The Confiscation Scheme Planned for US and UK Depositors

[benjamindees]

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15401-it-can-happen-here-the-confiscation-scheme-planned-for-us-and-uk-depositors

A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland (discussed earlier here); and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds.

...

Although few depositors realize it, legally the bank owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. (See here and here.) But until now the bank has been obligated to pay the money back on demand in the form of cash. Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.”  The bank will get the money and we will get stock in the bank. With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price?

It's going to be a long year.

[Lethn]

Suckers, all they're doing is encouraging people to get into Bitcoin faster.

[film2240]

So it looks like the UK wil have to resort to seizing a portion of all saver's funds.I had a feeling since news of the Cyprus bank bailout plan that the UK would eventually be hit.Question is how quickly will this happen,what the limits are before your savings are taken off you and what recourse you'll have?

I'll need to get all my money out from the banks at some point (managing multiple accounts isn't easy).

[Hawker]

This isn't news.  It isn't even that unreasonable.  If a bank is insolvent, as for example the Cyprus banks are, then its depositors are on the hook for the loss. 

[hawkeye]

It isn't even that unreasonable.  If a bank is insolvent, as for example the Cyprus banks are, then its depositors are on the hook for the loss.  

I agree, but that's not how banking is presented to the public.  Safe as money in the bank and all that.

Banking is a dishonest business and it it is controlled by the government through the central bank mechanism.

If people knew the truth, there would be a run on the banks and that would be the end of them.  But what do politicians do?   Stop people from taking their money out while they pilfer their accounts.  Not to mention all the subtle pilfering by counterfeiting money (or QE as they call it).  

All has the smell of a criminal racket to me.

[Hawker]

It isn't even that unreasonable.  If a bank is insolvent, as for example the Cyprus banks are, then its depositors are on the hook for the loss.  

I agree, but that's not how banking is presented to the public.  Safe as money in the bank and all that.

Banking is a dishonest business and it it is controlled by the government through the central bank mechanism.

If people knew the truth, there would be a run on the banks and that would be the end of them.  But what do politicians do?   Stop people from taking their money out while they pilfer their accounts.  Not to mention all the subtle pilfering by counterfeiting money (or QE as they call it).  

All has the smell of a criminal racket to me.

Apart from the last sentence, the rest of what you posted is simply wrong.  Banks are guaranteed up to £85k.  The expression is "safe as houses" not safe as money in the bank.  Banking is no more dishonest than any other business.  People are free to take their savings from a bank whenever.  The problem is where else do you put money.

[hawkeye]

It isn't even that unreasonable.  If a bank is insolvent, as for example the Cyprus banks are, then its depositors are on the hook for the loss.  

I agree, but that's not how banking is presented to the public.  Safe as money in the bank and all that.

Banking is a dishonest business and it it is controlled by the government through the central bank mechanism.

If people knew the truth, there would be a run on the banks and that would be the end of them.  But what do politicians do?   Stop people from taking their money out while they pilfer their accounts.  Not to mention all the subtle pilfering by counterfeiting money (or QE as they call it).  

All has the smell of a criminal racket to me.

Apart from the last sentence, the rest of what you posted is simply wrong.  Banks are guaranteed up to £85k.  The expression is "safe as houses" not safe as money in the bank.  Banking is no more dishonest than any other business.  People are free to take their savings from a bank whenever.  The problem is where else do you put money.

Guaranteed with whose money?   

And if you are anything like the country that I am living in the government basically locks you into the banking system whether you like it or not in order to be able to do any kind of business.   Basically the currency is a forced monopoly and the banking system is a govt-run cartel.   

[Hawker]

...snip...

And if you are anything like the country that I am living in the government basically locks you into the banking system whether you like it or not in order to be able to do any kind of business.   Basically the currency is a forced monopoly and the banking system is a govt-run cartel.   

What country is that?

[hawkeye]

...snip...

And if you are anything like the country that I am living in the government basically locks you into the banking system whether you like it or not in order to be able to do any kind of business.   Basically the currency is a forced monopoly and the banking system is a govt-run cartel.   

What country is that?

Does it matter?  I could say the US, UK, Australia, any number of western countries.  They all have the same basic setup.

[Spendulus]

This isn't news.  It isn't even that unreasonable.  If a bank is insolvent, as for example the Cyprus banks are, then its depositors are on the hook for the loss. 

Ah, the problem is that the government guys come around and point their finger at one bank and say "Insolvent" and point their finger at another and say "Solvent".  They decide what the allowable ratios are on the spot.

You think all those credit derivative swaps are off banks' books?  How about all that worthless paper from pre- 2009?

The CHOSEN BANKS are handled one way....

That is the ones that toe the line and play the game the way they are told.

[Hawker]

...snip...

And if you are anything like the country that I am living in the government basically locks you into the banking system whether you like it or not in order to be able to do any kind of business.   Basically the currency is a forced monopoly and the banking system is a govt-run cartel.  

What country is that?

Does it matter?  I could say the US, UK, Australia, any number of western countries.  They all have the same basic setup.

Then my comment stands.  If a bank has lost its capital on bad loans, the depositors in that bank might lose their money.  Usually the state steps in to rescue the bank.  Its not sensible to call a decision by the state not to rescue the bank "confiscation" so the OPs story is not really news.

[BurtW]

I think the point of the article is that the FDIC (and other) insurance is the lie.  Given a large enough failure or enough failures to wipe out the insurance fund then the taxpayers are tapped.   If the insurance fund is not bailed out by the taxpayers then the depositors are screwed and they get stock in the failed bank(s).  If the insurance funds are bailed out by more goverment funny money then they are screwed anyway by getting back worthless money.

It makes sense.

It is all good for Bitcoin.

[Spendulus]

I think the point of the article is that the FDIC (and other) insurance is the lie.  Given a large enough failure or enough failures to wipe out the insurance fund then the taxpayers are tapped.   If the insurance fund is not bailed out by the taxpayers then the depositors are screwed and they get stock in the failed bank(s).  If the insurance funds are bailed out by more goverment funny money then they are screwed anyway by getting back worthless money.

It makes sense.

It is all good for Bitcoin.

I think the issue is one the one hand the various forms of capitalist, libertarin, Randian will note "But the bank was broke - you put your money with it and lost it fair and square" and others point out "NO, the deal was that it was insured to 100K/200K".

The government is NOT REASONABLY allowed to renege on this promise as it is a fundamental part of the binding contract between the parties.  If the government does so, it means it's current shape and form does not respect contracts.

Well, we do know that.  (GM preferred stock/bonds, anyone?)

[hawkeye]

The government is NOT REASONABLY allowed to renege on this promise as it is a fundamental part of the binding contract between the parties.  If the government does so, it means it's current shape and form does not respect contracts.

If government used legitimate contracts for all it's dealings with people then it would be a legitimate enterprise.

But then, it wouldn't have anything to do with governments as we know them where it is all vague promises and authority backed by force.  No-one truly knows where they stand with the government because they can arbitrarily, unilaterally change the rules at any time.

[Spendulus]

The government is NOT REASONABLY allowed to renege on this promise as it is a fundamental part of the binding contract between the parties.  If the government does so, it means it's current shape and form does not respect contracts.

If government used legitimate contracts for all it's dealings with people then it would be a legitimate enterprise.

But then, it wouldn't have anything to do with governments as we know them where it is all vague promises and authority backed by force.  No-one truly knows where they stand with the government because they can arbitrarily, unilaterally change the rules at any time.

If you believe this, then in placing money with banks you do so (1) never over 100k or the FDIC limit in one place (2) never believe the FDIC insurance one bit.  I personally am in the (2) category.  This changes the nature of the contract between me and the bank in significant ways.  It does not DIRECTLY have anything to do with the government - it is no different than my having a car with a loan to a bank, and they requiring me to have insurance with State Farm, and my not trusting State Farm to pay out.

They'll leave you with the debts and take the cash in either cash.

[Stampbit]

The government is NOT REASONABLY allowed to renege on this promise as it is a fundamental part of the binding contract between the parties.  If the government does so, it means it's current shape and form does not respect contracts.

The government has the right to repudiate its debts. The political fallout of doing so is what keeps this right in check.

[Spendulus]

The government is NOT REASONABLY allowed to renege on this promise as it is a fundamental part of the binding contract between the parties.  If the government does so, it means it's current shape and form does not respect contracts.

The government has the right to repudiate its debts. The political fallout of doing so is what keeps this right in check.

In a practical sense, here is what happens.

If the public trust in the governments to follow thru on the "100k insurance plan" is viewed skeptically, money moves.  It always moves to safe havens.  It does not have to be a specific critical event that causes the loss of trust, it could be any of a number of things.

For the interests of power mongers, it is far safer for a government to print money than seize bank accounts, in my opinion.  Since then the problem is that the nations using the Euro cannot print, then the Euro cannot keep pace with the US printing and nations using Euro can only go for debt.

Does this mean the Euro will necessarily collapse?