“Are you Being Served?” ask Young Fine Gael in 1990. The Banks should look after students, giving them loans, according to Young Fine Gael around 1990.
In my day the banks looked after students by giving them a free fiver when they opened an account.
I’m sure the banks parsimony changed with the Celtic Tiger, Students were probably given mortgages by the banks then!
There is an interesting article
about one of these professors who has supposedly become a guru for Mervyn King. That’s where I’d like to know whether they also talk about “credit money” in general and quantitative easing as the way of central banks supplying banks with credit money.
For that’s what a guru would propose. Because a guru has spiritual wisdom to offer that is of benefit to mankind.
is written by two professors of economics at Boston University. Thus it does not address the “fuel” that flows through the economy. It is “watered down” by “credit money” for the benefit of the financial economy, while clogging up all activities of the real economy.
Making people responsible rather than companies is a good beginning and is part of the system that has evolved, mainly by design, relying and influencing human nature such that it is a call to our conscience, no matter where we stand – at the helm or in the wake of capitalist boats…
I purchased my home four years ago, receiving guidance from the bank throughout the process. Unfortunately I’m on my own now that I’m in the market to sell. So for all those first time SELLERS out there, I’m going to keep you in loop as make my way through this uncharted territory.
You need to give your bank notice that you’re planning to sell your house
This article by Brennan Carey on is useful:
For those property owners that are wanting to sell their properties the odds are that you have a mortgage on that property with one of the banks. When a seller sells their property the existing mortgage needs to be canceled on transfer and the seller is responsible for payment thereof. Most sellers are unaware that you need to give your bank notice of your intent to sell and therefore cancel your homeloan.
If you cancel your homeloan/bond within the first 2 years of your mortage you will be liable to pay penalty interest of about 1% of the outstanding bond amount. If you owe R500 000 that’s about R5000 in early cancellation penalty fees and on a R1 million bond thats R10 000 in penalties that you will need to pay which will come off your proceeds of the sale.
This cost can normally be avoided by giving the bank 90 days notice of your intent to cancel the bond. So what this means is that you need to fax a written letter or email to your bank before you even put your home on the market. Most estate agents will not tell you this but it is an important step to take when selling your property.
The 90-day notice period will only waived under the following conditions:
- If its a deceased estate.
- If you are been sequestrated.
- If you are buying a new property and taking out a new bond is with the same bank.
Many sellers get confused thinking that by giving the bank 90 days notice that they are cancelling their bond in 90 days. This is NOT the case, in that if your house does not sell within that period you just need to renew your intent letter but your bond will not be cancelled until such time as the conveyancers request for cancellation figures from your bank and the conveyancers will only do this once your property has been conclusively sold and they have received all the necessary guarantees.
for a free copy of such a letter which you should send to your bank to notify them of your intent to cancel your home loan.
Okay there it was to start at 9pm EST, and it ran a bit late. But honestly this is the first one I have ever sat through. I don’t have TV as I live in 1942 era barracks and well TV wasn’t in high demand back then. So I went to the www.whitehouse.gov website, which I can say started out pretty good but then after reloading the site about 10 times because it locked up I ended up going to CNN and it played pretty much flawlessly there.
Now if anyone ever gets around to reading this I will say this is going from memory and I am not even remotely basing this on facts from what President Obama said.
One thing dear readers you may want to know is Yes I did vote for President Obama. We can go into why some other day.
Needless to say I thought where he was going “in general” was good, he made a couple comments and rushed over a few areas that i think he could have focused a wee bit more on.
Like most people seeing the President pushing so much for Health Care, I am really surprised that he didn’t really bring that up much, just grazed the subject that the people need this and that both parties need to come together. I agree to a point. I already have health care so this is not a big concern for me. BUT!!! I can say that at various times of my life I have been without health care and, honestly my gawd, do the Senators and Congress really thing the American people are made of money. I think that a lot of these political people have NO idea of what it is to live off of the typical 30-40,000 or less a year. So when health insurance runs you 300 a month ouch that hurts. And that my friend is usually just health, doesn’t include Dental or Vision, and Life Insurance which is a whole nother ball game. So these folks need to come together get over their blue and red difference and put together something that will work for those Americans who “NEED” insurance but for those like myself who don’t need it there should be an option. Also I think it should be up to the individual whether they want the insurance or not and not have the responsibility of supplying the coverage left to the small business owner. Okay nuff said on that one.
JOBS: wow I think everyone can say that yea!!! that one is long over due, but not only by this administration I think there are some previous administrations that could have focused on this one. A friend and I have watched this for a while and we both came to the conclusion that dependency on handouts has gotten WAY out of control. I don’t have a problem with someone who lost their job and is need of financial and other types of support. I get that. What I don’t get are folks like my sister that have been on it for like 11 years!!! Why, well originally she was a single mother, that I get, but at what point does the aid stop. I have a sister who doesn’t WANT to work. She technically has a medical condition “BIPOLAR DISORDER” and believe me I have seen the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde sides of her, it wasn’t pretty. But she can control this problem with medications, only she like a few others out there when they start feeling good they stop taking the medications because they don’t feel they need them any longer, then they relapse into depression, anger, frustration, doubt and all the other conditions associated with the condition. So yeah there have been problems (I know I am diverging) but regardless she can work and actually did work for a whopping 3 days, and made over $300 in those days, she QUIT, why? She said she sweat too much. Now I know that is one of the stupidest reasons I have ever heard and I told her so. She basically told me to mind my own business. I think it basically boiled down to her not wanting to give up the free support in exchange for the uncertainty of working. Now here is the kicker. Like I said that she had a child and the support was there. I figure 2 years should be more than long enough for a single mom to get a bond with the child get back on their feet and move on. Well surprise my sister got pregnant again. And in between that she married the father of both those children. Does he work? Nope, to my knowledge he has never held a job for longer then 6 mos and that was like 10 years ago. So again I ask when does it end. Why is the American Taxpayer paying for these flagrant moochers of the system?
Why can’t the State or rather Federal Government bring back the Conservation Corp and put these greedy (yeah I’ve been looking for work) not really; folks to work doing something constructive. My brother-in-law has no physical limitations at all, he just doesn’t want to work, and why should he if my sister gets everything free. Give people something like 2 years of free support then give them an option, you can continue to get this support but you must work a minimum of say something like 20-40 hours a week, doing something, file papers, work the census, work at a national or state park, fill in for sick employees, paint curbs who cares do something.
Yeah America needs jobs, but needs to look at both sides of the story. There are many folks out there that would take a job in a heart beat, and I definitely applaud them. There are those out there that are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make ends meet, I’ve been there. Not to the point Thank God of having had something painful happen like repossession or foreclosure. Life is meant to enjoy. But it should not be a free meal ticket.
Okay nuff said on that one.
I did like President Obama’s comment on the Bank Bailout and that he said that it was about as popular as a Root Canal, had one of those once. And I do and don’t think we should have gotten involved in that. I understand now the millions of jobs this bail out has saved. But I also realize that a lot (not all) are seriously greedy. I am sure they have their excuses for what they did. But when the top dogs get in excess of a million dollars a year in pay and bonuses and millions of their own bank clients/customers are practically starving or have been thrown out of there houses or had cars repossessed and no longer have transportation to get to work. There is something seriously wrong with this picture. You know and what would chap my hide on this one is the image these same folks portray themselves as. They go to Church on Sunday drop a 20.00 bill in the collection basket (seen it) and that is going to save their soul. Yet that same CEO will be driving a $75,000 car around live in a 2 million dollar house and make more money per month then the average American makes in an entire year, and they still expect to get a bonus, for what? what did they do? did the do grunt work? no. That’s what all the help in this world do (been there done that) I’ve seen the greed and pettiness at the top. It is disgusting. Now I will say there are exceptions one of the CEO’s I have worked for in the past seemed pretty decent to me Bill Foley, CEO at the time of Fidelity National Financial (title insurance company) he seemed a decent guy. So banks in my book i would have let sink. The big ones, they brought this upon themselves and the thought that we bailed them out and now some don’t want to pay back the money is ludicrous, plus wanting to restart the high bonuses and perks. It’s just wrong on so many levels.
Where am I at in all this, I make less than $30,000 a year and I am married supporting my other half through school. So I am not at the top nor bottom of the food chain. (suspect closer to the bottom).
Okay next!!!
Did like the swipe President Obama took at the Supreme Courts Justices. My only question is not to President Obama, but to the Justices. This policy that has been in action for a hundred years WHY NOW. Who pushed your buttons or who padded your wallet to force this into being an issue so important that it needed to happen now. I mean my, have they not been paying attention to the elections in the last 20 years, what politicians spend and raise is gone “STUPID” when is it going to stop. We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on elections, for what? to get the folks into office that won’t even listen to John or Jane Doe on the street because we are to low on the totem pole. So here is my deal on this. They said it is the RIGHT of the American business to be able to vote. I disagree. Because the business’s of America is made up of Citizens (well mostly) and those citizens have the RIGHT to vote. They can chose to either vote or not vote. An entity like a Business doesn’t register, it doesn’t breath, yes it does pay taxes, but it doesn’t get a voting card; so why pray tell should a big business be able to give large sums of money to the point of millions of dollars to a specific person, it would only be basically persuading that candidate to support their pet projects. Think about a large Oil Company dumping millions upon millions of Dollars to a California or Louisiana Senator or Congress person then when it comes time for drilling in places not normally drilled the Politician supports this idea. Where will this leave the individual who opposes this plan. OUT.
So i agree with the President that the Administration needs to discuss this one and do it quickly to reverse this decision and make it done in a way that in another 100 or 1000 years it cannot be undone. This was a stupid reversal.
Nuff.
President Glossed over the Spending on the colleges, I think there should be a cap on what presidents in colleges/universities, Really what do they do? most agenda and decisions are made via committees, so he signs a few documents, proposes some changes, does that call for a person getting in excess of several hundred thousand dollars a year. Some are making more than the President of the USA, that is just wrong. No wonder college tuition is so out of sight.
Heck I am a veteran and I can’t even find anyone to pay for my college books. Tuition yea, but hell I can afford the tuition its the damn books I can’t afford.
Next!!!
I know that on more than one occasion if you watched his pitch then you saw a blatant disgust from one side of the house to the other, one side would be standing applauding while the other was sitting frowning. Then he would talk about how both sides needs to come together. But now this might be a wrong analogy but I told the folks at work its like these folks are the Jewish in Germany and the Nazi’s during the day they may live side by side, but when they get to the office they hate each other for no other stupid reason other than the party they belong to. You have one party propose an idea and the other side shoots it down, not because it’s a bad idea but because their side didn’t pitch the idea in the first place so in effect they killed everything about it. I agree that the USA does need to come together and quit worrying about how a decision will affect the next poll running. Because from what I have seen and continue to see they aren’t getting much done on the hill and as President Obama said “Change isn’t going to happen quickly”. Personally i think they should do away with 2 parties and go to one, who ever wins, wins, or for that matter create a 3rd party to break up the gridlock the 2 parties lock themselves into. Create a valid “INDEPENDENT” party that can switch to either side when they find something they agree on.
Next
Kind of glossed over near the end on the Don’t Ask Don’ t tell policy. I will say this. I know and have known folks in my life who were and are gay/lesbian in the military I have deployed with them and it was known in my unit that these soldiers were gay. The command didn’t punish them as they did their jobs as everyone else did. All the folks are worried about gays/lesbians once the policy is ended on having these soldiers hit on them, yeah I will say some will happen, but no more than regular heterosexual men and women hit on each other now. Frankly when I was deployed the amount of “heterosexual” men and women that started cheating, one their spouses was truly amazing. And then they have both sides of the military saying stuff like we have 2 wars going on. Yeah so what. one is winding down, President said troops will be home by 2011 (well technically he said COMBAT TROOPS) that still leaves a lot of support troops that can be there. But either way that war is winding down. As for Afghanistan that is a whole different problem. Russians and French both gave that up as a lost cause so I don’t see any end to that one for a long while. So that is kind of a moot point but then the current Marine General I think that is his point. He knows that is going to be a drawn out war and the likely hood of it ending anytime soon is nil. But he need only look in his own ranks and he too will find on average 1 in 10 persons is gay (yeah even in the Marines). So this policy needs to go away. How can you honestly tell a soldier to be honest when you are asking them right off the bat to lie about who they are. Kind of a catch 22.
Nuff.
The President did kind of gloss over Immigration, national security/homeland security. And just near the end there were many things the mentioned but my broadcast locked up so when I got it restored I missed a few items so you all the great readers of the world can tell me if you want on what all i “missed” what you think is your view. And if you didn’t even watch the State of the Union and only read clips from your favorite source, go back and watch it on You Tube or whatever video site in completion it is about 1 hour-long, so you can get the full story on what happened.
But guess what this is just my view on these things.
have a great day, and I hope WE ALL can get along.
Thanks,
Gregg
How the financial institutions make money out of thin air [by your money and my money], the rules and laws are made by the people so called BANKS AND RESERVE BANKS.
From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:
Today at 2:17pmWhile I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.
Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.
He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “.”
He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.
He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.
Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.
He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is , and his budget will triple our national debt.
He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.
He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.
He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?
He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.
He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?
Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?
In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.
Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.
Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.
He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.
Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.
- Sarah Palin
She nailed it.
Around the world, corporations’ computer networks and control systems are under “repeated cyberattack, often from high-level adversaries like foreign nation-states,” according to a new global survey of information technology executives.
The attacks include run-of-the-mill viruses and other “malware” that routinely strike corporate defenses, but also actions by “high-level” adversaries such as “organized crime, terrorists, or nation states,” a first-time global survey by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington has found. More than half of the 600 IT managers surveyed, who operate critical infrastructure in 14 countries, reported that their systems have been hit by such “high-level” attacks, the survey concludes.
A large majority, 59 percent, said they believed that foreign governments or their affiliates had already been involved in such attacks or in efforts to infiltrate important infrastructure – such as refineries, electric utilities, and banks – in their countries.
Such attacks, the survey said, include sophisticated denial-of-service attacks, in which an attacker tries to so overwhelm a corporate network with requests that the network grinds to a halt.
But they also include efforts to infiltrate a company. Fifty-four percent of the IT executives said their companies’ networks had been targets of stealth attacks in which infiltration was the intent. In two-thirds of those cases, the IT managers surveyed said company operations had been harmed.
The IT managers also believed that these “stealthy” attacks were conducted by “nation states” targeting their proprietary data, says the survey’s main author, CSIS fellow Stewart Baker, in a phone interview. Mr. Baker is a cybersecurity expert formerly with the Department of Homeland Security and National Security Agency.
“It’s all the same kind of stuff – spear-phishing, malware, taking over the network and downloading-whatever-you-want kind of attack,” he says. “Over half of these executives believe they’ve been attacked with the kind of sophistication you’d expect from a nation state.”
The CSIS report describes such attacks as “stealthy infiltration” of a company’s networks by “a high-level adversary” akin to a “GhostNet,” or large spy ring featuring “individualized malware attacks that enabled hackers to infiltrate, control and download large amounts of data from computer networks.” The GhostNet attacks, which Canadian researchers attributed to Chinese state-run agencies, bear similarities to recent attacks on Google and other high-tech companies, Baker says. Google attributed attacks on it to entities in China.
Read the report:
See also:
Ironically, the more dependent we become on interconnected network technology, the more vulnerable we become too.
/so keep your fingers crossed and your computers patched against hacking and intrusion, at least you can do your part to avoid being part of the problem
Have you ever wondered why banks exist? With the current debate over healthcare and bank bailouts taking place in Washington DC it just seemed like a logical question to ask. Let me first start off by saying that I have never really understood the concept of banks (from both a business and consumer standpoint) and the bailouts have further fueled my skepticism. That being said I have always been curious about one thing when to comes to banks…how do they “really” make their money?
When I walk into a bank there is no product or service being offered for me to buy – they are simply looking for a way to loan me money. Think about it, you really are either depositing money or withdrawing money and the bank charges you for the privilege of doing so. Sure having a checking account is nice but money orders and the internet have made checkbooks obsolete. So I began to think…this is either the greatest business model ever created or the biggest legalized ponzi scheme enacted upon people in history (outside of the stock market).
With the recent scandal involving Bernie Madoff I thought it would make sense to start off with defining what a ponzi scheme is. A quick search on Google bought up the following definition – a ponzi scheme is “a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned.” Wow…that definition blew me away! Now substitute the words “ponzi scheme” for “bank.” A bank is a “investment operation that pays returns to investors (account holders) from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned.”
It gets even worse….
There is a little known knowledge about the practice of these institutions called “fractional reserve banking.” It sounds complicated but it simply means that banks are legally allowed to lend out more money than they have on hand. This was a major reason for the meltdown in the economy that has taken place over the past year and that is still continuing with the bank failures that are happening on a weekly basis (140 in 2009 and counting in 2010). So hypothetically every time you deposit one dollar into a bank account they have the legal right to lend out $10. This is also known as “leverage.”
So this seems to be how a bank makes money. We, as depositors, deposit our money into a bank because it is safe and secure, protected by FDIC insurance (as noted on the drive through window) and they turn around and lend our money back to us at a higher rate. Think about it…what is the typical rate on a savings account? Less than 1% and what is the rate on your credit card, car loan, student loan, personal loan, home equity loan, and/or mortgage? Let’s tack on fees for missing a payment, overdrawing your account, not keeping enough money in your account, not using using your credit card, etc, etc…the picture starts to become clearer. They even enlist the help of a credit scoring system which no one can completely understand, called FICO, to essentially scare people into paying back the money they lent them. Isn’t it quite interesting that the main proponents of FICO scores are “lending” institutions and credit cards?
One of the greatest legal ponzi schemes ever created…
Again a bank makes its money off of the money you deposit into it and off of interest payments and fees they charge that keep increasing. Now you see why it is so important for them to find ways to “catch” people with these crazy rules noted in the fine print of the applications and ever changing agreements we sign. It behooves them to contractually be able to raise rates or change the terms for any reason and without cause.
It is actually taking Congressional intervention in order to stop banks from charging “excessive” fees and the bank are fighting the legislation tooth and nail! It’s a great business practice to allow your account to go over the limit or to promote that variable rate mortgage. They build in the profit margins on the front end (called amortization) and rake in the dough on the back end and no one is any wiser. It is literally a multibillion dollar business enterprise built solely off of other people’s money (like the stock market).
It gets even better….
Now fundamentally just by the mere fact that a bank can lend out more than we deposit tells us something that is just common sense…if everyone went to the bank at the same time to withdrawal money it could not possibly be there. This is why bankers fear a “run on the banks” because in the back of everyone’s mind we all believe that one day we could go to a bank to withdraw money and it would not be there. Sounds crazy but it can happen…think of September 11, 2001. A bank DOES NOT have to give you your money back and they can place limits on how much you can withdrawal!
It sounds absurd that a bank wouldn’t have your money but that again goes back to “regulation” (the word absolutely hated by the banking industry) and the fact that they do not have to have money on hand to cover the loans they provide their customers. Not to mention the amount of leveraging that takes place. Don’t believe me ask your banker this question: “is there ever a possibility that I could come to the bank and be denied access to my money?” If they say “no” you already know they are lying because if that were the case there would not be a need for FDIC insurance and there would not be limits on the amounts of money that FDIC covers.
In closing, the average person spends over 34% of their after tax income on interest payments alone simply look at the amortization schedule of any type of loan you get. Notice that nearly all the interest is always front loaded in the early years so that the bank gets their money first and then the principal gets repaid. A never ending cycle as people continuously refinance houses and get new cars over their lifetime.
For fun, calculate and total all your current loan payments and see how much of your income is going towards the interest…that’s banking…the great American ponzi scheme in action.
