Your Bank May Seize Your Money

[IdahoCopper]

Fed Vice Chairman Warns: Your Bank May Seize Your Money to Recapitalize Itself

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/fed-vice-chairman-warns-your-bank-may-seize-your-money-to-recapitalize-itself_08272014

"However, this time around, according to Fischer, the government won’t be bailing out financial institutions in need of cash. Instead, failing banks will turn directly to their unsecured creditors when they need money. And within this context, that means you."

[doug]

Cyprus laws

[aloneibreak]

Fed Vice Chairman Warns: Your Bank May Seize Your Money to Recapitalize Itself

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/fed-vice-chairman-warns-your-bank-may-seize-your-money-to-recapitalize-itself_08272014

"However, this time around, according to Fischer, the government won’t be bailing out financial institutions in need of cash. Instead, failing banks will turn directly to their unsecured creditors when they need money. And within this context, that means you."

Your Bank May WILL Seize Your Money

FIFY

[coppernickel]

The bail out didn't work.

The BAIL IN makes the share holders stake holders and thus liable for the banks loss.

[theo]

A middle class bail in is an interesting topic for bloggers and experts to speculate about, but I don't see it as a real possibility; at least not while the banking system is in tact. Why would they overtly take from the working/middle class, when they can continue to covertly steal by printing more money?

[justoneguy]

No,
they are just going to give you FRN's.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-2 ... sumers-cas

[beauanderos]

"Unless one subscribes to the view that recessions are either therapeutic or deserved, there is no reason governments should not try to end them if they can, and cash transfers are a uniquely effective way of doing so. For one thing, they would quickly increase spending, and central banks could implement them instantaneously, unlike infrastructure spending or changes to the tax code, which typically require legislation. And in contrast to interest-rate cuts, cash transfers would affect demand directly, without the side effects of distorting financial markets and asset prices. They would also would help address inequality -- without skinning the rich."

Oh, really? So further depreciating the purchasing power of the savers in this country, those who actually WORK for a living... would not be skinning "the rich?"

[Engineer]

"Unless one subscribes to the view that recessions are either therapeutic or deserved, there is no reason governments should not try to end them if they can, and cash transfers are a uniquely effective way of doing so. For one thing, they would quickly increase spending, and central banks could implement them instantaneously, unlike infrastructure spending or changes to the tax code, which typically require legislation. And in contrast to interest-rate cuts, cash transfers would affect demand directly, without the side effects of distorting financial markets and asset prices. They would also would help address inequality -- without skinning the rich."

Oh, really? So further depreciating the purchasing power of the savers in this country, those who actually WORK for a living... would not be skinning "the rich?"

The idea of stimulus going directly to the people dates back to the Great Depression. Central banks fought hard against the social credit movement of the time, but now they seem to be reconsidering, meaning they'll propose a corrupted version to benefit themselves.

Heinlein's novel "For us, the living" gives a great explanation of the economic theory of social credit. It basically boils down to getting rid of the central banks, with the government printing (commodity backed) money directly. Inflation is used to provide a steady level of purchasing power (offsetting money sucked out of the economy as interest). The freshly printed money is split between consumers and manufacturers who agree to keep prices/quantities stable.

[Recyclersteve]

Does anyone know what finally did happen in Cyprus? I heard all kinds of talk about percentages that were being considered and that people with 100,000 Euros or less in their accounts wouldn't be affected. But what did finally happen? I can't seem to find anything definitive on the internet. Does anyone have a link they'd like to share?

[Recyclersteve]

I did finally find something. It appears that the bail-in cost account holders 47.5% of whatever they had above 100,000 Euros. So, someone with 1.1 million Euros will have 475,000 of them seized for the bail-in. I don't know about the actual timeframe for the bailin and if this is the final deal or if it needed to be escalated to some higher authority. Nonetheless, here is the link I was able to find:

http://cyprus-mail.com/2013/07/28/lende ... in-at-475/

[Recyclersteve]

Another link- now I have two sources indicating the 47.5% figure for those with over 100,000 Euros in their accounts...

http://article.wn.com/view/2014/01/30/B ... ts_to_cli/