"Civil Unrest Rising Everywhere"

[Christopher O'Brien]

[How long will TPTB continue overreaching from their place of convenient blind denial? The banksters will only be allowed to manipulate the system until the tipping point when the average Joe feels the pain of an undeniable bite to the jugular... I suspect the so-called elites are preppers-in-secret with rat holes within which to disappear with their trillions of $$$. It almost feels like a game of "chicken..." —chris]

Civil Unrest Rising Everywhere – Including the UK
by Martin Armstrong/June 23, 2014

Article HERE:

The greatest problem we have is misinformation. People simply do not comprehend why and how the economic policies of the post-war era are imploding. This whole agenda of socialism has sold a Utopian idea that the State is there for the people yet it is run by lawyers following their own self-interest. The pensions created for those in government drive the cost of government up exponentially with time. The political forces blame the rich and this merely creates a class warfare with no resolution for the future. Even confiscating all the wealth of the so-called rich will not sustain the system. Consequently, we just have to crash and burn and start all over again.

The [UK] Guardian reported that some 50,000 people marched in London to protest against austerity. They cried: “Who is really responsible for the mess this country is in? Is it the Polish fruit pickers or the Nigerian nurses? Or is it the bankers who plunged it into economic disaster – or the tax avoiders? It is selective anger.”

The exploitation by the bankers has been really a disaster. They have been their own worst enemy and in the end, they have become the symbol that inspires class warfare if not revolution. They are not the representatives of those who produce jobs. They are merely those who wanted to trade with other people’s money for free. When they win, it is their’s, but any losses are passed to the taxpayers. Bankers should be bankers – not hedge fund managers who keep 100% of the profits using other people’s savings.

The repeal of Glass Steagall was the final straw that broke the back of the world economy. That was the single worst act that could have ever been done and we are now paying the price in spades. The collapse from 2007 has wiped out even the liquidity of the markets. The second worst act was the creation of the euro when the real goal was the federalization of Europe from the outset. That undermined the entire European banking system and has led to a serious undermining of the entire global economy.

The solutions from politics will always be the same – grab more power. We are in a downward spiral of liberty and how far we go down this path to the future will be determined by the people and if they at least wise up and see this is not class warfare, it is the people against government. This is why I say career politicians are dangerous for they can be bought way too easily as Clinton was to open the flood gates for the bankers.

This is not going to end pretty. The question is when does society wake up? Just how high will this price be that we have to pay? They will blame the rich and the idiots will cheer – get them. What will happen when there is no more wealth to hunt? We end up with a communist state by default – no wealth, just career politicians who blame everyone but themselves. REST OF ARTICLE HERE:

 

[Wade]

"... Bankers should be bankers – not hedge fund managers who keep 100% of the profits using other people’s savings..."

Now that would be perfect bumper sticker material...but it would have to be an awfully big car.

The only thing is the bankers have such a sense of entitlement they probably don't see it as others people's money, it's in their house so it's their money.

 

[Charlie Prime]

[How long will TPTB continue overreaching from their place of convenient blind denial?

Chris I have been studying Sacred Geometry for a couple of years and only ran across Armstrong's Economic Confidence Model a couple of months ago. I can't determine if he is spot-on, completely wrong. Much more study required there.

I do know this: people better get prepared for anything, because nobody really knows how it will go down.

It could be the Argentina scenario where everyone just gets really poor and depressed for twenty years. It could be the Wiemar scenario where socialism amplifies 1,000 percent and ALL jobs become government jobs. It could be the TEOTWAWKI scenario where I become the most influential warlord in my neighborhood and learn to enjoy kitty-cat stew.

I'm prepped for all of them.

After prepping for thirty years and living through actual societal disruptions, I do know the One Thing every person should have is a community of friends and family. Without that, one's remaining life will be short very unpleasant.

 

[mike]

The only thing is the bankers have such a sense of entitlement they probably don't see it as others people's money, it's in their house so it's their money.

Actually it IS their money

Most people think that when they deposit money into a bank - that such money continues to belong to them (and not to the bank). This assumption is totally wrong.
The legal position of a depositor was settled as long ago as in 1848 - in the court case of Edward Thomas Foley vs Thomas Hill. This case determined that depositors are unsecured creditors.
In plain English this means that when you deposit your money at a bank - it becomes the possession of the bank, and that you have effectively become an investor in that business

It has now been well settled that the first and foremost relationship between the customer and the bank is the relationship of a Creditor and Debtor..... The money deposited with the banker becomes his property and at his disposal.

Law Essays

Unsecured creditor

Most people assume they put their money in the bank for safekeeping and it remains their property.
This has not been the case since 1848, where the courts ruled it is not.

The "balance" in your account does not represent money but shares in the bank.

Sadly the workarounds are just as risky

You can hold precious metals such as gold and silver, but like any money their real value is only what people ascribe to them.
You can store hard cash, but inflation will devalue it over time anyway, it doesnt grow stuffed in the mattress it can only shrink

the big mac index can be used to illustrate this.

In 1986 a Big Mac cost in aussie dollars $1.75 a ten dollar note would get you 5 burgers with some change
Today one costs $5.05 that same 10 dollar note gets you two burgers, if you can fish out an extra ten cents.

So cash stuffed in the mattress loses its value over time.
And of course they can change scrips at any time, they can issue new paper money and declare the old paper no longer legal tender.

If you dont bring your mattress stuffing to a bank and exchange it for the new scrip (at an exchange rate they set) it becomes worthless.

Its the same with any other wealth storage medium including real estate property, though personally i think land especially rural land is the safest bet all up.
At least you can use it to grow food if the system collapses

 

[Wade]

I never knew this, This is pretty interesting, So... To use an example here n the states...when the fdic says a deposit is insured up to 100k, the bank is the one that is actually being covered even though its aimed at the consumer ? If It does belong to the bank why would the government placate us with the insurance , if it belongs to the bank and they fail and the money does belong to them it would seem like it's a situation of the government covering the bank's ass to avoid potential lawsuits.

 

[storge]

I thought the powers just recently decided your money in the bank isn't really yours. The European Commission came up with something about depositors being stealth investors (although they don't get yearly dividends from corporate profits, and interest isn't the same thing) after they swiped about 10% from all big depositors in Cyprus a year or two ago. I thought Canada and the USA then followed suit, the nefarious and much-bandied-about "bail in" solution: make the consumer pay the losses and let the banks reap any profit. Now the ECB is in negative interest territory and most banks have things so stitched up that depositors never see any interest on their savings anyway, it's all eaten up by a million bank fees for doing nothing, lifting a pencil or talking to a teller. The idea seems to be to force everyone into internet banking and to charge a fee on eveyr ATM transaction, and to charge the "bank partner/shareholder" in the person of the depositor high fees for demanding to talk to a real person and to do banking the old fashioned way. In the meantime, it's much safer to keep your money in a sock or under the matress, given the actual statistics vs. the reported profits of the banks. That sort of situation implies there should be massive runs on banks which will force closures since they don't actually have the money on hand. The solution to bank closures is to do print up more bills hastily, which means massive inflation. The solution to all that is to instill confidence in electronic banking and to carry on covert monetary policies to keep the public away from knowledge of the shaky and/or nonexistent foundations of their money. It's all a big confidence game, as usual.

 

[mike]

I never knew this, This is pretty interesting, So... To use an example here n the states...when the fdic says a deposit is insured up to 100k, the bank is the one that is actually being covered even though its aimed at the consumer ? If It does belong to the bank why would the government placate us with the insurance , if it belongs to the bank and they fail and the money does belong to them it would seem like it's a situation of the government covering the bank's ass to avoid potential lawsuits.

Think of the insurance as a means of ensuring shareholder confidence.
Also as you say it insures the bank against loses, in the same way as you might own your own car or house, yet you insure it so that in the event of an accident or theft you can buy a new car and continue to use it to travel to work

 

[mike]

I thought the powers just recently decided your money in the bank isn't really yours. The European Commission came up with something about depositors being stealth investors (although they don't get yearly dividends from corporate profits, and interest isn't the same thing) after they swiped about 10% from all big depositors in Cyprus a year or two ago. I thought Canada and the USA then followed suit, the nefarious and much-bandied-about "bail in" solution: make the consumer pay the losses and let the banks reap any profit. Now the ECB is in negative interest territory and most banks have things so stitched up that depositors never see any interest on their savings anyway, it's all eaten up by a million bank fees for doing nothing, lifting a pencil or talking to a teller. The idea seems to be to force everyone into internet banking and to charge a fee on eveyr ATM transaction, and to charge the "bank partner/shareholder" in the person of the depositor high fees for demanding to talk to a real person and to do banking the old fashioned way. In the meantime, it's much safer to keep your money in a sock or under the matress, given the actual statistics vs. the reported profits of the banks. That sort of situation implies there should be massive runs on banks which will force closures since they don't actually have the money on hand. The solution to bank closures is to do print up more bills hastily, which means massive inflation. The solution to all that is to instill confidence in electronic banking and to carry on covert monetary policies to keep the public away from knowledge of the shaky and/or nonexistent foundations of their money. It's all a big confidence game, as usual.

As the link i posted says this was tested and has been the legal position since 1848.

In a choice between money in the sock drawer and precious metals like bullion, i personally prefer bullion.
It can grow in value, it has been used historically for hundreds and hundreds of years an accepted form of exchange
It isnt subject to the risk of scrip change
And imo will increase in intrinsic value in a collapse scenario
I keep about 3 grands worth of silver bullion buried in PVC pipe capsules
But I do also have some local paper money and coins stored

I also prep by storing bulk food/canned goods including butane and other items that have proven themselves as valuable in a crash as a trade item.
Things like hard spirits bulk supplys of candles, soap ,disinfectant, pain killers etc etc

This is well worth a read, details a real life scenario that actually happened and what was useful as exchange items

SHTF Survival Q&A: A First-Hand Account of Long-Term SHTF Survival

 

[mike]

H.P. Sheldon in his Practice and Law of Banking sets out this relationship as follows:
“The banker when he receives money from a customer does not hold the money in a fiduciary capacity. To say that money is Deposited” with a banker is likely to cause misapprehension. What really happens is that the money is not deposited with, but lent to the banker, and all that the banker engages to do is to discharge the debt by paying over an equal amount when called upon.

Halsbury’s Lazus of England, (Simonds Edn.) Vol. 2, p. 166, states that receipt of money by a banker from or on account of his customer constitutes him the debtor of the customer.

American Jurisprudence discussing the relation between bank and general depositor has the following to say:

Sec. 444. “It is a fundamental rule of banking law that in the case of a general deposit of money in a bank, the moment the money is deposited it becomes the property of a bank, and the bank and the depositor assume the legal relation of debtor and creditor. The legal effect of the transaction is that of a loan to the bank upon the promise and obligation, usually implied by law, to pay or repay the amount deposited usually upon demand; there is nothing of a trust or fiduciary nature of a bailment in the transaction or relationship or in the nature of any right to specific money deposited….”

BANKER-CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP « Banking Laws And Practices « Banking « CkBooks Online – Free Online Books

In light of this the bail in laws are strange, my guess is once one bank is forced into this practise, they need to level the playing field.
Given the choice between banks that do this and those that dont, ppl will put their money in a bank that doesnt. passing legislation saying all banks must be able to do this simply gives the customer no where to run.
Any bank refusing to opt into this scheme, wont get loans from the IMF, or if they do at rates well above those who guarantee those loans with a promise to use depositor funds to pay the loan in a crisis.

This isnt about the right to take the money, they already have that. i think there must be a deeper reason such as the one suggested above.

You see the IMF and your local bank are in the same position we are with our accounts, once the IMF loans the money its gone. If that bank folds they lose their money.
The bail in law simply makes the IMF a secured creditor, where we remain unsecured creditors

 

[mike]

Debt Restructuring and Burden Sharing

Debt restructurings are a part of borrowing and lending; they would occur in the absence of any official-sector intervention. The trigger for a bail-in, however, is often a policy decision by the official sector not to provide a country with sufficient emergency financing to allow it to avoid a debt restructuring.The IMF, the Group of Seven (G7), and others can condition their lending on a requirement that a country keep its foreign exchange reserves above a designated level (effectively requiring the country to initiate a restructuring if it cannot find private sources of financing), and refuse to lend in the absence of a restructuring



IMF Tells Australian Lawmakers To “Prevent Premature Disclosure Of Sensitive Information” On Bank Bail-Ins | Barnaby Is Right

The article above makes the point, they want first bite of the cherry if the crash starts.
Slip the bail in laws in with as little press as possible, and if you are about to use them, do it on the quiet before the runs start.

We get our money first, or we dont lend it to you

 

[mike]

Here at barnabyisright.com, for many months now we have (exclusively?) analysed, and publicised, the secretive international banker plan to “resolve” (ie, “bail-in”, a la Cyprus) insolvent banks across the globe — including Australia. Unsurprisingly, no one in the mainstream media has yet touched the subject.

BoE Says G20 Nations To Enact Bank Deposits Theft Within 12 Months | Barnaby Is Right

In a speech given in London on 24th October, former Goldman Sachs alumnus, now Governor of the Bank of England and chairman of the internationalist Financial Stability Board, Mark Carney, announced the target date for completion of the new global bank “bail-in” regime (‘The UK at the heart of a renewed globalisation,’ page 5, pdf here):

Systemic resilience depends on being able to resolve failing banks in a way that does not threaten the entire system…

To avoid these risks, we need to make the resolution of global banks a real option…

At the St Petersburg summit in September, G20 leaders mandated the FSB to develop these proposals. The Bank of England is now working intensively with other authorities and the financial industry. Our aim is to complete the job by the next G20 Summit in Brisbane.

The G20 summit in Brisbane is on 15-16 November, 2014.

 

[stonehart]

Not going to post image after image but in short those that pull the strings that control the puppets of power know that major unrest is coming.
It is bloody obvious frankly.

This is more than just the on sale of surplus military gear to civilian law enforcement.