(Jessop wrote:-)That is apart from the fact they have virtual
ownership -- they can take possession -- of bonded
properties (and
cars etc.) against which credit has
been granted to
borrowers?
--------------------------------
------------------------------
(Bill
replied:-) In a chattel mortgage, like from a pawnshop, the
lender
takes physical possession of the collateral
during the term of the loan
but not beneficial
ownership, which he gains only if the borrower
defaults. The specific property law in the
particular
jurisdiction governs the matter. In a
collateralized loan like a
home mortgage, in most
jurisdictions (deriving from English common law),
the
borrower maintains titular and beneficial ownership
of the
collateral during the term of amortization.
The lender gains neither
beneficial nor titular
ownership if the borrower defaults and the lender
forecloses. The property must be sold at public
auction.
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
I don't think this is still the case in BC, Bill, though it may well be
so in Texas, or other jurisdictions. I'm personally aware
of instances where home mortgages were foreclosed upon here,
and the properties were certainly not sold at public auction. In
both instances the sellers of the properties had held the mortgage, and when
the purchasers defaulted, I believe they recovered title to the
properties. In one case, after renting the house he had recovered for a
couple of years, the foreclosing vendor re-sold the property for a
good deal more than he'd sold it for the first time. The titular ownership
must have been transferred back to him, for he bragged to me more than once
how much he made. And he certainly didn't share his windfall with the
defaulted former title holder! I can't recall ever seeing any public
auction notices for foreclosed upon residential properties here, although
for businesses with mortgaged assets that default that seems to be
somewhat of a different matter.
In another separate instance, many years ago I purchased a house where
the previous owner had defaulted on his mortgage, and had been foreclosed
upon. The title holder was "Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.", a
Canadian federal government Crown Corporation that guarantees many home
mortgages written by the private banks. Presumably they paid off the
Bank when the homeowner walked, and took title to the property. Don't
you have some agency similar to that in the States? The house was
sold to me through a listing realtor, in the regular manner any other
property might be sold, and not by public auction.
--------------------------------------------------------
(Bill continues:-) I think you're getting at the virtual ownership
of
the public's credit. The bankers think they have
that
ownership and the deregulatory environment and
prevailing ideology let
them get away with it. It is
our job to disabuse them of that
notion. The bankers
should be informed they are servants of the
public,
not their masters. We do that appropriately through
regulation, not usurpation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, but how likely are we to be able to successfully bring pressure
to bear for 'regulation' when we seem to have a great deal of difficulty
publicising the need through 'normal' channels? The Internet is a great
tool, and no doubt has led to a renewed interest in 'Social Credit', and a
better understanding of it. But it has its limitations, and we're
still ignored completely by the mainstream press .
Also, there is still far too much mis-information on 'Social
Credit' available to be used against us, and too much danger of being
completely side-tracked trying to counter it. The whole
'anti-semitic' nonsense is one case in point.
Worse, there are still far too many serious divisions within the
'Social Credit' Movement itself ~ some of them where people won't even talk to
one another to try to find common ground. (And no wonder, since often
some of the ones they would talk to wouldn't deign to listen anyways).
Has there ever even been agreement on precisely just what it is we
are trying to achieve? Sometimes, I really wonder.
How do we overcome that, which we'll have to do to present the
kind of united front that could lead to sensible progress? Just
look at recent discussions, ones that have been going on in different forms
for forever, it would seem. Fundamentally, the differences between those
of the 'greenbacker' camp, and those who are 'populists'. Or those who
want to make Social Credit into a 'political party' versus those who see it as
more akin to a 'lobby group'. Each convinced their's is the best way
forward, and the 'other side' knows little or nothing, and is an impediment to
progress. Yet it should be obvious, if nothing else is, that this
way none are really making the advances that need to be made to get to
that 'objective' that we should all, if nothing else, be able to agree
on.
. I believe what Douglas wrote. That 'social
credit' will eventually come because it will be found to be the only thing
that will work. That is, if we want to preserve individual freedom
in a modern world. But we've got a job ahead of us if we're going to
hasten its coming. I hope we can do it before we 'reduce the
world to ashes' again.
Joe
->
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
