Major Economists Tell Obama to Reduce Mortgage Debt

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield


For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Comment: I think Obama is stuck on the idea that correction of loans to reflect their true value is a gift to undeserving people — because that is the message he is getting from Wall Street. I have demonstrated on these pages that correction of loan principal is not a gift, it is paid in full, and even if you disagree with indisputable facts, it is the only practical thing to do as Iceland has clearly shown, with the only growing economy in Western nations.

Now we find out that Obama was given exactly that advice 18 months before he won reelection. Let’s see if he does it. He sought got the advice of seven of the world’s leading economists who all agreed that reduction of household debt — and in particular the dubious mortgage debt that Wall Street is using to make more and more profit, is something that the administration should do right away.

We can only guess why the administration has not done it, but I know from background sources that this ideological battle has been going on in the White House since Obama was first elected. What is needed is for Obama to take the time to get to know the real facts. And those facts show clearly that (1) the foreclosures that already were allowed to proceed did so on imperfected liens which is to say the right to foreclose was absent regardless of the amount and (b) the principal claimed as due on those loans was (1) not due to the people who claimed it and (2) far above the real amount that was due because the banks stole the money from insurance, credit default swaps and federal bailouts from investing pension funds and other managed funds.

The banks claimed ownership of loans they neither funded nor purchased and also had the audacity to claim the losses and then overstated the losses by a factor of 10. The insurance companies and counterparties on the credit default swaps, along with the federal government, paid the banks who didn’t have a dime in the deal and therefore lost nothing. The investors received small pittances in settlements when they should have received from their investment bankers (agents of the investors) the money that was received.

An accounting from the Master Servicer and the trustee or manager of the “pools” would clearly show that the money was received and not allocated in accordance with the contrnacts nor common law. As a result we are left with a fake loss that was tossed over the fence at the investors. Had they allocated the gargantuan payments received from multiple insurance policies on the same bonds and loans, the principal would be reduced anyway.

This is why I keep saying that you should use Deny and Discover as  your principal strategy and direct it not just to the subservicer who deals directly with the homeowner borrowers but also the Master Servicer who deals with the subservicer, the insurance companies, the counterparties on credit default swaps, and the federal government.

Following the money trial will in most cases show that the lien recorded was imperfect and not enforceable because the party who was designated as the lender was not the lender, hence “pretender lender.” Following this trail from one end to the other and forcing the books open will show that most loans were table funded (predatory per se as per TILA reg Z) — and not for the benefit of the investors, but rather for the benefit of the bankers (a typical PONZI scheme).

In an economy driven by consumer spending, the reduction in household debt will drive the economy forward and upward. The real total in many cases is zero after credits for insurance, CDS, and federal bailouts. If you leave the tax code alone, and let the “benefit” be taxed, the federal government will receive a huge amount of taxes that the banks evaded, but they would get it from homeowners, whose tax debt would be a small fraction of the mortgage debt claimed by the banks.

The problem can be solved. It is a question of whether the leader of our nation studies the issues and comes to his own conclusions instead of being led on a string by Wall Street spinning.

Failure to act will produce a wave of strategic defaults because like any business failure, the “businessman” — i.e., the homeowner — has concluded that the investment went bad and they will just walk away — resulting in another windfall to the banks who after cornering the world’s supply of money will have cornered the world’s supply of real estate.


SHILLER: Principal Must be Written Down for Economic Recovery

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:  

We are looking into the abyss of economic failure. For economists, the people who know the facts, the ONLY answer left on the table is principal correction or principal reduction. We have tried everything else.

The reason is very simple. The Banks created a market where prices soared above values and like any other situation where there is a false spike in prices over values, the correction needs to be made. The free market has already arrived at the same conclusion —- nobody wants those mortgages even if they were valid and enforceable. The refusal to rush toward principal reduction is putting the banks in an all or nothing position. The market and the economists have spoken — if that is the choice the banks will get nothing.

But the word from the banks is that we can’t have principal reduction. The real reason is that their balance sheets will be wrecked by forcing them to admit that those assets they are reporting are pure fiction — an inevitable consequence of bank excess finally recognized by the rating agencies last week. But the banks are spinning the myth that if principal reduction (in other words REALITY) prevails then everyone will want to do it. Assuming that is true, why not?  Shouldn’t everyone want reality? The Banks have had their windfall, they have been paid enough to pay back the investor lenders, and they are driving the economy into a ditch with their unrelenting death grip on the purse strings. 

Americans must decide between the Iceland model in which their economy quickly recovered, and the American model where we continue to languish with no real prospects for recovery. The European attempt at austerity drove them further over the brink. In fact, every policy is now debunked that ignores the realities of the market place and the reality of the importance of the housing market in ANY economic recovery. There is only one thing left. It is the right thing to do.

We have exhausted every idea except for doing the right thing. Restore homes to people who were unlawfully and fraudulently induced into signing papers that never even recited the terms of repayment as it was recited to the real lenders and which never disclosed the multiple borrowers on each loan, most of whom were hidden from the borrowers. Write down the mortgages just as the banks have already done, as confirmed by trading in the marketplace. What is so difficult to accept here?

People get windfalls all the time when bullies take over markets. And yes many homeowners will want the benefits of a write-down that the rest of the world already accepts as true and necessary. The result will restore wealth and power to the middle class, revive the economy and restore our prospects. We will have the resources to repair our ailing infrastructure (an embarrassment to world traveling Americans), invest in education and job training, invest in innovation and get back some of that pride we once had in America.

The only people stopping this are those who are pandering to extremists who would rather see the Country collapse than to allow a “handout” to those undeserving deadbeat homeowners. The facts and reality leave them unpersuaded because fanning the flames of ideology is how many politicians achieve power and maintain it.

Like I said last week. It comes down to this: country or chaos. What is your choice?

Robert Shiller: Lenders Need To Write Down Mortgages To Solve America’s Housing Problem

By Mamta Badkar

Yale economist Robert Shiller says the housing crisis is a collective action problem.

This means, he argues in a New York Times editorial, that if all mortgage lenders were to act collectively and write down what was owed to them by individual homeowners everyone would be better off.

Shiller offers a few types of collective action to write down mortgage principles. One involves giving “community-based, government-appointed trustees a central role” in writing down mortgages, any idea proposed by Yale economist John Geanakoplos and Boston University law professor Susan P. Koniak.

Another proposed by Robert C. Hockett involves “eminent domain” which allows government to seize property with fair compensation to owners when it is done in public interest—and could apply to mortgages:

Professor Hockett argues that a government, whether federal, state or local, can start doing just this right now, using large databases of information about mortgage pools and homeowner credit scores. After a market analysis, it seizes the mortgages. Then it can pay them off at fair value, or a little over that, with money from new investors, issuing new mortgages with smaller balances to the homeowners. Taxpayers are not involved, and no government deficit is incurred. Since homeowners are no longer underwater and have good credit, they are unlikely to default, so the new investors can expect to be repaid.”

People are more likely to default on their mortgage when it is underwater i.e. when their homes are worth less than their mortgage. And  lenders lose money on foreclosures because of lower home values and legal costs. So it would be in everyone’s best interest according to Shiller if mortgage lenders were to take some such collective action.





Clinton Gas Tax is Vapor

Gas prices are up for several reasons, the primary one being that the oil companies are squeezing every last penny of profit out before the inaugeration of the new, presumably Democratic President and a congress that is heavily weighted Democratic. 

  • THERE IS NO CLINTON PLAN OR PROPOSAL: Any Gas Tax “proposal” submitted by a Presidential candidate is straight pandering. Clinton is not President, there is no strong Democratic congress, and she has not neither the existing executive power nor any proposed bill on the floor of the Senate to reduce Gas Prices or Gas Taxes. She knows it will never happen and hopes that voters won’t figure that out.
  • Her suggestion that the plan would go into effect this summer is a blatant lie. 
  • Her suggestion that she would pay for it with a windfall profits tax on oil companies is also made to the voters of Indiana but not to the Senate where it could be considered. Of course it won’t pass as long as oil money continues to flow into the DC lobbyists and the Senators and Congressman they own. 
  • Obama’s answer is reality — no recourse without reforming Washington. Clinton’s view is that Indiana voters are more interested in sound bites than good sense. I hope she is wrong.
  • OBAMA SAYS IT IS NOT PRUDENT TO EVEN MENTION IT AND ALL ECONOMISTS AGREE WITH HIM:Even if Clinton’s Plan was eventually adopted, it would not take effect until over one year from now. It can’t take effect this summer because she isn’t President and she has proposed the tax holiday to the people but not to Congress where it could happen. 
  • What would happen is that one year from now, when Gas prices are $6 per gallon, and it costs $90 to fill your tank some ten times over the summer ($900!!), you might save $30 over the summer. AND that $30 would be taken out of the infrastructure money for repairing roads, bridges and tunnels, reducing employment. 

From Ashes to Angels: Economics of Morality

There was an interesting study published in the Economist (March 15, 2008 pp 83-85), a conservative news magazine read around the world, that disclosed an incredibly close correlation between the “rule of law” and the health of the economy. It turns out that laws, rules and enforcement create a culture of integrity, civility and good faith. The epiphany is that those societies that follow morality, as we commonly know it around the world, have the strongest economies and greatest purchasing power. 

It’s true. Go read it yourself and research it all you want. Von Mises and Rothbard,  largely ignored but highly respected economists, came up with the same conclusion decades ago from a slightly different approach. (They are ignored because they sought truth rather than power. They believe the premise of modern economists is essentially skewed. History, particularly economic history proceeds from the motivation of people in public office or personal lives to change their current situation to something better. Reporting history relies on people who seek to be seen in the best light and thus their reports, whether of facts or indexes like the GDP, CPI etc., are skewed to mislead the reader. The theories used to explain economic history are therefore always based upon measurements of inaccurate reports. The policies based on those theories work only by happenstance — i.e., if consensus or conventional wisdom is created around the theory and policy, not the other way around).

The corollary is more disturbing and quite obvious in the context of today’s news stories of a collapsing economy.  Stray from morality as a matter of policy and practice and you undermine your economy, your society, your ability to achieve, and you gut the basis of your own happiness and contentment, as well as the prospects of future generations. 

All politics and all economics is about income distribution in some way or another. When we are out of touch with our own Godliness, we become out of balance in our society and our economy. By having no rule of law, secular or otherwise, govern the actions of those with power to do what they wanted, we have undermined our foundation, cut our societal fabric and diminished our moral high ground at the same time as losing our purchasing power in world commerce.

While Americans have pursued the dollar with religious zeal, other countries have been pursuing happiness, morality, civility, and integrity – albeit with the usual human imperfections.  The resulting changes in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and the relative strength of the U.S. in the marketplace of ideas and commerce can thus be explained. 

The fundamentalist in any major religion has a point: that societies, especially U.S. dominated societies, have lost their way. There is a growing sense of senselessness and lack of meaning in such societies. 

American men are dropping out of the work force and discarding goals and plans for their future, American children are not being educated nor are they taught to think critically, make moral judgments, build character, know their personal and world history and geography, please themselves and the world with their talent in the arts, or acknowledge the obligation and rewards of doing good deeds. 

Of course fundamentalists of all sects violate their own standards when they create inequality between women and men, when they impose a rule of a leader in lieu of a rule of laws, and so forth. But even from the most obvious perversity of fact and good sense, we can gleam some truth about ourselves, our society and where we are heading.

Today’s Torah reading talks about removing the ashes from the alter, an almost janitorial task. Yet the ancient Rabbi’s rushed to perform this task, competing for who would be first. Yes for fun but also to Honor the higher sense, the higher power we have the capacity to follow, if we are willing. My lesson in this world has been worship the riches and become poor regardless of how much money you have. Worship goodness and you become rich regardless of how much money you have.

Competition is fine if we follow our best instincts, our higher calling which all of us know we have inside. When we step onto the track and enter the secular race, make your goal the altar of your own Godliness. 

“There is much in life that people value, yet is utterly meaningless. There is equally much in life that people do not value – that is very meaningful and good. Do not judge by wealth. Do not judge by what others think. Judge by what you honestly believe to be good. And do it, no matter how belittling and ‘dishonorable’ it might seem to others. In the end, that’s what is truly worthy of praise.”

Whether we look to leadership to inspire us, or we simply change our minds and take the high road in our lives regardless of what others do, we rebuild our American experiment, we strengthen our society and reassert ourselves in the marketplace of ideas, morality and commerce. 

If we want to finish the American experiment, rejoin England and the European Union and give up our role as leaders, we are certainly on the right track. 

It won’t be long before the currency of choice becomes the Euro, a currency of consensus from countries actively seeking to do good things for their citizens. 

The U.S. dollar, including those bills in your pocket and those numbers in your bank and securities accounts, are being undermined by you and what you allow in your little corner of the marketplace. 

Only you (all of us in our own worlds) can turn it around. But it takes real faith rather than faking it or just giving lip service to it.

Mortgage Meltdown: How the Big Boys Control the Rules

Unfair Competition by Large Banks Created the Infrastructure for this Mess

A few people have asked: Why not do a story on the alternative to the cash-dispensing ATM? After considering the research, and seeing a connection with the mortgage meltdown crisis because this situation is the single greatest marketing tool used by  large financial institutions to decentralize banking deposits (sucking local deposits out of the places they were earned and placed for safe keeping and putting them all over the country, if not the world) and to attract banking customers away from their small local bank or credit union who can and does service their needs far better and far more safely than any large company could with its headquarters and decision makers located thousands of miles away.

If you look at this week’s Economist, you will find on Page 86 that countries in Africa (“third world?”) have discovered a far more elegant and inexpensive solution: The customer activated Point of Banking ATM. In fact, if you look hard enough you will find that more than 25,000 ATM’s are already running in this country. If we used that system as extensively here, crime would be reduced to zero at the site of an ATM, ATM fees paid by consumers would be slashed by at least 2/3, more locations and more convenient locations would provide ATM access, and local bankers and credit unions would start getting their share of the business stolen from them by the oppressive tactics used by large financial institutions to undermine the ability of the small financial institution to compete on a fair and level playing field. 

The Point of Banking ATM is what it sounds like. You perform any of the transactions that are currently available on those monstrosities you see attached to banks, in malls, or in large merchant locations. However instead of an “automated” (which frequently does not work) cash drawer and “vault” (which is fairly easy to penetrate), the customer must go to the cashier to receive their cash. Anonymity and embarrassment of NSF works the same way as all ATMs. But in 21 years of use all over the world there has not been a single criminal act against the user of such a machine, the merchant who maintains the store in his location, or the machine itself. Te concept was started by two ex-American Express managers who had been downsized out of their jobs in the 1980’s.

The standard ATM in this country quite successfully invites all sort of criminal behavior ranging from banging a customer on the head for the cash to using construction equipment to break the machine out of the wall. Only in the United States is the far smaller, far less expensive (in cost and operating expenses) Point of Banking terminal in “disfavor”. 

The reason is the usual — those who disfavor it, do so because it would increase competition, lower consumer fees for access to their money, require virtually no maintenance, require no increase in insurance, and require no extra cash on premises because the Point of Banking terminals produce an astonishing rate of 72% sales. In other words, for every $1 taken out of their account, they spend 72 cents of it on average. Thus the unfair hold that these large institutions and large merchants have over others offering or who would offer the same services, is stifled.

Thus competition generated by ATM convenience would be leveled out between small merchants and large ones if merchants could spend a few hundred dollars (there are even Independent Sales Organizations that will install them for free), and receive interchange revenue from the banking system as well as providing their customers with greater flexibility in their payment options and the convenience of going home both with the groceries (or whatever) PLUS the cash. and most of all, enable small banks to effectively compete against large banks.  

Like all ATM’s the Point of Banking terminal gives a receipt. With the cashless ATM the customer presents the receipt to the store operator or cashier and the customer receives his cash, less any purchases he made (if any). The merchants gets the withdrawal electronically deposited to his designated depository account at his choice of financial institution, just like the use of credit and debit transactions — but in this case the merchant makes money rather than loses it to fee charged to him by MasterCard, Visa, STAR etc.

The odd thing about all this is that the machine used to drive Cashless ATM machines is that not only is it readily available, it already exists (by the millions) in almost every merchant location, large and small. It is the exact same terminal you see in every merchant location that accepts credit and debit for payments. It is programmed over the phone to do ATM transactions instead of or in addition to the “Point of Sale” debit and credit. The card is swiped, the PIN inserted and the choices appear on screen as to what you want to do.

So why wouldn’t small merchants, community banks and credit unions demand access to Point of Banking? The reason it turns out is that the banking associations (or the “networks” as they are commonly called), have passed regulations either banning Point of Banking terminals or severely restricting their usefulness or their ability to generate revenue to anyone who installs one. It seems that to small fearful community bankers and credit unions and small merchants these behemoth data processing centers known as MasterCard and Visa, have taken on the aura of a quasi-governmental entity. 

Thus when the networks say the rules are changed, nobody challenges the rules because “you can’t fight city hall.” The networks have deftly positioned themselves as “city Hall” when in fact they are simply private data processing centers controlled by the largest banks in the country — and clearly doing so against the fair trade and practices statutes of every state, against the rules of the Federal Reserve and against the federal and state antitrust laws. The networks have gone even further by publishing information that associates the Point of Banking ATM with strip clubs, gambling prostitution and other vices, whereas the cash dispensing ATM the largest banks use, are genuine banking machines. it is the same tactic being employed in reverse by the ‘Community Association for responsible Lending” which is trying desperately to legitimize the practice of payday predatory lending charging interest upwards of 500% per year. 

The reason is simple. In economic terms it is called “barriers to entry.” There are 6,000 financial institutions in the Untied States alone. About 1% of these banks control the rules, and have in the recent mortgage meltdown, reduced the Federal Reserve to a whimpering ineffective vehicle for monetary policy. The 1% cannel all the fees, perks from deposits and the customers by offering conveniences that the small bank presumably cannot. 

The small bank or credit union cannot create a network of ATM locations that has convenient locations all over the its own marketing area, let alone the region, the country or foreign countries. But they could do so if they only had to pay a few hundred dollars per location and receive a revenue return on that investment. And the merchants whose daily foot traffic can’t justify the large ATM (with all its insurance, cash loading, armored car, security, maintenance and repair problems, not to mention its sheer size) could benefit along with the small friendly community banker or credit union that “installed” his ATM allowing him to put a sign in his window like “ATM 99 cents”, which is about one-third (1/3) the price charged by Bank of America and other banks at their ATM’s. 

%d bloggers like this: