G20 FINANCIAL STABILITY BOARD – STRATEGIC PLAN (Cyprus, MF Global and the New World Order)

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called, Coningsby, the New Generation

“The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future.” U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies

“During Times of Universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary Act.” George Orwell

Bail Ins

Recently the world was faced with the first “Bail In” that was used in Cyprus. When folks woke up on a Monday, they found that all accounts over 100K Euros in deposits had been “swept” and their money was taken by the bank. In my mind, this is a case of theft in collusion with government and will live in history as a classic case of White Collar collusive Crime. Subsequently, the depositors were given “stock” in the non performing insolvent bank. This stock is effectively worthless but is the bank’s version of conversion of stockholder deposits into “equity” – without the permission of the depositor and in violation of most current banking and national laws.
The banks and the ECB central bank got away with this theft. Why? I believe that Cyprus was a “trial balloon” that will soon begin to occur throughout the world and that a very detailed plan exists as to how to do this, when to do this and which laws to use or create as justification for the theft. This appears to be a clear seizure of assets for the purpose of making the bank survive and keeping the current politicians in office.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) developed the “Bail-In” conceptually and has accompanied and monitored its institution and legal implementation around the world. They are working hard to make it a legal method of what I believe is “theft” by bureaucratic enforcement of FSB policies.

In case you are not already familiar with FSB publications, let me to direct you to the following documents, the final working paper on the Bail-In, “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:
http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_130419b.pdf

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 “managing” a crisis. However, these planners are doing so in a supra national organization with no input from the citizens 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 could not be, then I urge you to download the documents yourself and read them. I agree that the truth, at times of deceit, appears to be revolutionary. Let’s look at what these two documents say.

After reading the Progress Report on the G20 plan for large banks, one could reasonably conclude that M. F. Global and Jon Corzine was “trial balloon”. The customer assets were seized; the assets were moved to another bank in New York and the assets were used to make the New York (G-SIFI) bank solvent. Apparently, one of the investments in the G-SIFI went bad. As a result, M F Global trading account holders lost everything. Some of the smaller accounts were made whole. I was one of them but it took me 6 months. The larger account holders are still in court. Meanwhile, the CEO, Jon Corzine, walks free. How? This document covers his actions under the melt down scenario of the large G-SIFI bank in New York. If the bankers used these G20 guidelines, Jon Corzine should walk. He just followed orders.
Source of Bail Ins
Upon investigation of where and when the concept of “bail ins” arrived on the scene, I discovered the source. It was first defined in the “G20 Financial Stability Board Strategic Plan of 2010”. Yes, it has been around that long. The Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (also known as the G-20, G20, and Group of Twenty) is a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 major economies which includes 19 countries. Included also, is the European Union, which is represented at the G20 by the President of the European Council and the European Central Bank. The G20 heads of government or state have periodically shown up at these meetings that have been ongoing since 2008. Collectively, the group claims that the G20 accounts for 80% of the gross world product and 67% of the world’s population. Further, they account for 84% of the world growth and 82% of the nominal World GDP according to the International Monetary Fund.

Thus, this G20 is a group whose financial policies de-facto manages the “free” world. In fact, it is one that has central banking systems comparable to the Federal Reserve. Note that Russia and China are not in the G 20 and they don’t have a Federal Reserve Banking system. Thus, the figures provided as to the percentage of the world’s GDP are very questionable in my mind. The US is a member and has participated in and agreed to its plans. What are these plans? To find out precisely what the plans are for the people of the world, I looked into their recently published “Strategic Plan” that was published on April 15, 2013. It is titled, “Implementing the FSB Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes – how far have we come?” The sub-title goes further and reports that this is a “Report to the G 20 finance ministers and central bank governors on the progress in reforming resolution regimes and resolution planning for globally systemically important financial institutions (G-SIFIs)”. In layman’s terms, the G-SIFI is any large international bank such as Goldman Sachs. In February, the G 20 finance ministers and central bank governors met and requested a report for the status of implementation. This is that report and this article describes the contents of that report – using its own black letter words as much as possible.

Banking Effort to Create Law to Cover their Illegal Actions
There is an ongoing intense effort to create black letter law to cover the actions proposed in this document. It says that the Dodd Frank legislation recently enacted in the United States enables enforcement of these directives within the states. Other countries that have legislation parallel to the Dodd Frank law that are currently being implemented are, according to this report, the nations of Australia, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. These laws are in process. The EU’s recovery and resolution directives will enable the directives in the EU for their SIFIs. These new black letter enacted laws will be used in the enforcement of these policy directives. The reader should note that this is a global not a national effort to control all financial institutions.

At this point it is important to explain to the reader that these directives collectively are all oriented under the assumption of an economic collapse where many but not all financial institutions will fail. They refer to the necessity for the G-SIFI banking institutions to survive at all costs. The Dodd-Frank Act textual law refers to those banks as “too big to fail” and therefore, they must be bailed out by the government. All these directives are oriented for the survival of the banks with little consideration of borders, laws or people’s individual rights to their property. None of the directives are associated with gathering and protecting public institutions or public funds. The nation’s history, culture and laws associated with private property and freedom are discarded and not even considered in these documents. Thus, to determine the importance of this document, one should analyze them from the basis of what they will do to our individual freedoms, property rights and geopolitical economic systems. Our current economic systems are capitalist, private enterprise and private property based. Specifically, they are based on private property, individual freedom and personal responsibility. This system is based on law, trust and honesty in contracts. The result of implementing these “directives” will be to change the free enterprise capitalist economic model to a Fascist (banks) centrist controlled state system with no individual rights. These documents and their philosophy assume that Individuals get rights given to them by the state. The individual will have no right to complain or any avenue for redress if his property is stolen without his consent. Like Cyprus and M F Global, it just happens in the middle of the night.

Fascism

A short digression is needed here to define the often misused term, “Fascism”. It is fascinating to observe that Fascism has no intellectual leadership. Adam Smith is the Conservative intellectual and Karl Marx is the Socialist and Communist intellectual.

What then are Fascist Characteristics? This is a set that I have compiled from my analysis of the literature. Thus, they are generally agreed upon:
A Fascist – – –
• Is anti-intellectual;
• Honors only power;
• Believes truth is relative and a matter of opinion;
• Believes right and wrong and good and evil are relative;
• Believes that only action counts;
• Wants and respects power;
• Will do whatever is necessary to retain power;
o If lying appears necessary, it is lie;
o If truth appears necessary, it is truth;
o If freedom appears necessary, it is freedom;
o If slavery appears necessary, it is slavery;
• Believes that it is not necessarily right to follow the Constitution;
• Believes that might makes right;
• Believes that the only thing that counts is who wins;
• Has Sociopathic characteristics

Mussolini was the first modern fascist. Hitler admired Mussolini so much that he made Germany a fascist state. He created a state that was both socialist and fascist; the socialist to control the people and fascists to get the money to propel the war effort. In fascism, the central government controls everything in the state similar to a socialist state but the state is backed by special interest large corporations. For this paper, we will call them the “Group” rather than the “conspirators” because the general public respects many of the large firms in the “Group”. For our purposes here, the Central Banks and G-SIFIs are the “Group”.

For those readers that might disagree, let’s digress further and listen to political debate in the US. The basic premise is that power holders should do what is necessary not what is right or wrong. They only disagree on the details. Few refer to the principles that created this nation in any debates other than Ron Paul. The determinant of right and wrong is what the majority says – nothing more. Right now, the majority appears to be the FSB muli-national G20 group – but that does not make what they are doing – “right”.

Recovery and Resolution Planning – Addressing the Remaining Challenges

In November 2010, the FASB members decided to develop resolution strategies, operational resolution plans and firms’ specific cross-border cooperation agreements (COAGs). The purpose of this strategy was to get international bankers to survive under the conditions of an economic collapse. In addition, cross-border crisis management groups (CMGs) have been established for all SIFIs. This report says that the plans currently exist but finalization depends upon legal and regulatory reforms on COAGS.

Resolution planning by the CMG initially took two approaches

• A single point of entry (SPE) strategy that provides resolution powers into a single parent company.
• A multiple point of entry (MPE) strategy that provides resolution powers in two or more parent companies.

The SPE strategy was chosen as the method. Thus, a bank such as Goldman Sachs will have the power to go cross-border in any nation where they have branches and make changes as they see fit for their corporate survival. These are supra national powers over any and all sovereign nations.
Advancing Reforms of Resolution Regimes

This section specifically states that the FSB strategy team wants an alternative to the terminology used as “too big to fail” that is used in the Dodd Frank Act. Specifically, they want to create “Key Attributes” to substitute for that phrase. The phrase is accurate but inflammatory and in conflict with any free enterprise system. In a free system, any corporate entity should be allowed to fail. The Pennsylvania railroad was one of these failures.

Below, each major section is reviewed and the actual phrasing replicated.

Findings from the First Peer Review of National Resolution Regimes

1. Completing the resolution toolbox for banks – it is critical that authorities have a broad range of powers at their disposal when faced with a crisis. ( Note: This author notes that nowhere in the document can one find who ”authorities” are and who gives them “power”. ) It implies that the authority is a SIFI and if so, the international bank has these powers which are rapid transfer of assets and liabilities, write down debt of a failing institution or convert it into equity using the concept of “bail ins”. Currently legislation is being developed to align national laws with the key attributes specified in this document. Specifically, legislation is in work to do so in Australia, Brazil, the EU, France, Germany, Indonesia, Singapore and South Africa. One quickly sees that this is a global plan and not a national plan.
2. Extending resolution powers and tools to non-bank financial institutions – This is to include insurers, securities and investment firms (my emphasis) and financial market infrastructures. This means that M F Global may have been a “trial balloon” but more importantly, your assets in securities firms are not safe.
3. Framework empowers to resolve financial groups and conglomerates –
There is a need to increase legislative powers to intervene at the level of financial holding companies. Currently, the Dodd Frank Act has many regulations not yet written. Apparently, when written, it is planned that these problems will be resolved.
4. Cross-border cooperation – There is a need to provide authorities power to execute their group wide strategies within any sovereign nation.
5. Information sharing – In a number of districts it is important for the FSB to have clear and dedicated statutory provisions for domestic authorities to share confidential information for resolution purposes with foreign authorities. Thus, a G-SIFI such as Goldman Sachs can enter a foreign nation, demand and get private information and with no liability take that information and use it for their advantage with the justification that the G-SIFI must survive.

Resolution Authority and Powers

When one investigates the October, 2010 detailed plan following the April 15, 2013 strategy update, one finds a lot of specificity that is relevant to this article. For instance in Section 2 of the plan, which deals with the resolution authority, and section 3, which deals with resolution powers, the following detail information is found: (I use their phrasing as much as possible)

Resolution authority: Each jurisdiction will have a designated administrative authority responsible for exercising the resolution powers over firms within the scope of the resolution regime. The resolution authorities should be protected against all liability. This appears to document their “get out of jail free” card. I note that they would not need this if they were not doing these things in an extra legal manner rather than a legal manner.

Resolution powers: Resolution should be initiated when a firm is “no longer viable” or is likely to be no longer viable. This decision is made by the “authorities” and then these authorities move in to take over assets. This is a judge, jury and executor role all based in the “authorities”. The notations “i through xi” below are the actual section headings for those that download the documents and the phraseology is retained as much as possible.

i. Remove and replace the senior management and directors and recover monies from responsible persons, including claw back of variable remuneration.
ii. Appoint an administrator to take control of and manage the affected firm with the objective of restoring the firm or parts of its business to ongoing and sustainable viability.
iii. Operate the firm including powers to terminate contracts, continue or sign contracts, purchase or sell assets, write down debt and take any other action necessary to restructure or wind down the firm’s operations.
iv. Ensure continuity of essential services and functions.
v. Override the rights of shareholders of the firm including requirements for approval by shareholders of particular transactions, in order to permit a merger, acquisition, sale or substantial business operations, recapitalizations or other measures to restructure and dispose of the firm’s business or its liabilities and assets.
vi. Transfer or sell assets and liabilities to a third solvent party.
vii. Establish a temporary bridge institution to take over continuing operating of a failed first institution.
viii. Establish a separate asset management vehicle and transferred to the vehicle for management of all rundown nonperforming loans or difficult to value assets.
ix. Bail Ins: carry out Bail Ins within resolution as a means to achieve continuity of essential functions either by recapitalizing the entity hitherto providing those functions that are no longer viable or alternatively by capitalizing a new entity or bridge institution to which these functions have been transferred following closure of the nonviable firm
x. Bail In Within Resolution:
a. Power to carry out Bail Ins and to write down in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation, equity or other instruments of ownership of the firm, unsecured and uninsured creditor claims to the extent necessary to absorb the losses.
b. Power to convert into equity all or parts of unsecured and uninsured creditor claims in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation. (This section was used in Cyprus)
c. Power to convert any contingent convertible or contractual Bail In instrument into equity or other instruments of ownership of the firm under resolution.
xi. Resolution of Insurer: The power to undertake a portfolio transfer moving all or part of the insurance business to another insurer without consent of each and every policyholder

Resolution Regimes for Non-Bank Financial Institutions

There is a need for powers to resolve non-bank financial institutions as well as banks. Some critical laws that need to be updated include:

Client asset protection in resolution – uncertainty about the definition of client assets and rules governing the reuse of client assets together with lack of affected segregation and insufficient record-keeping can cause uncertainties in identifying and recovering client assets that complicate resolution. The FSB is developing guidance to ensure both the transfer of powers can be exercised effectively and client assets can be returned as quickly as possible if the firm enters insolvency proceedings. In MF Global, the small depositor was returned assets, the large account holders were not. A large holder’s suit is still in court.
FASB Key Attribute Assessment Methodology
The purpose of defining “key attributes” was to create something that substituted for the concept of “too big to fail” that is written into the Dodd Frank Act. The revised draft of these key attributes will be published for consultation later this year. It will also be used in “pilot” assessments carried out jointly with the IMF and the World Bank in the second half of 2013. Pilot is not defined but appears to be a larger test of this strategy.

Assessment and Conclusions

The foregoing lays out a philosophy of economics and government that is the antithesis of that which made this nation great. Specifically:
• This is a global not a national plan. Thus, it is a New World Order Plan for finance and the world.
• It puts banks in charge of the financial economy and removes them from a service institution to an “in charge” institution across a nation and across the world.
• It redefines free enterprise capitalism, private property, liberty and responsibility as non-relevant.
• It substitutes Fascism for Freedom and enables banks to do anything, and have complete authority in all matters. All this with the full support of the sovereign nation state as embedded in their black letter law such as Dodd Frank.
• It also states that these new “authorities” are free from all liability. The liability is for breaking laws, stealing property, restructuring private firms, firing people, bankrupting firms and using any asset for their survival with no consideration of private property, personal liberty or prior existing law. In short, to do whatever is necessary to retain power.
• The G-SIFIs are given, by the “authorities”, any power necessary for their survival as an institution. This includes shutting down firms, moving the assets to their firms, stealing from depositors (Bail-Ins)
• The G-SIFI will be given dictatorial powers to survive and give directions with a clear charter to “ignore” national concerns or interests if necessary.

It is very clear from reading the above that:
• G-SIFIs are considered “too big to fail” and will be supported by the law and everyone else’s assets as required for them to be solvent. This includes depository assets of checking, 401Ks, IRAs and pensions.
• The underlying but not clearly stated assumption is that there is going to be a complete global economic collapse and that G-SIFIs must survive. I note that the central banks can cause this collapse whenever they want, since it would just require that the interest rate be raised.
• In order to survive, the G-SIFI will be given extraordinary powers to reorganize the complete world of financial institutions and people’s assets.
• The clear objective is to give single point of entry powers to international banks, G-SIFIs, such as Goldman Sachs to do whatever is necessary to survive.
• My estimate is that this process will take at least 2-3 years. And, during that time, they will be de-facto running the nation since it runs on money. They will also be interacting with the Congress asking for more legislation that keeps them in power. The net result will be that the banks will de-facto run Congress and this nation. This is Fascism.

I disagree with the G20 proposal. The largest disagreement is that these banks are the ones that created the problem. Either they did it on purpose in order to take over the world and create a New World Order, or they made many stupid business mistakes to effectively:
• Make all the banks insolvent but not admit it.
• Agree to one point two quadrillion derivative debt for their institutions. This is 1,200 Trillion dollars and now they expect that the American people to bail them out since they are, according to the Dodd-Frank Act, “too big to fail”.
• Get the nation via the FED and their fiat paper into $16.6 Trillion in debt with another $80 trillion of net present value obligations in pensions etc.
• Feed trillions into Europe to salvage their central banks and thus their economies but place the debt on the American people.
• Work diligently selling their global plan that led to the repeal of Glass Steagall, the enactment of Graham, Leach, Bliley and the Dodd Frank Act. These are a set of laws that enable what they want in the G20 strategy.
• Institute “Bail Ins” in the US in order to grab private assets.

Bail Ins and Their Effects

This plan clearly calls for Bail Ins as required to gather assets into the G-SIFI banks. What does this mean in practice? Let us revisit Cyprus. On a Monday morning, the citizens woke up and found that all their assets above 100K Euros were gone. It is important to note that this figure was arbitrary and it could have been 10K Euros or zero Euros as it is in Greece.

In Cyprus, we have a collusive White Collar Crime between the State of Cyprus and the bankers. However, this crime is specifically spelled out in the G20 Strategy as the actions to take if deemed required saving a SIFI… The net result was that:
• Banks closed but stayed in business;
• Capital controls were imposed;
• People could not write checks;
• People lost access to their money;
• Only limited amounts of withdrawals were allowed;
• Taxes were increased to pay the banking debt;
• Insiders were tipped off and removed their money before the fated weekend.
The Cyprus action caused investor fear across Europe and has caused money flight from the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain). If the G-SIFIs, too big to fail banks in the US follow the G20 Strategy, then this will occur here. What will result? Let’s look at what happened in Cyprus after the account seizures to get an idea.
The people of Cyprus had controls put on them by the bankers. Remember, the G-SIFI, “too big to fail” banks are specifically directed to break any rule to survive. This is what actually happened. . International Forecaster, 3/30/13, p.17, shows the Greek site, “ekathimerini.com”, reporting that Cyprus imposed the following controls:
1. Check cashing: Ban on checks being cashed, although they can be deposited.
2. Money transfers: The transfer of money abroad is not allowed unless it is to pay for imports that carry necessary documentation and for accommodation and tuition costs for Cypriots studying abroad. They must be full-time residents on the island. The limit for students abroad is 10,000 Euros per quarter. Spending on credit cards abroad is limited to 5,000 Euros per month per person.
3. Time Deposits: Time deposit accounts cannot be redeemed before maturity.
4. Cash Constraints on Travel outside Cyprus: Those leaving the country will not be allowed to carry more than 3,000 Euros in cash per trip. This also applies to other countries.
5. Transfer Payments before the ban will be honored: Any transactions, transfers or payments that have not been completed before the decree is issued are subject to capital controls.
6. All Accounts Affected: The capital controls apply to all accounts, payments and transfers, regardless of currency used.
In order to get the impact of these constraints, consider two situations that have occurred there and could occur here:
• Any money in the country after the edict that is above 100 K Euros will have a “buy in” tax of 20% and you cannot get the money out of country to avoid the tax.
• Any trips outside of the country that uses credit cards must be paid with money inside the country and you cannot transfer greater than 5 K Euros to the credit card company if they are outside the country.
Frankly, nothing lights a bigger fire under investors than the loss of confidence in money and the fear that the government will grab their assets. The bankers in charge in the Euro zone have “tipped their hand” to the extent that they intend to confiscate currency in banks. Thus, it is a good time for Europeans to get out of Euros. The G20 document reviewed here is a “tipping of the hand” for the world. I can only conclude that the “banksters” have become secure in their belief that they control things and are arrogant enough to tell the world how they are going to rob them before they actually steal their assets. At a minimum, investors need to consider carefully what is contained in the G20 plan.

Is There An Alternative?

Alternative 1

There is always an alternative. First, the American people could say “No” and force the G-SIFI banks into bankruptcy. They are already insolvent. Then, they could go through normal bankruptcy proceedings. However that would not solve the problem since the US still has 2 very bad laws on the books and one that has been taken off. This solution would also require:
• Repeal Dodd Frank Act – “Too big to fail” law
• Repeal Graham, Leach, Bliley Act and – An enabler of derivatives
• Reenact Glass Steagall Act– This Act Divided Insurance, Retail Banking and Commercial Banking into separate regulated industries.
What is the probability of this occurring? It is very unlikely since the banks already have in their “corner” most of the critical Congressmen that would have to vote for such actions. The banks have been doing this for years and they have “lots of money”.

Alternative 2

There is another alternative that was used, is now tested, and worked. The bankers and bureaucrats hate this alternative. It is the solution used by Iceland when, in 2009, the bankers tried to increase taxes, enforce austerity and extend their loans to Europe. The people of Iceland would have become debt slaves for 50 years. The people simply said, “No”, and then acted on that philosophy.
It seems to me that “the Iceland way out” is the best for this nation and those nations in Europe but is not being looked at by the leading politicians or the banker because they as individuals will lose big time and my go to jail. Thus, the political climate would have to be changed.

What did Iceland do? They said “enough” of you bankers and collusive politicians. Specifically:
• Your loans are illegal. They did not get our approval. As the central bank, you acted unilaterally in your interest not ours so you own the debt not us;
• Certain bankers and certain legislators are crooks and we will investigate them, indict them, prosecute them and put them in jail – which they did;
• We as a nation will not honor these loans. They are yours not ours;
• We are a sovereign nation. We will go back to a sovereign nation where we are responsible for national corporations but that international corporations must take those rewards and risks themselves;
• We will not honor any bank loans to salvage the European Union because we did not authorize them. You did;
• We do not believe any of your home mortgage loans that have sold, resold and hypothecated without the knowledge or approval of the original property owner are valid. Thus, the property owners owe you nothing on those loans. The loan value is now zero;
• All derivatives are illegal instruments and are thus null and void. We will not honor them;
• None of the bank loans made on home mortgages are legal and are thus null and void.
• The nation held new elections and backed the members that voted for the above.

The net result was that they:
• Did not honor any of their national debt;
• Bankrupted the banks;
• Got out of the Euro;
• Got out of the European Union
• Went back to their own currency;
• Nullified all the mortgages;
• Nullified all the derivatives;
• Indicted bankers and politicians; convicted these men and put them in jail. Some are still hiding in Europe and Interpol is hunting for them.

Within 18 months, the economy had turned around and now 4 years later, Iceland is a healthy economy with people out of debt and banks lending to them again. They are now responsible, self reliant, independent and a free people. Last week they signed a major bi-lateral trade agreement with the nation of China. China wants to have presence on the Arctic Circle. This agreement gives them the presence that they want.
Conclusion
In conclusion,
(1) There is an underlying unstated assumption throughout the G20 document plan.
This is that the current global economic banking system has failed and that in order to proceed with life, the large G-SIFI banks must be allowed to restructure everything for their beneficial survival
• First, is this possible? The answer is yes, because the stage has been set by the central bankers. The Central Banks have enabled this possibility by increasing the fiat money supply to astronomical proportions. On top of this, the nations have created unsustainable debt via the unending supply of credit out of the central banks – $85 billon/ month.
• Second, the bankers know this and they know how to pop this bubble anytime that they want. They simply raise the interest rates and the economic system fails.
• Finally, this is a replay since it has been done before by the FED in the 1930s. At that time, Federal Reserve banks came in and “bought” and “restructured” state and independent banks. They closed 8,000 banks and took the assets into the large G-SIFI, Federal Reserve banks. This is how the American banks became so large. How did they manage this? The smaller state banks were refused loans from the Federal Reserve since they were not members. The money was given to the G-SIFI banks to “purchase” the smaller units. Recently, Bear Stearns was handled this way.
(2) This is a plan for a global takeover of all financial institutions. The manner in which the directives are phrased is to override any law, any executive, any lawmaker, any corporation and any nation that stands in their way. Since they are insolvent, this provides a means for them to avoid seizure of their assets by providing for them to rearrange assets on the planet for their G-SIFI survival. The overriding principle is the G-SIFI banks must survive and that these same banks are empowered to act in whatever way is necessary for them to survive. This is strictly speaking a Fascist rather than a democratic approach to the problem.
(3) If this system is ever implemented, then our free enterprise capitalist system will be destroyed by the use of the G-SIFI banks as the “fixers” when they were the ones that caused the problem;
(4) After implementation, this clearly creates a new economic system. In the new system, the G-SIFI banks will dictate to the legislatures whatever is required for their survival. The US will become a fascist/socialist state.
(5) The implementers who are the G-SIFI international large banks such as JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche among others were the ones that created the massive debt and the unpayable derivatives. In short, they created the crises because they worked for their special and personal interests rather than responsibly for the interests of the nations where they reside.
(6) If implemented, the G-SIFI banks will be the ones who run the world rather than philosophically be the ones who service the world of doers. Is this the New World Order that George H.W. Bush referred to?
In perspective, what is proposed in this G20 strategy is that a supra national banking system of central banks and ministers through their organization of 20 sovereign states have created the rules to manage all the financial institutions on earth. It is critical to note that, as long as they acquiesce to this plan, it also keeps the current politicians in office to put the laws in place that enforce their actions. The net change will result in Fascist socialist states all over the earth. These states will have total central power and the individual only get their rights from the state. Our rights to private property and its associated liberty to do with as we want will disappear. We can only do with our private property what the state allows and they can seize it anytime they want. This is a dramatic turnaround from what the founders of this nation created and the type of free enterprise system that made this nation the greatest in the world. Their plans have not been fully implemented and we can still object but the detailed plan exists as noted in the URLs provided. A wise investor should assume that this will happen and start protecting his assets.