Can we legally cut the banks out of things?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 10:54 PM
RE: Can we legally cut the banks out of things?
(01-11-2012 10:28 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  I was mainly asking if there was a way to do this. I guess nobody recognizes genius when they see it. Drinking Beverage

I don't always recognize genius when I see it, true, but I can spot foolishness pretty easily. My intention isn't to offend you, but your idea is foolish.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 11:16 PM
RE: Can we legally cut the banks out of things?
(01-11-2012 10:54 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 10:28 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  I was mainly asking if there was a way to do this. I guess nobody recognizes genius when they see it. Drinking Beverage

I don't always recognize genius when I see it, true, but I can spot foolishness pretty easily. My intention isn't to offend you, but your idea is foolish.

My last post was a joke. I will work on my idea a bit more and use some real numbers to try and make it less foolish. I was really hoping to get others to do my homework for me. I'll post again on this in a day or so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 11:42 PM
RE: Can we legally cut the banks out of things?
(01-11-2012 10:44 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Why this is a bad idea:

Let's just say the average owed amount is 150K.

1000 people paying $100 a month.

1.5 months to pay off the average debt for one person.
1500 months to pay off all the debt.
That's 125 years.
~30% of the investors would have their houses paid off in 30 years.
Less than 50% in 50 years.
About 35-40% wouldn't see their debt paid off in their lifetime.
And, this is under the assumption that everyone will continue to pay $100 a month for 125 years... which is, of course, ludicrous.

Who decides who gets the money first?
What's to make people keep paying once they are paid off? With no legal bindings, who's to make them pay once they're out of debt?
If you do make a legal binding contract, you are no better than the banks - just poorer and in 125 years of debt.
There is nothing fair or logical about this system.

This system only benefits ~10% of the people involved.

My man KC, saving me some hassle.
Thanks KC.

It's a pyramid scheme. As soon as you have your house paid off there is ZERO incentive to stay in the scheme. There is a reason pyramid schemes are illegal.
And like KC says the only way to make anything binding is contract and in that case you might as well go to the bank.

As for legal, you can do whatever the fuck you like in this regard. If you wanna get together with 999 of your closets friends and do this by all means, go ahead. Just know that you will need the money up front for the costs of all 1,000 houses.
After all, when you get a mortgage you're not paying whoever you brought the house from, you're paying the bank because the bank brought your house for you.
That means if you wanna buy a house you need that amount of money straight away.
Thus why people get mortgages in the first place.
The only way this would work is if you borrowed the money and then payed that person back, BUT again, you might as well borrow from a bank, it's safer, less dodgy and cheaper.

Do yourself a favor and don't waste any more time on this. It's flawed in every way shape or form.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
02-11-2012, 07:51 AM
RE: Can we legally cut the banks out of things?
Something else I want to point out:

How are you going to buy a house without a lender under your plan?

It would take 1.5 months for everyone to pull together to buy one person an average house.

This is called Communism (minute party decides what the majority does).

If you do it completely fair, then it will take 125 years for everyone to pull funds together to evenly distribute the wealth.

This is called Socialism.

This process only works if it everyone does the exact thing; fairly - even so, the time frame is impractical.

The only way to lower the time frame is to up the amount of money that is put in. As you increase the amount, the amount of full participation decreases. Full participation from every individual must happen in order for the system to succeed.

If there isn't full participation from everyone, the others have to absorb the costs in order to keep an even keel. This presents an unfair influx - some people putting in more money than others just to keep the system afloat. So, some people will invest significantly more than others and get the same return as others that didn't pull their own weight. This is, of course, completely unfair.

Moreover, without any legal binding contracts, this is a huge recipe for disaster.

As Muffs said - the system is flawed in every way, shape, and form.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 08:34 AM
RE: Can we legally cut the banks out of things?
(01-11-2012 09:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 08:42 PM)DLJ Wrote:  May I introduce you to a friend of mine?
Earmuffs meet Constructive Criticism...
Constructive Criticism meet Earmuffs.

Your friend sounds like a fucktard.
Funny, he says the same about you. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-11-2012, 03:50 PM
RE: Can we legally cut the banks out of things?
This is the reason for the state to exist, is a way to organize massive solidarity (taxes anyone) but we humans have a great ability to destroy everything, that's the main reason we could survive an alien invasion, just by messing with their systems Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: