Pandemonium in Venezuela.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, GERARDO URDANETA said:

It is worse than may of you think:
What's happening in Venezuela is not a bad government. What's happening is a very well orchestrated strategy to eliminate any sign of democracy and impose a totalitarian regime in the country 
The current diaspora is one of the government's way to "purge" the very few people that still had some respect for democracy and a decent living. Last changes in Maduro's government are aiming for a deeper ideologization of the system and create the type of people that thy can handle. Cuban's G2 is coaching Maduros' team in this

...........

Maybe it is time to put indifference aside and start thinking that Venezuela's problem affect the whole continent, and that the positioning of a totalitarian regime in the north of south America might be the beginning of the communism sickness spread in the West.

Let's act now

Gerardo has it exactly right:  this is the evil of the Castro Brothers, now reaching out via the soulless Cuban Intelligence murderers. 

Ultimately, either the Americas all act to remove these killer scumbags, or mass starvation is coming, and it gets very expensive to deal with when the real mega-starvation hits.  While it is preferable for the people of Venezuela to hang Maduro and the Cubans from the lampposts, realistically they have no heavy weapons, and so until the Army is turned, Maduro will continue his murderous path. Can the Army be bought?  I think so.  Those generals have no specific ideological commitment to Cuban Communism, there is nothing in it for them. 

[GERARDO URDANETA + 13]

To understand Venezuela's future, look to the bond market, not politics and protests

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-oil-debt-refugees-bonds-maduro-1.4807633

Would it be Capitalism the light in the tunnel?

 

[jose chalhoub + 388]

13 hours ago, Valerie Williams said:

Jose, it's heartbreaking what is happening there, and I hope you have what you need to get through it. When you say you hate the opposition there, do you mean you hate those who are against Maduro? Is it that the opposition is just as bad or worse than the ones in power?

Also, can we expect to be able to send aid, such as food and medical care and for it to actually reach those who need it? That has been a major problem in other places where we've sent aid. The supplies are often intercepted by government officials or criminal networks and instead of helping people, they sell the supplies for profit or hoard them.

the main reason why we still the revolution in power is that we have no oppositon, all of its members are fighting each other, a battle of egos, and no leadership at all, no fresh faces and players, same old guard, and the government has exploited that amazingly well, of course with foreign guidance from cuba, russia, north korea. And also the opposition the mainstream opposition has been doing business with governmental leaders as well, oxygenating them in the end. A battle for economic survival selling their souls to the devil. And in the end most of them, oppostion leaders have ended up in jail. Such a mess. 

[jose chalhoub + 388]

15 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Lurkers, for the topic of Venezuela, pay attention to Jose Chalhoub, who lives in Venezuela and had long been in oil & gas there.

Thanks Tom, much appreciated. With my pleasure i could give all the lights and guidance y'all need. Definitely i dont want to be ideologically biased, but crap things here are spiralling out of control, its a thing of common sense, to live a decent life. Life has become in Venezuela an issue of rushing, running lines to buy anything if you are lucky enough to find them, having contacts to buy things in black market, running out of gas, gasoline, power outages, water, insecurity, selfimposed curfews, not being able to go out after 10 pm being exposed to delinquency. Too many things. And on top of that, Venezuela's oil and gas is dying and with so many reserves underneath. Hope it wont be late until a decent administration gets to develop those reserves for the integral development of Venezuela in the future. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

50 minutes ago, jose chalhoub said:

 And on top of that, Venezuela's oil and gas is dying and with so many reserves underneath. Hope it wont be late until a decent administration gets to develop those reserves for the integral development of Venezuela in the future. 

Unfortunately, it will be "too late."  By the time Maduro and the Cubans are expelled or arrested, the oilfields will be in total collapse.  It will be a gigantic effort to do a re-start. And it will also be very expensive, in a time when capital is scarce to find.  I fear for Venezuela.  I cry for Venezuela. 

[Valerie Williams + 129]

51 minutes ago, jose chalhoub said:

the main reason why we still the revolution in power is that we have no oppositon, all of its members are fighting each other, a battle of egos, and no leadership at all, no fresh faces and players, same old guard, and the government has exploited that amazingly well, of course with foreign guidance from cuba, russia, north korea. And also the opposition the mainstream opposition has been doing business with governmental leaders as well, oxygenating them in the end. A battle for economic survival selling their souls to the devil. And in the end most of them, oppostion leaders have ended up in jail. Such a mess. 

Your description sounds a lot like what I've been saying about all of our politicians. Power is such a corrupting influence.

So how do you think a strategy like what Jan Van Eck suggested would play out? Would something like that have a chance of being successful?

[Valerie Williams + 129]

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Valerie, I would respond to your musings by mentioning that the Monarchical system of government has withstood the "test of time," now running at about a thousand years, works just fine for lots of folks.  Governments tend to evolve as a function of the experiences (usually the bad experiences) of local populations with previous systems of government.  The USA came up with its system in reaction to the problems of the colonials with the mercantile exploitation of agents of the King in England, who needed to finance his wars with France.  I don't think that directly translates to other societies. 

Yes, every country's culture, needs and evolution is unique and I'm definitely not one who thinks we can transplant Americanism everywhere. Venezuela is either on the brink of collapse or revolution, though, and their uniqueness does not preclude them from using ours as a template. I still posit that a government designed to limit authoritarian power, protect individual liberty and property rights as much preferable to the totalitarian regimes that tend to proceed out of collectivist ideology.

[jmpzc@yahoo.com + 4]

On 8/31/2018 at 10:22 AM, jose chalhoub said:

All i can say about this discussion is that venezuelan people in its majority is considered too pro U.S. so in any prospect of an intervention the U.S. forces need to be very careful about its targets and not incurring in those damn "collateral damages" like in Belgrade for example. This is a scenario i dont really want for Venezuela, but definitely another one more precise and accurate in order to push these criminals out of power that have sequestered Venezuela. 

I mostly agree with Jose´s viepoints over a military intervention to get rid of maduro, but tjhe clear fact is that by letting things go we wil have much more people dead by hunger, desease and all the maladies this regime is bringing up to us.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Valerie Williams said:

Yes, every country's culture, needs and evolution is unique and I'm definitely not one who thinks we can transplant Americanism everywhere. Venezuela is either on the brink of collapse or revolution, though, and their uniqueness does not preclude them from using ours as a template. I still posit that a government designed to limit authoritarian power, protect individual liberty and property rights as much preferable to the totalitarian regimes that tend to proceed out of collectivist ideology.

In all candor, Valerie, the American system has now failed its citizens.  It is the basis for a putsch by Wall Street, who have stolen perhaps 22 million homes from ordinary folk, and the System has enabled that mass theft, of breathtaking proportions. 

The duopoly system in the USA is inherently deficient, as it suppresses minority issues and approaches.  The Parliamentary System expands to include even the smallest group politically, so you can see those advantages.  Even neighboring Canada has evolved into three major Parties, each quite distinct.  I don't place much faith in the US system, which seems to be based on the principle that the bigger get to steal more, with impunity, from the smaller. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

59 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

In all candor, Valerie, the American system has now failed its citizens.  It is the basis for a putsch by Wall Street, who have stolen perhaps 22 million homes from ordinary folk

Say what? I'd like these details on how WS has stolen 22 million homes.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

5 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Say what? I'd like these details on how WS has stolen 22 million homes.

Hi Rodent.  We had a big discussion about this on another thread.  You may need to scroll almost to the top/beginning to get it all.

 

[Rodent + 1,424]

5 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hi Rodent.  We had a big discussion about this on another thread.  You may need to scroll almost to the top/beginning to get it all.

 

Yeah, saw that.  I just have a shortage of capacity for lack of personal responsibility/accountability.

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Yeah, saw that.  I just have a shortage of capacity for lack of personal responsibility/accountability.

 

Ok, I get that.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

38 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Yeah, saw that.  I just have a shortage of capacity for lack of personal responsibility/accountability.

 

Nobody has been held accountable.  The Big Five legacy banks paid fines to the CFPB of $5 billion each, total $25 billion, and just shrugged it off as one more tiny cost of doing business.  JPMorgan Chase now has some two trillion in assets.  When Jamie Dion was asked how he figured he could get away with doing what he did, his answer to the Analyst sitting in the audience at the Meeting was "Because I have more money than you."  

I invite you to ponder that rebuttal. 

[Mike Marcellus + 157]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nobody has been held accountable.

I think you may have missed her point.  Yes, you are right. it's absolutely the definition of predatory lending.  But every mortgage was a contract between two parties.  The homeowners signed.  If they signed something they didn't understand, well that's their fault.  Unfortunately, I fell under that segment.  I worked very hard to right that ship.  And I also, like Rodent, have very little patience for those who like to blame everyone but themselves.

[Jim Santmyer + 3]

Time to take out the bus driver.  They don’t come any dumber....

He won’t be missed!!

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

16 minutes ago, Mike Marcellus said:

I think you may have missed her point.  Yes, you are right. it's absolutely the definition of predatory lending.  But every mortgage was a contract between two parties.  The homeowners signed.  If they signed something they didn't understand, well that's their fault.  Unfortunately, I fell under that segment.  I worked very hard to right that ship.  And I also, like Rodent, have very little patience for those who like to blame everyone but themselves.

Sorry, Mike, you STILL don't understand.  But don't feel bad; those deals are so insidious that unless you are steeped in insider knowledge you will never figure it out. 

There is a difference between the "holder of the note" and the "owner of the debt."  A Note is issued to be evidence of the transaction; the mortgage is issued a security for the entity that funded the loan.  They are two instruments for two different purposes. 

When you signed those stacks of papers at closing, the Note typically said "The Lender is America's Mortgage Lenders Inc." or it said "the Lender is Lime Financial" or whatever.  Who are those guys?  They are not Lenders.  They are fee-paid brokers; those guys do not put up one thin dime.  

Thus the Note is not representative of the transaction, and is not evidence of the transaction.  It is somebody else that funds, who is hidden from view.  The Note is essentially worthless, it is unenforceable on its face, because it does not recite the actual lender and the borrower.  All of that is required under Regulation Z of the CFPB, Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC 1692 et seq. 

Now the ersatz, or phony, note gets stamped "Pay to the order of ________________".   That is treated by the courts as a "Blank Indorsement," allowing anybody to go collect the Note.  However because the Note does not describe the true transaction, it is not an instrument amenable to transfer by negotiation, never mind what the foreclosure lawyers will tell you. And the real loan, sourced from the un-named lender who is likely a pension fund and you never heard of them (nor they of you) never finds out about the structure of the Note; all they get is a "Certificate" of participation in a tranche of the mortgage syndication, or securitized trust.

So the Borrower does not know who the Lender really is, the Lender never heard of the Borrower, and Wall Street holds everything close to the chest. They get to screw both sides. And they do - big time. 

Meanwhile that mortgage says that the mortgagee is "MERS," which is this private registration system cooked up by the banks to keep your prying eyes out from ever finding out who the real lenders and players are.  MERS will then do what are called "corporate assignments of mortgage' which are fanciful papers made up to snow the Judge (who has no clue as to what Wall Street is really up to).  ME#RS as a bare nominee has no legal authority to assign anything, as an assignment of mortgage without ownership of the loan is a nullity.  The foreclosure lawyers ignore that legal nicety and do it anyway - all compliments of LPS and DOCX, who will generate any paper you need to do a foreclosure for a fixed fee.  Those guys even published a Menu of prices! 

The upshot is that the so-called "plaintiff" that shows up in court is not the real party in interest, they have no loss, no risk of loss, and have nothing to do with that loan - except that they have this photocopy of a note not made out to them, that is now stamped "in blank" and which they wave around in court.  Meanwhile - and this is the kicker - your loan is paid off in full long ago, by that insurer, who paid 91 days after you "defaulted."  And you paid for that insurance premium out of your closing funds. 

It is as if a tree from your neighbor's lot falls on your car, and the guy living eight doors down and around the corner shows up in court and says "Don't pay him, give me the money."  Hey, who are you?  Nobody?  What are you doing here?  Except, nobody asks those questions in court. 

Take it from me: unless your loan was from a credit union, it was fully insured, and your house was stolen by some party that had no funds involved and no risk of loss.  You, in short, were robbed by Wall Street highwaymen. Astounding but true. 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

Yeah, saw that.  I just have a shortage of capacity for lack of personal responsibility/accountability.

 

OK  Rodi, I invite you to ponder the following:

Rich Auntie has no kids, and her niece and hubby go to Sears and buy a refrigerator for $1,200, signing a time contract for it. Those are typical conditional sales contracts.  They have to pay (pick a number)  $100 a month.  The hubby is put on part-time work and their income drops.  Rich Auntie does not want the young couple tostruggle, so she goes to Sears and says: "What is the balance of my niece's contract?"  And Sears says:  $800.  So Auntie says, "Here you go." and pays off the contract. 

Given that set of events, do you now propose to maintain that Sears still has the right to send over two big goons with thick necks, tatoos and no teeth to go repossess that refrigerator?  

Of course not.  In a  financial contract, paid is paid, it is irrelevant who pays and where the money comes from.  So, when our homeowner's contract is paid off by the insurer under that credit-default swap, the Lender is paid, and he no longer has a claim. 

Except they go foreclose anyway and take the house, on the principle (which you endorse as a classic Midwesterner) that those people should not get "a free house."

Never mind that some Wall Street Bank with no coin at risk ends up getting a "free house." 

Now does it sink in, what the Street is up to? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Rodent said:

Yeah, saw that.  I just have a shortage of capacity for lack of personal responsibility/accountability.

 

I invite you to ponder the attached and the implications for society, as to what Wall Street does to the little guy. 

Memo of Laws re Mot to Dismiss 3.10.18.pdf

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

58 minutes ago, Mike Marcellus said:

I think you may have missed her point.  Yes, you are right. it's absolutely the definition of predatory lending.  But every mortgage was a contract between two parties.  The homeowners signed.  If they signed something they didn't understand, well that's their fault.  Unfortunately, I fell under that segment.  I worked very hard to right that ship.  And I also, like Rodent, have very little patience for those who like to blame everyone but themselves.

Here is a fuller descriptive of what the Street is up to when they go sue some hapless homeowner:

Memo of Laws re Mot to Dismiss 3.10.18.pdf

[Rodent + 1,424]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nobody has been held accountable.  The Big Five legacy banks paid fines to the CFPB of $5 billion each, total $25 billion, and just shrugged it off as one more tiny cost of doing business.  JPMorgan Chase now has some two trillion in assets.  When Jamie Dion was asked how he figured he could get away with doing what he did, his answer to the Analyst sitting in the audience at the Meeting was "Because I have more money than you."  

I invite you to ponder that rebuttal. 

No rebuttal required. Nobody has been held accountable. I did not suggest (or did not do so unintentionally at least)  that the banks were in the right here, nor that they had somehow been made to pay for their lack of scruples.  They should have been allowed to go under. For if we strip them of the natural consequence, what is their motivation for behaving differently in the future? If banks or lenders were made to eat their bad investments then perhaps they would lend with a bit more prudence.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Rodent said:

No rebuttal required. Nobody has been held accountable. I did not suggest (or did not do so unintentionally at least)  that the banks were in the right here, nor that they had somehow been made to pay for their lack of scruples.  They should have been allowed to go under. For if we strip them of the natural consequence, what is their motivation for behaving differently in the future? If banks or lenders were made to eat their bad investments then perhaps they would lend with a bit more prudence.

All true, Rodi, but there is more to it than that.  It all stems from changes made in the Ivy League admissions standards back in the sixties.  It is a very long story, but it started there. Some day we'll have a drink and I'll fill you in on how this went (as long as you can resist demonstrably racking one in the chamber!). The culture of New York is way different than in the rest of the country  (OK, LA also).  It is an ugly story, to be sure. Cheers.

[Rodent + 1,424]

25 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK  Rodi, I invite you to ponder the following:

Rich Auntie has no kids, and her niece and hubby go to Sears and buy a refrigerator for $1,200, signing a time contract for it. Those are typical conditional sales contracts.  They have to pay (pick a number)  $100 a month.  The hubby is put on part-time work and their income drops.  Rich Auntie does not want the young couple tostruggle, so she goes to Sears and says: "What is the balance of my niece's contract?"  And Sears says:  $800.  So Auntie says, "Here you go." and pays off the contract. 

Given that set of events, do you now propose to maintain that Sears still has the right to send over two big goons with thick necks, tatoos and no teeth to go repossess that refrigerator?  

Of course not.  In a  financial contract, paid is paid, it is irrelevant who pays and where the money comes from.  So, when our homeowner's contract is paid off by the insurer under that credit-default swap, the Lender is paid, and he no longer has a claim. 

Except they go foreclose anyway and take the house, on the principle (which you endorse as a classic Midwesterner) that those people should not get "a free house."

Never mind that some Wall Street Bank with no coin at risk ends up getting a "free house." 

Now does it sink in, what the Street is up to? 

I know what the Street is up to: making money. I'm not suggesting they are on the up and up. 

In your example, not sure how that relates to the issue at hand. Not saying it doesn't, only that I don't see it. While the original lender may no longer have a claim (I don't understand who is who in your above), the homeowner certainly doesn't if they are not paying. 

That specific example aside, if you have borrowed money and then find yourself upside down or catastrophe happens (God forbid) and you find yourself unable to pay, it will be reclaimed, and rightfully so, even if the money was lent knowing that the borrower had a slim chance of paying.

The banks did an awful thing here, for sure. They should suffer. but they won't. But we must not whitewash the borrowers who bit off more than they can chew. And accidents and unforseen circumstances happen, to be sure. Some of these things are unavoidable. But then you must take your lumps--a contract to pay is a contract to pay, and if you can't pay, regardless of the reason, you are not entitled to the thing you purchased. The banks need to own up to their share of this mess. Borrowers too must own their share as well.

[Rodent + 1,424]

16 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I invite you to ponder the attached and the implications for society, as to what Wall Street does to the little guy. 

Memo of Laws re Mot to Dismiss 3.10.18.pdf

in the process of reading this now. From pg 2 

"n particular, the Superior Court of Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, undertook a detailed examination of the shenanigans of Ocwen and HSBC Bank and noted in relevant part"

Is "shenanigans" a legal term? LOVE IT.

[Glenn Ellis + 57]

15 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

WalMart is the single largest importer of goods from China.  They purchase some $60 billion all by themselves.  Amazing volume.

As to your rhetorical question of will Venezuela accept American refugees:  emphatically Yes (after Maduro is gone).  Venezuela historically does not turn away refugees. 

@Jan Erik

HAHA, gee, I hope for at least one Norte Americano, that is true.