My bank account's got robbed by European Commission. Over 700k is lost.

[mmeijeri]

Says the man who is being taxed to pay for a bailout thousands of miles away.

Yes, I'm not saying that was the right thing to do, I'm simply pointing out they didn't cause the problem, they're just using some of my money to pay for fixing the problem. I'm not enthusiastic about that, but I like to be clear what misdeeds I'm accusing them of. And that's stealing my money, not stealing Cypriots' money because that they didn't do.

I'm saying the Greeks could have worked out their own solution, perhaps not even involving Cyprus. But we'll never know, because of the EU.

How could the outcome have been any better for the Cypriot banks than what happened? And if the Cypriot government had done its job, then none of this could have happened, regardless of what the EU might have done.

I'd prefer anarcho-capitalism, but I don't think it's viable, which is why we have social democracy forced upon us.

Note the word forced. I'm not saying we must choose democracy because anarcho-capitalism cannot defend us, but that democracy is forced upon us because those in favour of anarcho-capitalism aren't strong enough to defend it. That's about as far away from wanting a government monopoly as it gets. Anarcho-capitalism would be viable if more people wanted it. Or if the power of its proponents to resist were to increase. I'm hoping Bitcoin will play a role there.

[myrkul]

Says the man who is being taxed to pay for a bailout thousands of miles away.

Yes, I'm not saying that was the right thing to do, I'm simply pointing out they didn't cause the problem, they're just using some of my money to pay for fixing the problem. I'm not enthusiastic about that, but I like to be clear what misdeeds I'm accusing them of. And that's stealing my money, not stealing Crypriots' money because that they didn't do.

Bullshit.

But they convinced me that there is no reason to worry, and even if country goes default, in no way current accounts may be affected. "This is European Union and banks here can't just grab your money and go" I was told.
I got a hard lesson and now I know the meaning of phrase "TRUST NO ONE".

I'm saying the Greeks could have worked out their own solution, perhaps not even involving Cyprus. But we'll never know, because of the EU.

How could the outcome have been any better for the Cypriot banks than what happened? And if the Cypriot government had done its job, then none of this could have happened, regardless of what the EU might have done.

edit: Whoops, forgot to respond to this one. For one, the Greeks may have worked out their own solution, without even involving Cyprus. Yes, this probably would have involved inflating their way into oblivion, but it certainly would have been better for Cyprus, and the EU is inflating it's way into oblivion, too, and dragging all the Eurozone countries with it.

I'd prefer anarcho-capitalism, but I don't think it's viable, which is why we have social democracy forced upon us.

Note the word forced. I'm not saying we must choose democracy because anarcho-capitalism cannot defend us, but that democracy is forced upon us because those in favour of anarcho-capitalism aren't strong enough to defend it. That's about as far away from wanting a government monopoly as it gets.

Have you considered removing your support from the monopoly provider, and supporting instead a market alternative?

[rpietila]

I think some you are still missing the point, that according to the law, in the event of a liquidation of a bank, the debtors of the bank must repay their debts (mortgages etc.) prematurely or face liquidation. This was not effected.

That's the first time I've heard that. Do you have a link?

I'll leave it to the reader. Pointing to my general terms and conditions of my Finnish bank account does not help you. In fact I don't know about worldwide, that's kind of why I put it here, for the others to find out about their relevant jurisdictions...

[szita2000]

That's bad. but didn't you think that since I have almost 1,000,000 euro I will put it in different banks, even in different countries banks? like Switzerland?

I worked with a few Greek colleagues, and all they said. if any company is registered in Cyprus, they are tax evading. Everybody knew this.
But anyway you have 120 k left in your account, Not as if you will have bread and butter problems...

[mmeijeri]

Have you considered removing your support from the monopoly provider, and supporting instead a market alternative?

What support? You are falsely pinning responsibility for the Cyprus problem on them. That's one problem they didn't cause, just as they didn't sink the Titanic, cause the Vietnam war or bomb the WTC. I'm all for calling them on their many faults, but this wasn't one of them. The solution for the Cyprus problem is not to reform the EU (although that could be useful for other reasons), but to reform the banking system, both in Cyprus and in the rest of the EU. The rest of the world really.

[myrkul]

Have you considered removing your support from the monopoly provider, and supporting instead a market alternative?

What support?

Would you like me to draw a picture?

Here's a hint: You're on a site dedicated to a currency which the monopoly provider cannot get from you against your will.

You are falsely pinning responsibility for the Cyprus problem on them.

No, you're falsely absolving them. By no means are they the only culprits, but they're sure not lily-white.

[mmeijeri]

Would you like me to draw a picture?

Yes, please. But you can't because I do not in fact advocate a monopoly, and I fully support Bitcoin and look forward to the day it will help shift the balance of power away from the state towards the individual.

[myrkul]

Would you like me to draw a picture?

Yes, please. But you can't because I do not in fact advocate a monopoly...

/sigh. I did not say "advocate." I said "support."

Anyway, here's your picture:

[mmeijeri]

If a thief is falsely accused of being an arsonist and I speak out against that, am I doing something wrong? Thieves should be accused of being thieves, and arsonists of being arsonists. Thieves should not be accused of being arsonists unless they also happen to be arsonists.

[myrkul]

If a thief is falsely accused of being an arsonist and I speak out against that, am I doing something wrong? Thieves should be accused of being thieves, and arsonists of being arsonists. Thieves should not be accused of being arsonists unless they also happen to be arsonists.

Good, because I'm not accusing the ECB of arson. I'm accusing them of theft.

[mmeijeri]

But they didn't steal the Cypriots' money, which is what they were accused of in this thread, they devalued euro holdings and stole EU taxpayers' money.

[myrkul]

But they didn't steal the Cypriots' money, which is what they were accused of in this thread, they devalued euro holdings and stole EU taxpayers' money.

They were doing that anyway. And it's the fact that the bank officers, shareholders, and trustees (in other words, the people whose money was actually supposed to be at risk) have lost nothing, and the small businessmen and little old ladies are getting fucked that's pissing me off.

So, it's not even that they stole. They stole from the wrong people.

[mmeijeri]

They were doing that anyway. And it's the fact that the bank officers, shareholders, and trustees (in other words, the people whose money was actually supposed to be at risk) have lost nothing, and the small businessmen and little old ladies are getting fucked that's pissing me off.

The shareholders lost everything, as they should have. Many bank personnel, including managers are losing their jobs, just as they should have in a bank failure. Everybody who had a balance below E100k got their money back, as they should have, at least while the deposit insurance was the law of the land. Everybody who had a balance of over E100k lost most of the amount above that limit, as they should have.

Yes, many depositors were shafted, but they were shafted by the banks and the Cypriot government which encouraged them to gamble with other people's money. And this problem was not only not caused by the EU, it is present far beyond the EU. The real culprits are fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking. That is what we should be fighting.

[myrkul]

The real culprits are fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking. That is what we should be fighting.

On this, we agree 100%. (For extra credit, who instituted the particular fiat currency that tied all these economies together?)

[mmeijeri]

On this, we agree 100%. (For extra credit, who instituted the particular fiat currency that tied all these economies together?)

The national governments of the EU member states.

[wachtwoord]

On this, we agree 100%. (For extra credit, who instituted the particular fiat currency that tied all these economies together?)

The national governments of the EU member states.

Well yeah, but the national currencies it replaced were also fiat currencies and used fractional reserve banking. In fact, I want to thank the EU for making the scam so blatantly visible only a fool can miss it.

[zeroday]

Everybody who had a balance below E100k got their money back, as they should have, at least while the deposit insurance was the law of the land. Everybody who had a balance of over E100k lost most of the amount above that limit, as they should have.

But please note that "insured" under-100k deposits were compensated not by state, but by those over-100k account holders. Authorities have just plundered LAIKI bank, then moved under-100k deposits to a new "good" bank, and the most of the money were graved in the new "bad" bank, which used it to repay all the debts.

It means that state's insurance liabilities are backed by uninsured funds on accounts over 100k euro!

[mmeijeri]

But please note that "insured" under-100k deposits were compensated not by state, but by those over-100k account holders.

That may be true, but also note that the Cypriot government would have been unable to uphold its obligations under its deposit insurance laws. A state default would have been a better outcome and then more assets would have had to be sold off. The fact that this wasn't done does indeed harm large depositors. Instead of the Cypriot government selling off all its assets, the EU pitched in. So if there was any theft, it was theft by the Cypriot government from large depositors and a theft of EU taxpayers' money by the other member states, not theft of Cypriot money by the EU.

It means that state's insurance liabilities are backed by uninsured funds on accounts over 100k euro!

As opposed to being backed by an insolvent government...

[zeroday]

This is exactly the EU fault, not Cyprus' government.
EU forced insolvent Cyprus to repay their liabilities by the funds from confiscated bank accounts. This is absolutely unfair. This is illegal.

[mmeijeri]

This is exactly the EU fault, not Cyprus' government.
EU forced insolvent Cyprus to repay their liabilities by the funds from confiscated bank accounts. This is absolutely unfair. This is illegal.

What do you mean 'forced'? The fact that they were insolvent meant that they couldn't honour their obligations under the Cypriot deposit insurance scheme. The EU didn't force them, their lack of money did.