Loan system flaw!

[christo4_99]

It is given us by our parents,governments and schools to accept things as they are and not question authority.We are taught that it is fair,right and decent for a given entity who has loaned money to seize said real property if the loan agreement is not fulfilled.Now given the full scope of loan transactions involving real property both future,present and past and given that the entity can then resell said property at a profit with interest the eventual transaction shows no loss.Therefore said entity has not accrued a loss and all payment made by the original lendee should be reimbursed by the lender.I think it is reasonable to assume that if the lender had to sue the lendee then said entity would have to show a loss accrued to receive compensation.Does anyone agree with me on this

[jadaro2600]

loss is shown prior to the seizure of assets - their net gain as a result of any foreclosures isn't even monitored by any authorities with regard to their actions takes after having the gavel slammed.  They could potentially foreclose on someone famous for a sum insubstantial to that which is being seized.  The seized items are not given a market value - they're just turned over, and there is no settlement between that which is sold and that which could be construed as profit AFTER the fact.

Said someone famous could potentially have $150 worth of t-shirts, but when sold at auction could be worth far in excess of that $150.  Any sort of profit is profit from their loss - it's not taken into account - this is why people sue - this is why people declare bankruptcy and this is why there are multiple levels of bankruptcy where in some instances, third parties are contracted to handle the generation of funds from preexisting real goods or intellectual property.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.  All things are relative.

[christo4_99]

so the loss is fictitious,much like values are fictitious when you look at things without time constraints(the bigger picture)...both subject to market turns.the bigger picture seems to indicate that some forms of robbery are legal.i stand on what i have said here.

[jadaro2600]

The real issue is what happens during the loss.  For instance, if there is a debtor whom is not paying ..and this occurs over a period of time, then that is a loss.  If someone cops out on the payment for a house for a long period of time, then they may be forclosed on.  Losses are anything not paid that would have been paid, in addition to anything that is spent to try and regain the losses.  THe losses are their own measurements - usually in bankruptcy there is a tighter system for approving what can and cannot be excused.

Anything gained by the people who have taken posession of what you have lost is not taken into acount when calculating what is accordingly the losses as they percieve them.  They say "you caused us this much loss" a value x, where they eventually get a value y which is greater than x is not of concern to the situation.  You are right, there is no account of it.

This is only relevant when taking into account your credit score.  It's better to settle up for what is lost, rather than have people come in a essentially steal what they think is of greater profit..   most of the time, losses are losses.  Every situation is unique.

What you have noticed is a system which furthers inequities between two parties - and when you account for the ability of one to further discredit the other through a means of altering the credit and thus altering the ability for the latter to gain, the one ensures that the other is disabled from previous activity.  As for the notion of the one gaining more than it may have if it were to remain in the previous agreement - then what you have is a criminal enterprise, activity made legal, yet endorsing  a type of fraud in the grand scheme of things.

Lets say for instance, that I miss my first payment on my student loans, and they come take my car and maybe my computer with all my inventions or programming utilities, or what have you, - they sieze my intellectual property - give it a value considerably lower than that of the computer - a used computer, and then they turn around and sell my intellectual property that i haventt yet recieved any patents or copyrights on and make 3 million dollars - whcih would be considerably more than any student load organization would offer.  This is theft; plain and simple; and it goes beyond a fiar settlement between two parties.

As for the above; that's how criminals work - theft through legal means doesn't make it legal.  I can think of a few counters, Industrial espionage, trade secret violations, copyright infringement ..

The thing is, how do you prove that you were robbed? this is especially difficult when they have your information and a proverbial DS8 to securing their own IP.   So, you wind up getting accused of robbery instead.  They take your stuff, claim it as theirs behind the scenes, and then accuse you of stealing what you created.  Now, incorporate this as a situation happeneing between you and your employer and there are even more complications for your justice.