Graph from: http://rebelcapitalist.com

Our banks thought they'd invent a new system for making contracts and transferring titles. There are obviously no regulators in place who monitor this ongoing. So the problems with their non legal processes emerge when challenged in foreclosures. Since most foreclosures are settled quietly, it took a while for the challenges to emerge. When they did, lenders were unable to account for their actions. It's not a fast moving process, hence the lack of day to day news coverage. But the justice process is still alive and the judgment is - failure to observe contract law equals an inability to prove ownership on the part of the lenders.

I'm going to try to explain this in more detial in about five days. There will be a reckoning and the banks will take a huge tumble or we will have to abandon centuries of contract law. Quite a match.

That's a very good article. It's good to see this from inside the industry:

"Although it sounds ludicrous to the average Jane, it appears that neither the banks, nor the servicer used by both, saw anything prohibitive or unusual in the fact that clear title to foreclosed properties had not been established according to state law. This says volumes about how far off the mark our industry can be in understanding the judicial system’s perspective."
http://titanlenderscorp.com/blog/

Titan Lenders Corp gleans 3 pieces of guidance for mortgage lenders from the Mass Court ruling that is worth a read

"Admittedly preferring to read the tea leaves versus just drinking the brew, we see guidance from the Massachusetts court that can benefit mortgage lenders of every description.

We see three distinct messages:

* States and their multi-state initiatives have teeth they are ready to use in 2011;
* Best-effort mortgage documentation is just not good enough; and
* Timeliness of lending protocols will be scrutinized...."

For the entire post: http://titanlenderscorp.com/blog/

It's an incredibly important subject and it needs to be boiled down to the basics so people can fight back.

I really like your phrase: "debt based currency scheme run by the banksters."

What some people realize at the top is that there's a way to bring the financial fraud perps to their knees, in a serious way. It's not just foreclosures we're talking about. It's every loan made without the legally required paper including a clear pointer to who the debt holder is (MBS 1 - infinity). I have a name for it:

The Countrywide Class Action

Angelo would smile;)

It gets worse than that, China has only lowered their tariffs after they literally capture the market. So, say clothing, all of those people lost their jobs the entire industry moved to China, U.S. hardly makes any clothes anymore, tariffs lowered.

Then....China has a VAT, which can act like a "dynamic" tariff, most countries have a VAT, except the U.S.

This was mentioned on Dylan Ratigan (intermingled with some Forbes corporate denial guest), that it is multinational corporations who want nothing done on China, since that's where they manufacture, plus their mythical consumer market. Caterpillar for example has been busy offshore outsourcing jobs, firing Americans, IBM is notorious, list goes on and on...

So, in terms of killing the beasts, frankly the U.S. refuses to reign in their multinationals, hell, they run and rule the country, but China actually can and it wouldn't surprise me in the long run, that's what China does....

i.e. sell the rope with which to hang them.

Charles McMillion has a tariff schedule, detailed but it's old, he's an economist, heavily focused on manufacturing, as well as China.

Then, on this site lots of posts on China since it's clearly this massive drag, a real economic threat on the U.S. economy, especially the U.S. worker.

Services, esp. tech, it's India, but in terms of jobs, even on tech, it's China.

"Well, let’s look at tariffs. In the United States, our average tariff is maybe 2.5% or 3%. In China, it’s more like 25%. Under the WTO agreements, which govern all trade internationally, developing countries are given special and deferential treatment. They’re permitted to have higher tariffs, and they’re permitted to not play by quite the same rules when it comes to the various codes that the WTO has."

How is it that the second largest economy in the world is considered a "developing" economy and gets special treatment with regard to tariffs and trade? Why don't the cabal of morons at the WTO recognize this absurdity? I wonder what would happen if the WTO stripped China of its "developing" status. I doubt China would be in a position to ruthlessly abuse this absurd status to the detriment of all other nations.

So glad you covered this with clarity.

Mish and the whiners are wrong. Plain and simple.
Sure the people 'borrowed' the money... except that they didn't - they signed a promissory note and the bank cashed it to make the loan - that is new money into the sytem, number one, and number two it is fraud but that's all accepted practice in the debt based currency scheme run by the banksters.
So no money was loaned, and the banks got even greedier and scammed the investors they sold the alleged mortgages to... how nice.
Let them figure out how to solve it.

The whole things was a set up from the get go because the big boys had already passed NAFTA and were well on their way to stripping the economy in the US - now that''s done - and they want more?

too bad for them...

It's one thing to preach at the buyer. But what about the lender, servicers, etc. This is their business, their specialty. When they created procedures parallel to established law, they knew it. When they went in to foreclosure negotiations or hearings in court, they knew that they didn't have the required paper work. When they concluded negotiations out of court lacking required documents to make this legal, they perpetrated fraud.

The moral judgment is on an entire industry - financial services - for skirting the law and crushing people without legal basis and with full knowledge that they could have worked out something where the borrower stayed in the home and the lender recovered some of the mortgage.

You make an outstanding and very telling point about the "moralizers."