“This Act (re: The Federal Reserve Act) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Act the invisible government of the Money Power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized. The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on depressions will be scientifically created.” Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913, on the Federal Reserve Act Charles Lindbergh, Sr. – Congressional record – Feb 12, 1917
“We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.” Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, 1932
“The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money.” Representative Charles A. Lindbergh, a Republican from Minnesota, and father of the famous aviator Lucky Lindberg, 1932.
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson
Introduction-Investment Environment Assumptions
Discussion of any investment, wealth creation or wealth preservation scenario, requires a set of assumptions about the political and economic environment that exists. During my research, I have reached certain conclusions that I have found to be useful and that set the framework for my analysis in this article. These are:
Introduction – Economic and Political Environment
The United States Government – Geopolitically has become an imperial predator as evidenced by – Bosnia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. And, targets of Iran are forthcoming. Their banks use similar tactics and policies in the third world. I believe that Richard Maybury’s statement that, “the government is drunk with power” is true.
The European Union became socialist after WWII and in recent years they went into debt to maintain their socialist beliefs. They are in denial and cannot afford socialism. Socialism always fails because it is so expensive. Around the world, the 20th century socialist experiment is crumbling and the related economy and financial systems along with it.
Fascism has no philosopher theorists such as Marx for Communism. It was created by Mussolini and Hitler to keep themselves in office. A Fascist state is a situation where the legislators listen more to the special interests of the large industrial giants such as banks, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies and the military industrial complex rather than the interests of the people or the principles of a Constitution. The legislator and the executive like power and want to stay in power; therefore, he will do or say whatever the special interest wants for the campaign money to get reelected. At the same time he will do or say anything to his constituents to dazzle them into believing that he is doing things for their interest so that he can become reelected. Morality and principle are only secondary considerations. America has become fascist.
Hyperinflation is a function of two things – “size of the money supply” and “panic”. The panic causes the velocity of money to increase. Velocity of money is GDP / Money supply. The FED has created an enormous money supply so the velocity is low. . Panic is a function of “trust” in the US government and financial institutions. You can measure Panic by runs on banks. The velocity Panic is not here but trust is beginning to disappear. Today, 53% of Americans now see the federal government as a direct personal threat to them. This is up from 30% in 2001. (“The Sum of All Fears,” by Daniel Henniger, Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2013, p. A15). In Europe, trust in the bankers has disappeared with the “bail ins” in Cyprus, Spain, U.K and Greece. People are now moving their money out of banks. Riots have started in multiple EU countries and more should be expected. Hyperinflation will occur.
The FED resulted from a 1913 conspiracy that is documented in Edward Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. The Finances of this nation have been under the control of the FED for 100 years. The Conspirators worked to make Americans believe the U.S. banking system operated in the public interest but it does not. The Federal Reserve is a semi-secret private banking cartel that makes a big profit. It has no reserves; is not Federal and it is owned by private shareholders who are other banks in the U S and Europe. To make profits, the bank prints money to fund treasury bonds and charges interest that returns as revenue to the FED. This privately held organization pays no taxes, has never been audited,refuses to tell Congress to whom it gives money and controls via rules and regulations the entire financial industry in the US. As a result, the FED has been a phenomenal success in earning money for its owners but has been a complete failure in fulfilling its originally congressionally chartered objectives of (1) maintaining full employment and (2) having no inflation. Thus, they have failed the American people.
Recently the FED introduced the concept of Quantitative Easing to increase the money supply and “get people back to work.” The Quantitative Easing was sold as helping America getting back on its feet and is a sham. The trillions of dollars created out of nothing went to banks, who are its shareholders, to shore up their balance sheets. The balance sheets now show a 20.6:1 loan to asset value rather than a 60:1 value before Quantitative Easing began. In addition, the FED used QE to send approximately $1.2 trillion to Europe to the European banks to stabilize the European banking centers – some of whom may also be owners of the FED. The real owners are kept a secret by the FED. The QE has not caused growth as planned because the demand for money has increased and the velocity of money has slowed as people held on to the money they had and did not spend it. The banks retained the money provided to them and did not reinvest it in loans. The FED must have had a hand in the Set Up and Sting since the American “too big to fail” banks are its stockholders.
Banking and Congress
Americans financial fate is primarily in the hands of people who they do not even know their name but have the power to alter their lives with a simple statement. On June 19th, Bernanke as Chairman of the FED, made a simple statement that interest rates would go up in the fall. As a result, people held on to their money, the velocity of money fell and the markets fell. It took 10 days and 7 speeches by FED officials saying, “No, don’t sell, Bernanke (the FED) did not mean that”, to finally stop the selling.
The US has become a fascist government where Congress gets “support” from its fascist backers such as banks to create laws that are favorable to banks not the citizens, e.g., repeal the Glass Steagall law, pass the Graham, Leach, Bliley Act and the Dodd – Frank Act and agree to the G20 supra national financial constraints that are not in the citizen’s best interests. The de-facto Life tenures in Congress has created a corrupt legislature that relies on corporations to write the laws and supply the money for their reelection as long as they create laws that benefit the donors. The nation is in philosophical and financial trouble. The financial institutions and our government institutions are being directed by a cadre of people who have only one purpose which is to make money (FED and its banks) and stay in office to enjoy the concurrent power.
This paper is about one aspect of that problem. The bankers finally feel that the derivatives have gotten so large and so dangerous that they must move the risk to the people. That is the only way they can survive. They do not care if anyone else survives. To accomplish their survival, they must change the laws and execute “Bail Ins”. They did this by influencing Congress to pass laws favorable to large bank survival.
Introduction – Purpose and Methodology
This article became two parts because of its length. I debated in my mind what to call the set of two articles. I finally settled on “The Sting” since the parallel to a sting operation was so strong and it should make a complex situation easier to understand. The idea of the article as a “Sting” is taken from the 1973 movie of that name where Robert Redford and Paul Newman set up a situation to con a mob boss out of a large sum of money. In this instance, the roles are reversed. The public is the “mark” and is being conned by assuring them that the series of laws – covered in Part I – are meant for their protection and provides improvements in the national banking system. The plot must have been conceived when it dawned on the bankers that the problem that the size of the derivative market was so large ($1,200 trillion) and so fragile, a small event could take down the entire financial system. In particular, their own banks were in danger of becoming insolvent and going into bankruptcy. As a result, they reverted to their standard procedure – – – put the debt on the public. However, this time they faced some unfriendly laws that said that their plan was illegal. As a consequence, they removed those laws and created friendly laws that would enable “Bail Ins” and designation of themselves as “too big to fail” banks that were special. In particular, they had to remove two laws and enact two others in the US. Since they wanted a global “Sting”, they got the EU to comply by enacting their own laws and abiding by an international “G20 Strategic Plan agreement”. Specifically they had to do the following to “Set Up” the public for the “Sting” that was planned – derivative failure and then “Bail Ins”.
• Remove two laws
o Glass Steagall (must have) – Accomplished
o Sarbanes Oxley (like to have) – Did not accomplish
• Enact two laws
o Graham, Leach, Bliley Act (must have) – Accomplished
o Dodd Frank Act (must have) – Accomplished
• Enact an International Agreement
o G20 Financial Strategy agreed to by 20 nations (must have) – Accomplished
The above is what this paper is all about. In Part I, we review how these laws were changed, when it was accomplished (over a period of 3 years) and discussion of the sections that were changed. In Part II, the “Sting”, derivatives and Bail Ins will be explained. The “Bail Ins” – will remove depositors’ money from their cash, 401Ks, pensions, IRAs, CDs accounts and deposit them into the accounts of the banks so that they can pay their bad gambling debts. To me this represents a situation where the world’s largest White Collar Crime is about to occur.
In order to accomplish this “Sting”, either direct compliance, cooperation, denial as well as involvement were required of international bankers and politicians both within nations and at the supra national level. One could take the position that this is just a coincidental series of laws and financial arrangements but I take the position of FDR who said, “In politics, there are no coincidences’” – and this is politics at its worst.
In Part I of the Sting, this article describes how the big money bankers and our politicians have put the pieces in place via laws that enable the theft of citizens’ assets. This article identifies and discusses the enabling laws and removal of laws that has restricted them.
The methodology used is descriptive in that the history of banking laws including Glass Steagall, Sarbanes Oxley, Graham, Leach, Bliley and Dodd Frank will be discussed and dissected to determine why they were important for the bankers to repeal or enact.
Further, the history of Bail Ins will be traced to the G20 Strategic sessions held in 2010 at about the same time as enactment of the Dodd Frank law.
In Part II of the Sting, which is the next article, we will discuss the “Sting” itself, derivatives and Buy Ins. We will explain derivatives, show the value size of the market, show why the world’s banks are in trouble and show how this came about and why bankers like them. We will explain that derivatives are not financial instruments. Rather, they are gambling side bets. We will review the “Bail Ins” of Cyprus, Spain, UK and M F Global.
Introduction – Conclusions
The conclusion of this paper was that the Part I, Set Up and Part II, Sting operations are an example of White Collar crime. The Crime had the necessary collusion of legislators and bankers working for years to establish a way to “legally” steal your savings. They have started the process in Europe, tested it there, and are ready to move it here.
BANK LAWS, DERIVATIVES, G20 AND BAIL INS
History of Bank Laws
A brief history of bank laws in this country is given in this article to show what has been happening while America slept. The purpose here is to show how the laws were brought into law and why they have the terms and conditions that exist. The problem facing the bankers was the size of the derivatives outstanding. A default would bring the system down. The FED figured out there were only three ways out of the US debt of $17 trillion which is clearly unpayable. (1) They can try to inflate their way out of it by QE to infinity and use the money created to stabilize the big banks. They are doing this by putting $85 billion in the big banks hands each month with the understanding that $45 billion is to be used to buy treasuries and $40 billion be used to buy stocks. The FED pays the banks for these reserves if the banks keep them on their books. (2) They can fold and let the system fail after it goes into hyperinflation. (3)They can steal the savings from citizens in order to keep their banks, the “fleecing machine” going. This paper is focused on (3) while knowing that the public is focused on (1). The bankers, in order to achieve (3) have to do it in a manner that appears “legal”. This paper describes how they intend to do that. First, in order to steal the money with “Bail Ins”, they must first change the laws to enable that theft and make it appear as if it is not theft but “legal”. This is the set up and the topic of this paper. How was that done? A brief review of the laws will make it clear.
Glass Steagall Act of 1933
This is the “grand daddy” Act. It was put in place by Congress to suppress, correct and stop actions of the banks that in Congress’s mind created the Depression. They were right. As soon as the act was repealed, the “banksters” went back to their old ways. This ACT had to be repealed or the “banksters” could not proceed. Why? Let us look at its provisions. Specifically, there are four provisions that had “to go” to enable the Bail In theft. They were:
Section 3 of the Act: Separates Commercial and Investment banking but did not mention Insurance under the banking corporation umbrella. (Note: In 1932, insurance was a separate industry).
1. Section 3.1 Section 16 – Prohibits National Banks from purchasing / selling securities. Specifically “to issue, float, underwrite or public sale and distribution”.
2. Section 3.1 Section 20 – Commercial and Investment banks must be separate institutions. No Federal Reserve Bank can be affiliated with an investment bank.
3. Section 3.1 Section 21 – Prohibited any company from taking deposits if it was in the business of “issuing, underwriting, selling or distributing securities”.
4. Section 3.1 Section 32 – No officers can be in common between any bank and investment bank.
The net result of this is that there were three distinct industries – (1) Retail banking,
(2) Investment banking and (3) Insurance with no common infrastructure or common management allowed. This held the banking industry into check from 1933 until the law was repealed in 1999 during the Clinton administration. The $1,200 trillion derivative debt has been created since then. It appears as if the banks bought insurance companies and put these insurance companies into their banks in order to get at the insurance company assets so that “insurance wraps” could be placed about their loans.
The politics for repeal included players in both parties. The Graham, Leach, Bliley Act repealed Glass Steagall and it was supported by both parties. Bill Clinton (in his signing from the Transcript of Clinton remarks at the Financial Modernization Bill signing, U.S. Newswire, November 12, 1999) said, “It is true that the Glass Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we lived. . . the world is very different.” This is a blatantly false statement; however, it was what the banking powers behind the legislature and the executive branch wanted. Why? It freed them from the constraint to operate as separated independent industries. They can now have a common set of funds to co-mingle as well as management to co-mingle.
Why was the repeal bad for America? The new law allowed one bank such as Citi or Goldman Sachs to have retail, investment banking and insurance report to one man – Sandy Weil at Citi and James Diamon at Goldman Sachs. It allowed the bankers to hypothecate funds in depositors account to make risky investments in investment banking. This is what was reportedly done at M F Global and brought on their bankruptcy. It allows banks to “wrap loans” (insurance that the loan will be repaid) with insurance from their own insurance company rather than an independent insurance company that would assess the risk objectively. The trade-off was an increased set of fees from insurance on a loan but it created a massive amount of risk which will be discussed later in this paper because this is a derivative transaction.
This law needs to be reenacted – Glass Steagall needs to be put back on the books because it works.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a Federal law passed in 2002 to strengthen corporate governance and restore investor confidence. It was enacted to ensure that another Enron could not happen or at least the perpetrators would go to jail. Specifically, at Enron, there were no records or sparse records so there was not legal “proof” of theft and it was very difficult or impossible to prove that these illegal transactions actually took place other than the after the fact real losses that were incurred. This law corrects that in that management of financial institutions are now on record and cannot deny knowledge of transactions – under penalty of fines and prison. Obviously, the banking industry does not like this law and have actively worked for its repeal. They have been unsuccessful thus far.
The law updates the security act of 1934 and establishes new and enhanced standards for all public boards and management accounting firms. . It contains 11 sections ranging from board responsibilities to criminal penalties. Further, it requires the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings to comply with the law.
The critical Management requirements forcing accountability are that management must attest on a quarterly time line that (1) they have documented the system of internal control over financial reporting and (2) assessed the effectiveness of these controls by testing and using suitable criteria.
In effect, there is little room for non-accountable theft because all of these items must be reported in writing and stated by the executives as being accurate. Specifically, on a quarterly and an annual basis, the CEO and CFO must make formal statements that –
• Management has identified the framework to conduct the required evaluation of its internal controls.
• Management has assessed the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls. And, Management must include any disclosure of a “material weakness” of control over financial reporting
• An Outside Accounting firm must also attest to management’s assessment
The net result of this law is that loans and transactions will now have a paper trail that exists, has been audited and that could be used in a court of law to prosecute and convict management or any employee that uses the company as a vehicle to steal.
This law needs to stay on the books. It forces accountability which is what the tax payers need.
Graham, Leach, Bliley Act
The Graham, Leach Bliley Act repealed the Glass Steagall Act by specifically
• Repeals Section 20 and Section 32 as noted above.
• It allows Derivatives to be legal as follows –
o Sec 103, (k) – Engaging in Financial activities that are Financial in Nature “(1) In General – . . . a financial Holding Company may engage in any activity, and may acquire and retain the shares of any company engaged in any activity, that the Board, (determines) is (B) is complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a financial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions of the financial system generally. “
What does this mean in practice? It means that J P Morgan can lend Greece $100 million at say 6% and require another 5% of the loan amount as insurance to guarantee that the loan is repaid. Note that currently the president of the insurance company and the investment bank now report directly to Jamie Diamon at J P Morgan. More will be covered in the Derivative section of this paper about risk. However, this is the law that the bankers are planning to use as their protection when the system comes down to justify that what they did was “legal”.
Next, they had to put into law a “get out of jail free” card. This was in the Dodd Frank Act that said that any large bank that was in trouble was “too big to fail” and must be bailed out by the FED.
This law needs to be repealed in its entirety. Otherwise, the taxpayers will pick up the defaults.
Dodd – Frank Act 2010
Once the Glass Steagall Act was repealed by the Graham, Leach, Bliley Act that provided for derivatives, then the cartel of bankers needed to get a law on the books that specified who was to be covered when the financial system failed. They knew that the derivatives would bring the whole “house of cards” down since they had gotten out of control by becoming too large. Therefore, they created the Dodd-Frank Act that:
• Effectively placed all financial institution public control and policing under the Federal Reserve (a private banking cartel that has European banks)
o The FED (a private company) is now a voting member of Financial Stability Oversight Council
o FED now has supervision of non- bank companies such as American Express
o FED regulates thrifts, state banks, hedge funds and the SEC.
o FED acts on recommendations made to them by the Financial Stability Oversight Council of which they are a voting member.
• States clearly that certain financial institutions were “too big to fail” and must be bailed out by the FED with public debt to keep them functioning.
The Dodd-Frank Act
This Act implemented changes that, among other things, affects the oversight and supervision of financial institutions via the FED, provides for a new resolution procedure for large financial companies(too big to fail) and creates a new agency responsible for implementing and enforcing compliance with consumer financial laws and incorporates the Volcker Rule.
The cause of the 2008 banking panic was that banks and hedge funds were speculating with toxic and highly leveraged derivatives. The new bill does nothing to attack the causes of this ongoing financial disintegration. In my view, it is a defeat for the interests of the American people, and a historic victory for the Wall Street financier oligarchy.
Here is a brief outline of what it does provide –
• Financial Stability Oversight Council – Chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury
o Purpose of Council – Identify risks to U.S. Financial stability
o Duties of Council –
- Provide direction to Office of Financial Research to support the Council within the Treasury
- FED provides supervision for non-bank companies that may pose risks to U.S. financial system
- Makes recommendations to the FED. Remember, the FED is a voting member.
• Major Agency Changes – New Agencies
o Creation of
- Financial Stability Oversight Council – FED is a voting member
- Office of Financial research – Treasury
- Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection – FED
- Office of National Insurance – Treasury
- Office of Credit Rating Agencies – SEC
o Major oversight Changes
- FED will regulate thrifts and have rule making authority
- FED will regulate all state member banks
- FDIC will regulate state thrifts
- SEC will require registration of hedge funds over $100 million
- FED will have rule making authority with respect to rules prohibiting proprietary trading and investments and sponsorships of hedge funds.
- FED will be subject to a one-time GAO audit
- Title VII of the Act imposes regulations on derivatives.
- Puts Volcker Rule into law: “A banking entity cannot (1) engage in proprietary trading, or (2) acquire or retain any equity, partnership or other ownership interest in or sponsor a hedge fund or private equity fund. “
- Executive Compensation rules established for excessive executive pay.
This law needs to be repealed and removed from the books. It is puts the FED in charge, blesses derivatives and defines “too big to fail” banks as having to be bailed out. It was written by the bankers to help the bankers by putting the FED in charge.
G20 Financial Strategic Plan
With the enactment of the Dodd Frank law, the bankers were just about ready. However, they needed to make this law global if they were to include Europe in the “Sting”. Let’s review, by the end of 2010 in the US, the bankers and the politicians
• Have repealed Glass Steagall;
• Enacted the Dodd Frank Act that accomplished two ends –
o First it places the FED in charge of regulation. This is akin to deputizing the chief thief to be the cop in charge.
o In addition, it says very plainly, that the U.S. must bail out certain banks that are “too big to fail”. This phrase negatively caught the attention of Americans so the bankers had to change its name.
As a result, at the G20 meeting in 2010, the G20 strategic financial plan specifically states that the G20 language and content of the Dodd Frank Act should be followed by other nations and that the term “too big to fail” needs to be changed to “Global Systemically Important Financial Institution (G-SIFI)”. This does two things: (1) It provides a euphemistic name, G-SIFI, for the “too big to fail” irritant and, (2) It allows other financial institutions to participate in the upcoming “bail ins” specified in the G20 strategic plan to salvage their firms.
The G20 Financial Strategy document further states in its 2013 update that everything will be in place by June 1, 2013 and that a “test” will be done in the second half and will be overseen by the IMF and the World Bank. An analysis of the G20 plan and its content are contained in another of my articles. See my article, “G20 Financial Stability Board – Strategic Plan (Cyprus, MF Global and the New World Order)” Rev 1, May 5, 2013, on my Blog –http://joehawranek.com/?p=790 Its highlights are that a global financial plan is in place to perform “bail ins” for G-SIFI banks and financial institutions. The details of the G20 strategy are discussed in that article as it references the G20 Strategic Plans.
The G20 Financial Stability Board (FSB) created the “Bail-In” concept and name and monitored its legal implementation around the world. They worked to make it a legal method of, what I believe, is “theft” by bureaucratic enforcement of FSB policies. This is a global agreement of the G20 nations. In my research, I found no instance where the regulations were given to the people, explained to the people or even considered the citizens. It is a survival plan for large financial institutions and it is marching forward. In case you are not already familiar with FSB publications, let me direct you to the following documents, the final working paper on the “Bail Ins”, “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions” from October 2011: http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_111104cc.pdf,
And the latest progress report from April 15th, 2013:
I found the FSB publications surprisingly concise and easy to understand. They name the “Bail-In” explicitly and define it clearly. They leave no doubt that central planners consider that they are putting this plan in place to “manage” the impending crisis.
My objection is that these planners are creating this plan in a supra national organization with no input from the citizens who will pay the bill and are operating, in my opinion, on a highly questionable set of assumptions. If there is any doubt that what I say in this paper, then I urge you to download the documents yourself and read them. I agree with the statement that, “the truth, in times of total deceit, appears to be revolutionary”. That is what this paper is about – – – the truth. Let’s look at what these two G20 documents have put in place and say.
Part I – The Set Up
Thus far, we have found that the bankers have done a masterful job of the “Set Up” -setting the scene for takeover of personal assets in savings and brick and mortar institutions. The takeover is the “Sting” on citizens and will be coved in in Part II. Thus, far, they have
• Repealed the Glass Steagall Act that separates insurance, investment banking and retail banking; and separates management teams of these institutions;
• Enacted Graham, Leach, Bliley that enable derivatives and repealed the Glass Steagall Act sections that were constraining – specifically disallowing retail and investment banking in the same organization; and co-mingling management teams;
• Enacted the Dodd Frank Act that defines “too big to fail” financial institutions that the G20 now calls “G-SIFI”; and, puts the FED, a private company, in charge of all financial institutional compliance;
• Defined and got G20 agreement on a global strategic plan for G-SIFI firms that is supra legal and supra sovereign nation and overrides the Sovereign nation’s laws. This agreement defines “too big to fail” banks as G-SIFI; defines “Bail Ins”;
• Put plans in place for a global takedown of all 20 nations’ financial institutions using “bail ins” to enable G-SIFI companies to survive as defined in the G20 Strategic Financial Plan;
• Tested the plan with Bear Stearns, MF Global ($1.2 billion), Cyprus, UK’s Co-op Bank ($2.4 billion) and Spain’s Bankia ($10.7 billion in deposits) and stated that another test will be done in the second half of 2013 with IMF and World Bank supervision.
The bankers have placed the FED in the “chief cop” position by the Dodd Frank Law; have obligated the U.S. to follow bail ins by their agreement to the G20 rules; have defined the “too big to fail” banks and select financial institutions as G-SIFI that can now come in and take over (steal) assets from other firms and depositors to ensure that they (G-SIFI) survive any financial crash. It appears to me that the only thing that needs to be accomplished now is to test the procedures in the U.S. or take a medium-size nation down and then crash the system. They have already tested their procedures in Cyprus, Spain, UK and the U S. Strategies and laws are in place and just need to be implemented at their discretion for a global financial collapse. The “Set Up” is complete and the “Marks” – citizens of the world – can now be brought in for the “Sting”.
In Part II, “The Sting”, we will focus on derivatives and their probable use in “popping” the financial bubble that will likely occur in the next couple of years; Bail Ins and how they were handled in Cyprus; provide an example of a probable derivative scenario for piercing the financial bubble; and discussion of the impact of using “bail Ins” which will likely cause social unrest and hyperinflation. The article also discusses what can be done to avert the financial crash that has been set up by the bankers to save their “assets”.
The cause of this financial problem was that the bankers made massively bad decisions or designed a beautiful scam – – -the reader’s choice – – – and now want the citizens to bail them out and not let their firms go bankrupt. Why? My cynical view is that if they did go bankrupt, they would lose their jobs, pensions and bonuses and many might go to jail since some of their actions were illegal. Thus, in true fascist fashion, they will do anything and say anything to make their world survive. Morality and law are to be ignored in favor of survival (G20 plan). Further, they have the Congress working with them either out of ignorance, delusion or collusion. The world’s largest White Collar Crime is about to occur. Only time will tell when.
I realize that the above is my opinion but there are only two choices – a random chance sequence of events or a collusion to take the system down for the benefit of the big banks. I believe the latter is the most likely but the former is also possible.