I'm curious as to why you think the "whole system is a lie". This sort of blanket statement seems to discount the fact that banks do in fact serve a purpose in our society, specifically by providing liquitity.
In the finance world, and particularly with mortgages, there are similarly many layers of abstraction but each layer has an imperfection built in: money.
Your mortgage, after its gone through all these layers and after everyone had extracted their pound of flesh from its value along the way ends up looking nothing like the original product. It might end up as a resecuritized security based on only the interest portion of a pool of loans or some other abomination. Just like a JavaScript application is a completely different beast from the the x86 asm executing on your CPU.
However, in software these layers exist to try to make things better. In the finance world these layers exist to only make money. To extract value from one place and move it to another. These layers don’t need to exist in this form but they do because they make people money. This is the lie.
Despite this, we can’t just remove all these layers at once but maybe we can remove one layer. Just like you wouldn’t rewrite your nodejs server in asm but might drop down to Go or something.
Alternatively you can say, “hey I don’t need this website so badly so I’m just going to not build it” and not play. Or maybe you have the time and inclination to build it “from scratch” from assembly.
Starting with a plot of land and only the money in your pocket reminds me of the true hacker spirit! :)
Using the example of mortgage backed securities, they were created to solve real problems. Mortgages carried risk, were too unique. Also money had a hard time reaching those who needed mortgages. Most mortgage providers were local and often there were too many people who wanted mortgages and not enough money, or the other way around. By packaging mortgages together, you could reduce risk and sell traunches nationwide.
TLDR: understanding is a prerequisite of change. And just like software, if you can’t find a reason for why something exists you should probably look harder. More likely than not, you are the one who doesn’t understand, not the person who created the thing in the first place.
It's broke. I know that. I don't think continuing down a broken path is gonna fix it.
Anyways, while I don’t have any experience with MBSs, you were probably providing value even if you didn’t think so.
The only way to get away from the banks is to have government funding or independent wealth. Independent wealth of sufficient magnitude will nearly inevitably be socially tied to banking circles as is government. We all know how the revolving door works in government.
Of course, it's not a secret what their aims are: squeeze as much money and power out of the economy as possible and arrange the world economic system to continue that process. It doesn't matter what figures actually head the banks, the system drives them to take the same actions. However, they do tend to be white dudes from the west with their thumb on the global south.
In the 08 meltdown we saw fee-based servicers incentivized to hang onto badly performing mortgages and the fees the servicing thereof generated rather than enter into workouts that 40 years ago the S&L down the street would have rushed into. The experience taught us nothing other than homeowners make great runway foam.
I just say what I believe.
Think about that. They are profiting by coming between a human being and their basic human needs.
They've pushed up the cost to acquire those basic human needs by 7x in the past 80 years.
I think it's breaking our society. The lie is they are enabling people to afford a home, when in fact it is because of them that the younger generations may never be able to afford one at all.
That's ~2.6% per year inflation, hardly the stuff of crippling hyper-inflation.
In 1970 about 1 year of earnings could buy a house. Today it takes 4 years salary.
That 1970 ratio seems wildly low compared to the data I found. Historical ratios seem to be 3-4x, with periods in the 1950s, mid-2000s, and perhaps soon [but not yet] of 4.5-5x. Housing seems slightly (~5%) cheaper now than in the 1950s and about 30% more expensive than the 1970s based on this ratio calculation.
https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...
House purchase prices were lower in 1970 in part because mortgage rates (and therefore housing monthly payments per $100K borrowed) were dramatically higher.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/how-much-housing-prices-have...
I shared it because it didn’t mesh with what you were saying.
It's also almost certainly the case that dramatically lowered costs in other areas (food, telecommunications, household appliances) has freed up spending power which, again, has bid up prices in desirable markets.
Cheaper credit has greatly magnified the same effect, without necessarily driving up true costs.
As you've pointed out, housing isn't particularly expensive everywhere, just places where they're not building to keep up with rising demand.
Oh, and we haven't even mentioned that comparing the median home in 1970 to the median home in 2019 is not exactly apples-to-apples, starting with square footage.
Maybe you have something wrong. Maybe it wasn't more rewarding to go to work. People on their death beds don't say I wish I'd gone to work more. No. They say they wish they'd spent more time with family.