[Cog]

We don't live in Cyprus or Greece. When banks when belly-up back during the recession of 2007-2009, ALL deposits were secured by the FDIC whether they were over FDIC limits or not. This is not what you should be worried about. The bank shutdowns usually occurred over a weekend, and a new owner was installed. Depositors hardly even noticed.

[ROCKMAN]

Guys - Please go back and read the first f*cking sentence of the thread. LOL. With particular emphasis on the word "here". This is not a conversation about banking matters in other countries. But that would be an interesting thread to start since I'm not familiar with any of them.

[Keith_McClary]

Guys - Please go back and read the first f*cking sentence of the thread. LOL. With particular emphasis on the word "here". This is not a conversation about banking matters in other countries. But that would be an interesting thread to start since I'm not familiar with any of them.

Your gubmint has signed on to bail-ins in Brisbane. I don't know whether there needs to be legislation. Were the 2008 bail-outs authorized by any legislation?

[Revi]

If you read that article I posted from the St. Louis Fed, you'll see that they are planning on Bail-ins here to fix the next financial crisis. It's the plan...

[Pops]

They can't take your money — they already own it, you gave it to them in return for a deposit slip.

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/can ... -my-money/

[dolanbaker]

So he is trying to eliminate the bank of mattress! The gold bugs will love that.

[onlooker]

Sounds like the Banks are getting pretty desperate and have to thank Tanada for putting the real meaning into this Bail in process. Looks like they are never tired of finding ways to take our money. They remind me of a parasite that by eating its host ultimately destroys itself.

[careinke]

Sounds like the Banks are getting pretty desperate and have to thank Tanada for putting the real meaning into this Bail in process. Looks like they are never tired of finding ways to take our money. They remind me of a parasite that by eating its host ultimately destroys itself.

Are you describing a government or a bank?? But I repeat myself......

[onlooker]

Sounds like the Banks are getting pretty desperate and have to thank Tanada for putting the real meaning into this Bail in process. Looks like they are never tired of finding ways to take our money. They remind me of a parasite that by eating its host ultimately destroys itself.

Are you describing a government or a bank?? But I repeat myself......

Their interchangeable could be either one.

[Revi]

They are talking about negative interest rates on bank deposits now. That's a way to get people to put that money into the stock market or other places where they could lose more, or get more interest... It's already happening in Europe. It could be here soon.

http://www.money-rates.com/advancedstra ... y-seem.htm

[onlooker]

They are talking about negative interest rates on bank deposits now. That's a way to get people to put that money into the stock market or other places where they could lose more, or get more interest... It's already happening in Europe. It could be here soon.

http://www.money-rates.com/advancedstra ... y-seem.htm

How nice I suppose they are also assuring everyone "your money will be safe in the stock market". What did Barnum Bailey say "their is a sucker born every minute"

[Revi]

It's scary, but it's happening. I'm pretty sure we'll see negative interest rates in a lot of savings accounts pretty soon. That'll teach 'em!

[Tanada]

Excellent information, video link below gives much more than quote.
http://usawatchdog.com/end-of-capitalis ... len-brown/

Public banking expert and attorney Ellen Brown says, “Your life savings could be wiped out in a derivatives collapse.” Brown explains, “Nobody anticipated what happened in 2008, and that was a $700 billion bailout. Even if the FDIC tapped its Treasury line, that’s only $500 billion. So, certainly things could go wrong. Also, why are they rushing to put these things into place? They’re expecting something.” Brown goes on to point out, “They think they have avoided too-big-to-fail, but what they have actually done is formalize too-big-to-fail. I mean it’s the end of capitalism. There is no such thing as too-big-to-fail in a capitalistic society where you say certain corporations can’t fail. If you have to take the people’s money to prop them up, it’s no longer capitalism.”

Brown says, “Instead of treating banks like they are too-big-to-fail, treat them like public utilities. I am head of the Public Banking Institute, and what we want to do is publicly own banks. In every country, something like an average of 50% of the economy is publicly owned and 50% is privately owned. For us, the big 50% is like the military. The military is our biggest socialist engine. It seems to me we’d be better off with publicly owned banks, which is just acknowledging that money is a public utility. It’s our money and ‘We the People’ back it, and clearly we back it. We are making these banks too-big-to-fail, and we are backing these banks. They are sucking the profits out like a parasite from the economy. The profit should go back to the people. The credit should go into manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing is disappearing because the banks make more money on derivatives than by making loans to small and medium size businesses, which is where manufacturing comes from and where jobs come from.”

Brown warns that people are more at risk in the U.S. to lose their savings because the five biggest banks have nearly $250 trillion in derivatives. In a financial calamity that could cause mass bankruptcies, recent legislation says the derivative holders will be paid first. Brown explains, “The have super priority over everything. . . . All the creditors’ money will be taken in a bail-in. A bail-in is the opposite of a bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy, the bank is liquidated in order to pay off the creditors. In a bail-in, the creditors’ money is taken in order to keep the bank alive. So, we get to die while the bank lives instead of the reverse. They specifically say ‘creditors’ which means shareholders and bond holders, but what most people don’t realize is depositors are also considered creditors. When you put your money in a bank, it becomes the property of the bank, and all you have is an IOU.”

https://youtu.be/2oehMznZd7w

[Revi]

They just passed the ability to grab depositors bank accounts. They call us "unsecured creditors", whereas those who hold the other side of their bets on derivatives are going to get paid off first. The banks have trillions in derivatives. Basically they will have to pay their bad bets with the depositors money first.

Putting your money in a bank nowadays is like giving it to Uncle Fred who then goes to Vegas and gambles it, and if he loses it, it wasn't his money! When the people come to collect he'll give them your life savings and live to gamble another day!

Don't believe me? Here's Why Bail-in? and How! by the Federal Reserve Bank of NY:

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary ... 12somm.pdf

[Revi]

From the above:

3.1 The Mechanics of Bail-In
Bail-in is a stripped-down form of reorganization working at warp speed. As we have seen, financial liabilities lose additional value if reorganized to other debt. But other liabilities only lose net present value: let us call them “bonded debt.” Bail-in subordinates bonded debt and reorganizes
only it into equity—mostly overnight. If there is enough bonded debt, the financial liabilities are untouched: ordinal and temporal priority. The bail-in process should create a well-capitalized firm the next morning, before the financial liabilities have had a chance to run. The hope is that this process works as smoothly as a recapitalization with government money—with no government money at risk. The bonded debt bails out the financial liabilities: hence the sobriquet “bail-in.”

[Kylon]

The powers that be think this is a great move, I think this is a huge blunder on their part.

If they do this on a mass scale, then cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin may become extremely popular, both as a means of wealth storage, as a means to avoid capital controls, and as a means of transaction.

If they attempt to overly regulate or make cryptocurrencies illegal, that could push people into forming a larger black market, along with institutions forming within the black markets to regulate themselves.

If they try and overly regulate the internet or make enough actions illegal on the internet, that could cause people to go towards a type of unregulated internet radio, using under 1 hz frequencies, basically very, very large wavelength radiation that can be absorbed from a far range with little loss of power.

To summarize, just like with the IMF, the SWIFT system, and the U.S dollar, if the powers that be attempt to use the institutions and tools they've created in too abusive a fashion, they may in fact create alternate institutions that can't be regulated.

The problem for the powers that be is that if they alienate enough people, and push enough people into alternatives, then once a certain critical mass for the development of the technologies, infrastructures, and enough excess utility and profit becomes available to be worth sustaining an organization, then those institutions may become permanent, and difficult, if not impossible to remove, and then in times of crisis it would be very difficult to call on the populations resources to solve major problems (such situations like WWII when all resources were focused on the war effort).

While you may be happy that alternative markets could weaken the power of big banks (to the point of being irrelevant) and such, it might also prevent society from having enough focused economic capabilities to solve it's collective problems, if and when leadership arises that actually wishes to address those problems.

One things I would not wish society to lose are the public education system, the libraries, the police and emergency services, hospitals, the military, and the CDC. Those are all essential functions of any modern country, and without the ability to raise capital, the government wouldn't be able to provide such services.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The powers that be think this is a great move, I think this is a huge blunder on their part.

If they do this on a mass scale, then cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin may become extremely popular, both as a means of wealth storage, as a means to avoid capital controls, and as a means of transaction.

If they attempt to overly regulate or make cryptocurrencies illegal, that could push people into forming a larger black market, along with institutions forming within the black markets to regulate themselves.

Why are unregulated cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin the answer?

sarcasm:

Because Silk Road and all the problems associated with that never existed?

Because the Mt. St. Gox failure never happened?

Because the Bitcoin Foundation never fell apart under a dark cloud including prison sentences for some board members having occurred, and not enough revenue to do anything meaningful (since aside from marketing Bitcoin, they don't appear to do anything meaningful?)

Because of the lack of ANY kind of a safety net for the users of such currency, like any regulation or the FDIC?

end sarcasm...

Until problems like this are thoroughly resolved and PROVEN to be truly eliminated in the real world, you can count me out, thank you very much.

[AgentR11]

Here's a bit from it:
"future remedies for handling troubled financial firms will focus on bailing-in the firm by imposing losses on shareholders and unsecured creditors, instead of bailing out firms and putting taxpayers at risk."

Unsecured creditors means people with money in the bank I think...

Unsecured creditor means "commercial bond holder" issued by said financial institution.

[Cid_Yama]

Bitcoin is nonsense. Could be taken down tonight and everyone who thought they had lots of bitcoins, don't. That goes for any cyber-currency.

What happens is, those with wealth to preserve will buy tangibles. Land, Machinery, planes, commercial vehicles, farm equipment, anything that will be worth something even if the currency is worthless.

They did that in the Weimar Republic and created a run on tangibles. Monster Hyperinflation kicked it. At the end, workers were paid twice a day, the wives picking up the money mid-day and spending it before it devalued. Yes it was worth less by the hour.

They started massively feeding the money supply, because there wasn't enough hard currency. People were using wheel barrows to carry cash to make everyday purchases. It became cheaper to burn stacks of currency in the furnace that it was to burn coal.