The Confiscation Scheme Planned For U.S. And U.K. Depositors

Discussion in 'Economics' started by Banjo, Mar 28, 2013.

  1. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Why would they get a haircut when they wouldn't need to be bailed out? Are you trying to say the government will take all savings in all banks regardless of whether or not that bank needs saving?

    While anything is possible, I think that's simply not going to happen.
    #41     Mar 29, 2013
  2. vicirek


    Add Canada to the list.

    Recent economic blueprint of Conservative Party wants to use (in unlikely scenario of course) certain bank liabilities (i.e. accounts) to fund banks bailouts.

    If that is true are they talking about transferring money from savers to shareholders to keep government bond printing intact?

    Not bad! Communist revolution is spreading around the world comrades!
    #42     Mar 29, 2013
  3. you sound like you are old enough to remember Jimmy Carter. It was much worse back then. Everybody coming on the scene were ex hippies. Nowadays, we also have the yuppies still hanging on, and they liked being rich.

    otherwise, propaganda is much more entertaining than policy

    "a balanced approach" means in reality "Raise taxes now, and we will cut spending when we run out of money."
    #43     Mar 30, 2013
  4. deucy28


    Indeed ! I enjoyed the laugh at the balanced approach explanation. The personalities under the capital dome are so broken of full, fiduciary faith to the good of the country, the wonderful system in place with its warts, blemishes, and some serious flaws have been corrupted into severe dysfunction at a time more so than ever when it needs to be running on Slick 50. (Whoops. I should not have used the word slick.)

    Yup, I was 20- something during Carter, and I can relate. Strangely, I embrace the differences between generations. Makes for a lot of interesting dynamics, and life is not boring. For the republicans in the news its now the young Turks gonna move the old guard aside and sweep the floor of stuck-in-the-mud, non-effective leaders, so the current drift appears to be. For the dem's I can believe there is horrific frustration by the junior set elected with passion in their hearts to make a difference but are faced with "We'll read the bill after it becomes law," leadership mentality and Mt Rushmore size ideology trumping common sense that would otherwise allow constructive dialogue and compromise. Not that dem's have the corner in the market on those characteristics, as I am struck with it from all directions.

    If the good fairy were to come along and unwind the dysfunction tomorrow and purge the unwarranted gridlock, our economy, banking, and government could become effective again. Banking is only as good as the economy, and government is only as good as the astuteness of citizens that elect those who run it. Education as poor as ours won't be making any inroads soon in graduates with a functional grasp of history, economics, and motivation to stay informed by important current events that in the end would allow for a better voter and elected quality of leadership driven to affect our future by performing for the nation, not for self aggrandizement and posturing for the next election.
    #44     Mar 30, 2013
  5. well at anyrate, all economics comes down to two camps. I started another thread on the "Economics" forum just to discuss this.

    and it all comes down to "wealth redistribution" or just letting the best man win..

    It's kind of scary, because when it's all said and done, there is no intellectual answer.

    It all comes down to old fashined physical warfare. The team that's got the biggest baddest warriors who can beat your ass with superior weapons (and I mean the kind that can kill you physically dead) or the team that has the most devoted soldiers who are willing to give up their physical life (I mean giving up your life for your belief) will win.

    It aint much different from the old Hollywood Westerns where a bad guy takes over a town, and a hero comes along and shoots him.
    #45     Mar 30, 2013
  6. deucy28


    With that description, no argument: It's kind of scary.
    #46     Mar 30, 2013
  7. zdreg


    600 pages to read to much for u to handle?
    #47     Mar 30, 2013