The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-30-2013, 12:00 PM   #176
Meck77
.
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,647
Default

Ok fellas check out what the FDIC and Bank of England are up to. It appears what some of us suspected. Cyprus was only a test. See (*****) Below

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England—together with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Financial Services Authority— have been working to develop resolution strategies for the failure of globally active, systemically important, financial institutions (SIFIs or G-SIFIs) with significant operations on both sides of the Atlantic.
The goal is to produce resolution strategies that could be implemented for the failure of one or more of the largest financial institutions with extensive activities in our respective jurisdictions. These resolution strategies should maintain systemically important operations and contain threats to financial stability. (*****They should also assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors in the group, thereby avoiding the need for a bailout by taxpayers. ****)

Summary Here
http://www.silverdoctors.com/fdic-ba...or-tbtf-banks/

Actual FDIC Document with the quote I posted above.

http://www.fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf

Last edited by Meck77; 03-30-2013 at 12:03 PM..
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 02:42 PM   #177
baja
Elite Sissie
 
baja's Avatar
 
Because

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,682

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Cito's Sissies
Default

And so it begins

but you lemmings say all is well........" I be insured"

Banksters have gambled wildly and recklessly (Derivatives) and there is more money owed out than exists in the world. Thing is they want you to pay first.

Seems like a good time to buy some BitCoin.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 05:47 PM   #178
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meck77 View Post
Ok fellas check out what the FDIC and Bank of England are up to. It appears what some of us suspected. Cyprus was only a test. See (*****) Below

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England—together with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Financial Services Authority— have been working to develop resolution strategies for the failure of globally active, systemically important, financial institutions (SIFIs or G-SIFIs) with significant operations on both sides of the Atlantic.
The goal is to produce resolution strategies that could be implemented for the failure of one or more of the largest financial institutions with extensive activities in our respective jurisdictions. These resolution strategies should maintain systemically important operations and contain threats to financial stability. (*****They should also assign losses to shareholders and unsecured creditors in the group, thereby avoiding the need for a bailout by taxpayers. ****)

Summary Here
http://www.silverdoctors.com/fdic-ba...or-tbtf-banks/

Actual FDIC Document with the quote I posted above.

http://www.fdic.gov/about/srac/2012/gsifi.pdf
The executive summary gives away the game when they call their strategy a "top down" approach.

Three guesses.

Here's another transparent passage. Notice they don't show concern that banks are too big to fail. This says it all:

The financial crisis that began in late 2007 highlighted the shortcomings of the arrangements for handling the failure of large financial institutions that were in place on either side of the Atlantic. Large banking organizations in both the U.S. and the U.K. had become highly leveraged and complex, with numerous and dispersed financial operations, extensive off-balance-sheet activities, and opaque financial statements. These institutions were managed as single entities, despite their subsidiaries being structured as separate and distinct legal entities. They were highly interconnected through their capital markets activities, interbank lending, payments, and off-balance-sheet arrangements.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2013, 06:56 PM   #179
baja
Elite Sissie
 
baja's Avatar
 
Because

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,682

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Cito's Sissies
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
The executive summary gives away the game when they call their strategy a "top down" approach.

Three guesses.

Here's another transparent passage. Notice they don't show concern that banks are too big to fail. This says it all:

The financial crisis that began in late 2007 highlighted the shortcomings of the arrangements for handling the failure of large financial institutions that were in place on either side of the Atlantic. Large banking organizations in both the U.S. and the U.K. had become highly leveraged and complex, with numerous and dispersed financial operations, extensive off-balance-sheet activities, and opaque financial statements. These institutions were managed as single entities, despite their subsidiaries being structured as separate and distinct legal entities. They were highly interconnected through their capital markets activities, interbank lending, payments, and off-balance-sheet arrangements.
No collusion there.... There is no global bank just a bunch of highly competitive banks vying for your deposit dollars Nothing to see here. Move along Move along
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 02:39 PM   #180
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,070
Default

The Great Cyprus Bank Robbery

by Ron Paul

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle34486.htm
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2013, 10:17 AM   #181
Smiling Assassin27
Louisville Soul Train
 
Smiling Assassin27's Avatar
 
Hurry Hurry

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 12,186

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Miller
Default

Smiling Assassin27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 12:31 PM   #182
baja
Elite Sissie
 
baja's Avatar
 
Because

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,682

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Cito's Sissies
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27 View Post
rep

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws" - Amschel Rothschild
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 02:02 PM   #183
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,070
Default time to buy gold/silver!!!

I just heard from a friend who cashed in his 401 and had to pay a new 40% tax -- which is much higher than his usual payroll tax.

Looks like PCR is on target. He recently predicted the gov't would start going after pensions. Obama will announce next week a new tax on socoal security/Medicare.

The unravelling is well underway. MHG


The Assault On Gold

By Paul Craig Roberts

April 05, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -
For Americans, financial and economic Armageddon might be close at hand. The evidence for this conclusion is the concerted effort by the Federal Reserve and its dependent financial institutions to scare people away from gold and silver by driving down their prices.

When gold prices hit $1,917.50 an ounce on August 23, 2011, a gain of more than $500 an ounce in less than 8 months, capping a rise over a decade from $272 at the end of December 2000, the Federal Reserve panicked. With the US dollar losing value so rapidly compared to the world standard for money, the Federal Reserve’s policy of printing $1 trillion annually in order to support the impaired balance sheets of banks and to finance the federal deficit was placed in danger. Who could believe the dollar’s exchange rate in relation to other currencies when the dollar was collapsing in value in relation to gold and silver.

The Federal Reserve realized that its massive purchase of bonds in order to keep their prices high (and thus interest rates low) was threatened by the dollar’s rapid loss of value in terms of gold and silver. The Federal Reserve was concerned that large holders of US dollars, such as the central banks of China and Japan and the OPEC sovereign investment funds, might join the flight of individual investors away from the US dollar, thus ending in the fall of the dollar’s foreign exchange value and thus decline in US bond and stock prices.

Intelligent people could see that the US government could not afford the long and numerous wars that the neoconservatives were engineering or the loss of tax base and consumer income from offshoring millions of US middle class jobs for the sake of executive bonuses and shareholder capital gains. They could see what was in the cards, and began exiting the dollar for gold and silver.

Central banks are slower to act. Saudi Arabia and the oil emirates are dependent on US protection and do not want to anger their protector. Japan is a puppet state that is careful in its relationship with its master. China wanted to hold on to the American consumer market for as long as that market existed. It was individuals who began the exit from the US dollar.

When gold topped $1,900, Washington put out the story that gold was a bubble. The presstitute media fell in line with Washington’s propaganda. “Gold looking a bit bubbly” declared CNN Money on August 23, 2011.

The Federal Reserve used its dependent “banks too big to fail” to short the precious metals markets. By selling naked shorts in the paper bullion market against the rising demand for physical possession, the Federal Reserve was able to drive the price of gold down to $1,750 and keep it more or less capped there until recently, when a concerted effort on April 2-3, 2013, drove gold down to $1,557 and silver, which had approached $50 per ounce in 2011, down to $27.


The Federal Reserve began its April Fool’s assault on gold by sending the word to brokerage houses, which quickly went out to clients, that hedge funds and other large investors were going to unload their gold positions and that clients should get out of the precious metal market prior to these sales. As this inside information was the government’s own strategy, individuals cannot be prosecuted for acting on it. By this operation, the Federal Reserve, a totally corrupt entity, was able to combine individual flight with institutional flight. Bullion prices took a big hit, and bullishness departed from the gold and silver markets. The flow of dollars into bullion, which threatened to become a torrent, was stopped.

For now it seems that the Fed has succeeded in creating wariness among Americans about the virtues of gold and silver, and thus the Federal Reserve has extended the time that it can print money to keep the house of cards standing. This time could be short or it could last a couple of years.

However, for the Russians and Chinese, whose central banks have more dollars than they any longer want, and for the 1.3 billion Indians in India, the low dollar price for gold that the Federal Reserve has engineered is an opportunity. They see the opportunity that the Federal Reserve has given them to purchase gold at $350-$400 an ounce less than two years ago as a gift.

The Federal Reserve’s attack on bullion is an act of desperation that, when widely recognized, will doom its policy.

As I have explained previously, the orchestrated move against gold and silver is to protect the exchange value of the US dollar. If bullion were not a threat, the government would not be attacking it.

The Federal Reserve is creating $1 trillion new dollars per year, but the world is moving away from the use of the dollar for international payments and, thus, as reserve currency. The result is an increase in supply and a decrease in demand. This means a falling exchange value of the dollar, domestic inflation from rising import prices, and a rising interest rate and collapsing bond, stock and real estate markets.

The Federal Reserve’s orchestration against bullion cannot ultimately succeed. It is designed to gain time for the Federal Reserve to be able to continue financing the federal budget deficit by printing money and also to keep interest rates low and debt prices high in order to support the banks' balance sheets.

When the Federal Reserve can no longer print due to dollar decline which printing would make worse, US bank deposits and pensions could be grabbed in order to finance the federal budget deficit for couple of more years. Anything to stave off the final catastrophe.

The manipulation of the bullion market is illegal, but as government is doing it the law will not be enforced.

By its obvious and concerted attack on gold and silver, the US government could not give any clearer warning that trouble is approaching. The values of the dollar and of financial assets denominated in dollars are in doubt.


Those who believe in government and those who believe in deregulation will be proved equally wrong. The United States of America is past its zenith. As I predicted early in the 21st century, in 20 years the US will be a third world country. We are halfway there.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 03:32 PM   #184
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,944

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
I just heard from a friend who cashed in his 401 and had to pay a new 40% tax -- which is much higher than his usual payroll tax.
Citation?

The actual penalty for early withdrawl is 10% on top of your marginal tax rate. In other words, depending on your tax bracket the tax you pay for early withdrawl is between 20% (you you have no very little income) and 49.6% (for the highest incomes).

Unless you just started your 401k or the market has done very badly, you're still likely come out ahead from having not invested pre-tax income.

The penalty is not 40%.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 04-06-2013 at 03:34 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 04:03 PM   #185
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,423

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
When gold topped $1,900, Washington put out the story that gold was a bubble. The presstitute media fell in line with Washington’s propaganda. “Gold looking a bit bubbly” declared CNN Money on August 23, 2011.
There was no need for Washington to 'put out a story' because gold was 'bubbly' and has stabilized since.

Conspiracy nit wits.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 05:06 PM   #186
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Citation?

The actual penalty for early withdrawl is 10% on top of your marginal tax rate. In other words, depending on your tax bracket the tax you pay for early withdrawl is between 20% (you you have no very little income) and 49.6% (for the highest incomes).

Unless you just started your 401k or the market has done very badly, you're still likely come out ahead from having not invested pre-tax income.

The penalty is not 40%.
This is anecdotal. My friend told me he saw a story on the tube about higher taxes on 401ks.

Doesn't apply to me. Sorry.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2013, 05:27 PM   #187
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,944

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
This is anecdotal. My friend told me he saw a story on the tube about higher taxes on 401ks.

Doesn't apply to me. Sorry.
LMAO just like all your other B.S.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 09:25 AM   #188
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,423

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
This is anecdotal. My friend told me he saw a story on the tube about higher taxes on 401ks.
Quote:
I just heard from a friend who cashed in his 401 and had to pay a new 40% tax -- which is much higher than his usual payroll tax.
Lying and bull****ing comes so easy for you.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:05 PM   #189
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,070
Default

Anecdotal is anecdotal. Take it for what it is.

When I post my own research I cite sources. (Not that you ever check them.)
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 02:25 PM   #190
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,070
Default too big to fail now rules the US

If you think what happened in Cyprus can't happen here, read on.

According to Ellen Brown US law now gives derivatives priority over private bank accounts. Remember -- with the repeal of Glass Steagal in 1998 the barrier between investment banks and regular banks went away.

In a meltdown US law will support banks seizing your private account to cover a bank's losses.
MHG


Winner Takes All: The Super-priority Status of Derivatives

Why Derivatives Threaten Your Bank Account


http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle34567.htm

By Ellen Brown

April 10, 2013 "Information Clearing House"
-" Cyprus-style confiscation of depositor funds has been called the “new normal.” Bail-in policies are appearing in multiple countries directing failing TBTF banks to convert the funds of “unsecured creditors” into capital; and those creditors, it turns out, include ordinary depositors. Even “secured” creditors, including state and local governments, may be at risk. Derivatives have “super-priority” status in bankruptcy, and Dodd Frank precludes further taxpayer bailouts. In a big derivatives bust, there may be no collateral left for the creditors who are next in line.

Shock waves went around the world when the IMF, the EU, and the ECB not only approved but mandated the confiscation of depositor funds to “bail in” two bankrupt banks in Cyprus. A “bail in” is a quantum leap beyond a “bail out.” When governments are no longer willing to use taxpayer money to bail out banks that have gambled away their capital, the banks are now being instructed to “recapitalize” themselves by confiscating the funds of their creditors, turning debt into equity, or stock; and the “creditors” include the depositors who put their money in the bank thinking it was a secure place to store their savings.

The Cyprus bail-in was not a one-off emergency measure but was consistent with similar policies already in the works for the US, UK, EU, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, as detailed in my earlier articles here and here. “Too big to fail” now trumps all. Rather than banks being put into bankruptcy to salvage the deposits of their customers, the customers will be put into bankruptcy to save the banks.

Why Derivatives Threaten Your Bank Account

The big risk behind all this is the massive $230 trillion derivatives boondoggle managed by US banks. Derivatives are sold as a kind of insurance for managing profits and risk; but as Satyajit Das points out in Extreme Money, they actually increase risk to the system as a whole.

In the US after the Glass-Steagall Act was implemented in 1933, a bank could not gamble with depositor funds for its own account; but in 1999, that barrier was removed. Recent congressional investigations have revealed that in the biggest derivative banks, JPMorgan and Bank of America, massive commingling has occurred between their depository arms and their unregulated and highly vulnerable derivatives arms. Under both the Dodd Frank Act and the 2005 Bankruptcy Act, derivative claims have super-priority over all other claims, secured and unsecured, insured and uninsured. In a major derivatives fiasco, derivative claimants could well grab all the collateral, leaving other claimants, public and private, holding the bag.

The tab for the 2008 bailout was $700 billion in taxpayer funds, and that was just to start. Another $700 billion disaster could easily wipe out all the money in the FDIC insurance fund, which has only about $25 billion in it. Both JPMorgan and Bank of America have over $1 trillion in deposits, and total deposits covered by FDIC insurance are about $9 trillion. According to an article on Bloomberg in November 2011, Bank of America’s holding company then had almost $75 trillion in derivatives, and 71% were held in its depository arm; while J.P. Morgan had $79 trillion in derivatives, and 99% were in its depository arm. Those whole mega-sums are not actually at risk, but the cash calculated to be at risk from derivatives from all sources is at least $12 trillion; and JPM is the biggest player, with 30% of the market.

It used to be that the government would backstop the FDIC if it ran out of money. But section 716 of the Dodd Frank Act now precludes the payment of further taxpayer funds to bail out a bank from a bad derivatives gamble. As summarized in a letter from Americans for Financial Reform quoted by Yves Smith:

Section 716 bans taxpayer bailouts of a broad range of derivatives dealing and speculative derivatives activities. Section 716 does not in any way limit the swaps activities which banks or other financial institutions may engage in. It simply prohibits public support for such activities.

There will be no more $700 billion taxpayer bailouts. So where will the banks get the money in the next crisis? It seems the plan has just been revealed in the new bail-in policies.

All Depositors, Secured and Unsecured, May Be at Risk

The bail-in policy for the US and UK is set forth in a document put out jointly by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Bank of England (BOE) in December 2012, titled Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.

In an April 4th article in Financial Sense, John Butler points out that the directive does not explicitly refer to “depositors.” It refers only to “unsecured creditors.” But the effective meaning of the term, says Butler, is belied by the fact that the FDIC has been put on the job. The FDIC has direct responsibility only for depositors, not for the bondholders who are wholesale non-depositor sources of bank credit. Butler comments:

Do you see the sleight-of-hand at work here? Under the guise of protecting taxpayers, depositors of failing institutions are to be arbitrarily, de-facto subordinated to interbank claims, when in fact they are legally senior to those claims!

. . . [C]onsider the brutal, unjust irony of the entire proposal. Remember, its stated purpose is to solve the problem revealed in 2008, namely the existence of insolvent TBTF institutions that were “highly leveraged and complex, with numerous and dispersed financial operations, extensive off-balance-sheet activities, and opaque financial statements.” Yet what is being proposed is a framework sacrificing depositors in order to maintain precisely this complex, opaque, leverage-laden financial edifice!

If you believe that what has happened recently in Cyprus is unlikely to happen elsewhere, think again. Economic policy officials in the US, UK and other countries are preparing for it. Remember, someone has to pay. Will it be you? If you are a depositor, the answer is yes.

The FDIC was set up to ensure the safety of deposits. Now it, it seems, its function will be the confiscation of deposits to save Wall Street. In the only mention of “depositors” in the FDIC-BOE directive as it pertains to US policy, paragraph 47 says that “the authorities recognize the need for effective communication to depositors, making it clear that their deposits will be protected.” But protected with what? As with MF Global, the pot will already have been gambled away. From whom will the bank get it back? Not the derivatives claimants, who are first in line to be paid; not the taxpayers, since Congress has sealed the vault; not the FDIC insurance fund, which has a paltry $25 billion in it. As long as the derivatives counterparties have super-priority status, the claims of all other parties are in jeopardy.

That could mean not just the “unsecured creditors” but the “secured creditors,” including state and local governments. Local governments keep a significant portion of their revenues in Wall Street banks because smaller local banks lack the capacity to handle their complex business. In the US, banks taking deposits of public funds are required to pledge collateral against any funds exceeding the deposit insurance limit of $250,000. But derivative claims are also secured with collateral, and they have super-priority over all other claimants, including other secured creditors. The vault may be empty by the time local government officials get to the teller’s window. Main Street will again have been plundered by Wall Street.

Super-priority Status for Derivatives Increases Rather than Decreases Risk

Harvard Law Professor Mark Row maintains that the super-priority status of derivatives needs to be repealed. He writes:

. . . [D]erivatives counterparties, . . . unlike most other secured creditors, can seize and immediately liquidate collateral, readily net out gains and losses in their dealings with the bankrupt, terminate their contracts with the bankrupt, and keep both preferential eve-of-bankruptcy payments and fraudulent conveyances they obtained from the debtor, all in ways that favor them over the bankrupt’s other creditors.

. . . [W]hen we subsidize derivatives and similar financial activity via bankruptcy benefits unavailable to other creditors, we get more of the activity than we otherwise would. Repeal would induce these burgeoning financial markets to better recognize the risks of counterparty financial failure, which in turn should dampen the possibility of another AIG-, Bear Stearns-, or Lehman Brothers-style financial meltdown, thereby helping to maintain systemic financial stability.

In The New Financial Deal: Understanding the Dodd-Frank Act and Its (Unintended) Consequences, David Skeel agrees. He calls the Dodd-Frank policy approach “corporatism” – a partnership between government and corporations. Congress has made no attempt in the legislation to reduce the size of the big banks or to undermine the implicit subsidy provided by the knowledge that they will be bailed out in the event of trouble.

Undergirding this approach is what Skeel calls “the Lehman myth,” which blames the 2008 banking collapse on the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fail. Skeel counters that the Lehman bankruptcy was actually orderly, and the derivatives were unwound relatively quickly. Rather than preventing the Lehman collapse, the bankruptcy exemption for derivatives may have helped precipitate it. When the bank appeared to be on shaky ground, the derivatives players all rushed to put in their claims, in a run on the collateral before it ran out. Skeel says the problem could be resolved by eliminating the derivatives exemption from the stay of proceedings that a bankruptcy court applies to other contracts to prevent this sort of run.

Putting the Brakes on the Wall Street End Game

Besides eliminating the super-priority of derivatives, here are some other ways to block the Wall Street asset grab:

(1) Restore the Glass-Steagall Act separating depository banking from investment banking. Support Marcy Kaptur’s H.R. 129.

(2) Break up the giant derivatives banks. Support Bernie Sanders’ “too big to jail” legislation.

(3) Alternatively, nationalize the TBTFs, as advised in the New York Times by Gar Alperovitz. If taxpayer bailouts to save the TBTFs are unacceptable, depositor bailouts are even more unacceptable.

(4) Make derivatives illegal, as they were between 1936 and 1982 under the Commodities Exchange Act. They can be unwound by simply netting them out, declaring them null and void. As noted by Paul Craig Roberts, “the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps (mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system.”

(5) Support the Harkin-Whitehouse bill to impose a financial transactions tax on Wall Street trading. Among other uses, a tax on all trades might supplement the FDIC insurance fund to cover another derivatives disaster.

(5) Establish postal savings banks as government-guaranteed depositories for individual savings. Many countries have public savings banks, which became particularly popular after savings in private banks were wiped out in the banking crisis of the late 1990s.

(6) Establish publicly-owned banks to be depositories of public monies, following the lead of North Dakota, the only state to completely escape the 2008 banking crisis. North Dakota does not keep its revenues in Wall Street banks but deposits them in the state-owned Bank of North Dakota by law. The bank has a mandate to serve the public, and it does not gamble in derivatives.

A motivated state legislature could set up a publicly-owned bank very quickly. Having its own bank would allow the state to protect both its own revenues and those of its citizens while generating the credit needed to support local business and restore prosperity to Main Street.

For more information on the public bank option, see here. Learn more at the Public Banking Institute conference June 2-4 in San Rafael, California, featuring Matt Taibbi, Birgitta Jonsdottir, Gar Alperovitz and others.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and the author of eleven books, including Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. Her websites are webofdebt.com and ellenbrown.com.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 05:35 PM   #191
baja
Elite Sissie
 
baja's Avatar
 
Because

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,682

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Cito's Sissies
Default

I told you all 5 years ago derivatives was gong to destroy the world financial system and cause a global financial failure.

Get out of paper money and get out of banks
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 AM.


Denver Broncos