| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: It's Not Interest, Jim: Wally responds | | Date: | Wednesday, July 28, 2004 08:21:36 (+0200) | | From: | Jessop Sutton <sutton @...........za>
|
| In reply to: | Message 18 (written by Joe Thomson) |
On Saturday 24 Jul 2004 9:56 am, Joe Thomson wrote:
> The actual house is owned by you, and can only become the property of the
> bank if you fail to meet your loan repayment schedule. Now the new money
> has value because it's attached to some asset - the house. But as the
> house depreciates over the course of it's existence, then the money for the
> loan should be paid back over the "life" of the house, so that the money in
> existence has something tangible to back it up. And how is this to be
> determined? How does anyone know what the actual 'life expectancy' of any
> house is going to be? . . . . . . . . . . When the house ceases to exist, so
> should the loan. So the home'owner' will never be out of debt? There will
> be no incentive for him to pay off his house, to save interest charges, so
> he'll just let the debt ride? Many, no doubt, would like that nowadays.
> But how, in any practical sense, could this ever be accomplished?
=====================================
May be irrelevant, but the real situation, at least over here, is that
properties (residential and commercial) are continuously INCREASING in value,
due partly to the increase in the value of the erf itself, but also to the
present-day replacement cost. (This gives rise to the Access Bond market.)
Does this change the course of the argument in any way?
Jessop.
-----------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message