Technically 90% of the loans ARE created out of thin air. So for every dollar in deposit, they can loan out $9 more. You are woefully uninformed about he banking system.
I know how fractional reserve banking works. You clearly don't. For every dollar in
reserve, they loan out $9 more, from a total of
$10 in deposit.
You are just flat out incorrect about this and you lack a basic understanding about how the money supply works. I am willing to bet you didn't even bother to look at the documentation I provided, not that reality or facts are important to you.
If I pick up an random hobo off the street and pay him to remodel my house instead of a qualified bonded contractor, is it the hobos fault or my fault for making that investment when it goes wrong?
It is your fault for making the investment, but the hobo's fault for it going wrong, and you can sue him for that. Of course, you likely won't get much, which, more than anything else, is what makes it a bad idea.
So how is my improper choice of investment any different than a bank making a loan to an unfit party? Banks can sue debtors who default on their loans, why do banks get to imprison people as well ON TOP of the lawsuit?
It is the primary responsibility of the investing party to due due diligence upon the borrowing party.
That responsibility is to the investor himself. He has a responsibility to make a profit, and that means not making loans that are likely to go bad and lose him money. The fate of the borrower is not his responsibility at all.
Here you are contradicting yourself, as well as responding to a premise I did not make. I never said the borrowers FATE was the banks responsibility, I did however state that banks have knowingly, and on an industrialized scale made loans to VERY CLEARLY unfit borrowers, such as homeless and unemployed people. This is in the realm of negligence, theft, and fraud, especially when you consider they pay no costs if the loan is in default.
If I file for a loan that I shouldn't be approved for, and my bank falsifies my paperwork and gets me the loan anyway, how is that even an enforceable contract let alone something one should be imprisoned for?
Because even if a contract is invalid, it is invalid for
both parties. If the borrower was never supposed to receive the loan, then the lender was never supposed to give it, which means the money loaned is the lender's property and must be returned. Keeping property that doesn't belong to you is theft.
What should happen and what happens in reality are much different. You are correct in pointing out that it would be an invalid contract, but do you really think the bank cares? Do you think the average person in debt has the means to argue this in court against a multinational bank? If keeping property that doesn't belong to you is theft then the lending parties are guilty of theft from each and every USD holder, tax payer, and home owner in the US.
Being poor should never mean a loss of your human rights.
You cannot lose a right you never had in the first place. Nobody, poor or not, has a right to borrow money without paying it back.
So putting someone in a cage is not loss of their rights? At what point did civil matters become criminal matters? You don't at all see the dangerous precedent this sets? Last time I checked companies and even individuals are legally allowed to be free regardless of gigantic civil settlements made against them. You are basically supporting a world where anyone can be sued for anything, and if you can afford it you can take anyone's freedom away via a civil suit process. This is moving away from rule of law (ie separation of criminal and civil law), and into fascism where the state is nothing but a tool for corporate entities.