THE MONEY MASTERS - HOW THE BANKSTERS SCAMMED THE WORLD

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/mult..._Part1_all.wmv (Part 1)

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/mult...e2_128KBps.wmv (Part 2)

Well I do agree on this issue to an extent. I am reading a book called "Empire of Debt." The author siad he hopes there is a special place in hell for bankers who give out money to anyone with a pulse

But I must lay the blame to anyone who volunteers to go into debt. They provide the bankers with the means to keep on doing business

Originally Posted by Doody

Well I do agree on this issue to an extent. I am reading a book called "Empire of Debt." The author siad he hopes there is a special place in hell for bankers who give out money to anyone with a pulse

But I must lay the blame to anyone who volunteers to go into debt. They provide the bankers with the means to keep on doing business

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Doody

But I must lay the blame to anyone who volunteers to go into debt. They provide the bankers with the means to keep on doing business

Nail on the head there.

For the individual, if we weren't so caught up in having 40K cars and 300K houses, digital/HD cable TV, broadban internet, all of the best name brand products people wouldn't be in as much debt as they are today. The responsibility lays on the debtee for trying to live outside of his means.

I partially agree. We have had a few trials in which banks were sued for giving loans. Bank employee's intentially gave high risk loans for their bankresults. So the persons who initially could pay just fine became indebted when the whole deal went sour. Were they advised properly they probably would have chosen otherwise.
But I agree with Doody with the notorious money spenders, who keep living above their standard. So, as usual, every story has two sides.

Originally Posted by Ted

I partially agree. We have had a few trials in which banks were sued for giving loans. Bank employee's intentially gave high risk loans for their bankresults. So the persons who initially could pay just fine became indebted when the whole deal went sour. Were they advised properly they probably would have chosen otherwise.
But I agree with Doody with the notorious money spenders, who keep living above their standard. So, as usual, every story has two sides.

Advice can be had at the click of a mouse button or a phone call or two. Not to mention here in the US (and I assume other places) there are free and paid financial management classes readily available. So that is not a plausible excuse.

What do you mean by the whole deal went sour? If it is in the link I have not heard it yet, 2 hours is a bit long lol.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Advice can be had at the click of a mouse button or a phone call or two. Not to mention here in the US (and I assume other places) there are free and paid financial management classes readily available. So that is not a plausible excuse.

What do you mean by the whole deal went sour? If it is in the link I have not heard it yet, 2 hours is a bit long lol.

I disagree with you on this one. The people who were duped did make an appointment with a trusted financial advisor. But the advisor willingly misinformed them. What do you do if you can't even trust your bank?

The deal went sour because the high risk investments failed. Suddenly the promised return turned into extra interest payments. They would have been in that predicament if they were informed properly. Your suggestion of taking a f.m.class goes down the drain too when the teacher decides to misinform his students, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Ted

I disagree with you on this one. The people who were duped did make an appointment with a trusted financial advisor. But the advisor willingly misinformed them. What do you do if you can't even trust your bank?

Better question, why WOULD you trust your bank? They are a business, they are out to make money just like WalMart. Would you trust WalMart to honestly tell you if someone else had one of their products for cheaper?

I'm not saying banks shouldn't be held accountable, but ultimately, you are responsible for what you do with your money. If a doctor tells you you're dying of cancer and have only 5 months to live, do you trust him or get a second opinion? I know that analogy is a little dramatic, but I don't trust any one person or institution to advise me on my money, investments or any loans I may want to take out. To me, that's just common sense. Too many people are unwilling to take the responsibility for their own situations. In the end, I know me and only me is accountable, so you can bet your butt my research is going to go beyond what some banker that's looking to boost his business is telling me.

Besides, I keep all of my money in Ball Jars buried 5 feet below my house.

I'll write this one away on the account of different back grounds. A bank in Holland and I guess most of North Western Europe commits economic suicide when stories like these leak. It is simply unthinkable that such an institution would willingly misinform you. I am not the only one thinking that, luckily the judges thought so too.

Originally Posted by Ted

I'll write this one away on the account of different back grounds. A bank in Holland and I guess most of North Western Europe commits economic suicide when stories like these leak. It is simply unthinkable that such an institution would willingly misinform you. I am not the only one thinking that, luckily the judges thought so too.

I don't disagree with holding them accountable especially when they're intentionally misleading you. They'll get hung up here for doing that too, if the situation is bad enough. But that doesn't mean you blindly trust someone just because he tells you to, you know?

Always double check, triple check, and then check over your checks a few more times when it come to loans and investing.