European Union is robbing its citizens' bank accounts. 9.9% to be confiscated. - page 11.

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Peter Lambert on March 20, 2013, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: caveden on March 20, 2013, 04:25:04 AM

Understand one basic thing: the government doesn't produce anything. Every penny it has, it has taken from innocent people. Forcing the taxvictims to pay the burden is way much unfairer. They have nothing to do with the issue!

Just to nitpick a bit (fair notice, I am a minarchish libertarian) The government is there to produce something: an environment of law and order, which in turn fosters greater economic activity. People can spend more time doing useful things because we do not have to be constantly looking over our shoulders and fighting off robbers. Or, at least, that is how it should work (but governments are bloated and irresposibly trying to do more than they should and we need to cut back their powers to a great degree).

My government provides a lot more than just law and order.
Schooling, jobs, housing, clean water and then some.
Just saying.

niko

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.

Quote from: justusranvier on March 20, 2013, 02:13:55 PM

Quote from: Peter Lambert on March 20, 2013, 02:03:27 PM

The government is there to produce something: an environment of law and order, which in turn fosters greater economic activity. People can spend more time doing useful things because we do not have to be constantly looking over our shoulders and fighting off robbers. Or, at least, that is how it should work (but governments are bloated and irresposibly trying to do more than they should and we need to cut back their powers to a great degree).

This is the root of all the madness in the world.

First you propose a theory (government produces and environment of law and order), then you immediately note the empirical evidence is the exact opposite of what your theory predicts, and instead of abandoning your theory as obviously flawed, you determine that reality is flawed instead.

This is how most sane people operate. They decide what they would like things to be like, then they check if that's the case. If not, they act to try to correct the things to their liking. In the example above, Peter Lambert noted that he saw a problem with how governments operate, and proposed a cure (not specific, though).

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Peter Lambert on March 20, 2013, 02:03:27 PM

The government is there to produce something: an environment of law and order, which in turn fosters greater economic activity. People can spend more time doing useful things because we do not have to be constantly looking over our shoulders and fighting off robbers. Or, at least, that is how it should work (but governments are bloated and irresposibly trying to do more than they should and we need to cut back their powers to a great degree).

This is the root of all the madness in the world.

First you propose a theory (government produces and environment of law and order), then you immediately note the empirical evidence is the exact opposite of what your theory predicts, and instead of abandoning your theory as obviously flawed, you determine that reality is flawed instead.

Peter Lambert

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

Quote from: caveden on March 20, 2013, 04:25:04 AM

Understand one basic thing: the government doesn't produce anything. Every penny it has, it has taken from innocent people. Forcing the taxvictims to pay the burden is way much unfairer. They have nothing to do with the issue!

Just to nitpick a bit (fair notice, I am a minarchish libertarian) The government is there to produce something: an environment of law and order, which in turn fosters greater economic activity. People can spend more time doing useful things because we do not have to be constantly looking over our shoulders and fighting off robbers. Or, at least, that is how it should work (but governments are bloated and irresposibly trying to do more than they should and we need to cut back their powers to a great degree).

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: caveden on March 20, 2013, 04:29:32 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 19, 2013, 08:14:35 PM

The issue is that the government promised to make depositors whole in the event of a bank failure by providing them with deposit insurance and then reneged on that obligation.

That promise is void since they have no actual means to ethically fulfill them, ever. To fulfill it, they would have to steal innocent people that have nothing to do with the problem.

So, in the end, "bank deposit insurances" are just another politician's lie. People must understand that.

And the banks lie as well, never forget that.
The banks didn't even reneg on the deal. They just closed their doors and completely disrespect their promise to give people back the money they borrowed. They lost their play money and now they come asking society for more.
You people seem to want to give blame to governments but it is actually the incredibly sick financial world that is the root of most of these problems.
Was it governments that decided to mix sub-prime morgages into cool looking but seemingly unrelated constructs?
Was it governments that were wallowing for years in profits from these derivatives?
No it wasn't, it was the greed that is cultivated in our financial institutions.
And this greed is so deeply rooted in everything in society that even governments have no real power over these entities.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: caveden on March 20, 2013, 04:29:32 AM

And do you honestly believe that something of the kind (or worse) won't happen someday? The social security is a clock-bomb ticking. It will blow one day. You can't run away from reality.

The political promises of the USA are worth exactly as much as the political promises of the USSR.

Vladimir

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

-

this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbBngknGk54

The most interesting stuff is closer to the end of this 10 minute speech. Nothing new, of course.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Vladimir on March 20, 2013, 05:36:30 AM

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on March 20, 2013, 05:27:11 AM

Overextended banks need to fail and people who were stupid enough to trust them with their money need to learn from their mistake (or repeat it, whichever they like!)

It is not about insolvency of Cypriotic banks. It is about insolvency of Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, Italian, French, Dutch, German, Britsih, American and Japanese banks. Get it?

Yes. All banks should fail, because:
http://www.professorfekete.com/

The Greatest Living Monetary Scientist.

Vladimir

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

-

Quote from: ErisDiscordia on March 20, 2013, 05:27:11 AM

Overextended banks need to fail and people who were stupid enough to trust them with their money need to learn from their mistake (or repeat it, whichever they like!)

It is not about insolvency of Cypriotic banks. It is about insolvency of Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, Italian, French, Dutch, German, Britsih, American and Japanese banks. Get it?

ErisDiscordia

legendary

Activity: 1133

Merit: 1163

Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos

Overextended banks need to fail and people who were stupid enough to trust them with their money need to learn from their mistake (or repeat it, whichever they like!)

Vladimir

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

-

Quote from: zeroday on March 19, 2013, 05:17:00 PM

Cyprus has sensationally rejected the terms of its bailout, with 36 MPs voting against the plan, and 19 government MPs abstaining (source).

They literally said "fu*ck off" to the proposals of nazi-chancellor-bitch.

Indeed! In the the times of universal deceit a little bit of common sense is sensational indeed. Shocked

caveden

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 19, 2013, 08:14:35 PM

The issue is that the government promised to make depositors whole in the event of a bank failure by providing them with deposit insurance and then reneged on that obligation.

That promise is void since they have no actual means to ethically fulfill them, ever. To fulfill it, they would have to steal innocent people that have nothing to do with the problem.

So, in the end, "bank deposit insurances" are just another politician's lie. People must understand that.

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 19, 2013, 08:14:35 PM

This would be equivalent to the United States postponing its social security problem by declaring a 10% tax on social security payments and implementing the tax by reducing those payments.

And do you honestly believe that something of the kind (or worse) won't happen someday? The social security is a clock-bomb ticking. It will blow one day. You can't run away from reality.

caveden

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

Quote from: darkmule on March 19, 2013, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: caveden on March 19, 2013, 01:19:18 PM

Can you think of a fairest way to deal with a bank failure than what I describe above?

Yes. The way every civilized country does it. Honor the value of insured accounts, and if the bank can't, the government honors the insurance policy on them.

But that's far from "civilized", it's much worse!

Understand one basic thing: the government doesn't produce anything. Every penny it has, it has taken from innocent people. Forcing the taxvictims to pay the burden is way much unfairer. They have nothing to do with the issue!

These "account deposit insurances" are an outright lie, an illusion. It's better that people wake up to reality and realize there's nothing guaranteed in life.

No, what you say is not a better solution. Bank clients will have to suffer losses if you want anything fair as outcome. Of course, it's fundamental that current shareholders lose everything, but I have a feeling that such thing just won't happen, unfortunately.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: darkmule on March 19, 2013, 05:29:06 PM

Yes. The way every civilized country does it. Honor the value of insured accounts, and if the bank can't, the government honors the insurance policy on them. In none of these other nations are insured deposit accounts plundered.

Exactly. The issue is that the government promised to make depositors whole in the event of a bank failure by providing them with deposit insurance and then reneged on that obligation. Worse, rather than simply failing to pay them, it reneged by seizing bank balances and pretending that it's a tax. And this is not some backwater, dictatorship hellhole, this is an EU Democracy using a "tax" to evade a sovereign obligation.

This would be equivalent to the United States postponing its social security problem by declaring a 10% tax on social security payments and implementing the tax by reducing those payments. And actually that's not even as bad because at least the United States has made clear that social security is not a contract and is not insurance. Deposit insurance is supposed to be insurance.

wachtwoord

legendary

Activity: 2324

Merit: 1125

Quote from: darkmule on March 19, 2013, 05:29:06 PM

Don't insure accounts, if the bank can't pay, it goes bankrupt and the debt is void

FYP

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Quote from: caveden on March 19, 2013, 01:19:18 PM

Can you think of a fairest way to deal with a bank failure than what I describe above?

Yes. The way every civilized country does it. Honor the value of insured accounts, and if the bank can't, the government honors the insurance policy on them. In none of these other nations are insured deposit accounts plundered.

zeroday

donator

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Cyprus has sensationally rejected the terms of its bailout, with 36 MPs voting against the plan, and 19 government MPs abstaining (source).

They literally said "fu*ck off" to the proposals of nazi-chancellor-bitch.

caveden

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1004

Quote from: theowalpott on March 18, 2013, 05:50:25 PM

You people do realise that the x% they're deducting will be paid back in shares in the bank that your deposit is in?

Really?

But what's the deal? Are the current stock holders losing their shares?
If they're just equating the previous market values of these shares and distributing according to the amount cut this is not fair.

The correct way of doing this would be:

Remove all shares from current share holders
Do the necessary cuts - but here, I think risky or more "long-term" investors should be cut before checking account holders.
Distribute the new shares proportionally to the amount you contributed in the rescue. Say, if your cut contributed to 0.1% of the total amount levied, then you'll own 0.1% of the bank. Previous owners lose everything.

That's the fairest possible way of dealing with a bank failure I'm aware of.

Quote from: darkmule on March 19, 2013, 01:11:35 PM

What is the value of a share in a business so corrupt and incompetent that it has to steal from its customers (including me) to stay afloat?

Can you think of a fairest way to deal with a bank failure than what I describe above?
At least in this scheme, the current owners lose everything, and the clients that lose something become the new owners, in proportion to what they lost. In other words, those who definitely must be "punished" do lose all, and those who are "punished" simply for having chosen a bad bank at least get something in exchange for it.

darkmule

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1005

Quote from: theowalpott on March 18, 2013, 05:50:25 PM

You people do realise that the x% they're deducting will be paid back in shares in the bank that your deposit is in?

What is the value of a share in a business so corrupt and incompetent that it has to steal from its customers (including me) to stay afloat?

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 19, 2013, 07:07:59 AM

Quote from: johnyj on March 18, 2013, 08:13:14 PM

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on March 16, 2013, 11:52:38 PM

In the US, they would just print 11.1% more money. Same effect, but people don't realize.

Not exactly, printed money is added debt, so eventually it will backfire and hit government with even more interest burden later

Yes, but it will backfire less than this will. First, printing more money won't shake confidence in the banking system. Second, printing more money hits people more equally. (For example, consider two people equally situated who were both saving to pay off a car loan, one paid the loan off Thursday, the other planned to pay it off Tuesday.) And lastly, this shakes the very foundation of the entire modern fiat economy -- that investors and shareholders take the risks, not consumers and savers.

That said, there's a very seductive argument that these kinds of things *should* backfire.

Fast and short term pain VS slow and long term pain Wink

Actually if they never adopted the debt based fiat system from the beginning, there won't be such pain now. Fiat money is like drugs, you eat a little bit everyday and after 30 years most part of your body is poisoned while you still get enjoyment at certain degree

Topic: European Union is robbing its citizens' bank accounts. 9.9% to be confiscated. - page 11. (Read 33190 times)