Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
sabrina 1
sabrina 1's Journal
sabrina 1's Journal
March 29, 2013
Hope springs eternal, but unfortunately the people's Representatives are powerless, or so we are told. The bill has already passed with the rider attached, as we all know now.
You have to admire them, however grudgingly, because they fight for what they want and they generally get it. We the people are obviously doing something wrong.
There were a few Democrats who tried to stop it and we owe them a thank you for their efforts, but without much support from their own party, they failed:
Thank you Rep. DeFazio. It must be frustrating to do the right thing but not have the support you need to defend the people against Corporate Power. Nevertheless, we thank you for your efforts.
Sen. Tester tried also, but his efforts too were in vain.
So it was not a surprise that our poor, powerless Reps just found out about when it was too late to do anything about after all. They had a year to join Tester and DeFazio to fight the inclusion of this rider in the bill.
And who do we have to thank for doing the actual dirty work of putting it there in the first place? Well, of course it was Republicans, we can't have Democrats working for Monsanto, at least not so blatantly.
The article reveals the actual culprits, so relax, you CAN 'blame the Republicans' and excuse our own party, or at least that is what you are expected to do.
It was 'legislator of the year, the agricultural sub-committee chair Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) who got the job done.
And then we see the revolving door between elected office and the rewards they receive as they enter the Corporate world, after leaving office, at work. if they work hard to pass legislation beneficial to Corporate America.
Kingston was aided and abetted, according to the article, by 'former' Pennsylvania Congressman, John C. Greenwood, currently president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Who loses now that the Corporations won again?
There are many losers, we've already seen what happens when bad legislation like this ends up causing food contamination that has to be recalled, causing huge losses to farmers, not to mention the harm done to consumers.
Among the biggest losers if Congress ignores the DeFazio amendment and passes the “farmers assurance provision” are thousands of farmers of conventional and organic crops, including those who rely on the export market for their livelihoods. An increasing number of global markets are requiring GMO-free agricultural products or, at the very least, enforcing strict GMO labeling laws. If this provision passes, it will allow unrestricted planting of potentially dangerous crops, exposing other safe and non-GMO crops to risk of contamination.
Why should you be outraged about this provision? For all these reasons:
·
The Democratic Controlled Senate passed the bill and a bi-partisan effort in Congress got it moved forward.
There is a lot more in this excellent article which is well worth reading, unless of course you are with those who think this is all a 'waste of everyone's time'.
I wonder how much it helps get something like this horrible legislation passed to have former Monsanto CEOs appointed to positions of power in our Government?
Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.
I can't find anything to prove that someone like a former VP of Monsanto might not be working in the best interests of consumers, but applying logic to the situation, I have a feeling he at least was not trying to prevent that rider from being attached to the bill.
But please do not blame our elected officials for this. They were 'taken by surprise'! Except for the few who weren't. More importantly they would have been 'wasting everyone's time' if they had even tried to stop it we are told.
And we would never want to do that, would we?
OWS Journal, July 2012: Monsanto's Rider Ready For 2013 Bill.
If you've been reading about the Monsanto Rider attached to the 2013 Agricultural Bill you have been told that they sneaked it into the Bill and that you should just stfu about it because nothing could be done without shutting down the government, or something to that effect.
But in fact, there has been almost a full year when Democrats COULD have done something about it since it was no secret to them what Monsanto was up to.
Remember that this article was written in July of 2012! So the rider was hardly a 'surprise' to our elected officials as we are being led to believe:
Is Monsanto About to Gain Immunity From Federal Law?
A so-called “Monsanto rider,” quietly slipped into the multi-billion dollar FY 2013 Agricultural Appropriations bill, would require – not just allow, but require - the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary permit for the planting or cultivation of a genetically engineered crop, even if a federal court has ordered the planting be halted until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed. All the farmer or the biotech producer has to do is ask, and the questionable crops could be released into the environment where they could potentially contaminate conventional or organic crops and, ultimately, the nation’s food supply.
Unless the Senate or a citizen’s army of farmers and consumers can stop them, the House of Representatives is likely to ram this dangerous rider through any day now.
Unless the Senate or a citizen’s army of farmers and consumers can stop them, the House of Representatives is likely to ram this dangerous rider through any day now.
Hope springs eternal, but unfortunately the people's Representatives are powerless, or so we are told. The bill has already passed with the rider attached, as we all know now.
You have to admire them, however grudgingly, because they fight for what they want and they generally get it. We the people are obviously doing something wrong.
There were a few Democrats who tried to stop it and we owe them a thank you for their efforts, but without much support from their own party, they failed:
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has sponsored an amendment to kill the rider, whose official name is “the farmers assurance” provision. But even if DeFazio’s amendment makes it through the House vote, it still has to survive the Senate. Meanwhile, organizations like the Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, FoodDemocracyNow!, the Alliance for Natural Health USA and many others are gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures in protest of the rider, and in support of DeFazio’s amendment.
Thank you Rep. DeFazio. It must be frustrating to do the right thing but not have the support you need to defend the people against Corporate Power. Nevertheless, we thank you for your efforts.
Sen. Tester tried also, but his efforts too were in vain.
So it was not a surprise that our poor, powerless Reps just found out about when it was too late to do anything about after all. They had a year to join Tester and DeFazio to fight the inclusion of this rider in the bill.
And who do we have to thank for doing the actual dirty work of putting it there in the first place? Well, of course it was Republicans, we can't have Democrats working for Monsanto, at least not so blatantly.
The article reveals the actual culprits, so relax, you CAN 'blame the Republicans' and excuse our own party, or at least that is what you are expected to do.
It was 'legislator of the year, the agricultural sub-committee chair Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) who got the job done.
And then we see the revolving door between elected office and the rewards they receive as they enter the Corporate world, after leaving office, at work. if they work hard to pass legislation beneficial to Corporate America.
Kingston was aided and abetted, according to the article, by 'former' Pennsylvania Congressman, John C. Greenwood, currently president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Who loses now that the Corporations won again?
There are many losers, we've already seen what happens when bad legislation like this ends up causing food contamination that has to be recalled, causing huge losses to farmers, not to mention the harm done to consumers.
Among the biggest losers if Congress ignores the DeFazio amendment and passes the “farmers assurance provision” are thousands of farmers of conventional and organic crops, including those who rely on the export market for their livelihoods. An increasing number of global markets are requiring GMO-free agricultural products or, at the very least, enforcing strict GMO labeling laws. If this provision passes, it will allow unrestricted planting of potentially dangerous crops, exposing other safe and non-GMO crops to risk of contamination.
Why should you be outraged about this provision? For all these reasons:
·
The Monsanto Rider is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Judicial review is an essential element of U.S. law, providing a critical and impartial check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment or livelihoods. Maintaining the clear-cut boundary of a Constitutionally-guaranteed separation of powers is essential to our government. This provision will blur that line.
· Judicial review is a gateway, not a roadblock. Congress should be fully supportive of our nation’s independent judiciary. The ability of courts to review, evaluate and judge an issue that impacts public and environmental health is a strength, not a weakness, of our system. The loss of this fundamental safeguard could leave public health, the environment and livelihoods at risk.
· Judicial review is a gateway, not a roadblock. Congress should be fully supportive of our nation’s independent judiciary. The ability of courts to review, evaluate and judge an issue that impacts public and environmental health is a strength, not a weakness, of our system. The loss of this fundamental safeguard could leave public health, the environment and livelihoods at risk.
The Democratic Controlled Senate passed the bill and a bi-partisan effort in Congress got it moved forward.
There is a lot more in this excellent article which is well worth reading, unless of course you are with those who think this is all a 'waste of everyone's time'.
I wonder how much it helps get something like this horrible legislation passed to have former Monsanto CEOs appointed to positions of power in our Government?
Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.
I can't find anything to prove that someone like a former VP of Monsanto might not be working in the best interests of consumers, but applying logic to the situation, I have a feeling he at least was not trying to prevent that rider from being attached to the bill.
But please do not blame our elected officials for this. They were 'taken by surprise'! Except for the few who weren't. More importantly they would have been 'wasting everyone's time' if they had even tried to stop it we are told.
And we would never want to do that, would we?
March 25, 2013
Emphasis mine. 'Acting like everyone who has been successful is bad and because you're rich you're bad, I don't understand it'.
Well, not EVERYONE Jamie. But it sure looks like JPM was 'bad' and maybe even Jamie Dimon himself. We can't say that definitively yet I suppose, because despite all the evidence already revealed about the practices of Wall St Banks, such as his own JPM, we have yet to see any prosecutions in the courts where the evidence can be presented and people are under oath.
Eg:
Out Of Control: New Report Exposes JPMorgan Chase As Mostly Criminal Enterprise
"Exposes JPMorgan Chase As A Mostly Criminal Organization"
I don't know Jamie, but that sounds 'bad' to me and having read the report I find it difficult to understand why there have not yet been any criminal investigations! s
The author continues, after reading the report, to try to list the illegal activities of JPM, a daunting task as it turns out:
It’s hard to summarize all of the documented instances in this report of JPM has been breaking the law, but here’s my best shot. I try to keep up on these matters, and yet some of these I’m learning about for the first time:
Bank Secrecy Act violations;
Money laundering for drug cartels;
Violations of sanction orders against Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor;
Violations related to the Vatican Bank scandal (get on this, Pope Francis!);
Violations of the Commodities Exchange Act;
Failure to segregate customer funds (including one CFTC case where the bank failed to segregate $725 million of its own money from a $9.6 billion account) in the US and UK;
Knowingly executing fictitious trades where the customer, with full knowledge of the bank, was on both sides of the deal;
Various SEC enforcement actions for misrepresentations of CDOs and mortgage-backed securities;
The AG settlement on foreclosure fraud;
The OCC settlement on foreclosure fraud;
Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;
Illegal flood insurance commissions;
Fraudulent sale of unregistered securities;
Auto-finance ripoffs;
Illegal increases of overdraft penalties;
Violations of federal ERISA laws as well as those of the state of New York;
Municipal bond market manipulations and acts of bid-rigging, including violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act;
Filing of unverified affidavits for credit card debt collections (“as a result of internal control failures that sound eerily similar to the industry’s mortgage servicing failures and foreclosure abuses”);
Energy market manipulation that triggered FERC lawsuits;
“Artificial market making” at Japanese affiliates;
Shifting trading losses on a currency trade to a customer account;
Fraudulent sales of derivatives to the city of Milan, Italy;
Obstruction of justice (including refusing the release of documents in the Bernie Madoff case as well as the case of Peregrine Financial).
And, exhale.
The sheer litany of illegal activities just overwhelms you. And these are only the ones where the company has entered into settlements or been sanctioned; it doesn’t even include ongoing investigations into things like Libor, illegally concealing inclusions of mortgage-backed securities in employer funds (another ERISA violation), the Fail Whale trades, and especially putback suits for mortgages, where a recent ruling by Judge Jed Rakoff has seriously increased exposure. While the risks are still very much alive and will continue to weigh on the firm, ultimately shareholders will pay, certainly not executives as long as the no-prosecutions standard holds.
You can read this devastating report here if you are interested:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/130291230/GF-Co-JPM-Out-of-Control
All this and more, and STILL no criminal charges filed.
Just one of the above infractions would result in prosecutions for any member of the 99%.
So again, to Jamie, no one said ALL rich people are 'bad'.
But just what is the definition of 'bad' to Jaimie Dimon I would like to know?
Maybe those laws are only meant for the 99% and he genuinely doesn't see anything wrong with a member of the 1% paying no attention to them after all.
It's nice, though that he does feel there needs to be 'more equality'.
I wonder if they are beginning to worry that maybe they have gone just a little too far this time and that the people might start reacting, finally?
It's happened before!
Ask the French!
'Jamie Dimon Agrees With Occupy Wall Street: 'Too Much Inequality'
Or so he says NOW:
Jamie Dimon Agrees With Occupy Wall Street: 'Too Much Inequality'
According to Chris Otts of The Courier-Journal, Dimon told his audience that the United States has "too much inequality." This isn't a novel insight -- the Occupy Wall Street protests were predicated on this idea, expressed through the slogan "we are the 99 percent" -- but it's striking to hear it coming from Wall Street's most outspoken defender of financial elites.
"It doesn't mean we blame the successful," Dimon continued, sounding more characteristic, "but it's true. You want to have problems in society? Have inequality." Dimon mentioned "struggling inner-city public schools" in particular, Otts reports.
The statements represent a slight rhetorical softening for Dimon, who has in the past rejected the anti-banker sentiment that arose after the financial crisis of 2008. "Acting like everyone who's been successful is bad and because you're rich you're bad, I don't understand it," he said in late 2011 at an investors' conference in New York. Since then, a lot has changed for JPMorgan: the bank, seen as the most successful of the financial behemoths during the crisis, was recently the subject of a "riveting and devastating" Senate panel report that accused Dimon and other executives of hiding trading losses from investors and regulators.
According to The New York Times, a criminal investigation of this affair -- known popularly, after the trader who caused the losses, as "the London Whale" -- is "at an advanced stage."
"It doesn't mean we blame the successful," Dimon continued, sounding more characteristic, "but it's true. You want to have problems in society? Have inequality." Dimon mentioned "struggling inner-city public schools" in particular, Otts reports.
The statements represent a slight rhetorical softening for Dimon, who has in the past rejected the anti-banker sentiment that arose after the financial crisis of 2008. "Acting like everyone who's been successful is bad and because you're rich you're bad, I don't understand it," he said in late 2011 at an investors' conference in New York. Since then, a lot has changed for JPMorgan: the bank, seen as the most successful of the financial behemoths during the crisis, was recently the subject of a "riveting and devastating" Senate panel report that accused Dimon and other executives of hiding trading losses from investors and regulators.
According to The New York Times, a criminal investigation of this affair -- known popularly, after the trader who caused the losses, as "the London Whale" -- is "at an advanced stage."
Emphasis mine. 'Acting like everyone who has been successful is bad and because you're rich you're bad, I don't understand it'.
Well, not EVERYONE Jamie. But it sure looks like JPM was 'bad' and maybe even Jamie Dimon himself. We can't say that definitively yet I suppose, because despite all the evidence already revealed about the practices of Wall St Banks, such as his own JPM, we have yet to see any prosecutions in the courts where the evidence can be presented and people are under oath.
Eg:
Out Of Control: New Report Exposes JPMorgan Chase As Mostly Criminal Enterprise
"Exposes JPMorgan Chase As A Mostly Criminal Organization"
I don't know Jamie, but that sounds 'bad' to me and having read the report I find it difficult to understand why there have not yet been any criminal investigations! s
I urge you to read an astonishing new report, which I’ve embedded below, from analyst Josh Rosner of Graham-Fisher and Co. The best way to describe the report, “JPM – Out of Control,” is that it reads like a rap sheet. Notably, Rosner takes mortgage abuses almost entirely out of the equation, and yet still manages to fill a 45-page report with documented case after documented case of serious fraud and abuse, most of which JPM has already admitted to (at least in the sense of reaching a settlement; given out captured regulatory structure the end result is invariably a settlement with the “neither admit nor deny wrongdoing” boilerplate appended). Rosner writes, “we could not find another ‘systemically important’ domestic bank that has recently been subject to as many public, non-mortgage related, regulatory actions or consent orders.”
The author continues, after reading the report, to try to list the illegal activities of JPM, a daunting task as it turns out:
It’s hard to summarize all of the documented instances in this report of JPM has been breaking the law, but here’s my best shot. I try to keep up on these matters, and yet some of these I’m learning about for the first time:
Bank Secrecy Act violations;
Money laundering for drug cartels;
Violations of sanction orders against Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor;
Violations related to the Vatican Bank scandal (get on this, Pope Francis!);
Violations of the Commodities Exchange Act;
Failure to segregate customer funds (including one CFTC case where the bank failed to segregate $725 million of its own money from a $9.6 billion account) in the US and UK;
Knowingly executing fictitious trades where the customer, with full knowledge of the bank, was on both sides of the deal;
Various SEC enforcement actions for misrepresentations of CDOs and mortgage-backed securities;
The AG settlement on foreclosure fraud;
The OCC settlement on foreclosure fraud;
Violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;
Illegal flood insurance commissions;
Fraudulent sale of unregistered securities;
Auto-finance ripoffs;
Illegal increases of overdraft penalties;
Violations of federal ERISA laws as well as those of the state of New York;
Municipal bond market manipulations and acts of bid-rigging, including violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act;
Filing of unverified affidavits for credit card debt collections (“as a result of internal control failures that sound eerily similar to the industry’s mortgage servicing failures and foreclosure abuses”);
Energy market manipulation that triggered FERC lawsuits;
“Artificial market making” at Japanese affiliates;
Shifting trading losses on a currency trade to a customer account;
Fraudulent sales of derivatives to the city of Milan, Italy;
Obstruction of justice (including refusing the release of documents in the Bernie Madoff case as well as the case of Peregrine Financial).
And, exhale.
The sheer litany of illegal activities just overwhelms you. And these are only the ones where the company has entered into settlements or been sanctioned; it doesn’t even include ongoing investigations into things like Libor, illegally concealing inclusions of mortgage-backed securities in employer funds (another ERISA violation), the Fail Whale trades, and especially putback suits for mortgages, where a recent ruling by Judge Jed Rakoff has seriously increased exposure. While the risks are still very much alive and will continue to weigh on the firm, ultimately shareholders will pay, certainly not executives as long as the no-prosecutions standard holds.
You can read this devastating report here if you are interested:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/130291230/GF-Co-JPM-Out-of-Control
A Whale’s Tale – a Whitewash Report
When compared to the report the Board of Freddie Mac undertook, JPM’s “Task Force” was a whitewash.
Freddie initiated a truly independent investigation by anunaffiliated firm and directed
all employees of the Company to fully cooperate with theinvestigation. There were no limitations proscribed on the scope of the review and as theinvestigators or the Firm’s independent auditors discovered additional matters they werealso looked into
x
In contrast, JPMorgan’s “Task Force” issued a report of questionable independence andlimited in scope. Michael Cavanagh, co-Chairman of JPMorgan’s investment bank, ledthe “Task Force”. Cavanagh reports directly to Jamie Dimon and is both a longtime“lieutenant” and his possible successor
xi
.For Michael Cavanagh to be tasked with investigating another executive that reporteddirectly to Jamie Dimon
xii
about losses in a unit that he knew, as early as 2010, appearedto have inadequate controls
xiii
is more troubling.
As former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt said, "It's incomprehensible to me that they did these reports internally,
it's like asking Joe Paterno to do the Penn State [sexual abuse] investigation instead of [former FBI director] Louis Freeh…
having picked Cavanagh to do this strikes me as potentially foolish in the extreme, the only reason you do a review this way is because you don't want to find anything unduly damaging
When compared to the report the Board of Freddie Mac undertook, JPM’s “Task Force” was a whitewash.
Freddie initiated a truly independent investigation by anunaffiliated firm and directed
all employees of the Company to fully cooperate with theinvestigation. There were no limitations proscribed on the scope of the review and as theinvestigators or the Firm’s independent auditors discovered additional matters they werealso looked into
x
In contrast, JPMorgan’s “Task Force” issued a report of questionable independence andlimited in scope. Michael Cavanagh, co-Chairman of JPMorgan’s investment bank, ledthe “Task Force”. Cavanagh reports directly to Jamie Dimon and is both a longtime“lieutenant” and his possible successor
xi
.For Michael Cavanagh to be tasked with investigating another executive that reporteddirectly to Jamie Dimon
xii
about losses in a unit that he knew, as early as 2010, appearedto have inadequate controls
xiii
is more troubling.
As former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt said, "It's incomprehensible to me that they did these reports internally,
it's like asking Joe Paterno to do the Penn State [sexual abuse] investigation instead of [former FBI director] Louis Freeh…
having picked Cavanagh to do this strikes me as potentially foolish in the extreme, the only reason you do a review this way is because you don't want to find anything unduly damaging
All this and more, and STILL no criminal charges filed.
Just one of the above infractions would result in prosecutions for any member of the 99%.
So again, to Jamie, no one said ALL rich people are 'bad'.
But just what is the definition of 'bad' to Jaimie Dimon I would like to know?
Maybe those laws are only meant for the 99% and he genuinely doesn't see anything wrong with a member of the 1% paying no attention to them after all.
It's nice, though that he does feel there needs to be 'more equality'.
I wonder if they are beginning to worry that maybe they have gone just a little too far this time and that the people might start reacting, finally?
It's happened before!
Ask the French!
March 24, 2013
The article goes on to explain how that system worked and then claims that the system has now been completely 'torn up' using Cyprus as an example.
Link to the story of NZ's Open Bank Resolution (OBR) here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10872361
Risk To Savings If Bank Fails
The article links to Zero Hedge's story on how Spain is also considering this kind of scheme to help bail out the banks if they fail again. And it goes on to show that Italy may also have similar plans.
And what about the UK and the US? Well, if Europe and NZ are in on the scheme is there any doubt that Britain and the US are not planning on forcing the people to once again bail out Wall Street Failures? This author thinks so:
Emphasis mine.
It's not as if they have not done this already, just in a different way. As pointed out in these articles, there is never going to be an end to these bailouts or to the people footing the bill.
So when, as Occupy has asked, are we going to start seeing them being allowed to fail, and then begin the process of prosecuting the criminals?
The world never needed a movement like Ocuupy Wall Street than it does right now. Because it is obvious that most Governments are not on the side of the people. And that is why Wall St hates Occupy. They bought governments and thought they were clear to keep robbing the people, but then OWS appeared on the scene and to them, it was not just a big threat, it appears to have been the only threat to their criminal activities.
Not just Cyprus! Who Else Has Plans To Grab Small Depositor Savings To Bail Out Failing Big Banks?
Maybe it is time for people to take any money they still have out of savings accounts in any of the Big Banks, especially since there is virtually nothing to gain from lending them your money anymore in terms of interest. And now, after the outrageous attempt to set up yet another scheme to make ordinary people pay for any failures of the Big Banks, it seems to me that it is very risky to trust even ten dollars to these Banks.
This article explains the 'old order' of protection for depositors where people were protected UP TO a certain amount of money.
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/03/plunderball-the-new-euro-banking-game/
Plunderball – The new Euro banking game
It used to be that below the guarentee limit your money was safe. It was only any amount above the guarantee, that you could lose in a restructuring. When a bank went under the normal bankruptcy rules swung into action (I’m leaving aside the TBTF gorilla in the room. Let’s not poke him just yet).TBTF aside – the collapsed banks’ assets would collected in into a pile and all the bank’s creditors (those who bought its debt, lent it money, put their money into it) would be put on a list in order of seniority, with share holders at the bottom, unsecured and Junior bond holders next with Senior insured bond holders at the top. Depositors were always ranked up there with Senior bond holders. Those at top would get most if not all of their money back and not take a loss, those at the bottom would lose everything.
The article goes on to explain how that system worked and then claims that the system has now been completely 'torn up' using Cyprus as an example.
So what now? What happens in this new disorder?
Well it turns out other countries have been preparing to enforce this same – ‘force losses on all depositors’ – idea. New Zealand, as reported in an article by interest.co.nz has been working on what it calls its new Open Bank Resolution Policy (OBR). If put in place – and that is the NZ government’s intention,
The implementation of OBR would see all unsecured liabilities that rank equally among themselves, including deposits, having a portion frozen
Well it turns out other countries have been preparing to enforce this same – ‘force losses on all depositors’ – idea. New Zealand, as reported in an article by interest.co.nz has been working on what it calls its new Open Bank Resolution Policy (OBR). If put in place – and that is the NZ government’s intention,
The implementation of OBR would see all unsecured liabilities that rank equally among themselves, including deposits, having a portion frozen
Link to the story of NZ's Open Bank Resolution (OBR) here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10872361
Risk To Savings If Bank Fails
The article links to Zero Hedge's story on how Spain is also considering this kind of scheme to help bail out the banks if they fail again. And it goes on to show that Italy may also have similar plans.
And what about the UK and the US? Well, if Europe and NZ are in on the scheme is there any doubt that Britain and the US are not planning on forcing the people to once again bail out Wall Street Failures? This author thinks so:
And that is what I think is being planned in the UK and USA.
Will the UK and USA also go for the automatic seizure of money from accounts? My guess is they have been quietly planning on it but will now think twice about admitting to it. Preferring to keep it quiet until the next collapse when ‘circumstances call for desperate measures’ etc etc.
The reality is the banks are still bust – even the ones making huge profits – and when – not if – when the next bubble bursts and one bank starts to bring down another – they will all come for your money and we will all be collectively punished in order to make sure the wealthy and the powerful stay that way.
Will the UK and USA also go for the automatic seizure of money from accounts? My guess is they have been quietly planning on it but will now think twice about admitting to it. Preferring to keep it quiet until the next collapse when ‘circumstances call for desperate measures’ etc etc.
The reality is the banks are still bust – even the ones making huge profits – and when – not if – when the next bubble bursts and one bank starts to bring down another – they will all come for your money and we will all be collectively punished in order to make sure the wealthy and the powerful stay that way.
Emphasis mine.
It's not as if they have not done this already, just in a different way. As pointed out in these articles, there is never going to be an end to these bailouts or to the people footing the bill.
So when, as Occupy has asked, are we going to start seeing them being allowed to fail, and then begin the process of prosecuting the criminals?
The world never needed a movement like Ocuupy Wall Street than it does right now. Because it is obvious that most Governments are not on the side of the people. And that is why Wall St hates Occupy. They bought governments and thought they were clear to keep robbing the people, but then OWS appeared on the scene and to them, it was not just a big threat, it appears to have been the only threat to their criminal activities.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Mar 30, 2008, 05:51 AMNumber of posts: 62,325