Topic: europe bail in official policy now (Read 2166 times)

You know why we don't really debate if McDonalds is better than Burger King? Because it does not matter. If you think McDo is better, you simply go there. But if government forces you to go to Burger King, does it make any sense to discuss if Burger King has good enough burgers?

The problem is not where everyone is looking. Discussing if fractional reserve or "bails in" are bad or good is irrelevant. The problem is where the gun is. If you don't like government insurance policy "keep less than 100K in a bank", you are free to go and create your own bank, with or without money printing, with any insurance you want. Except, now you will face the gun: you are not allowed to create any bank you want. And then you MUST obey legal tender laws, so if someone brings you a dollar bill, you MUST accept it as a repayment of the debt (even though you gave credit in, say, silver). In the end, multiple individual policies shape the market in a way that only a small number of banks with very specific policies can survive on the market. All the rest will either be pushed out by force or not be competitive.

If intellectuals like you spend all their time debating unimportant and non-black-and-white issues like bail ins, you will never expose the real root of all problems: not allowing people to do what they want to do and thus directing them into the shitty government policies. It does not matter which policy we are talking about. What matters is only gunpoint.

From reading Rickards take on the Euro, it will remain slightly stronger comparatively, allowing us/china competitive advantage.

But after hearing the Anglo Irish tapes & suggestions that derivative losses might be much much bigger than said or thought, maybe more bailouts are coming?

Not of the same bank. Even if all banks fail, the size of each bank's loss will not be the same. Also, bank creditors choose how exposed they'll be (a bondholder is more exposed than a depositor, a depositor that leaves lots of liquid money in the bank is more exposed than one that invests his money somewhere else like real state, precious metals, bitcoin etc). It's perfectly reasonable and fair that those who were voluntarily more exposed end up paying a larger cut than those who took precautions to stay away from the failed bank.


I respectfully disagree. It's not irrelevant. Bail-outs create a moral hazard. The certainty that you can explore this rigged game and always win, at the expense of others.
A bail-in as I described would at least punish those responsible by making them lose everything. If that's the norm, even though the whole banking system continues fucked up as hell, bankers would be more prudent on their risk-taking.

But of course, I agree that central banks are absurd, that they foster cartels, and that the monopoly of money is perhaps the worse economical problem the developed world faces today. Bail-ins per se won't fix that. But they might change the behavior of bankers.

My point is that talking about levels of fairness in a situation which is already unfair to both taxpayers and depositors (almost every depositor is a taxpayer, by the way, and every taxpayer is a victim of taxation), is hiding the real problem. It's like discussing oral hygiene during tsunami. It's technically correct, but irrelevant. To add insult to injury, such technique is typically used by media and politicians intentionally to distract from real issues.

In our case, when the government and banks create a nice guarded prison for every citizen and then play with them how they want, anyone who says "taking money from depositors is fairer than from taxpayers" may be technically correct, but insults both groups. It is immoral to threaten peaceful people on any grounds, period. Threatening people for creating their own banks because of such "rules" is immoral. Anyone who invents "moral rules" to justify violence must either have a full mathematically-hard proof or shut up. I myself don't claim to know what's "moral", but my only definition of "immorality" is when someone claims to be moral himself and instead of working on a proof threatens to kill people.

Even if you are concerned with systemic risk, you can nationalize the bank and fund the liabilities with taxpayers money, but in that case shareholders and bondholders should be wiped out first.

Basically governments are scared of contagion. If you see one bank go down, you run on another one, and that goes bad too. (Probably also some corruption, because people who would lose out are good at influencing the government.)

I think a lot of people here have got the meaning of this backwards. When governments offer full bail-outs with taxpayers's money, it's because they think all the banks are very shaky, and they don't dare let one of them fail in case the rest of them topple, too. What's happening now is that the European banks are gradually getting more stable, so governments are feeling confident enough to try to reassert the original principles of how bank failures were always _supposed_ to work.

Very small chance of a large scale conflict due to nuclear weapons, there is no winner for a nuclear war. So more likely the war will be on the currency and financial front, each country tries to devaluate its currency to force others pay for their debt, eventually all the currencies were hurt badly during a currency war, and bitcoin stands out

If the USD were to fail today then I believe bitcoin would probably be wiped out. But if it has a chance to grow further and be recognized on it's own - maybe in another year or two will be enough time for btc to decouple from the American currency and reach main stream, then it might actually be what causes the crash to happen, while bitcoin lives on as it's own beast.

In case of economic collapse people would probably prefer a digital currency that no corrupt Government could control.

In case of societies collapse due to WW3 then Gold and Silver would probably be more useful, unless digital currencies had a decade or more to integrete with their spending habits. In the short term future complete loss of internet structure is unlikely, as "Mesh Nets" and other technologies are becoming more popular. Thanks to Google and other companies, looking for very cheap solutions for deploying internet in places like Africa and remote parts of the world. The internet might get knocked offline in the beginning but we would be able to rebuild it.


And actually the original purpose of the internet, why it was developed by the Government after the Cold War in case of nuclear attack so societies could continue to communicate.

Agreed, I for one didn't understand why what I have been told is normal bankruptcy law (first the shareholder loses his money, then bondholders, then depositors) was not used in previous bank-ruptcies.  It's ridiculous that they have only implemented this now.  

I agree principally, with caveats.

Insurances may well be fair if payed for by taxes or otherwise.

And to be fair, especially if depositors lose something, there need to be criminal investigations and convictions for letting it develop that far. In boom times high management salaries are always explained with responsibility and personal risk. In bad times the responsibility vanishes instantly, but not the perceived right to high bonus payments. Handle them like small company owners is all I ask for. Clawbacks for years past should be considered too. Yes that's meddling in contracts, but so is cutting deposits.

I didn't get your point, oleganza.

You noted some injustices that are practiced world wide. But how does that change what I said?

Forcing taxvictims to pay for a bank rescue will always be less fair than what I wrote. Banking being a fucked up industry or not.

It would be all well and good if you was free to create your own bank and your own currency to those who don't want to play that game. But the rules are such that you cannot do that. So if you need banking (and many people and businesses simply cannot work with paper cash for many reasons), you have to bear all the risks that these people create.

I have nothing against fractional reserve banking or "depositors bear the risk" etc. if only this was absolutely voluntary. But I bet if it was, very few people would be interested in that deal. After all, private ponzi schemes are "bad" only because of fraudulent investment promises, not because of the money distribution scheme. Call it honestly a lottery, don't force people to join and play as long as you wish.

Does this include UK banks? I might pull some of my money out.

be ready to wait 20 years to even get a chance for a change

not really

I love this news 
Europe's shit money will fail.

+1

But I believe that what is really going to happen is that shareholders will be saved and depositors will be shafted.
Then in a couple years and a merger later the bank reopens with a new name.

I completely agree here!  (But I do not agree with how it was done in Cyprus with the banks and payment systems effectively closed down without warning for weeks, because I believe it is the responsibility of a government to ensure proper functioning in the society.  And the payment system is part of that, a very important one, too.)

I read some time ago (I think it was the Bitcoin Magazine) about a comparison between risky/speculative banking and Martingale gambling.  Their speculation goes well most of the time and so they earn big time (and also make themselves a name as a "good investor"), but when it fails big time, they don't have to pay the price because it is done by the tax payers.  Hence an ideal system for the gamblers, Martingale finally working.

english link plz

edit: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/27/us-eu-banks-idUSBRE95Q02L20130627