what front loaded interest is all about. It's all about maintaining the equivalence of a feudalist system. It's about maintaining complete ownership and control by the Banksters. Front loaded interest keeps the serf class (you) from owning your labors.

Time for the illustration: The average home mortgage is held for 7 years.
Average Length of Time Someone Stays in a Mortgage

In our example we will use a $200,000 mortgage with 6% APR interest.
After seven years, the equity you have established in your home is $24,135.51
After seven years, the interest you have paid is $89,779.09
You have paid an effective interest rate of 372% Not 6% as advertised. Let me restate that You have paid the bank 372% for the use of capital That is 366% more than what they told you. This is what happens in the aggregate in banking. This is why it is criminal. Your labor has been about $114,000 and you have had to pay nearly 90 thousand of that to the bank. And for what? So you can use what they "own".

And that's why front loaded interest is a criminal enterprise of the banksters and their modern feudal system. We will never escape our financial bondage until front loaded interest is outlawed.

For people that don't understand front ended loans, read up on the rule of 72.

Let's say you're taking out a loan for a year. The first month, you would be paying 12/72 of the interest (16.66%)
The 2nd month you'd be paying 11/72 (15.27%).. By the time you get down to the 10th/11th/12th month, you'll be paying 4%, 3% and 1%. In the first 6 months, you are paying 88% of the interest on your loan.

Meaning, even if you pay back your loan fast, you probably won't be paying it back fast enough to save any money. They'll get the interest no matter what.

Sorry, I just wanted to add that.

I'm going to take a different view of mortgages that probably won't be popular. Who am I kidding? I KNOW my view won't be popular, especially here on ATS. But that doesn't stop me from having this view...

I am thankful that there are banks to lend me money when I want to buy a house. Without their help, I would have to save up for most of my life in order to have enough money to buy a house.

Sure, they are going to arrange the mortgage loan to benefit them; they are the ones taking a risk by lending me the money.

WHY should getting a loan from a bank be a right? WHY should I expect the terms to be arranged so they are overly favorable to me????

If I don't like it, I am free to save up my money and buy the house on my own terms.

Okay, I'm ready to be flamed by everyone who hates the banks blindly. But realize that I won't change my mind.

You are thankful for banks to lend you money on your home?

Don't you realize that the banks are borrowing that money from the federal reserve, which is printing it / creating it out of thin air, for like a simple 3%, and then turning around and charging you around 372% (for the above mentioned example) to use those fictitious funds????!!!!

Is it too boring to bother reading something that is more relevant to all of you than lights in the sky, random rumbling noises, mayan doomsday prophecies and Obama's not american. All the while they are raping you and you are too stupid to have any clue about it.

Jesus, you are all daft.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

they are the ones taking a risk by lending me the money.

Do you read? ...Ever heard of "bailouts"?

What risk?

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

they are the ones taking a risk by lending me the money.

Do you read? ...Ever heard of "bailouts"?

What risk?

No, in fact, I can't read. You got me.

Sheesh.

Unfortunately, yes, I have heard of bailouts. I am against them. I believe the banks should fail when they make bad decisions.

For MOST of my life, bailouts didn't happen; we purchased our first house in 1992, well before the era of bailouts. For most of my life, banks lent you money and took a risk on that loan (and despite the recent bailouts of megabanks, banks still do take a risk on you defaulting).

What I think is criminal is the way the GOVERNMENT is manipulating the winners and losers.

But thankful that a bank would lend me money to buy my house? You betcha.

Originally posted by pirhanna
You are thankful for banks to lend you money on your home?

Don't you realize that the banks are borrowing that money from the federal reserve, which is printing it / creating it out of thin air, for like a simple 3%, and then turning around and charging you around 372% (for the above mentioned example) to use those fictitious funds????!!!!

Is it too boring to bother reading something that is more relevant to all of you than lights in the sky, random rumbling noises, mayan doomsday prophecies and Obama's not american. All the while they are raping you and you are too stupid to have any clue about it.

Jesus, you are all daft.

edit on 24-10-2011 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)

While I am not a fan of the federal reserve printing money out of thin air, I am glad to have the opportunity to purchase a home, which I would NOT have had if I had to save up the money for it first.

So you are saying I'd be better off if the bank did NOT loan me this (fictitious) money? Seems like a renter is more of a "serf".

I tell you what, if the real estate market had not tanked, how many of you would be complaining? If we were all making money (on paper) from buying/selling, as we did for so many years, I'm pretty sure that no one would be complaining.

Just out of curiosity...have you purchased a home? And if so, did you get a mortgage? If the answer is yes to the mortgage, they I'd say YOU are the one who is daft (since you are so against the banks loaning money.)

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Actually you do not have to save all your life to get a house without loans, you just need a different approach. I am not sure how the rent goes in your country , but where I live the mortgage is more expensive than renting a similar propriety. (latin translation of the word Mortgage is Mort = Death, Gage = contract, making Mortgage = Contract of Death). I made some simple calculations using Excel, and investing the difference would save me the money for a house in half the time of mort-gage payments. Then you can speed it up even more by building your own house. Start with a small one , make a house based on modular concepts , then add modules as you get better . I would NEVER go into a mortgage , it simply takes 2-3 times longer to pay . This is exactly the interest mentioned by the OP..

look at this guy :

reply to post by Romanian


I loved this first video with the guy who built his own home.

I am guessing this dude was not in the US. Why? How ON EARTH did he get a permit to build his home like that? Not that I agree with the mafia-esque feel of the building code. Sure it makes some safer but also funnels you to utilize expensive contractors to meet the code thereby making ones home cost a zillion dollars.

Great view though...

I'm lost on how there is any risk to banks for loaning. Lets say you default and they repo. They keep all the cash you paid then sell the house and make there cash back. Then a few months later someone else takes out a loan for the same place. There is no risk at all in fact they make more money from the default as long as there are 5-6 years of payments made before the default. Anyone who think the banks are taking a rick are so wrong because they also sell the loan as stock after cutting it multiple times.

Originally posted by warsight
I'm lost on how there is any risk to banks for loaning. Lets say you default and they repo. They keep all the cash you paid then sell the house and make there cash back. Then a few months later someone else takes out a loan for the same place. There is no risk at all in fact they make more money from the default as long as there are 5-6 years of payments made before the default. Anyone who think the banks are taking a rick are so wrong because they also sell the loan as stock after cutting it multiple times.

The risk is the default. If you have a bubble based housing market, and the bubble bursts, house prices drop because there is no buyers, you have a massive amount of property on your hands.

So (Example only):

in 2001 - You had 1 million bucks of property on your hands (in debt)
in 2003 - housing market collapses, mass defaults. The property you have on your books now halves in value (say) meaning your original estimate of assets of 1 mil, quickly becomes 500k.

To keep the liquid cashflow going you need to palm off these properties as quick as possible to restrict your capital losses. So you sell them, however if no one is buying them you are still stuck with the asset, which i might add is continuing to depreciate in value, so you lower the price you want for it, in the hopes to sell it.

So that being said, we'll say that 1 mill is 4 properties @ 250k each, so in theory the lender might only get 100k back on the sale, and only get say 50k back in interest, meaning they are running at a loss of 100k (plus the loss of interest) per property.

Make sense?

yes there is an army of good little slaves out there,tv and radio subliminally bombarding us,with the combination of specific additives to the food and water supply low and behold...we have the sheeple...i think your right in the op,elenin and mayans is much more interesting than stuff that does actually affect us,..............you have to admit they have done a good job of leading the masses into a false sense of security and reliance.....interest and loans are such a scam,the horrible revolving door system,once your in its almost impossible to get out,like every other part of the system its designed to drive the average person into the ground...

Originally posted by hopenotfeariswhatweneed
yes there is an army of good little slaves out there,tv and radio subliminally bombarding us,with the combination of specific additives to the food and water supply low and behold...we have the sheeple...i think your right in the op,elenin and mayans is much more interesting than stuff that does actually affect us,..............you have to admit they have done a good job of leading the masses into a false sense of security and reliance.....interest and loans are such a scam,the horrible revolving door system,once your in its almost impossible to get out,like every other part of the system its designed to drive the average person into the ground...

I am so tired of all of this "sheeple" nonsense. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Oh, I must be a "sheeple" because I actually believe that YOU have the power to make good decisions and YOU are only a victim if you allow yourself to be.

All of this whining about how unfair everything is because of "the powers that be" is really getting old. It's like we are all children whining about how it isn't fair that Jimmy got an X-Box for Christmas.

It's everyone's fault except for your own, right???

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


tottaly and part of their plan as i see it is to divide its citizens...so what we get is a civil war,us and them mentality.....you are defending a corrupt system...would you fight for that system?you seem to be defending it pretty strongly?

and really just bad decisions...so all the people out there feeling the hurt simply made poor decisions...thats pretty ignorant!!

im pretty lucky..both my partner and i work,i run a landscaping bussiness and are pretty comfortable....doesnt mean to say i dont see hypocricy of the world we live in

Originally posted by hopenotfeariswhatweneed
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl

 

tottaly and part of their plan as i see it is to divide its citizens...so what we get is a civil war,us and them mentality.....you are defending a corrupt system...would you fight for that system?you seem to be defending it pretty strongly?

and really just bad decisions...so all the people out there feeling the hurt simply made poor decisions...thats pretty ignorant!!

im pretty lucky..both my partner and i work,i run a landscaping bussiness and are pretty comfortable....doesnt mean to say i dont see hypocricy of the world we live in

I'm unsure of why all the latent agression, but i can see this discussion from both sides of the fence.

GeorgiaGirl is saying that these people have bought on their financial problems by bad decisions. In some cases i am likely to agree, anyone who borrows 100+% on a home loan for example isnt the worlds best choice (in my opinion). It's a large risk for both sides of the fence.

What you are saying is that some of the people in the financial struggle it wasnt their fault (so they go laid off, or their company closed etc).


I think we can all agree on, banking (in the US) was very irrisponsible in regards to lending 100+% on its loans, and handing them out willy-nilly. But you also must see it on the other side of the fence that the people (customers?) chose to take those loans out, and then live outside of their means.

Granted there are exceptions to this rule, with people just having bad things happen to them (IE - both people in a relationship where laid off etc and so forth).

As for the civil war, i doubt the banking system (Loans in this case) will cause a civil war in any country.

reply to post by pirhanna


When you owe more money you pay more interest. In the early stages of loans the principal is higher and thus so is the interest. I really don't understand the issue with this.

I do think that the banks shouldn't be able to earn interest on money they create.

That 6% is based on a year, thus over one year you're going to owe an addition 6%. And of course this is where we also got into trouble with interest only loans. Now if they didn't charge interest on interest and any money you paid went twords the loan amount first, it would be a lot better and you would save a lot.

But would you honestly expect a lender to turn their backs on all the extra money to help out the little guys?!?

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


the rate of foreclosure is a function of the interest rates that are charged. that is why interest rates change....TPTB have programmed a certain failure rate into the system. the segment of the population which is "falling off the end of the treadmill", is what ultimately sets the value of the money for everyone.

so, now I hear someone like you say that the people who have failed have only their own dumb selfs to blame. no. they are doing what the system was designed for them to do.

I do not disagree that if I (me,personally) take a risk on my own capital by lending that money to you, that I should be able to see a return on that risk. so in principal we agree on this point.

the piece of information that you are lacking is that modern reserve banks have no such capital.

they LITERALLY create new money out of thin air. I know that this is hard to believe. but its true....look it up.

so, if for some reason you cannot pay, the will come and take your house, a REAL value is thus exchanged for a FAKE value that never really existed. =no risk


the only reason you don't hate it (and call US the sheeple) , is because you don't understand how truly and utterly mindblowingly corrupt it really is.

USURY

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Back in the days when religion/morals mattered Usury was illegal. It was considered immoral to profit off other's misfortune......
I agree with the concept of usury and wish the modern world did not abandon usury laws.

I was once told that Islamic banks do not charge interest for similar reasons....If anyone knows, I'd be interested in hearing more about how Islamic banks work.

Originally posted by Mijamija
USURY

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Back in the days when religion/morals mattered Usury was illegal. It was considered immoral to profit off other's misfortune......
I agree with the concept of usury and wish the modern world did not abandon usury laws.

I was once told that Islamic banks do not charge interest for similar reasons....If anyone knows, I'd be interested in hearing more about how Islamic banks work.

In Sharia (sp), it is immoral to enter into slavery. They consider interest as slavery.

i know its a wikipedia article, but it might be a start: Islamic Banking

Edit:

tgidkp - I'm unsure where you got that idea that money is 'printed out of thing air' from, i'm not completely sure how it works in the US, i can only base my comments on how the loan sector is run here. So here goes.

Pretty much i can sum this up in these simple steps:
1. Bank aquires currency from an outside source, with some from the Aust. Federal Reserve Bank (i'll try to explain where it gets its cash from)
2. Bank bases interest rates on the Federal Reserve plus its outside source, plus some for profit
3. Funds are distributed to the loaner (obviously if its all approved).

Now point 1, if the AU Federal Reserve kept printing currency, we'd suffer hyper-inflation (see South Africa's hyper-inflation as an example), the federal reserve sources its cash from outside sources (governments usually), and the Australian Tax Payers (and there for from the stock market, and buying and selling other currencies, thus making a profit).

How other Reserves work i do not know for fact, i havn't had the time to get into the economy as much as i'd like, but i just dont have the mental 'wiring' to handle economics, thats my partners line of work.

Pretty much Governments cannot mass produce "money" because it would de-value the currency, so it isnt cut and dry as you are putting it out to be