What’s Going On With The U.S. Economy?

Posted by admin on Aug 30, 2011 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

There’s a very good post over at Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis today. (“US in recession right here, right now”) Blogger Mike Shedlock makes the case that the economy may already be in recession. It’s all matter of whether if one uses the the consumer price index (CPI) or the the BEA’s measure of price inflation to make their calculations. There’s a fair amount of technical jargon to wade through in the article, but the charts are pretty persuasive and–if nothing else–they reinforce most people’s suspicions that the economy is getting worse by the day.

It’s too bad we don’t have a financial media that’s willing to explain what’s going on in simple terms, but we don’t. Instead, we’re deluged with daily datapoints that have little meaning to the average working slob who just wants to know whether he’s going to have a job tomorrow or if the company he works for is going to pack-it-in and head for Shandong Province.

Monday’s report on consumer spending is a perfect example of how the media distorts the news to create a cheery narrative of “economic recovery”. Here’s a clip from Bloomberg:

“Consumer spending climbed more than forecast in July as Americans dipped into savings to buy cars and cool their homes, showing the biggest part of the economy is holding up.

Purchases rose 0.8 percent, the biggest gain since February, after a 0.1 percent decline the prior month, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate of 74 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 0.5 percent increase. Incomes grew 0.3 percent, pushing the savings rate to a four-month low.

Industry data showed autos sold at the fastest pace in three months as supply constraints from Japan’s March earthquake began to ease, while outlays on services, which includes utilities like electricity and gas, climbed at the fastest pace since December 2009.” (Bloomberg)

Hurrah! The slump is over! The indomitable US consumer has once again hoisted himself off the canvas and stumbled back to the shopping malls and car lots in a selfless effort to keep the global economy plugging along. Does anyone believe this gibberish?

Now, let’s take a more sober approach to the data and see if we can figure out what’s really going on behind the hype. This is an excerpt from a post at Zero Hedge:

“July personal income and expenditures were quite surprising in that while many were expecting the drop in the market to force consumer saving to upshift (lower spending than income), not only was this not true, but expenditures spiked by 1 whole percent from -0.2% to 0.8%, on expectations of 0.5%, even as Personal Income came in line with expectations of 0.3%, up from a revised 0.2% (concurrent with extensive prior data revisions).

This was the biggest difference between a monthly change in income and spending since October 2009. The net result was a plunge in the savings rate from 5.5% to 5.0%. And while on the surface this would be good news, as in Americans are spending again, a quick look at the PCE components indicates that virtually the entire surge is due to a spike in Energy goods and services. In other words, the entire spike in spending was to… pay for gas and associated energy expenses….. All in all: in July Americans continued to max out their credit cards to pay for gas.” (“Personal Saving Rate Plunges From 5.5% To 5.0% As July Energy Expenditures Soar”, Zero Hedge)

Okay, so which article is closer to the truth; Bloomberg or Zero Hedge?

Of course, consumers spent more money than before, but it had nothing to do “feeling flush” or being more optimistic about the future. Hell, no. They were forced to use their credit cards at the gaspump so they could haul their sorry ass to work in the morning. That’s hardly a reason to celebrate.

So, what’s really going on with the economy?

Well, oddly enough, it’s not that hard to explain, and it doesn’t require a Masters in Economics to grasp the main points.

To begin with, let’s state the obvious: We’re in a Depression. Yes, that’s a “judgement call”, but for 90 percent of working people in this country, the word accurately describes the slump we’re in.

Second, the political process is broken. Again, this fact is so obvious that it’s hardly worth mentioning. The vast majority of people are thoroughly disgusted with the craven Wall Street duopoloy that masquerades as “representative government”. “Representative” of who? Corporate fatcats and bank vermin?

“American democracy” is a contradiction in terms; a complete farce. Neither party has any plan for lowering unemployment, correcting chronic trade imbalances, re-regulating the financial system, or growing the economy. Capital Hill is merely an annex of Wall Street, just as the White House is entirely in the clutches of the brandy-swilling swine who run the big brokerage houses and hedge funds. They own it all, every bit of it. America is just one of many properties in their sordid portfolio.

Okay, enough ranting. Now onto the facts.

US households are still underwater 3 full years after Lehman Brothers croaked. They’ve shed a good portion of their debts through default, foreclosure, personal bankruptcy and accelerated repayments, but the situation is still grave. There’s lots more red ink to mop up and now that Obama’s $787 billion fiscal stimulus has run out, it’s going to be lot harder for them to clear their balance sheets.

Why is that?

Because government spending reduces the real value of debt making deleveraging easier. But–as you may have noticed–the government’s share of total spending is actually shrinking. State and local governments are cutting costs and laying off workers as fast as they can–over 500, 000 state workers were fired in the last year and a half alone. It’s a disaster. And the idiot Obama hasn’t lifted a finger to reverse the trend. Instead, he’s taken a sabbatical to Martha’s Vineyard to see if he can shave a few strokes off his golf game. What a terrible president.

Anyway, household debt as a share of annual disposable income is currently 115 percent, down from 135 percent in 2008. Economists believe that the figure will eventually return to its historic range of 75 percent. And, there’s the rub, because if consumers continue to slash spending and increase saving–as they need to do– then the economy will slow down even more greasing the skids for another vicious downturn.

Consider this: In the peak bubble years of 2003 to 2008 US households withdrew roughly $2.3 trillion from the home equity to spend as they pleased. Ironically, only about 20 percent of that sum was used in home improvements. The rest was used to pay off medical bills, credit card debt and, yes, discretionary spending. (Don’t workers deserve an occasional “night on the town”?) In other words, the housing bubble provided $500 billion in extra consumption per year for 5 years, and it was all borrowed money! (Keep in mind Obama’s stimulus was $800 billion, but that amount was spent over a 2-year period. So the $500 per year siphoned from home equity actually exceeded that of the ARRA.) Now that housing prices are dropping, the home equity ATM has been shut down leaving households mired in debts that will take years to pay off. That means consumption–which traditionally leads the way out of recession–will flag, demand will remain weak, business investment will dwindle, unemployment will stay high, and the economy will continue to drift sideways.

So, what does tell us about the “recovery”?

The recovery was just another public relations fable with no basis in fact. Just look at the trajectory of GDP in the last couple years and you’ll see what I mean: (4Q 2009-3.8%; 1Q 2010–3.9%; 2Q 2010–3.8%; 3Q 2010–2.5%; 4Q 2010–2.3%; 1Q 2011–0.4%, “revised” 2Q 2011—0.9%)

See the difference between the strong growth in 2009 to 2010, and the weak growth thereafter? The numbers coincide perfectly with the injections of stimulus. In other words, No stimulus, no recovery.

So, now that the stimulus has dissipated and the home equity jet-fuel ($500 bil per year) has evaporated, who’s going to spend enough money to keep the economy bobbing along in positive territory?

Big business?

No way. Why would businesses make more products for people who have no money?

Consumers?

Nope. They died in the Crash of ’08.

The only one who can maintain spending and keep the economy plugging-along while households get their balance sheets together, is the government. But that means more stimulus and bigger deficits, which both party’s oppose. So nothing’s going to get done, right? Oh yeah, there’ll be more pompous pronouncements and political wrangling, but nothing of substance. The payroll tax holiday will end in December, unemployment benefits will get slashed, housing prices will continue to stumble, and —by election-time–the economy will be in a shambles.

Bottom line: The political process is broken, so the economy’s going to tank. Bet on it.

By Mike Whitney

Email: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Mike is a well respected freelance writer living in Washington state, interested in politics and economics from a libertarian perspective.

It’s too bad we don’t have a financial media that’s willing to explain what’s going on in simple terms, but we don’t. Instead, we’re deluged with daily datapoints that have little meaning to the average working slob who just wants to know whether he’s going to have a job tomorrow or if the company he works for is going to pack-it-in and head for Shandong Province.

Monday’s report on consumer spending is a perfect example of how the media distorts the news to create a cheery narrative of “economic recovery”. Here’s a clip from Bloomberg:

“Consumer spending climbed more than forecast in July as Americans dipped into savings to buy cars and cool their homes, showing the biggest part of the economy is holding up.

Purchases rose 0.8 percent, the biggest gain since February, after a 0.1 percent decline the prior month, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate of 74 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 0.5 percent increase. Incomes grew 0.3 percent, pushing the savings rate to a four-month low.

Industry data showed autos sold at the fastest pace in three months as supply constraints from Japan’s March earthquake began to ease, while outlays on services, which includes utilities like electricity and gas, climbed at the fastest pace since December 2009.” (Bloomberg)

Hurrah! The slump is over! The indomitable US consumer has once again hoisted himself off the canvas and stumbled back to the shopping malls and car lots in a selfless effort to keep the global economy plugging along. Does anyone believe this gibberish?

Now, let’s take a more sober approach to the data and see if we can figure out what’s really going on behind the hype. This is an excerpt from a post at Zero Hedge:

“July personal income and expenditures were quite surprising in that while many were expecting the drop in the market to force consumer saving to upshift (lower spending than income), not only was this not true, but expenditures spiked by 1 whole percent from -0.2% to 0.8%, on expectations of 0.5%, even as Personal Income came in line with expectations of 0.3%, up from a revised 0.2% (concurrent with extensive prior data revisions).

This was the biggest difference between a monthly change in income and spending since October 2009. The net result was a plunge in the savings rate from 5.5% to 5.0%. And while on the surface this would be good news, as in Americans are spending again, a quick look at the PCE components indicates that virtually the entire surge is due to a spike in Energy goods and services. In other words, the entire spike in spending was to… pay for gas and associated energy expenses….. All in all: in July Americans continued to max out their credit cards to pay for gas.” (“Personal Saving Rate Plunges From 5.5% To 5.0% As July Energy Expenditures Soar”, Zero Hedge)

Okay, so which article is closer to the truth; Bloomberg or Zero Hedge?

Of course, consumers spent more money than before, but it had nothing to do “feeling flush” or being more optimistic about the future. Hell, no. They were forced to use their credit cards at the gaspump so they could haul their sorry ass to work in the morning. That’s hardly a reason to celebrate.

So, what’s really going on with the economy?

Well, oddly enough, it’s not that hard to explain, and it doesn’t require a Masters in Economics to grasp the main points.

To begin with, let’s state the obvious: We’re in a Depression. Yes, that’s a “judgement call”, but for 90 percent of working people in this country, the word accurately describes the slump we’re in.

Second, the political process is broken. Again, this fact is so obvious that it’s hardly worth mentioning. The vast majority of people are thoroughly disgusted with the craven Wall Street duopoloy that masquerades as “representative government”. “Representative” of who? Corporate fatcats and bank vermin?

“American democracy” is a contradiction in terms; a complete farce. Neither party has any plan for lowering unemployment, correcting chronic trade imbalances, re-regulating the financial system, or growing the economy. Capital Hill is merely an annex of Wall Street, just as the White House is entirely in the clutches of the brandy-swilling swine who run the big brokerage houses and hedge funds. They own it all, every bit of it. America is just one of many properties in their sordid portfolio.

Okay, enough ranting. Now onto the facts.

US households are still underwater 3 full years after Lehman Brothers croaked. They’ve shed a good portion of their debts through default, foreclosure, personal bankruptcy and accelerated repayments, but the situation is still grave. There’s lots more red ink to mop up and now that Obama’s $787 billion fiscal stimulus has run out, it’s going to be lot harder for them to clear their balance sheets.

Why is that?

Because government spending reduces the real value of debt making deleveraging easier. But–as you may have noticed–the government’s share of total spending is actually shrinking. State and local governments are cutting costs and laying off workers as fast as they can–over 500, 000 state workers were fired in the last year and a half alone. It’s a disaster. And the idiot Obama hasn’t lifted a finger to reverse the trend. Instead, he’s taken a sabbatical to Martha’s Vineyard to see if he can shave a few strokes off his golf game. What a terrible president.

Anyway, household debt as a share of annual disposable income is currently 115 percent, down from 135 percent in 2008. Economists believe that the figure will eventually return to its historic range of 75 percent. And, there’s the rub, because if consumers continue to slash spending and increase saving–as they need to do– then the economy will slow down even more greasing the skids for another vicious downturn.

Consider this: In the peak bubble years of 2003 to 2008 US households withdrew roughly $2.3 trillion from the home equity to spend as they pleased. Ironically, only about 20 percent of that sum was used in home improvements. The rest was used to pay off medical bills, credit card debt and, yes, discretionary spending. (Don’t workers deserve an occasional “night on the town”?) In other words, the housing bubble provided $500 billion in extra consumption per year for 5 years, and it was all borrowed money! (Keep in mind Obama’s stimulus was $800 billion, but that amount was spent over a 2-year period. So the $500 per year siphoned from home equity actually exceeded that of the ARRA.) Now that housing prices are dropping, the home equity ATM has been shut down leaving households mired in debts that will take years to pay off. That means consumption–which traditionally leads the way out of recession–will flag, demand will remain weak, business investment will dwindle, unemployment will stay high, and the economy will continue to drift sideways.

So, what does tell us about the “recovery”?

The recovery was just another public relations fable with no basis in fact. Just look at the trajectory of GDP in the last couple years and you’ll see what I mean: (4Q 2009-3.8%; 1Q 2010–3.9%; 2Q 2010–3.8%; 3Q 2010–2.5%; 4Q 2010–2.3%; 1Q 2011–0.4%, “revised” 2Q 2011—0.9%)

See the difference between the strong growth in 2009 to 2010, and the weak growth thereafter? The numbers coincide perfectly with the injections of stimulus. In other words, No stimulus, no recovery.

So, now that the stimulus has dissipated and the home equity jet-fuel ($500 bil per year) has evaporated, who’s going to spend enough money to keep the economy bobbing along in positive territory?

Big business?

No way. Why would businesses make more products for people who have no money?

Consumers?

Nope. They died in the Crash of ’08.

The only one who can maintain spending and keep the economy plugging-along while households get their balance sheets together, is the government. But that means more stimulus and bigger deficits, which both party’s oppose. So nothing’s going to get done, right? Oh yeah, there’ll be more pompous pronouncements and political wrangling, but nothing of substance. The payroll tax holiday will end in December, unemployment benefits will get slashed, housing prices will continue to stumble, and —by election-time–the economy will be in a shambles.

Bottom line: The political process is broken, so the economy’s going to tank. Bet on it.

By Mike Whitney

Email: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Mike is a well respected freelance writer living in Washington state, interested in politics and economics from a libertarian perspective.

Homeowners’ Rebellion: Could 62 Million Homes Be Foreclosure-Proof?

Posted by admin on Aug 10, 2011 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

The financial juggling that helped cause the 2008 crisis may be coming back to haunt banks—and help homeowners.

Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titles—and therefore to foreclose on mortgaged properties. The logical result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure-proof.

Mortgages bundled into securities were a favorite investment of speculators at the height of the financial bubble leading up to the crash of 2008. The securities changed hands frequently, and the companies profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that negotiated the loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a company that serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, allowing properties to change hands without the necessity of recording each transfer.

A committed homeowner movement to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide.

MERS was convenient for the mortgage industry, but courts are now questioning the impact of all of this financial juggling when it comes to mortgage ownership. To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to establish the chain of title entitling it to relief. But MERS has acknowledged, and recent cases have held, that MERS is a mere “nominee”—an entity appointed by the true owner simply for the purpose of holding property in order to facilitate transactions. Recent court opinions stress that this defect is not just a procedural but is a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the plaintiff’s legal ability to foreclose.

That means hordes of victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear—while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.

California Precedent

The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11. The court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:

Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.

In support, the judge cited In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court); Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court). (For more on these earlier cases, see here, here and here.) The court concluded:

Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.

The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes, who writes:

This opinion . . . serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a Trustee’s Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment.

While not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, the ruling could serve as persuasive precedent there as well, because the court cited non-bankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and because the opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.

What Could This Mean for Homeowners?

Earlier cases focused on the inability of MERS to produce a promissory note or assignment establishing that it was entitled to relief, but most courts have considered this a mere procedural defect and continue to look the other way on MERS’ technical lack of standing to sue. The more recent cases, however, are looking at something more serious. If MERS is not the title holder of properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken, and no one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest in title, and the court agreed.

An August 2010 article in Mother Jones titled “Fannie and Freddie’s Foreclosure Barons” exposes a widespread practice of “foreclosure mills” in backdating assignments after foreclosures have been filed. Not only is this perjury, a prosecutable offense, but if MERS was never the title holder, there is nothing to assign. The defaulting homeowners could wind up with free and clear title.

In Jacksonville, Florida, legal aid attorney April Charney has been using the missing-note argument ever since she first identified that weakness in the lenders’ case in 2004. Five years later, she says, some of the homeowners she’s helped are still in their homes. According to a Huffington Post article titled “‘Produce the Note’ Movement Helps Stall Foreclosures”:

Because of the missing ownership documentation, Charney is now starting to file quiet title actions, hoping to get her homeowner clients full title to their homes (a quiet title action ‘quiets’ all other claims). Charney says she’s helped thousands of homeowners delay or prevent foreclosure, and trained thousands of lawyers across the country on how to protect homeowners and battle in court.

Criminal Charges?

Other suits go beyond merely challenging title to alleging criminal activity. On July 26, 2010, a class action was filed in Florida seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for racketeering and mail fraud. It alleges that the defendants used “the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of borrowers;” that “to perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments;” that the scheme depended on “the MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary ‘assignment’ which flowed from it;” and that “by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically ‘mail or wire fraud,’ the Defendants . . . participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate commerce.”

“MERS was and is used in a way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments.”

Local governments deprived of filing fees may also be getting into the act, at least through representatives suing on their behalf. Qui tam actions allow for a private party or “whistle blower” to bring suit on behalf of the government for a past or present fraud on it. In State of California ex rel. Barrett R. Bates, filed May 10, 2010, the plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments in California against MERS and a number of lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for “wrongfully bypass[ing] the counties’ recording requirements; divest[ing] the borrowers of the right to know who owned the promissory note . . .; and record[ing] false documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures, and to otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the Cities where the real estate is located.” The complaint notes that “MERS claims to have ‘saved’ at least $2.4 billion dollars in recording costs,” meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in fees otherwise accruing to local governments. The plaintiff sues for treble damages for all recording fees not paid during the past ten years, and for civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded during that period, potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.

By Their Own Sword: MERS’ Role in the Financial Crisis

MERS is, according to its website, “an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.” Or as Karl Denninger puts it, “MERS’ own website claims that it exists for the purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership!”

MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of their recording fees but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws, which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of worthless mortgages. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez vs. Executive Trustee Services, et al.:

Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no market value . . . to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans. Before MERS, the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local recorder’s office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in real property are kept….

After MERS, . . . the servicing rights were transferred after the origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with the servicer became difficult if not impossible …. The servicer was interested in only one thing – making a profit from the foreclosure of the borrower’s residence – so that the entire predatory cycle of fraudulent origination, resale, and securitization of yet another predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS, and the entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS as the ‘beneficiary’ under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and other states.

Axing the Bankers’ Money Tree

If courts overwhelmed with foreclosures decide to take up the cause, the result could be millions of struggling homeowners with the banks off their backs, and millions of homes no longer on the books of some too-big-to-fail banks. Without those assets, the banks could again be looking at bankruptcy. As was pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle article by attorney Sean Olender following the October 2007 Boyko [pdf] decision:

The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

. . . The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail . . . .

Nationalization of these giant banks might be the next logical step—a step that some commentators said should have been taken in the first place. When the banking system of Sweden collapsed following a housing bubble in the 1990s, nationalization of the banks worked out very well for that country.

The Swedish banks were largely privatized again when they got back on their feet, but it might be a good idea to keep some banks as publicly-owned entities, on the model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. For most of the 20th century it served as a “people’s bank,” making low interest loans to consumers and businesses through branches all over the country.

With the strengthened position of Wall Street following the 2008 bailout and the tepid 2010 banking reform bill, the U.S. is far from nationalizing its mega-banks now. But a committed homeowner movement to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide. While courts are not likely to let 62 million homeowners off scot free, the defect in title created by MERS could give them significant new leverage at the bargaining table.

Ellen Brown wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Ellen developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how the Federal Reserve and “the money trust” have usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are webofdebt.com, ellenbrown.com, and public-banking.com.