flower-shilling

FDIC Brokers talk about 'Bail-Ins' to manage the approaching meltdown

Smithys Bullion - FINE GOLD AND SILVER
Administrator

Administrator

Administrator
Staff member
Silveroo
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
In the brief video below, FDIC Brokers talk about 'Bail-Ins' to manage an approaching Business sector breakdown. They're discussing monetary emergency and their absence of confidence in our financial framework and how to hold the general population back from going crazy.

Stunningly, one of the Brokers, talking about the general public, bluntly says they should not put out info because the public "does not have a professional need to know."

Another says "I think you'd scare the public if you put this out." He goes on to say that "You have to think about the unintended consequences of telling the public, which may have more faith in the banking system than people in this room do . . . ." and finishes by saying "I would be careful about the unintended consequences of starting to blast this out in the general public."

Another says "It's important for people to understand they can be "Bailed-In" but you don't want a huge run on the institution, . . . and they're going to be . . ."

Different people will come to different conclusions about this video and its context. But one thing no one can dispute is that the FDIC is now openly talking about "Bail-Ins" here in the United States, and in those talks, making clear they do not have full faith in the banking system.

https://youtu.be/NRbJSF0cH7E

 
I tried to talk to my brother a couple of years ago about the Australian bail in laws, he didn't want to believe me so it was a difficult conversation. I think maybe because what happened in cypress and cypress being corrupt. I gave up when we got to the so called government guarantee for $250000. We got a far as where and how much you have in which institutions. Yes the clause is there but It technically isn't empowered until the first domino falls. So does that mean ( because how it's specifically written) the 1st bank won't be covered by the guarantee?
 
Cirt said:
I tried to talk to my brother a couple of years ago about the Australian bail in laws, he didn't want to believe me so it was a difficult conversation. I think maybe because what happened in cypress and cypress being corrupt. I gave up when we got to the so called government guarantee for $250000. We got a far as where and how much you have in which institutions. Yes the clause is there but It technically isn't empowered until the first domino falls. So does that mean ( because how it's specifically written) the 1st bank won't be covered by the guarantee?
Click to expand...

Even if the government does guarantee deposits. Look at what happened with Pyramid Building Society. Before the collapse the attorney general vouched for its stability. After the collapse the gov denied any coverage. Then the gov agreed to cover depositors. However they only received 51 cents in the dollar, and the last payment was made in 2005, 15 years after the collapse. Also the settlements were not indexed for inflation.

To top it all off, the gov got the funds to pay depositors from a VIC fuel levy of 3c-per-litre for five years.

So, yeah. I don't trust gov bank deposit guarantees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top