Zeke_the_Meek wrote:TPTB don't want us to be part of their game - they are happy to scam us every second of the day but don't want us to turn the tables on them.
I'm always puzzled at the thinking here. Why is it a 'scam' to loan someone money or give them services on credit but then expect payment for it at some point? By their backwards logic, if it was such a scam then it shows how
utterly gullible they are and susceptible to cons if they willingly initiate the arrangement in the first place.
"Hello, can I have a loan please?"
"Certainly, Mr. Warrior. Your business loan of £15,000 has been approved, and here's the repayment plan."
"Wait a minute... I SEE WHAT YOU'RE UP TO, YOU VIPER!"
Never happens though, does it? Only ever a 'scam' after they've taken advantage of what's on offer.
F***ing locusts, the lot of them.
It's all to do with a rather strange conspiracy theory based on a complete misunderstanding of how the banking system operates (admittedly the method in question is very complicated and I can't really get my head around how it works) they believe that when they sign up for a line of credit they create the money out of thin air. Essentially they think that the banking cartels operate with a licence to print money.
This isn't true. Largely it seems to be a confusion between a bank and credit. As an example lets say I take out a credit card with The Peanut Bank. The Peanut Bank is willing to advance me a line of credit worth £20,000 (or what Burnaby call's 'beer money'), The Peanut Bank can advance this level of money to me because it has a lot more money (hundreds of millions) in various assets held internationally. The Bank is willing to take a chance on loaning me the money because the Bank thinks I will pay it back based on my credit history.
The Bank hasn't created any money, it has created a line of credit allowing me to spend £20,000 of the banks money on anything I desire, beer, women, peanuts all the myriad joys of life. I don't need to use any of the credit advanced by the Bank (some agreements may vary). This shows that Credit and Money are separate entities. But the Freetard view is that Credit and Money are the same thing, they aren't, which is pretty obvious considering they have different names and mean different things.
Because of this misunderstanding they believe that all money is 'free' and doesn't need to be earned. Obviously if this was the real state of affairs then things would be very different, for one we would be trapped in a cycle of hyper-inflation the economy would have completely collapsed and nobody would be doing any work in any industry, what would be the point when I could just magic some cash into my bank account at will. It would be an apathetic apocalypse.
For the freetard this misunderstanding allows them to run up large levels of debt and then try to walk away, they don't think that they should pay for something they buy on credit, because they believe it was already paid for by them with the money they created when they took out the credit agreement.
They don't think what they are doing is fraud and instead think the bank is conning them out of the money they created when they started the credit. This was also why Peter's original scam was able to attract Freetards to it, to them he was being honest about how the banking industry worked (of course to us, and anyone who has more than a clodding level of thinkyness he was off his rocker and possibly running the scammiest scam in the history of scamming).