getting rid of cash would make it much easier to expand the money supply. Press a button and voila. It seems like a strictly one way street though. If you needed to shrink the money supply thats not going to work in reverse.
Once money is created it belongs to someone who probably wouldn't volunteer to give it back.
digital money can be hoarded only by the banks. You and I have to spend it or save it in a bank account. If we are being charged to save it we will be more likely to spend it even if we don't really want to. This will encourage converting it (buying) to precious metals. Look for controls of some sort on precious metals to discourage converting digits to real money.
<< <i>Interest rates are not going negative. So remove this idea from your head and rethink.
Low rates will encourage investment into other assets, PMs being one, but to a lesser extent as the cost(s) of ownership are higher.
Is not being charged 1% per year better than losing 10% per year? >>
I'm still of the opinion that negative interest rates are technically impossible . I do think that its a way to push money to other areas where it can be taxed more easily or subject to fees which can't be avoided.
1) If cash was eliminated by the US something else would take its place. Could be foreign currency like Euros. Does the US want that?
2) Precious metals would be more common in commerce and it is likely that fractional ounce silver coins would be privately minted for barter.
3) Many people do not have credit or debit cards, they need currency.
4) Trillions of US $ circulate overseas. On every block in downtown Moscow there are numerous places that exchange $ for Euros or Rubles. Tight spreads, too. Eliminating $ would reduce the dollar's status as a world currency.
5) The US Treasury profits, especially from paper currency. It costs next to nothing to make and gets lost or destroyed.
"The only way to prevent the banking collapse is to prevent people from withdrawing cash. Hence, we see this trend is surfacing in all the mainstream press to get the people ready for what is coming – the elimination of cash. We are starting to even see this advocated in parts of Germany."- Martin Armstrong
Cash prevents negative interest rates - why would anyone pay a bank to hold their money when it can be stored under the mattress at no cost. Negative interest rates are rising to the top of the FED toolbox, a toolbox that seems to be full of broken tools. Negative interest rates give the FED the power to "persuade" people to spend, but only if they do not have the option of just hoarding their cash at home.
<< <i>"The only way to prevent the banking collapse is to prevent people from withdrawing cash. Hence, we see this trend is surfacing in all the mainstream press to get the people ready for what is coming – the elimination of cash. We are starting to even see this advocated in parts of Germany."- Martin Armstrong
Cash prevents negative interest rates - why would anyone pay a bank to hold their money when it can be stored under the mattress at no cost. Negative interest rates are rising to the top of the FED toolbox, a toolbox that seems to be full of broken tools. Negative interest rates give the FED the power to "persuade" people to spend, but only if they do not have the option of just hoarding their cash at home. >>
What prevents bank runs and banking collapses, is not having "everyone" (in reality, not everyone, but "too many") take out their money at the same time for some reason (like panic)
Folks don't want to keep large amounts of cash at home. This is riskier than keeping it in a bank. Lately I've been handling a few gold coins and I'm paranoid as hell moving them from the PO box to home to look at and photograph, then to the SDB, when I can finally rest easy again knowing they won't get lost, stolen, burned up, sodden from a flood, or otherwise "go missing" The last thing in the world I would want is my assets in cash at my house, and I'd like to think that most average, everyday, non-tinfoil hat wearing citizens feel the same way about cash at home or on their person.
A few hundred bucks of cash at a time is just fine for most folks
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself-- FDR
What prevents bank runs, and only this prevents bank runs as long as one can remove his cash, is confidence in the banking system. When that confidence has finally run out the only thing that can save the banks will be a way to prevent withdrawals. A cashless system does just that. It also solves the current velocity of money problem - negative interest rates will strongly encourage spending when withdrawing is not an option.
One thing that continues to come to mind is what happens when there's a power outage or server crash assuming there's no hard currency? That would be interesting.
Greece sure ain't what it used to be. Imagine living in a country that peaked 2000 years ago and has pretty much gone downhill since then. Sorry Greece, but you suck. Except for the excellent ruins. And cool coastal towns and beaches, and nice joyful people, (for the most part) and Olives! And museums. And dates and apricots. And Feta! It's ok greece, we still love you. Good luck and best wishes, the Americans.
I believe sometime in the future all transaction will be purely digital. Look around you while in line buying groceries, everyone uses a debit card. Your employer will pay you in digi-dollars which will be added to your the microchip implanted in your wrist. At the end of the work week, upon leaving, you will swipe your wrist over a device which will add digi-dollors to it. Income tax, medical, SS, 401k, etc. will be automatically deducted like it is now. All businesses will have a POS device, which will be swiped to purchase goods and the digi-dollars deducted from your chip. A World Gov't will be able to track everything you buy, eat lots of foods with high fructose syrup, your medical insurance premiums will be adjusted accordingly. Those found with cash will be arrested and prosecuted, as cash is illegal. Sorta like books were illegal in the novel Fahrenheit 451. Not only will you have a chip, but every home will have a World Gov't camera pointing at your front door, watching you come n go 24/7 and drones will fill the sky
<<I still get to keep my flat screen tv though, don't I?>>
Yes you can keep your wall tv, as Bradbury put it, or you can fire your cable provider like I did and now have NO tv. I gave my self a $90 a month raise and don't miss it at all.
We all make our own reality in the totality of the solid line of our past, our current open circle representing free will, and our future probability density gradient along multi dimensional continua in the omniverses.
You want your TV, or to use cash, I have a strong feeling you will be able to keep using them.
Don't want to be "hooked up" to modern inventions that you feel are threatening? Then I do not think anyone will make you. If it appears that they are "making" you do something against your will, it is probably a function of wanting the benefit of a thing or system, without paying the cost. Life is about package deals, we read a lot of btching and moaning on here about "them", but admit it, it's "us".
Yes you can keep your wall tv, as Bradbury put it, or you can fire your cable provider like I did and now have NO tv. I gave my self a $90 a month raise and don't miss it at all.
That's the absolute best advice I've heard on this forum, ever!
Back the the cash discussion - I use cash instead of checks or credit cards all the time. There's really no reason to pay for checks (which get more expensive all the time), and there's no reason to rack up credit card balances either. Electronic banking - you really have to believe in good luck to trust that nothing's ever going to happen to your data. I'm not crazy about having smart chips looking after my every move, either.
Don't want to be "hooked up" to modern inventions that you feel are threatening? Then I do not think anyone will make you. If it appears that they are "making" you do something against your will, it is probably a function of wanting the benefit of a thing or system, without paying the cost. Life is about package deals, we read a lot of btching and moaning on here about "them", but admit it, it's "us".
I don't think it's that cut & dried, Baley. Besides, it's my observation the costs have gone down with automation, but the prices keep rising.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
"physical cash has the potential to evade both taxes as well as officially sanctioned theft via bail-ins and negative interest rates. In short, physical cash is extremely difficult for governments to steal."
<< <i>So let's buy gold because they can't steal that!!
If I wasn't so stupid those guys would look smart. Lmao! !! >>
Probably beats investing (with account deposits subject to a bail-in) in a bank that without Madoff accounting is literally bankrupt. The attack on cash is nothing more than a new tool for the FED's empty toolbox.
I guess we can add "rhetoric" to your little tool bag of misdirection. Let's put it right between "conspiracy theroy" and "fear mongering." If you're learning nothing else here at least your vocabulary is growing.
I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured. If your deposits are above the insured limits and you're that stupid to place yourself in that position, then yes, I'd much rather the person who made the idiot choice to ignore his protection lose that additional amount (after all, he's the one that risked it) if the bank goes under than the taxpayer!!!!!
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused.
<< <i>I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured. If your deposits are above the insured limits and you're that stupid to place yourself in that position, then yes, I'd much rather the person who made the idiot choice to ignore his protection lose that additional amount (after all, he's the one that risked it) if the bank goes under than the taxpayer!!!!!
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused. >>
Bail-ins, being pushed by the IMF and already adopted by many european nations, are confiscated from deposits and, instead of taxpayer funds, are to be used to prop up a failing bank. FDIC will not cover this money taken from account holders to rescue the banks. Those who support bail-ins argue that as an account holder you invested in the bank. You will be among the first "investors" to see your investment go south. Theoretically a depositor does loan his money to the bank when he deposits it for what he has been led to believe is safe keeping. However, you loan it to them and they loan it back out at more than 10X its value. And the kicker is they get to make more profit (if they loan smartly) on your deposit and you do. They also don't have to share with you loan interest from the 900+% new money the bank creates out of thin air with it.
It's only funny if you are a bank or get remuneration from one of the tbtf banks. It's plainly a squeeze on the use of cash, for the benefit of the money interests and no one else. Why not refute this with some facts or counterarguments instead of ridicule? Banks, credit card companies, finance companies and Uncle Sam - none of them benefit if you don't pay them interest or taxes or fees.
For someone who "didn't build that", I sure seem to pay a lot of interest, taxes and fees. Then again, I'm not one of the "chosen" 47% or 1%.
I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured.
FDIC insured. Right? You do realize that FDIC is completely underfunded, don't you? But, they can always increase the funding, right? See......"unfunded liabilities". (Coming to a government pension fund or a state teachers retirement fund near you.)
Oh heck, just increase taxes and create more money. That's the ticket.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured. If your deposits are above the insured limits and you're that stupid to place yourself in that position, then yes, I'd much rather the person who made the idiot choice to ignore his protection lose that additional amount (after all, he's the one that risked it) if the bank goes under than the taxpayer!!!!!
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused. >>
Bail-ins, being pushed by the IMF and already adopted by many european nations, are confiscated from deposits and, instead of taxpayer funds, are to be used to prop up a failing bank. FDIC will not cover this money taken from account holders to rescue the banks. Those who support bail-ins argue that as an account holder you invested in the bank. You will be among the first "investors" to see your investment go south. Theoretically a depositor does loan his money to the bank when he deposits it for what he has been led to believe is safe keeping. However, you loan it to them and they loan it back out at more than 10X its value. And the kicker is they get to make more profit (if they loan smartly) on your deposit and you do. They also don't have to share with you loan interest from the 900+% new money the bank creates out of thin air with it.
But they aren't greedy. >>
Nobody lost money from any bail-in if their account was below the insured limits. If you put money above the limits....well, again, stupid is as stupid does. I don't know about you either, but if my money is somewhere else and I'm expecting any return, no matter how small current interest rates are, then yes, I did invest it. But I don't do so stupidly, myself. I don't put in over the insured limit, and based on some changes at a bank I've been with for over 10 years (conflict of interest, introducing charges to checking with limits to avoid the charges I disagreed with) I found another bank.
Again, I far better like banks to fail and take idiots money as a bail-in who have more than the insured limit in them (your amount below you won't lose, never happened, didn't happen even in Greece!!!) than having the taxpayer instead foot the bill and let the bank keep on churning on it's merry way!
<< <i>I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured. If your deposits are above the insured limits and you're that stupid to place yourself in that position, then yes, I'd much rather the person who made the idiot choice to ignore his protection lose that additional amount (after all, he's the one that risked it) if the bank goes under than the taxpayer!!!!!
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused. >>
Bail-ins, being pushed by the IMF and already adopted by many european nations, are confiscated from deposits and, instead of taxpayer funds, are to be used to prop up a failing bank. FDIC will not cover this money taken from account holders to rescue the banks. Those who support bail-ins argue that as an account holder you invested in the bank. You will be among the first "investors" to see your investment go south. Theoretically a depositor does loan his money to the bank when he deposits it for what he has been led to believe is safe keeping. However, you loan it to them and they loan it back out at more than 10X its value. And the kicker is they get to make more profit (if they loan smartly) on your deposit and you do. They also don't have to share with you loan interest from the 900+% new money the bank creates out of thin air with it.
But they aren't greedy. >>
Nobody lost money from any bail-in if their account was below the insured limits. If you put money above the limits....well, again, stupid is as stupid does. I don't know about you either, but if my money is somewhere else and I'm expecting any return, no matter how small current interest rates are, then yes, I did invest it. But I don't do so stupidly, myself. I don't put in over the insured limit, and based on some changes at a bank I've been with for over 10 years (conflict of interest, introducing charges to checking with limits to avoid the charges I disagreed with) I found another bank.
Again, I far better like banks to fail and take idiots money as a bail-in who have more than the insured limit in them (your amount below you won't lose, never happened, didn't happen even in Greece!!!) than having the taxpayer instead foot the bill and let the bank keep on churning on it's merry way! >>
<< <i>Nobody lost money from any bail-in if their account was below the insured limits. If you put money above the limits....well, again, stupid is as stupid does. I don't know about you either, but if my money is somewhere else and I'm expecting any return, no matter how small current interest rates are, then yes, I did invest it. But I don't do so stupidly, myself. I don't put in over the insured limit, and based on some changes at a bank I've been with for over 10 years (conflict of interest, introducing charges to checking with limits to avoid the charges I disagreed with) I found another bank.
Again, I far better like banks to fail and take idiots money as a bail-in who have more than the insured limit in them (your amount below you won't lose, never happened, didn't happen even in Greece!!!) than having the taxpayer instead foot the bill and let the bank keep on churning on it's merry way! It happened in Cyprus. >>
Cyprus account holders suffered a bail-in and had their deposits confiscated to bail out and save the banks. Bail-in has not yet occured in the US but when it does you can bet it will not be covered by FDIC. Otherwise, why not just have FDIC bail out the bank. Purpose of a bail-in is to have account holders and not governments and taxpayers bail-out a failing bank. IMF and G-20 are strongly pushing adoption of bail-in protection by all nations, european union already on board. It will start in the US with amounts over a high threshold to get the middle class on board with taking from the wealthy. Once established and depending on how bad a bank is in the red will determine how low the confiscation threshold becomes. Of course one way to avoid losing your savings to a bail-in is to not have your money in the bank. That option remains only as long as cash has not been abolished. Starting to connect the dots?
People might say its stupid to have large amounts of cash in a bank account .
If you sell your house the proceeds generally go into a bank account. Anyone that sold a property in cyprus just before the bank holiday essentially had the proceeds of the sale stolen by the government. How do you buy the new house if the money can't be withdrawn?
If you had a 100 workers on the payroll that needed to be paid that money was locked up.
To make payroll on Friday the money actually has to be in an account. Those accounts were subject to the bail in .
When you have a bunch of workers that can't cash their checks then those people who have nothing in the bank are affected by the bail in 100%. They are not investors in the bank.
How much money is in your grocery stores account? If that locks up what are you going to eat? How much money does the gas station on the corner need to fill its in ground storage tanks?
The US precedent for bail-ins was set in 2011 when commodity account holders (with receipts for their physical assets) at MF Global were forced to give up 28% of their holdings when the brokerage firm went bankrupt. Another reason you want your physical metals in your hands and not in someone else's "secure" vault.
<< Theoretically a depositor does loan his money to the bank when he deposits it for what he has been led to believe is safe keeping. However, you loan it to them and they loan it back out at more than 10X its value.>>
I was aware of this but after reading the link you provided, maybe I should empty out my savings and just keep enough in checking for bills. Why maintain a savings account, it pays nothing.
"The Fed and their minions have used every play in their Keynesian monetary playbook, and are losing the game in a blowout. With a deflationary depression beginning to accelerate, they have no game."
Without cash, digital currency must be either held in a bank or spent. The FED knows that negative interest rates on digital savings, or any other cost to park savings in a bank, will motivate spending. Cash will no longer exist to be buried in the mattress. What the FED does not realize is that much of that "forced" spending will not run to consumer goods as hoped, but to real assets in order to protect wealth. Look for a war on cash to be followed by a war on select assets.
<< <i>Cash? Doesn't everyone know that cash is almost as useless as gold? >>
Just drove the Interstate 5 corridor from San Diego to Portland. My credit cards stopped working in Sacramento (triggered a "fraud profile) no worries...EVERYONE takes cash FRNs..... NO ONE takes gold or silver.
Comments
I wonder how much a penny per transaction would add up to for yet another banker skim? They have to be drooling for that kind of free money.
getting rid of cash would make it much easier to expand the money supply. Press a button and voila. It seems like a strictly one way street though. If you needed to shrink the money supply thats not going to work in reverse.
Once money is created it belongs to someone who probably wouldn't volunteer to give it back.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Low rates will encourage investment into other assets, PMs being one, but to a lesser extent as the cost(s) of ownership are higher.
Is not being charged 1% per year better than losing 10% per year?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Interest rates are not going negative. So remove this idea from your head and rethink.
Low rates will encourage investment into other assets, PMs being one, but to a lesser extent as the cost(s) of ownership are higher.
Is not being charged 1% per year better than losing 10% per year? >>
I'm still of the opinion that negative interest rates are technically impossible . I do think that its a way to push money to other areas where it can be taxed more easily or subject to fees which can't be avoided.
<< <i>Interest rates are not going negative. So remove this idea from your head and rethink.
Low rates will encourage investment into other assets, PMs being one, but to a lesser extent as the cost(s) of ownership are higher.
Is not being charged 1% per year better than losing 10% per year? >>
Me thinks you is a banker.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Me thinks you were civil servant. See, we can both be right.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Me thinks you is a banker
Me thinks you were civil servant. See, we can both be right.
Difference being I shill for no one.
.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>Me thinks you is a banker
Me thinks you were civil servant. See, we can both be right.
Difference being I shill for no one.
Many more differences than that. The biggest being the difference between right and write.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
1) If cash was eliminated by the US something else would take its place.
Could be foreign currency like Euros. Does the US want that?
2) Precious metals would be more common in commerce and it is likely that
fractional ounce silver coins would be privately minted for barter.
3) Many people do not have credit or debit cards, they need currency.
4) Trillions of US $ circulate overseas. On every block in downtown
Moscow there are numerous places that exchange $ for Euros or Rubles.
Tight spreads, too. Eliminating $ would reduce the dollar's status as
a world currency.
5) The US Treasury profits, especially from paper currency. It costs
next to nothing to make and gets lost or destroyed.
Hence, we see this trend is surfacing in all the mainstream press to get the people ready
for what is coming – the elimination of cash. We are starting to even see this advocated in
parts of Germany."- Martin Armstrong
Cash prevents negative interest rates - why would anyone pay a bank to hold their money when it can be stored under the mattress at no cost. Negative interest rates are rising to the top of the FED toolbox, a toolbox that seems to be full of broken tools. Negative interest rates give the FED the power to "persuade" people to spend, but only if they do not have the option of just hoarding their cash at home.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>"The only way to prevent the banking collapse is to prevent people from withdrawing cash.
Hence, we see this trend is surfacing in all the mainstream press to get the people ready
for what is coming – the elimination of cash. We are starting to even see this advocated in
parts of Germany."- Martin Armstrong
Cash prevents negative interest rates - why would anyone pay a bank to hold their money when it can be stored under the mattress at no cost. Negative interest rates are rising to the top of the FED toolbox, a toolbox that seems to be full of broken tools. Negative interest rates give the FED the power to "persuade" people to spend, but only if they do not have the option of just hoarding their cash at home. >>
What prevents bank runs and banking collapses, is not having "everyone" (in reality, not everyone, but "too many") take out their money at the same time for some reason (like panic)
Folks don't want to keep large amounts of cash at home. This is riskier than keeping it in a bank. Lately I've been handling a few gold coins and I'm paranoid as hell moving them from the PO box to home to look at and photograph, then to the SDB, when I can finally rest easy again knowing they won't get lost, stolen, burned up, sodden from a flood, or otherwise "go missing" The last thing in the world I would want is my assets in cash at my house, and I'd like to think that most average, everyday, non-tinfoil hat wearing citizens feel the same way about cash at home or on their person.
A few hundred bucks of cash at a time is just fine for most folks
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself-- FDR
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Let the brainwashing begin.
About that Better Than Cash Alliance
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Without cash how will senators pay their blackmailers? Or acquire enough money to even pay the blackmail?
They better be careful what they wish for. Its going to be tough to survive in district 1 if they only have their actual salary to play with.
<< <i>Without cash how will senators pay their blackmailers? Or acquire enough money to even pay the blackmail?
They better be careful what they wish for. Its going to be tough to survive in district 1 if they only have their actual salary to play with. >>
It will be much easier to transfer digits to them than suitcases.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
The elitists will have private servers.
I knew it would happen.
That would be interesting.
My YouTube Channel
"Greek Banks On Verge Of Total Collapse: Bank Run Surges "Massively" As Depositors Yank €700 Million Today Alone"
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
It's ok greece, we still love you. Good luck and best wishes, the Americans.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
My YouTube Channel
the microchip implanted in your wrist. At the end of the work week, upon leaving, you will swipe your wrist over a device which
will add digi-dollors to it. Income tax, medical, SS, 401k, etc. will be automatically deducted like it is now. All businesses will have a POS device,
which will be swiped to purchase goods and the digi-dollars deducted from your chip. A World Gov't will be able to
track everything you buy, eat lots of foods with high fructose syrup, your medical insurance premiums will be adjusted accordingly.
Those found with cash will be arrested and prosecuted, as cash is illegal. Sorta like books were illegal in the novel Fahrenheit 451.
Not only will you have a chip, but every home will have a World Gov't camera pointing at your front door, watching you come n go 24/7 and drones will fill the sky
I knew it would happen.
Yes you can keep your wall tv, as Bradbury put it, or you can fire your cable provider like I did and now have NO tv.
I gave my self a $90 a month raise and don't miss it at all.
You want your TV, or to use cash, I have a strong feeling you will be able to keep using them.
Don't want to be "hooked up" to modern inventions that you feel are threatening? Then I do not think anyone will make you. If it appears that they are "making" you do something against your will, it is probably a function of wanting the benefit of a thing or system, without paying the cost. Life is about package deals, we read a lot of btching and moaning on here about "them", but admit it, it's "us".
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I gave my self a $90 a month raise and don't miss it at all.
That's the absolute best advice I've heard on this forum, ever!
Back the the cash discussion - I use cash instead of checks or credit cards all the time. There's really no reason to pay for checks (which get more expensive all the time), and there's no reason to rack up credit card balances either. Electronic banking - you really have to believe in good luck to trust that nothing's ever going to happen to your data. I'm not crazy about having smart chips looking after my every move, either.
Don't want to be "hooked up" to modern inventions that you feel are threatening? Then I do not think anyone will make you. If it appears that they are "making" you do something against your will, it is probably a function of wanting the benefit of a thing or system, without paying the cost. Life is about package deals, we read a lot of btching and moaning on here about "them", but admit it, it's "us".
I don't think it's that cut & dried, Baley. Besides, it's my observation the costs have gone down with automation, but the prices keep rising.
I knew it would happen.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
"physical cash has the potential to evade both taxes as well as officially sanctioned theft via bail-ins and negative interest rates. In short, physical cash is extremely difficult for governments to steal."
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
If I wasn't so stupid those guys would look smart. Lmao! !!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>So let's buy gold because they can't steal that!!
If I wasn't so stupid those guys would look smart. Lmao! !! >>
Probably beats investing (with account deposits subject to a bail-in) in a bank that without Madoff accounting is literally bankrupt. The attack on cash is nothing more than a new tool for the FED's empty toolbox.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
"Attack on cash" ---too funny.
"Literally bankrupt"-- true of many thought processes. Lol
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused.
<< <i>I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured. If your deposits are above the insured limits and you're that stupid to place yourself in that position, then yes, I'd much rather the person who made the idiot choice to ignore his protection lose that additional amount (after all, he's the one that risked it) if the bank goes under than the taxpayer!!!!!
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused. >>
Bail-ins, being pushed by the IMF and already adopted by many european nations, are confiscated from deposits and, instead of taxpayer funds, are to be used to prop up a failing bank. FDIC will not cover this money taken from account holders to rescue the banks. Those who support bail-ins argue that as an account holder you invested in the bank. You will be among the first "investors" to see your investment go south. Theoretically a depositor does loan his money to the bank when he deposits it for what he has been led to believe is safe keeping. However, you loan it to them and they loan it back out at more than 10X its value. And the kicker is they get to make more profit (if they loan smartly) on your deposit and you do. They also don't have to share with you loan interest from the 900+% new money the bank creates out of thin air with it.
But they aren't greedy.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
It's only funny if you are a bank or get remuneration from one of the tbtf banks. It's plainly a squeeze on the use of cash, for the benefit of the money interests and no one else. Why not refute this with some facts or counterarguments instead of ridicule? Banks, credit card companies, finance companies and Uncle Sam - none of them benefit if you don't pay them interest or taxes or fees.
For someone who "didn't build that", I sure seem to pay a lot of interest, taxes and fees. Then again, I'm not one of the "chosen" 47% or 1%.
I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured.
FDIC insured. Right? You do realize that FDIC is completely underfunded, don't you? But, they can always increase the funding, right? See......"unfunded liabilities". (Coming to a government pension fund or a state teachers retirement fund near you.)
Oh heck, just increase taxes and create more money. That's the ticket.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured. If your deposits are above the insured limits and you're that stupid to place yourself in that position, then yes, I'd much rather the person who made the idiot choice to ignore his protection lose that additional amount (after all, he's the one that risked it) if the bank goes under than the taxpayer!!!!!
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused. >>
Bail-ins, being pushed by the IMF and already adopted by many european nations, are confiscated from deposits and, instead of taxpayer funds, are to be used to prop up a failing bank. FDIC will not cover this money taken from account holders to rescue the banks. Those who support bail-ins argue that as an account holder you invested in the bank. You will be among the first "investors" to see your investment go south. Theoretically a depositor does loan his money to the bank when he deposits it for what he has been led to believe is safe keeping. However, you loan it to them and they loan it back out at more than 10X its value. And the kicker is they get to make more profit (if they loan smartly) on your deposit and you do. They also don't have to share with you loan interest from the 900+% new money the bank creates out of thin air with it.
But they aren't greedy.
Nobody lost money from any bail-in if their account was below the insured limits. If you put money above the limits....well, again, stupid is as stupid does. I don't know about you either, but if my money is somewhere else and I'm expecting any return, no matter how small current interest rates are, then yes, I did invest it. But I don't do so stupidly, myself. I don't put in over the insured limit, and based on some changes at a bank I've been with for over 10 years (conflict of interest, introducing charges to checking with limits to avoid the charges I disagreed with) I found another bank.
Again, I far better like banks to fail and take idiots money as a bail-in who have more than the insured limit in them (your amount below you won't lose, never happened, didn't happen even in Greece!!!) than having the taxpayer instead foot the bill and let the bank keep on churning on it's merry way!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm trying to find the fault still with the words "bail-in". You're insured. If your deposits are above the insured limits and you're that stupid to place yourself in that position, then yes, I'd much rather the person who made the idiot choice to ignore his protection lose that additional amount (after all, he's the one that risked it) if the bank goes under than the taxpayer!!!!!
Bail-ins > Bail-outs. End of story. Anyone arguing against them like they're the devil is....confused. >>
Bail-ins, being pushed by the IMF and already adopted by many european nations, are confiscated from deposits and, instead of taxpayer funds, are to be used to prop up a failing bank. FDIC will not cover this money taken from account holders to rescue the banks. Those who support bail-ins argue that as an account holder you invested in the bank. You will be among the first "investors" to see your investment go south. Theoretically a depositor does loan his money to the bank when he deposits it for what he has been led to believe is safe keeping. However, you loan it to them and they loan it back out at more than 10X its value. And the kicker is they get to make more profit (if they loan smartly) on your deposit and you do. They also don't have to share with you loan interest from the 900+% new money the bank creates out of thin air with it.
But they aren't greedy.
Nobody lost money from any bail-in if their account was below the insured limits. If you put money above the limits....well, again, stupid is as stupid does. I don't know about you either, but if my money is somewhere else and I'm expecting any return, no matter how small current interest rates are, then yes, I did invest it. But I don't do so stupidly, myself. I don't put in over the insured limit, and based on some changes at a bank I've been with for over 10 years (conflict of interest, introducing charges to checking with limits to avoid the charges I disagreed with) I found another bank.
Again, I far better like banks to fail and take idiots money as a bail-in who have more than the insured limit in them (your amount below you won't lose, never happened, didn't happen even in Greece!!!) than having the taxpayer instead foot the bill and let the bank keep on churning on it's merry way! >>
It happened in Cyprus.
<< <i>Nobody lost money from any bail-in if their account was below the insured limits. If you put money above the limits....well, again, stupid is as stupid does. I don't know about you either, but if my money is somewhere else and I'm expecting any return, no matter how small current interest rates are, then yes, I did invest it. But I don't do so stupidly, myself. I don't put in over the insured limit, and based on some changes at a bank I've been with for over 10 years (conflict of interest, introducing charges to checking with limits to avoid the charges I disagreed with) I found another bank.
Again, I far better like banks to fail and take idiots money as a bail-in who have more than the insured limit in them (your amount below you won't lose, never happened, didn't happen even in Greece!!!) than having the taxpayer instead foot the bill and let the bank keep on churning on it's merry way!
It happened in Cyprus. >>
Cyprus account holders suffered a bail-in and had their deposits confiscated to bail out and save the banks. Bail-in has not yet occured in the US but when it does you can bet it will not be covered by FDIC. Otherwise, why not just have FDIC bail out the bank. Purpose of a bail-in is to have account holders and not governments and taxpayers bail-out a failing bank. IMF and G-20 are strongly pushing adoption of bail-in protection by all nations, european union already on board. It will start in the US with amounts over a high threshold to get the middle class on board with taking from the wealthy. Once established and depending on how bad a bank is in the red will determine how low the confiscation threshold becomes. Of course one way to avoid losing your savings to a bail-in is to not have your money in the bank. That option remains only as long as cash has not been abolished. Starting to connect the dots?
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
If you sell your house the proceeds generally go into a bank account. Anyone that sold a property in cyprus just before the bank holiday essentially had the proceeds of the sale stolen by the government. How do you buy the new house if the money can't be withdrawn?
If you had a 100 workers on the payroll that needed to be paid that money was locked up.
To make payroll on Friday the money actually has to be in an account. Those accounts were subject to the bail in .
When you have a bunch of workers that can't cash their checks then those people who have nothing in the bank are affected by the bail in 100%. They are not investors in the bank.
How much money is in your grocery stores account? If that locks up what are you going to eat? How much money does the gas station on the corner need to fill its in ground storage tanks?
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
I was aware of this but after reading the link you provided, maybe I should empty out my savings and just keep enough in checking for bills. Why maintain a savings account, it pays nothing.
<< <i>Actual US currency (cash) is just a little over $1.36 trillion. Bank accounts are $10 trillion. >>
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
I think a lot.
I knew it would happen.
"The Fed and their minions have used every play in their Keynesian monetary playbook, and are losing the game in a blowout. With a deflationary depression beginning to accelerate, they have no game."
Without cash, digital currency must be either held in a bank or spent. The FED knows that negative interest rates on digital savings, or any other cost to park savings in a bank, will motivate spending. Cash will no longer exist to be buried in the mattress. What the FED does not realize is that much of that "forced" spending will not run to consumer goods as hoped, but to real assets in order to protect wealth. Look for a war on cash to be followed by a war on select assets.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Cash? Doesn't everyone know that cash is almost as useless as gold? >>
Just drove the Interstate 5 corridor from San Diego to Portland. My credit cards stopped working in Sacramento (triggered a "fraud profile) no worries...EVERYONE takes cash FRNs..... NO ONE takes gold or silver.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry