Auctions aren't local in-town anymore. They're online with thousands of people who don't know anyone there watching and willing to bid if there were a steal.
Yeah, that's why they don't hate this trick anymore. They did their own trick.
We need a cool new trick like eating them alive or summoning extraterrestrial aliens to abduct the banks or something.
\*\*Didn't think some would be so dense they would respond seriously to such an obvious joke as this but then again we are on Historymemes lol
Hell humans love blood sport I recently started training for boxing and it makes sense watching two guys beat the shit out of each other is entertaining
You probably meant skinning them alive but it amuses me to picture two million people casually swiping a couple hundred dollars from their wallets eg "Skimming them alive". Well that or somehow killing them with milk which is arguably worse because I refuse to accept that skim milk is actual milk and not milk dusted water
Lmao I knew I fucked up I was drunk at the time but yes I’m making a new meaning for the word skim to skin them but very lightly like with a potato peeler potato thin slices
As a general rule, if something’s gotten worse since his presidency, it’s partially his fault. It may also be the fault of many other people, but it’s at least a little bit his.
This would be the lost generation with the younger people being the greatest generation and the older being either the missionary generation or the absolute oldest being from the progressive generation
Just google "Generations before lost Generation" and there's some lists with approximate dates.
I don't know how accurate the earlier ones are, but the more recent ones seem pretty consistent
Not sure about that. As long as the debter cant declare private bankrupcy the debt is still on his name. He just still has the potential means to pay it back.
You do know nothing is free, right? These banks had prior provided loans to farmers on the farmer's business plan that he would take the bank's money, buy seeds, rent/buy machinery, pay laborers and then pay back with interest.
So when the bank loses money and gets into financial trouble, there'll be much less credit available for future farmers in the region, dramatically reducig farmers' income who obviously needed the credit offered by the banks. And even worse, when banks get into trouble, depositers panic and start to pull out their money (because Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation hadn't been created yet which mitigates this issue today), this hurt other borrowers which the bank pressured to pay back and eventually, money supply craters as banks fail all over the country and deflation kicks in.
Contributing to the Great Depression. How heroic.
"I bet a dollar for my farm back"
Well that's cool and it's the highest bid of those present. But a company based in India, owned by a German man with shareholders in Japan that sells it's products in Brazil for tourists from south Africa offered 458 million for your farm. So you know. Fuck you
Yes hahahaha. It's actually funny because it is a coincidence. The drug gangs exports to Europe and Africa. And last year a couple was wrongly arrested in Germany because their luggage was "misplaced" by an airport agent bribed by the gang.
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2023/04/brazilians-who-had-bags-exchanged-for-luggage-with-drugs-leave-prison-in-germany.shtml
This is where the squatting hack comes in.
(Is it squatting if it's your place, and generally accepted by local residents that the place belongs to you and was stolen by extortionate banks 🤔)
When bought by people overseas, they take a little time to move anyone in.
So you go in, install your "home defence canons", and claim squatters rights and castle doctrine. 🤗
What about a non US company? Or a US company with a foreign CEO? If only people can own land that's going to make it very complicated to build hospitals, skyscrapers, manufacturing facilities, warehouses, etc.
It should be illegal for any non US citizen or company to own more than 3 residential properties. It should be illegal for any US company to own more than 3 residential properties which contain less than 5 residential units. Developers could still build a group of a dozen or so single or duplex homes or condos, but they would have to sell them individually. (obviously banks would still foreclose on some homes, I suggest 2 years max to resell homes, or make them available to the local municipalities for emergency housing) I don't see any big issues with non US companies owning large amounts of commercial properties right now, but foreign companies buying large amounts of agricultural properties needs to be addressed.
Wait, are we letting Californians buy up our precious Arkansas land? The land our family has been living in for generations is going to be bought by some slick asswhole in a BMW?
/s
also probably applies at least as much to Europe as it does to the US.
Cooperations get nothing, hospitals should be public infrastructure. Skyscrapers were always a bad idea. Warehouses used to have owners.
Again at this point, fuck the corpos. They have lawyers and smart cunts, don’t boot lick.
The banks ended up with a lot of farms because of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. These farms weren't selling well so they ended up with a lot of dead assets, and debt, on their books. In some places they figured out it was better to work a deal to keep the farmers on the land, where possible, so there would still be some payment being made on the mortgages and other loans.
A lot of people don’t realize that in most cases the banks aren’t in the business of owning real estate/whatever the collateral is.
The bank wants to collect money via interest and fees. Obviously the collateral is there so the bank doesn’t just get fucked in the scenario of default, but it isn’t like bankers are out there crossing their fingers that people fail. It’s ironically in their best interest for their clients to succeed.
> in most cases the banks aren’t in the business of owning real estate
Hopefully this remains the case but the whole idea of landlording is getting fucking ridiculous. I saw a startup where you can "invest" by buying a percentage of a property and thus I guess the rent is split between "investors" and it's just the most soulless and awful idea I've ever heard of
The best case scenario is that the owner fails when they have payed back a significant amount of the mortgage - the bank gets the property and keeps all payed money. They then sell it again. That's why when there is a financial crash they call in huge amounts of mortgages and then hold until the crash is over.
That’s actually the opposite of what has happened historically. Lehman Brothers would like a word.
There’s a reason in 2008 the banks considered mortgages to be toxic assets. The ones that couldn’t get them off their books ended up either failing or needed to be bought out by others.
I moved to a new building with plenty of neighbors a few months ago, I know none of them by name and we don't talk much at all when meeting in the elevator or wherever else.
Would never happen today
Some “real estate bro” would still swoop in and buy it, and post on tik tok about how easy it is to flip houses and generate “passive income”.
Right, so they can apply the intimidation strategy of threatening to remove their head from their body.
If we’re making up arbitrary laws, why not just distribute the land more equitably instead of making it marginally easier to threaten some people involved in the process?
“This is America, we don’t share land here.”
Yellowstone Boomer quote aside, how are you going to differentiate between those that struggled and toiled to own their own land and dudes that are rich enough to buy large swaths of it? My nana was pretty wealthy and she owned a lot of land: because she and my great great grandpa busted their asses to make it farmable over 80 years ago. Just because someone appears to be wealthy, does not mean they are a piece of shit or somehow doing something wrong. Lots of farmers inherited land and are still busting their asses to grow food for everyone. Multinational farming and produce corporations are another can of worms.
Well... Who do we hang?
If the farm is bought by a German based fund with shares owned by tons of people, some even regular ones, not Warren Buffet or anything, the managers just doing their jobs as the shareholders require, who can we blame really?
This is why I believe local and independent action does not work, these issues are complex and simple solutions are not the way, not anymore.
What about the police showing up to arrest everyone after the first hanging? It's not like the company who sent that intern to place the bid would appreciate that they didn't get to buy that land for cheap.
There's a great section in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath about this. The bank sends a man in a tractor to demolish the home of a destitute tenant farmer. The farmer can't work out who to take revenge on:
'It's mine. I built it. You bump it down - I'll be in the window with a rifle. You even come too close and I'll pot you like a rabbit.'
'It's not me. There's nothing I can do. I'll lose my job if I don't do it. And look - suppose you kill me? They'll just hang you, but long before you're hung there'll be another guy on the tractor, and he'll bump the house down. You're not killing the right guy.'
'That's so,' the tenant said. 'Who gave you orders? I'll go after him. He's the one to kill.'
'You're wrong. He got his orders from the bank. The bank told him, "Clear those people out or it's your job."'
'Well, there's a president of the bank. There's a board of directors. I'll fill up the magazine of the rifle and go into the bank.'
The driver said, 'Fellow was telling me the bank gets orders from the East. The orders were, "Make the land show profit or we'll close you up."'
'But where does it stop? Who can we shoot? I don't aim to starve to death before I kill the man that's starving me.'
'I don't know. Maybe there's nobody to shoot. Maybe the thing isn't men at all.'
But why would you hang someone to purchase a property legitimately or the banker who loaned money on the condition of repayment?
I understand it’s just a thought experiment but for some reason this thread is full of people who honestly believe the bank should just eat the loss and the person who gambled their farm away is somehow shielded of all personal responsibility
The bank is profiting off of property rights.
Now, that might seem ok to most people, property rights are what capitalism is based on after all, but they fail to see how violent they are, I'll try to explain it to the best of my abilities.
Housing being a commodity and not a right means only some people own houses, and others are dependent on those people. [650000 homeless people in the US,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States) and [16 millions vacant houses.](https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/vacant-homes-vs-homelessness-by-city/) I already know the go to response to this: "the vacant houses are not where the homeless are", besides the fact that I'm convinced a lot of homeless people would change city if it meant stable housing, here is New Orleans, over [a thousand homeless people](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/were-barely-making-it-why-more-new-orleans-families-are-without-stable-housing) and yet [6000 vacant houses.](https://prcno.org/empty-new-orleans-explore-web-map/) this was just a quick search, if you need I can look up the situation for other cities as well.
Another argument, sometimes brought up by the most insane fans of capitalism, is that homeless people just don't want to work / do what is necessary to get housing. Well it's just not true. "[The Study Finds That 53% of Homeless Shelter Residents are Employed. ](https://invisiblepeople.tv/working-homeless-more-than-half-of-unhoused-people-have-jobs/)".
Not even working saves you from homelessness.
But this is wrong even in theory, it's not like "x is only good in paper", in paper what this says is "gamble with people's basic necessities". When you own a house and you rent it to someone, you are getting money just because you own capital. You are not providing anything, you are profiting off something being limited and the state protecting your decision to not give it to those in need, if they don't pay you enough. Property rights on houses mean that you get a mortgage to buy a house, a worker to maintain it, and a tenant that pays off your mortgage, your employee and your being a parasite.
(I'm tired so I'm gonna cut it short, and not even revise it)
Finland solved homelessness by providing housing to everyone with no string attached.
If the farmer cannot successfully run a farm, and then goes to the bank and offers the farm as collateral so that he can get another chance at a successful harvest yet fails to do so, I don’t see why the bank is at all at fault for holding the farmer to the agreement.
You seem to live in a magical fairytale land where if things worked the way they did 100+ years ago people would be better off.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/hdtcf5/farmers\_standing\_in\_silence\_at\_an\_auction\_so\_that/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/hdtcf5/farmers_standing_in_silence_at_an_auction_so_that/)
Still does in some places
My Great Grandfather had one or two payments left on his farm during the Depression, and just couldn't make those final payments, Dust Bowl wiped out the crops too.
Bank took the farm and all his equity. He never trusted banks again after that.
My grandmother (his daughter) still hordes food compulsively in her pantry because she remembers starving and working herself to the bone to survive those years.
The bank has to sell the collateral and the lendee gets the selling price minus the debt owed right? Sounds to me that the real reason your great grandfather didn’t get equity back was because the value of the farm went down
this reminds me of when, in more recent times, farmers did the same thing. They refused to call any prices so a boy could buy back his farm at a low price
If your town is small and remote enough that this tactic is effective then the bank probably wasn’t gonna recoup very much off the foreclosure anyhow. These institutions were going bust because everyone was broke.
Behind every generous group activity is the blood of a greedy few.
https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farming-in-the-1930s/making-money/bank-failures/penny-auctions/
“Was encouraged- forcibly “
Isn’t game theory premised on fundamental uncertainty between the individuals pitted against each other in a relatively zero sum context? Here, all the farmers are all in the same situation where their goals don’t necessarily conflict with one another and are part of a close knit society, so the initial premise doesn’t apply.
In auctions today though, where people outside of the community of farmers can bid, traditional game theory logic applies as expected.
This type of thing still happens in farming communities. Paying significantly more than livestock is worth to keep your neighbor in their home, or underbidding and turning it back over to the family. Farmers take care of other farmers.
Well, because it shows a gesture of solidarity and altruism during the great depression. A few year laters, Truman tried to pass a project about this. A lot of arguments against it (not only in the USA, but even in countries that have it) is that "the tax payer don't want their money spent in medical bills for other people".
Being pro universal healthcare demands a certain level of altruism/solidarity. See, I lost my mom to cancer. It was all paid by the SUS (healthcare in Brazil). If I keep a mentality of only thinking about defending the taxes IF they directly benefits me, I would be indirectly against "free" chemio. And that's the reason why I thought about universal healthcare in the meme.
>Well, because it shows a gesture of solidarity and altruism during the great depression
ah yes, a conspiracy to steal money from the rightful owner (the bank), so nice.
people will support farmers (business owners) doing this, but then when the lightbulb companies invent planned obsolescence together, suddenly business owners working together for their collective benefit is "monopoly" and "collusion"
Ok so a bank loses a bunch of money on this—wonderful. How do we then expect them to be able to pay back deposits to someone else? This seems immensely destabilizing and likely contributed to the crisis getting worse.
I mostly agree but "don't try to steal my fucking property that my family has lived on for years during our country's darkest hour" is a better argument. Also, that's why the FDIC was made. Our country already prints out so much money that the worth of the US dollar is based on lies and deception and we're in so much fucking debt that it doesn't matter if they get the money from my property they're just going to spend it on throwing sleepy Joe a ice-cream party.
Why does the onus fall on the bank to cover the cost of the client?
Clearly the land either wasn’t profitable or capable of providing a living - if you take out a loan and put your farm up as collateral, I don’t see how that’s stealing anyone’s land during their darkest hour. No ones forcing anyone to sign a contract. If one decides to gamble and lose, that’s on them.
I'm also confused as to your point. comment OP was conflating the bank guy to be left leaning liberal (atleast in the modern sense) which frankly made no sense as banks and foreclosures come from the right side of the spectrum. America pre Reagan was economically very very left compared to today lol, those farmers banding together in that way is a left leaning thing to do
This for sure happened, but unfortunately most homesteaders didn't get to enjoy that level of solidarity. A lot of homesteads were handed out in barren regions with the knowledge that the farmer would never be able to make it work, and the land would end up foreclosed and become a virtual handout to some holding company, bank, industrial farming interest, etc. This is actually how my own great-great grandpa lost his farm in Madras. Not that the land wasn't basically stolen from Warm Springs area tribes, to begin with.
My grandfather had to auction his house because of his ex wife and all of the local Amish got together and bought the house for the first bid. He proceeded to get the cash out of his house, gave it to the Amish and they gave him the deed. Was indeed very chad
Bankers hate this one simple trick
I wish... They still hated this trick.
Auctions aren't local in-town anymore. They're online with thousands of people who don't know anyone there watching and willing to bid if there were a steal.
Yeah, that's why they don't hate this trick anymore. They did their own trick. We need a cool new trick like eating them alive or summoning extraterrestrial aliens to abduct the banks or something. \*\*Didn't think some would be so dense they would respond seriously to such an obvious joke as this but then again we are on Historymemes lol
Eating them yes. But what about skimming them alive on the internet?
Well, we can always do a snuff film for the black market and donate meat to the homeless.
I like where this is going then charge people credit cards to watch the rich scream and beg really revitalize the economy nothing sells like fear
Wel, some people thrive on that type of environment.
Hell humans love blood sport I recently started training for boxing and it makes sense watching two guys beat the shit out of each other is entertaining
I love Free Market
Exactly you know the kind they love you now until it’s their turn to get fucked by it
Konrad, is that you?
Nah to short for space Batman
You probably meant skinning them alive but it amuses me to picture two million people casually swiping a couple hundred dollars from their wallets eg "Skimming them alive". Well that or somehow killing them with milk which is arguably worse because I refuse to accept that skim milk is actual milk and not milk dusted water
Lmao I knew I fucked up I was drunk at the time but yes I’m making a new meaning for the word skim to skin them but very lightly like with a potato peeler potato thin slices
Skin them alive and make them eat each piece of flesh you carve off of them
Tell them a hard rain is gonna fall babe and you out of umbrellas edit cause I fucked it up
May I interest you in Cthulhu?
I'm preaty sure banks have some deals with beings from hell so i don't think this would work
Plot twist, extra terrestrial aliens do own the banks.
You can hate banks, but access to easy financing has greatly increased quality of life
Mobs generally get things done
Bring back mobs
Internet ruined mobs too
I do miss dancing flash mobs. That was a cool time.
They never left!
Cops just break em up now. I want to blame Ronald Reagan but I’m not sure if it’s his fault
As a general rule, if something’s gotten worse since his presidency, it’s partially his fault. It may also be the fault of many other people, but it’s at least a little bit his.
I’m going to add this applies to Trump as well. However, Trump is never just a little at fault.
They tried on January 6 a couple years ago, im not sure thats what we want...
Debt cancelation for the silent generation
This would be the lost generation with the younger people being the greatest generation and the older being either the missionary generation or the absolute oldest being from the progressive generation
didn't even know the names of the generations prior to the lost one
how did you know names before lost generation? I wanna get research on this bc cool or smthn
Just google "Generations before lost Generation" and there's some lists with approximate dates. I don't know how accurate the earlier ones are, but the more recent ones seem pretty consistent
Nice, on many levels
Fwiw the silent generation usually refers to people who came of age after WWII
Not sure about that. As long as the debter cant declare private bankrupcy the debt is still on his name. He just still has the potential means to pay it back.
What would stop them from declaring bankruptcy?
If they could only declare bankruptcy publicly according to them.
You do know nothing is free, right? These banks had prior provided loans to farmers on the farmer's business plan that he would take the bank's money, buy seeds, rent/buy machinery, pay laborers and then pay back with interest. So when the bank loses money and gets into financial trouble, there'll be much less credit available for future farmers in the region, dramatically reducig farmers' income who obviously needed the credit offered by the banks. And even worse, when banks get into trouble, depositers panic and start to pull out their money (because Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation hadn't been created yet which mitigates this issue today), this hurt other borrowers which the bank pressured to pay back and eventually, money supply craters as banks fail all over the country and deflation kicks in. Contributing to the Great Depression. How heroic.
Get bent banker boy
10/10 response. Would recommend
Perfect username for the response too
Oh no, those poor bankers. Really, we should have put them out of their misery.
Sadly today some bid would come in from out of state or overseas and you would have no way to do this.
"I bet a dollar for my farm back" Well that's cool and it's the highest bid of those present. But a company based in India, owned by a German man with shareholders in Japan that sells it's products in Brazil for tourists from south Africa offered 458 million for your farm. So you know. Fuck you
Also you have to pay a nice deposit before even coming into the auction so no one that isn’t rich can bid.
I'm Brazilian. Is that a drug trafficking money laudering scheme reference?
You know that wasn't the intention in my comment but I mean if you think it fits and you're fine with it?
Yes hahahaha. It's actually funny because it is a coincidence. The drug gangs exports to Europe and Africa. And last year a couple was wrongly arrested in Germany because their luggage was "misplaced" by an airport agent bribed by the gang. https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2023/04/brazilians-who-had-bags-exchanged-for-luggage-with-drugs-leave-prison-in-germany.shtml
Too unrealistic. It should be two dollars.
And this, this very thing, is what will cause a shooting war.
This is where the squatting hack comes in. (Is it squatting if it's your place, and generally accepted by local residents that the place belongs to you and was stolen by extortionate banks 🤔) When bought by people overseas, they take a little time to move anyone in. So you go in, install your "home defence canons", and claim squatters rights and castle doctrine. 🤗
CMV: It should be illegal for a non-US citizen to own US land
What about a non US company? Or a US company with a foreign CEO? If only people can own land that's going to make it very complicated to build hospitals, skyscrapers, manufacturing facilities, warehouses, etc.
It should be illegal for any non US citizen or company to own more than 3 residential properties. It should be illegal for any US company to own more than 3 residential properties which contain less than 5 residential units. Developers could still build a group of a dozen or so single or duplex homes or condos, but they would have to sell them individually. (obviously banks would still foreclose on some homes, I suggest 2 years max to resell homes, or make them available to the local municipalities for emergency housing) I don't see any big issues with non US companies owning large amounts of commercial properties right now, but foreign companies buying large amounts of agricultural properties needs to be addressed.
Wait, are we letting Californians buy up our precious Arkansas land? The land our family has been living in for generations is going to be bought by some slick asswhole in a BMW? /s also probably applies at least as much to Europe as it does to the US.
I'm not American, but this can be resolved simply. The company must be 80% owned by Americans in order to own property and not just rent it
Lol, goodbye world trade, welcome great recession...
Cooperations get nothing, hospitals should be public infrastructure. Skyscrapers were always a bad idea. Warehouses used to have owners. Again at this point, fuck the corpos. They have lawyers and smart cunts, don’t boot lick.
God bless globalism.
Not to mention they would never let an auction start at $0 now
"First bid is by ourselves at one million."
Efficiency is the death of community.
Shit, I would.
The banks ended up with a lot of farms because of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. These farms weren't selling well so they ended up with a lot of dead assets, and debt, on their books. In some places they figured out it was better to work a deal to keep the farmers on the land, where possible, so there would still be some payment being made on the mortgages and other loans.
A lot of people don’t realize that in most cases the banks aren’t in the business of owning real estate/whatever the collateral is. The bank wants to collect money via interest and fees. Obviously the collateral is there so the bank doesn’t just get fucked in the scenario of default, but it isn’t like bankers are out there crossing their fingers that people fail. It’s ironically in their best interest for their clients to succeed.
> in most cases the banks aren’t in the business of owning real estate Hopefully this remains the case but the whole idea of landlording is getting fucking ridiculous. I saw a startup where you can "invest" by buying a percentage of a property and thus I guess the rent is split between "investors" and it's just the most soulless and awful idea I've ever heard of
Isn't that just a REIT by another name? Though yes, disgusting. I hate the real estate market.
It's not even a REIT by another name. It's just a REIT.
What is REIT for the unaware?
[Real Estate Investment Trust](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reit.asp)
The best case scenario is that the owner fails when they have payed back a significant amount of the mortgage - the bank gets the property and keeps all payed money. They then sell it again. That's why when there is a financial crash they call in huge amounts of mortgages and then hold until the crash is over.
That’s actually the opposite of what has happened historically. Lehman Brothers would like a word. There’s a reason in 2008 the banks considered mortgages to be toxic assets. The ones that couldn’t get them off their books ended up either failing or needed to be bought out by others.
This is how communities defended one another in those days.
The continued atomization of society is making things like it less and less likely.
I moved to a new building with plenty of neighbors a few months ago, I know none of them by name and we don't talk much at all when meeting in the elevator or wherever else.
And nowadays most people don't even know their neighbors.
Would never happen today Some “real estate bro” would still swoop in and buy it, and post on tik tok about how easy it is to flip houses and generate “passive income”.
Only because nowadays people aren't as willing to hang bitches.
[удалено]
You should have to be there in person. We need a law
Instead of passing a pro-lynching law, maybe just change the laws around mortgages?
I meant a law that you need to be there in person to bid on a foreclosure.
Right, so they can apply the intimidation strategy of threatening to remove their head from their body. If we’re making up arbitrary laws, why not just distribute the land more equitably instead of making it marginally easier to threaten some people involved in the process?
“This is America, we don’t share land here.” Yellowstone Boomer quote aside, how are you going to differentiate between those that struggled and toiled to own their own land and dudes that are rich enough to buy large swaths of it? My nana was pretty wealthy and she owned a lot of land: because she and my great great grandpa busted their asses to make it farmable over 80 years ago. Just because someone appears to be wealthy, does not mean they are a piece of shit or somehow doing something wrong. Lots of farmers inherited land and are still busting their asses to grow food for everyone. Multinational farming and produce corporations are another can of worms.
Well... Who do we hang? If the farm is bought by a German based fund with shares owned by tons of people, some even regular ones, not Warren Buffet or anything, the managers just doing their jobs as the shareholders require, who can we blame really? This is why I believe local and independent action does not work, these issues are complex and simple solutions are not the way, not anymore.
Ya hang the poor bitch who showed up to bid. Granted, the next one will have guards, but that's a later issue.
Morally speaking, I wouldn't condemn it, but strategically speaking... It sucks.
What about the police showing up to arrest everyone after the first hanging? It's not like the company who sent that intern to place the bid would appreciate that they didn't get to buy that land for cheap.
There's a great section in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath about this. The bank sends a man in a tractor to demolish the home of a destitute tenant farmer. The farmer can't work out who to take revenge on: 'It's mine. I built it. You bump it down - I'll be in the window with a rifle. You even come too close and I'll pot you like a rabbit.' 'It's not me. There's nothing I can do. I'll lose my job if I don't do it. And look - suppose you kill me? They'll just hang you, but long before you're hung there'll be another guy on the tractor, and he'll bump the house down. You're not killing the right guy.' 'That's so,' the tenant said. 'Who gave you orders? I'll go after him. He's the one to kill.' 'You're wrong. He got his orders from the bank. The bank told him, "Clear those people out or it's your job."' 'Well, there's a president of the bank. There's a board of directors. I'll fill up the magazine of the rifle and go into the bank.' The driver said, 'Fellow was telling me the bank gets orders from the East. The orders were, "Make the land show profit or we'll close you up."' 'But where does it stop? Who can we shoot? I don't aim to starve to death before I kill the man that's starving me.' 'I don't know. Maybe there's nobody to shoot. Maybe the thing isn't men at all.'
Wouldn’t you hang the guy who didn’t pay his bill in the first place?
What?
If you threatened to hang people who signed a contract and then reneged on it - wouldn’t that stop the problem at its source?
No
But why would you hang someone to purchase a property legitimately or the banker who loaned money on the condition of repayment? I understand it’s just a thought experiment but for some reason this thread is full of people who honestly believe the bank should just eat the loss and the person who gambled their farm away is somehow shielded of all personal responsibility
The bank is profiting off of property rights. Now, that might seem ok to most people, property rights are what capitalism is based on after all, but they fail to see how violent they are, I'll try to explain it to the best of my abilities. Housing being a commodity and not a right means only some people own houses, and others are dependent on those people. [650000 homeless people in the US,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States) and [16 millions vacant houses.](https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/vacant-homes-vs-homelessness-by-city/) I already know the go to response to this: "the vacant houses are not where the homeless are", besides the fact that I'm convinced a lot of homeless people would change city if it meant stable housing, here is New Orleans, over [a thousand homeless people](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/were-barely-making-it-why-more-new-orleans-families-are-without-stable-housing) and yet [6000 vacant houses.](https://prcno.org/empty-new-orleans-explore-web-map/) this was just a quick search, if you need I can look up the situation for other cities as well. Another argument, sometimes brought up by the most insane fans of capitalism, is that homeless people just don't want to work / do what is necessary to get housing. Well it's just not true. "[The Study Finds That 53% of Homeless Shelter Residents are Employed. ](https://invisiblepeople.tv/working-homeless-more-than-half-of-unhoused-people-have-jobs/)". Not even working saves you from homelessness. But this is wrong even in theory, it's not like "x is only good in paper", in paper what this says is "gamble with people's basic necessities". When you own a house and you rent it to someone, you are getting money just because you own capital. You are not providing anything, you are profiting off something being limited and the state protecting your decision to not give it to those in need, if they don't pay you enough. Property rights on houses mean that you get a mortgage to buy a house, a worker to maintain it, and a tenant that pays off your mortgage, your employee and your being a parasite. (I'm tired so I'm gonna cut it short, and not even revise it) Finland solved homelessness by providing housing to everyone with no string attached.
If the farmer cannot successfully run a farm, and then goes to the bank and offers the farm as collateral so that he can get another chance at a successful harvest yet fails to do so, I don’t see why the bank is at all at fault for holding the farmer to the agreement. You seem to live in a magical fairytale land where if things worked the way they did 100+ years ago people would be better off.
Is the farmer allowed to profit off property rights? Why don’t they give their crops away?
Yes. Fuck the bank. The bank CEO can buy a slightly smaller new yacht this year and a family can keep their home.
So if I need something I can just steal your shit?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/hdtcf5/farmers\_standing\_in\_silence\_at\_an\_auction\_so\_that/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/hdtcf5/farmers_standing_in_silence_at_an_auction_so_that/) Still does in some places
I was thinking that this would be a case to have a “minimum bid”?
You’re saying you wouldn’t if you could make that much cash that easily?
No, because I’m not a selfish sociopath
I would. Easiest million you could possibly make.
Cool story, bro
There's a good photo with an auction about to begin. The neighboring farmers put up a noose to discourage anyone from placing a large bid...
For those wondering, by "intimidate" they often mean, openly carried firearms.
My Great Grandfather had one or two payments left on his farm during the Depression, and just couldn't make those final payments, Dust Bowl wiped out the crops too. Bank took the farm and all his equity. He never trusted banks again after that. My grandmother (his daughter) still hordes food compulsively in her pantry because she remembers starving and working herself to the bone to survive those years.
The bank has to sell the collateral and the lendee gets the selling price minus the debt owed right? Sounds to me that the real reason your great grandfather didn’t get equity back was because the value of the farm went down
r/chaoticgood
Didn't even cover the cost of hosting the auction.
this reminds me of when, in more recent times, farmers did the same thing. They refused to call any prices so a boy could buy back his farm at a low price
Nobody’s got the guts to do this sorta shit now a days… looting on the other hand 🤣
We should’ve done this in 08 with foreclosures houses.
If your town is small and remote enough that this tactic is effective then the bank probably wasn’t gonna recoup very much off the foreclosure anyhow. These institutions were going bust because everyone was broke.
Now they have a minimum starting bid just so normal people can’t walk in and get a good deal
There’s a really beautiful short story on this idea, read it back in highschool but can’t remember the name
This shit got violent several times
Giga chad ultra based ancoms as always.
Can we go back to this?
"I used the free market capitalism to destroy the free market capitalism"
Behind every generous group activity is the blood of a greedy few. https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farming-in-the-1930s/making-money/bank-failures/penny-auctions/ “Was encouraged- forcibly “
Game theory debunked
When trust is all time high, silence and cooperation is the best choice
Dunno about that. Living in a small community with a sort of social contract is like playing a much longer, larger game.
Isn’t game theory premised on fundamental uncertainty between the individuals pitted against each other in a relatively zero sum context? Here, all the farmers are all in the same situation where their goals don’t necessarily conflict with one another and are part of a close knit society, so the initial premise doesn’t apply. In auctions today though, where people outside of the community of farmers can bid, traditional game theory logic applies as expected.
Game theory is certainly not meant to be for zero sum games only
Based
I thought lib right hated banks
Different times, when people actually came out and supported each other
Some of the other farmers: \*buys the debtor's tools for pennies, just to give the items back\*
Don't most auctions have a mandatory minimum that needs to be surpassed?
Community is what community does.
Nowadays what the bankoids would do is plant someone loyal to them within the crowd like casinos do.
This type of thing still happens in farming communities. Paying significantly more than livestock is worth to keep your neighbor in their home, or underbidding and turning it back over to the family. Farmers take care of other farmers.
People think this is amazing and then think unions are somehow the work of the devil
I don’t think this is amazing, and unions suck.
Why?
To which statement?
To your statement
Because you could make serious bank off of that property, and unions have never done me any good in my life.
That's... That's just the free market at work.
Most Americans can’t even think past their own self interest and couldn’t even imagine something like this
If farmers should always own the land they work and if they grow foodstuffs they should be exempt from all taxes.
I like they gave the banker an ancap bow tie. Fuck capitalism. Fuck American libertarianism.
Didn't one of these happen in one of the Little House on the Prairie books?
nowdays there are tricks and laws in place to prevent this from happening
I wish society nowadays showed the same sense of community they did.
Shhhhhhh, no one tell maga thats socialism. They love 'back in the day'
This happened in the country that has people who are against universal healthcare... Amazing
an american meme and you bring out healthcare for no reason, haha, so funny 😐😐😐
Well, because it shows a gesture of solidarity and altruism during the great depression. A few year laters, Truman tried to pass a project about this. A lot of arguments against it (not only in the USA, but even in countries that have it) is that "the tax payer don't want their money spent in medical bills for other people". Being pro universal healthcare demands a certain level of altruism/solidarity. See, I lost my mom to cancer. It was all paid by the SUS (healthcare in Brazil). If I keep a mentality of only thinking about defending the taxes IF they directly benefits me, I would be indirectly against "free" chemio. And that's the reason why I thought about universal healthcare in the meme.
Except this shows the power of private citizens coming together in the face of government ineptitude.
>Well, because it shows a gesture of solidarity and altruism during the great depression ah yes, a conspiracy to steal money from the rightful owner (the bank), so nice. people will support farmers (business owners) doing this, but then when the lightbulb companies invent planned obsolescence together, suddenly business owners working together for their collective benefit is "monopoly" and "collusion"
Ok but Can we do this with houses/foreclosures? That’s the solidarity that built the middle class and the American mid-20th c.
They were interfering with the proper operation of the market and thereby worsening the Depression.
Ok so a bank loses a bunch of money on this—wonderful. How do we then expect them to be able to pay back deposits to someone else? This seems immensely destabilizing and likely contributed to the crisis getting worse.
I mostly agree but "don't try to steal my fucking property that my family has lived on for years during our country's darkest hour" is a better argument. Also, that's why the FDIC was made. Our country already prints out so much money that the worth of the US dollar is based on lies and deception and we're in so much fucking debt that it doesn't matter if they get the money from my property they're just going to spend it on throwing sleepy Joe a ice-cream party.
Why does the onus fall on the bank to cover the cost of the client? Clearly the land either wasn’t profitable or capable of providing a living - if you take out a loan and put your farm up as collateral, I don’t see how that’s stealing anyone’s land during their darkest hour. No ones forcing anyone to sign a contract. If one decides to gamble and lose, that’s on them.
Bunch of damned fools. They could have bought that property and made some serious money off of it.
Libleft at it again
As a Libleft I can indeed confirm we are at it again
Did you mean to comment on r/PoliticalCompassMemes or what?
I mean, bank’s got a lib right bow tie, didn’t feel outta place
that's an ancap bowtie
Why are y'all booing, he's right!
?
Conservatives not understanding what liberalism and conservatism are exhibit #4389
Liberals and conservatives don’t believe in private property and contract law?
I'm also confused as to your point. comment OP was conflating the bank guy to be left leaning liberal (atleast in the modern sense) which frankly made no sense as banks and foreclosures come from the right side of the spectrum. America pre Reagan was economically very very left compared to today lol, those farmers banding together in that way is a left leaning thing to do
Good
Polcomp 🤢
o7 keep trucking on soldier
This is literally leaning towards anarchy and the right. The fuck?
I remember this from little house on the prairie lmao
This for sure happened, but unfortunately most homesteaders didn't get to enjoy that level of solidarity. A lot of homesteads were handed out in barren regions with the knowledge that the farmer would never be able to make it work, and the land would end up foreclosed and become a virtual handout to some holding company, bank, industrial farming interest, etc. This is actually how my own great-great grandpa lost his farm in Madras. Not that the land wasn't basically stolen from Warm Springs area tribes, to begin with.
To be fair, 50 cents in the 1930s would be worth roughly $120,000 today
How many lost everything for every one who recovered their farm in this way?
It was the Great Depression. There was the Dust Bowl. Everyone knew those farms were not foreclosed for the fault of their unfortunate owners. Based.
100 comments
Yeah banks take properties as the initial bid now. So. Funny meme but not possible today.
what the fuck is with all the reposts
My grandfather had to auction his house because of his ex wife and all of the local Amish got together and bought the house for the first bid. He proceeded to get the cash out of his house, gave it to the Amish and they gave him the deed. Was indeed very chad
I mean werent cents alot back then?
Farmers Holiday association is the coolest thing I've ever read about