It is inevitable that we must proceed, under the $IMFS paradigm, from "the 50%"… to "the 10%"… to "the 1%"… to "the 0.001%"… to…
It seems to me like "the 99.99%" have already decided it won't get as far as that though?
So if the 1% have a brain — and one would hope they must have, if they were able to take everything from everyone else without them even realising until quite recently… what would it say about the rest of us if even they don't! — they will have already been working on an alternative game we can all start to play together shortly. (Perhaps even for quite a long time? ;) )
Would anything else make sense at this point?
Yes. A strong Dollar. Strength is in numbers so our $ must be stronger than anything.
"So if the 1% have a brain — and one would hope they must have"
Well, I think, you are not talking about the 1% and as well not about the 0.01% (that's were I would consider myself)... we are talking about the rulers living of the rest. And looking at the solutions like in Cyprus, the rulers found out, that they can get away with everything, as long as they dont take too much from the angry mob. As long as there is bread&circus and the mob get's the illusion that's only a "Eat the Rich" party, everything is fine, the key is to keep the mob in full dependency and the illusion that he has something to lose, therefore he will continue to serf.
So DP, please show me any sign which is not pointing to above's direction, I would appreciate alot.
I hope you are enjoying the show?
My take on recent events in Europe, particularly Cyprus of course, is simply that a good crisis is not being let go to waste… education, education, education!
There is a scare about keeping much money in the banking system, then there is a reminder that there is a commitment to (nominally) protect you up to the insured limit. But no further. Yes, even if that will mean in real terms you (and everyone else sharing the system with you) won't be "whole"… but that public lesson comes a little later I daresay.
For now, it is already crystal clear who will be asked to contribute, and in what order, to the issue of insolvent banks going forward. It seems to me the end of the line is uninsured depositors. Insured deposits are systemically sacrosanct.
The lesson The Rich should be taking away from events in Cyprus, is they should invest in assets and stop sucking up all the lifeblood from the system — cash (… and, even worse IMO, demanding ever more bonds to hold over the future of others…).
Nobody is being forced to do anything. Not looking for alternatives isn't oppression, it's a choice.
I guess I am just not looking at unfolding events with the same lens as you. Of course, I do appreciate what you report we are witnessing, but I just don't see it quite the same way.
"It seems to me the end of the line is uninsured depositors. Insured deposits are systemically sacrosanct."
That's interesting. Can you tell me about what technical "insurance" are you talking? What deposit, insured by what, by whom, under which rule-of-law? I really wanna know, where my Euros are "save". (They are not even save in my pocket, looking at history german 1948, 1957&1998 and todays cash capital controls....)
P.S. In that context only €5000 gold coins are save, but those are rationed and I get only a few at a time.
Yes, even if that will mean in real terms you (and everyone else sharing the system with you) won't be "whole".
I hadn't come across the €5000 coins - so thanks for bringing this to my attention. At 2.41Toz, they certainly say something don't they! ;)
Also interesting, actually, the €100 below.
my question is still pending:
tell me about what technical "insurance" are you talking?
About those coins: I have almost all of those 100,200,500,1000, always in the biggest amounts I could get at face value, but even the silver €10&€100, does that also say something about silver? ;)
Apologies, I was so taken with your €5000 coins, I forgot all about your question! :-D
I believe that all insured deposits will be made nominally whole. In much the same way that I believed uninsured deposits were not safe, but could not point to any proof before it was made clear to all… I cannot show you the proof to vindicate this claim… that public lesson comes a little later I daresay.
I just think survival of the system requires it; there is no price stability if there is no system. Fortunately, given the (real terms) deflationary collapse that is unfolding in slow motion, there is plenty of latitude for printing while still meeting the mandate. In fact, the mandate makes printing under those circumstances… mandatory? :-)
but even the silver €10&€100, does that also say something about silver? ;)
Yes, as I said, I found these perhaps even more of an intriguing revelation than the €5000s.
you are again talking about "insured deposit", but still your answer is pending, which are those, where can I get one? What kind of insurance are you talking about?
I really wanna know, seriously, because I never during my studies I ever found something about such insurance. The whole term "insurance" is a complete farce.
And yes, if Europe continues like this, it will be the mother of deflations and we will have the physical front lawn dump first in Europe and I rather have my Euros burning in my front yard, than letting those bastards steal them from me to prop up this phony socialism, enough is enough.
All I am saying is that I believe any account you have in any banking group, will be made nominally whole, even if the bank does fully collapse, as long as you are below the "insured limit".
Of course, you are smart enough to realise that nominally whole isn't good enough, so you choose instead to have those lovely PM coins with a €FaceValue stamped on them - to hedge your bets either way.
In other zones out here in the big, wide world, we also have "official PM coins" that are "legal tender" … but our face values are far below the current melt value. So we are only hedged one way.
will be made nominally whole, even if the bank does fully collapse,
jep, that's also what I guess, and that is morally completely wrong and against any kind of rule-of-law or free market approach. But hell, who cares about that today anyway and I will stop whining, but distributing money in partitions of 100K over different independent banks is some work...and feels really stupid, all of this just because crooks are in power.
as long as you are below the "insured limit".
something like "insurance" or "limit" does not exist. READTHEFUCKINGLAWS & WAKE UP! Do you mean that stupid 100K€ la-la-talk? That's nothing but political talk and has absolutely NOTHING to do with todays law®ulations. Absolutely nothing, otherwise show me that law or regulation. Again, I mean that serious and I am willing to learn if I missed maybe something.
The thing is, the banks are only middlemen between borrowers and savers. If some huge number of people cannot, for whatever reason (if there are that many, perhaps it is not simply their own ineptitude?), make good on their loans and have no choice but to default… the bankers may well be unable to make good on all of their liabilities to their depositors. Especially if some large chunk of hot money decides to up and leave at an inopportune moment, a gesture of rational self-preservation, sure… but hideously antisocial at the same time. Nobody ever got to be rich on their own.
We collectively bail out the banks, to bail out the savers. Because if nobody will save in banks, there is no credit — no currency and no trade.
To hell with Laws — we'll just make shit up to keep the wheels on! This is politics & the continuance of civilisation we're talking about! ;)
Post a Comment