Bernanke Fails to Answer Concerns about a Cyprus-Style Seizure of American Bank Deposits

Bernanke Entirely Fails to Answer Question

The government of Cyprus wants to grab bank deposits, and the chief economist of the German Commerzbank has called for private savings accounts in Italy to be similarly plundered, and other nations may be moving in that direction as well.

The American government has seized private assets before, and President Obama authorized seizure of property again last year. (The Argentinian government grabbed 401k assets; and some in the American government have mulled the same thing. And the  U.S. government’s take-down of Megaupload was also an exercise of the power to seize all of the legal property held in a storage facility because a handful of crooks have illegal property in theirs.  )

Zero Hedge has been warning for years that Western governments – including the U.S. – would eventually seize bank assets.

Bernanke was asked yesterday whether a Cyprus-style grab of bank deposits is possible in the U.S. :

Question: I was wondering if you can tell me how if a run on the banks happens in Cyprus, how that might affect U.S. markets. And also is it possible for the U.S. to levy a tax on regular deposits here? Or why not?

Bernanke: As someone mentioned Cyprus is a tiny economy. I don’t think these issues as worrisome as they are and as concerned as we would be for the Cyprus people, I don’t think that they have a direct implications for the U.S. economy.

The only way that they would create a problem would be if the runs became contagious in some sense, if depositors in other countries lost confidence. But to this point I’m not aware of any evidence that that is in fact the case.

The argument the Europeans are making is that Cyprus is a unique situation, very different situation, and indeed, it is quite unusual to have a banking sector as large as they have relative to their economy.

In terms of the United States, the FDIC was founded in 1934, and we have insured deposits and they are very proud of the fact that no one has ever lost a dime in insured deposits.

And during the crisis the response of the government was in fact to increase the level of deposit or account sizes that were insured. So I consider that to be extremely unlikely in the United States.

Bernanke’s response is unsatisfactory for 2 reasons.

Initially, the FDIC only insures deposits up to $250,000. So deposits over that amount are unprotected.

Indeed, the FDIC has, in fact, come very close to being insolvent at various times.  See the following articles from the New York Times, American Banker, Bloomberg, Zero Hedge and Mish.

True, the Treasury Department would likely just bail out the FDIC if the FDIC really went belly up. But that would take a political act of will.  And so Bernanke should have said, “we will always make sure the FDIC has enough money”.

Second – and more important -  Bernanke failed to answer the question altogether.   The question was not about whether the government would save bank depositors from economic conditions caused by others.  The question was whether the government itself would grab deposits.

People didn’t think any European country would seize bank deposit assets.  But the EU demanded that the government of Cyprus seize private bank deposits.  The attempt of a government to seize  private property is undermining confidence in Europe … and many people worry that that contagion will spread.  That is what the question was about.

Bernanke entirely failed to answer the question which was actually asked … and has thereby caused a tsunami of distrust on the Internet.

In the same way that the Department of Justice’s wishy-washy assurances that it probably wouldn’t assassinate Americans on U.S. soil hasn’t reassured anyone, Bernanke shouldn’t have given a half-hearted reply.  He should have said:

The U.S. will never, ever seize any American’s bank deposits under any scenario whatsoever … without exception. We respect the rule of law as the basis for our economy, and we will never do anything which interferes with private property rights.

Bernanke’s failure to reassure couldn’t have come at a worse time.

British MP Nigel Farage just gave the following advice in response to the Cyprus bank deposit grab:

Get your money out while you still can.

The failure of American economic “leaders” to provide real reassurance regarding our bank deposits will just increase mistrust.

Indeed, more and more Americans realize that the government has bailed out the super-elite of the big banks,  and enabled their fraud … while  hosing the little guy again and again (and again). People see that we have socialism for the rich, but cut-throat, sink-or-swim capitalism for everyone else.   They see that we have a malignant synergism between D.C. politicians and giant companies. Look here, here, here.

Indeed, after Wall Street giants such as MF Global and JP Morgan got caught seizing segregated client funds – but were never prosecuted by the government – both amateur and sophisticated investors have lost trust in the American financial system and financial regulators.   (It has become obvious to all that the government is trying to cover up for the stunning crimes of the big banks.)

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Brent Wroten

    The GOP has played this game of obstruction, just to keep the Dems from being credited for fixing their mess. They hope that by some miracle the people will blame the Dems for the next economic collapse and they will be put back into power. Why? Because the people made that same mistake in 2010. I believe had the people put in even more Dems the GOP would have gotten the message.

    Obama went for went for stability instead of letting the banks fail and nationalizing them. If he had done that the Gov’t could restarted the banks as a series of much smaller banks serving the community. You know the middle class. Instead the banks got even bigger.

    Time is running out. The stock market is a record highs? Rubbish, it’s over valued. The bond market is likely to crash. A currency war is coming. One of them is going down for the count. We still in a bubble economy. Wall St. is still messing around with derivatives. SCREWED is the word that comes to mind.

    • nveric

      Playing party politics? The two-party sandbox soap opera is irrelevant. The country will be better once those private political parties die.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-F-Rivero/688092586 Michael F Rivero

    If you don’t understand anything else about the banking
    crisis, understand this; All the bailouts and wealth confiscation will
    not change the ultimate outcome of this crisis, as long as the infernal
    machine that plunged the world into unpayable debt, private central
    banks issuing all of the public currency as a loan at interest, are
    allowed to continue their nefarious operations.

    • nveric

      Yes, because growth is an illusion. People simply can never consume more than they can produce without inequity somewhere. Wealth accumulation is theft, no matter who has it.

  • Jim Bechtel

    With a government that has little respect for private property rights, it doesn’t take much imagination to visualize the same type of depositor levy in the United States. Many look to the United States with utter disbelief regarding asset forfeiture laws in the name of its “War On Drugs” and confiscatory tax schemes for citizens earning income while living abroad. Could it happen here? Absolutely.

  • Strayhorse

    AMERICAN AND WORLD BANK CHANGES ICELAND STYLE, ICELAND, ICELAND!

  • Carroll Price

    They are called Federal Reserve Notes because they belong to the Federal Reserve Bank, and not to individuals who are using them as a priviledge. Which means that the Federal Reserve Bank can do anything they damn well please with their own money. So, go ahead and get used to it, or adopt a different economic system.

  • Honest Harry’s Used Cars

    Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama are discussing the ongoing economic challenges in the latest light. You are a fly on the wall.

    “Mr. President, I feel I have done as much as is responsible, possibly even more than was responsible. The economy is clearly not responding well. We are slipping backward every day. We are not creating sustainable growth in the economy with all the economic stimulus. We are creating inflation and dependence on ZIRP. The country is only getting poorer every day as a result of ZIRP.”

    “Yes, Mr. Chairman. And when we reach the bottom, all Americans will indeed find they are equal. They will find they are equal with everyone on earth, in every nation and of every skin color and every race. Isn’t this a wonderful enough accomplishment for America’s first black President?”

    “Mr. President, when I was a small child my mother used to extoll me to eat everything on my dinner plate by saying, ‘There are children in China just like you who are starving tonight. Now eat your supper.’

    There are still children who are starving in China today, Mr. President. If your goal is to see children starving in the United States, we’re not far from that goal right now. And we get closer to having children starving in the United States with each passing day.”

    God Bless America.

    • steven andresen

      I thought the goal wasn’t to make people starving in the United States, just like they have been starving in China. Rather, the goal was to be able to compete with the Chinese. The various reasons that we were not competitive with the Chinese have been eliminated over time. So, the unions were dismantled, trade barriers were eliminated, and so on. So now, the cost of doing business is being made about equal with China and other slave states. Unfortunately for the workers and their children, the process inevitably involves starvation. But, supposedly, we as true Americans interested in wealth accumulation should not flinch from this kind of consequence. Starvation among the workers is the price of being competitive on world markets with the Chinese and other slave states.

      I don’t think it’s accurate to single out Obama as having a cruel heart when the project of turning this country into a slave state has broad based bi-partisan support.

      • Honest Harry’s Used Cars

        It’s that sucking sound that accompanies free trade and most favored nation status.

        China has no inalienable right to sell its goods into the U.S. This is a ploy fostered upon Americans (and Europeans) by decades worth of selling the idea that the global economy would be better than any nationalist economy. We no longer compete worldwide as a nation-state.

        The competition is all about multi-national banking groups competing with derivative bombs and bank bailouts intended to fend off the consequences of derivatives bombs going off. The U.S. does not exist any more in a monetary sense. Bernanke is bailing out banks all over the world in an effort to keep a single international banking group in a position to continue writing the crisis-script, -like in Cyprus.

        If Bernanke et al can continue to write the ongoing crisis-script, they can continue to control the world.

        Unfortunately, the promises of free trade and most favored nation status were both a fraud.

        We are ending up with children dying all around the world due to the catastrophe and casualties of the global economy.

  • Makati1

    Having money in any bank is like putting a pile of money front of a starving beggar. It is an irresistible temptation to take some. Eventually they will give in when the ‘hunger’ pangs get too great. Don’t tempt them!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1457537430 Mark Gailmor Ⓥ

    Is there a bigger scam running then the Federal Reserve Bank? It’s the longest running ponzi scheme ever and we’re all paying into it and will pay for it dearly unless we fight to disband the Federal Reserve Bank and demand an immediate accounting of the Peoples Gold. The FRB is holding our Gold hostage if you didn’t know.

    • nveric

      Yea, but gold is a commodity. Its not money anymore. Its value as money was from its limited amount, but it became too limited.

      It’s shiny, stands up over time, goes into the depths of space, used for trinkets, and other stuff. The allure of gold seems to be genetically programmed for humans.

      Platinum is more valuable, has many uses, different uses. A chemistry book from a hundred years ago had a list of materials needed for performing the experiments in the book. A platinum foil square of a few inches was listed.

  • nveric

    This is slightly off topic but was inspired by Mark Gailmor’s comment below.

    If countries stayed on the Gold Standard, there would have been a
    continual need to re-valuate the money downwards, meaning prices and
    wages would need to be reduced in order to “stretch” the gold supply. Prices,
    deposits, loans, etc. would have been too much to manage with falling
    values, because paying back loans would mean it would cost more over
    time. This effect led to, or rather forced, the turn to a strictly paper
    money supply.

    This turn to paper from the lack of an expanding gold supply, stems from the
    population explosion. Again, population growth is largely why economic growth
    occurs. Once the standard of living is saturated in both “stuff” and around the
    World, growth will slow and be only from population growth. Eventually growth
    will cease because the planet will be maxed out.

    • Libertys_Ghost

      nveric…sorry but you have the economics wrong on this. I’m not saying gold is the “be all/end all” of monetary systems, but in reference to both of your posts here you have the history and the economics wrong. The US monetary system didn’t part ways with gold because of a limited supply. The “supply” of whatever is chosen to back a currency is irrelevant as long as it exists. As dollars are printed in to a system with, in this example, gold being the standard for the currency the value of the dollar just goes down. It’s relation, or value, to products those dollars would purchase may change or may not depending on the quantity of that product and the demand for it. What having a base metal or some sort of physical standard does is restrict politicians from creating debt…simply because the ramifications of doing so are felt near immediate rather than in a future date yet unknown. It limits their ability to buy votes in that way. You see? The population is irrelevant. More dollars can be printed, it just means you get less of whatever the standard is in return for them as a “note”. And if you are running a sound economy you can use your production to procure more of whatever the base standard is or barter with your production in trade deals…which we are already seeing more of today in the absence of a sound fiat currency system. The problem with fiat currencies is their average life span is 40 years roughly…about the age of the fiat dollar today…we went off the gold standard about 41 years ago.

      • nveric

        I was reasoning that since gold and silver are physically limited items, as the population doubles, triples and on, the supply of gold and silver can’t grow with the population. So, I reasoned the money supply, gold and silver coins, could never fulfill their role in providing the means for an orderly economy. The introduction of currency was to add to the money supply. What backs currency and gold or silver, is faith of other people respecting its perceived value. Currency is a paper representation of an abstract thought, as are anything else used.

        Population is very relevant. With an increasing population there’s a need to increase the money supply to enable people to work. Without money available, people can’t work. Oh, they can work, but who pays them? There’s more than enough work people could be doing, but there’s no money to pay them. Oh, there’s plenty of money, but it’s being hoarded, and the hoarders will only rent their pile of money out to the highest bidder.

        Economics, banking, money and so on is largely a misdiagnosed solution to the problem of human interactions.

        Until the fiction of money ends with money eliminated, we will keep arguing these pointless points of this fiction called money. Money remains a distraction and is the limiting factor of today. Money has always hidden the truth of its source. Money is a metaphor whose meaning is lost in the myths people create.

        • Libertys_Ghost

          Great points…and I agree that the economic system which is tied to the paper money it represents is long passed its days of usefulness…but I haven’t come across a better idea in full yet, I do think decentralization will allow competitive models to compete to replace it though and technology is pushing for this. I think maybe where we are disagreeing is more based on whether you would actually have a physical currency made up of gold or silver or whatever, or just have it as the “standard” by which the paper that is printed in its name is valued. I was speaking to the latter, I think you were implying the currency itself would actually contain the metal which wouldn’t work and you’re right on that. But before we went of the “gold/silver” standard in the early 70s we could print as many dollars as we wanted, it would just take more of them to buy and ounce of whichever if more wealth wasn’t gained through economic production to offset the printing. You see what I mean? And in reality we are still largely on a “gold standard”, it just isn’t official. The recent instances of nations repatriating their gold from foreign vaults is just one example of that playing out again. It was hidden for a few decades there, but it didn’t take long to come back simply because politicians have done what they do…print more money to buy votes and give to their “associates” (cronies) through political largess. It was the interest to stay in and secure more power by politicians (and elite banks) that pushed for the decoupling from gold/silver, not population growth or anything else though really. That was just the excuse they used to hide why they were wanting that policy changed.

    • Libertys_Ghost

      And I didn’t mean to be snarky at all if it came across that way:-) And other things have and can be used instead of gold of course…but that doesn’t negate the benefits of using something as a standard. Countries went off “the standard” for a variety of reasons, usually political and not what the politicians and Keynesian economists claim were inherent problems with having a standard in use.

      • nveric

        Population growth IS the key factor in economic growth. Can an economy expand with a declining population? Consider the Black Death’s aftermath and the opportunities which opened up. Consider Germany after WWI, the imposed limitations to their military opened up their push into new fields of warfare.

        I look at the entire World, then reason my thoughts. The World has always been here, but people’s perceptions usually are very limited and narrow, in general. To some going 20 miles is a big journey, and it was 200 years ago if you didn’t have a horse. People still are constrained by what they can comprehend. Such seems true of our corporate and government people. They seem to think the World is an endless thing to be conquered, that all is bliss because the World is a big place with new markets to develop / exploit.

        • Libertys_Ghost

          I see where you’re going, but you have to take in to account technological advancements. It’s interesting that it seems you’re making a similar argument to what Malthus made so long ago but conversely he argued that it was EURO population growth that would kill expansion in Europe because resources would stay the same causing starvation and THEN a massive reduction in population as a consequence. He was wrong largely because he couldn’t imagine what he didn’t know…what I mean is that he assumed there couldn’t be higher yields on the same amount of land, etc. etc. brought on by new inventions and better methods. The population and wealth of of Europe exploded over the next century…the same century he said would be Europe’s death.

          The Black Death is a very unusual circumstance that would take an article to explain why it isn’t appropriate for comparison…but in a nut-shell, it wasn’t caused predominantly by politics, it was caused by biology and unintended consequences of increased mobility of people and products. But scientific advancements did ultimately help defeat the plague so that is somewhat similar to what I am talking about:-) Economies have expanded with stable or even declining populations though…technically it is in Europe today and in Japan the last few decades. It’s tough to quantify “population” though because of competing contexts for measuring it…global, national, etc. But you used Germany (a nation) as an example. I doubt Hong Kong’s population grew nearly at the rate of it’s economy over the last fifty years though. And so many countries have had population explosions, increased money printing to paper over political mistakes, and then shrinking economies. The list would be long so those are examples that would have to be considered when making the alternative claim. All over Africa and S. E. Asia there are examples, and in Latin America. So I just caution against making the claim of “limited resources” too generally without imagining how new technologies could turn this on it’s head seemingly overnight…as it has so many times in our history.

          • nveric

            Growth requires an input.
            Isolate a group. Keep the population steady-state.
            Where does economic growth come from?
            Improved technology will replace the old. Is that growth? Maybe.
            How many things can people own? Depends.
            Where do people get the money to buy there things? Work.
            How much work can a person do? Depends.
            Again, where does growth come from?

            This is an isolated group representing the entire Earth. There is no population increase or decrease. Where does growth come from besides replacing old stuff with new stuff or completely new stuff. All the stuff has to be manufactured. People can only produce and buy a certain amount of stuff in a lifetime, resource depletion aside

            Growth is a dog chasing its tail in this steady-state scenario. A declining population never can grow its economy without outside input. Even so, lets examine money. People work and produce things and then buy things. What’s produced needs someone to buy it before those producing it can be paid. Dog chasing its tail.

            And if we introduce Capitalism, wealth gets skewed, and skewed wealth upsets the population balance it would seem, or at least cause disharmony which will disrupt life further on, over time.

            So, where does growth come from?
            Recap:
            Zero population change.
            Work.
            Buy.
            Seems money is also in a steady-state, because it’s not created past what it takes to buy the stuff people make. So, money is pointless to even be created. Profit is likewise impossible, because it extracts from the steady-state.

            Taxes are also absent, because the running of government is either part of production (its service is really a product), or there’s no government needed. But, a group structure is needed, so we’ll throw in a government. Government is a product which produces the infrastructure. It’s needed if the group being modeled is large enough where personal contact with everyone is impossible.

            After, and with the greatest ability to produce all the stuff the population can make and use, growth is impossible.

            Growth requires something other than a steady-state, or declining population for there to be any growth. Growth requires an input.

          • nveric

            Growth requires an input.
            Isolate a group. Keep the population steady-state.
            Where does economic growth come from?
            Improved technology will replace the old. Is that growth? Maybe.
            How many things can people own? Depends.
            Where do people get the money to buy there things? Work.
            How much work can a person do? Depends.
            Again, where does growth come from?

            This is an isolated group representing the entire Earth. There is no population increase or decrease. Where does growth come from besides replacing old stuff with new stuff or completely new stuff. All the stuff has to be manufactured. People can only produce and buy a certain amount of stuff in a lifetime, resource depletion aside

            Growth is a dog chasing its tail in this steady-state scenario. A declining population never can grow its economy without outside input. Even so, lets examine money. People work and produce things and then buy things. What’s produced needs someone to buy it before those producing it can be paid. Dog chasing its tail.

            And if we introduce Capitalism, wealth gets skewed, and skewed wealth upsets the population balance it would seem, or at least cause disharmony which will disrupt life further on, over time.

            So, where does growth come from?
            Recap:
            Zero population change.
            Work.
            Buy.
            Seems money is also in a steady-state, because it’s not created past what it takes to buy the stuff people make. So, money is pointless to even be created. Profit is likewise impossible, because it extracts from the steady-state.

            Taxes are also absent, because the running of government is either part of production (its service is really a product), or there’s no government needed. But, a group structure is needed, so we’ll throw in a government. Government is a product which produces the infrastructure. It’s needed if the group being modeled is large enough where personal contact with everyone is impossible.

            After, and with the greatest ability to produce all the stuff the population can make and use, growth is impossible.

            Growth requires something other than a steady-state, or declining population for there to be any growth. Growth requires an input.

          • nveric

            Growth requires an input.
            Isolate a group. Keep the population steady-state.
            Where does economic growth come from?
            Improved technology will replace the old. Is that growth? Maybe.
            How many things can people own? Depends.
            Where do people get the money to buy there things? Work.
            How much work can a person do? Depends.
            Again, where does growth come from?

            This is an isolated group representing the entire Earth. There is no
            population increase or decrease. Where does growth come from besides replacing old stuff with new stuff or completely new stuff. All the stuff has to be
            manufactured. People can only produce and buy a certain amount of stuff in a
            lifetime, resource depletion aside

            Growth is a dog chasing its tail in this steady-state scenario. A declining population never can grow its economy without outside input. Even so, lets examine money. People work and produce things and then buy things. What’s produced needs someone to buy it before those producing it can be paid. Dog chasing its tail.

            And if we introduce Capitalism, wealth gets skewed, and skewed wealth upsets the population balance it would seem, or at least cause disharmony which will disrupt life further on, over time.

            So, where does growth come from?
            Recap:
            Zero population
            change.
            Work.
            Buy.
            Seems money is also in a steady-state, because it’s not created past what it takes to buy the stuff people make. So, money is pointless to even be created. Profit is likewise impossible, because it extracts from the steady-state.

            Taxes are also absent, because the running of government is either part of production (its service is really a product), or there’s no government needed. But, a group structure is needed, so we’ll throw in a government. Government is a product which produces the infrastructure. It’s needed if the group being modeled is large enough where personal contact with everyone is impossible.

            After, and with the greatest ability to produce all the stuff the population can make and use, growth is impossible.

            Growth requires something other than a steady-state, or declining population for there to be any growth. Growth requires an input.

        • Libertys_Ghost

          I see where you’re going, but you have to take in to account technological advancements. It’s interesting that it seems you’re making a similar argument to what Malthus made so long ago but conversely he argued that it was EURO population growth that would kill expansion in Europe because resources would stay the same causing starvation and THEN a massive reduction in population as a consequence. He was wrong largely because he couldn’t imagine what he didn’t know…what I mean is that he assumed there couldn’t be higher yields on the same amount of land, etc. etc. brought on by new inventions and better methods. The population and wealth of of Europe exploded over the next century…the same century he said would be Europe’s death.

          The Black Death is a very unusual circumstance that would take an article to explain why it isn’t appropriate for comparison…but in a nut-shell, it wasn’t caused predominantly by politics, it was caused by biology and unintended consequences of increased mobility of people and products. But scientific advancements did ultimately help defeat the plague so that is somewhat similar to what I am talking about:-) Economies have expanded with stable or even declining populations though…technically it is in Europe today and in Japan the last few decades. It’s tough to quantify “population” though because of competing contexts for measuring it…global, national, etc. But you used Germany (a nation) as an example. I doubt Hong Kong’s population grew nearly at the rate of it’s economy over the last fifty years though. And so many countries have had population explosions, increased money printing to paper over political mistakes, and then shrinking economies. The list would be long so those are examples that would have to be considered when making the alternative claim. All over Africa and S. E. Asia there are examples, and in Latin America. So I just caution against making the claim of “limited resources” too generally without imagining how new technologies could turn this on it’s head seemingly overnight…as it has so many times in our history.

  • hvaiallverden

    I am in no favore of gold, as a depositary yes but thats what its always been, and the demagraphyc/people growth is a good indicatore on that, when a nation os forced to ecpand its credit base, the cashflow that a soscialt needs to work.

    Its been everything from sea shels, to megalitic stones.

    The present problem is not about -isms, or capitalism, a notion largly missunderstudd anyway.

    This si about the corruption of legislation, corruption of constitution, corruption on anything even remotly conected to garding the priciples of equalty, in bissenisse and rule of law.

    This si about Bailouts and the following Austerety(the casino bill, handled to us) to collect the cash, trown into a bottom less pitt(aka the abyss).

    And so far trillions have gone down the drain, created nothing but inflation.

    I also know that many banks are doing it good, as far its actualy possible in this days and if they can handle this, a locale bank, then I am certain they are doing their jobb, compared to the To bigg To Fail.

    All this comotion, this latest 5 years are de facto about just a few finnasciale instituts(or/and banks).

    Just a few, runn by old robberbarons and their hendgmen, owing the millitary complex and all the bigg banks, they have been alowed by an utterly corruptd political elite to ruin a empire.

    And now they are plundering the last refuge for me and you, our deposits.

    And still people consider us as fringe conspiracy nutts.

    I have and others have to sayed it time and time again, wake up, or be slaves, your grandchildren are right now, indebthed, and nobody reacts or cryes out.

    peace

    “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”


    Martin Luther King, Jr.

  • FredJ11

    Even if Bernanke had given the “right” answer would anyone in their right mind have believed him?

  • Undecider

    Will Americans take a hint? Not until after the fact.

  • gozounlimited

    Cyprus is quickly becoming a study in amputation without pain relief…..heads are going to roll. I doubt even the most self absorbed bankster can ignore the quickening occurring in Cypress and the spillover that pushes a strong argument for financial reform/reorganization. Unfortunately reorganization in the Western World would separate deposits from derivatives…not easily done without regulation. So in reality your bank deposits are already nonexistent as far as the Feds/Banksters are concerned. Remember legal tender is not real money….unless of course the Feds say so.

  • mark

    Auroraaustraliis blog puts the question, will this turn into a widespread run on all the PIIGS banks, or will the gentle northern spring distract everyone from their financial worries, and absolve the financiers from any losses? Wont know till a day or two.

  • Horace Kent

    “The only way that they would create a problem would be if the runs became contagious in some sense, if depositors in other countries lost confidence. But to this point I’m not aware of any evidence that that is in fact the case.”

    By the time he is “aware of any evidence”, it will be too late, at least for you and me. The deed will have been done.

  • ddearborn

    Hmmm

    This scumbag has not been elected. He is not a government employee. This scumbag is a private banker who answers to stockholders (Basically the 13 families that control the FED banks) Only the Congress has the Constitutional authority to even consider such an action. And it is highly unlikely that the courts would rule it Constitutional.

    The real question is why is the media asking a private citizen about this? This is a blatant manipulation by the US media to attempt to provide this scumbag with authority and power that he just does not have nor will he ever. The simple solution is to dissolve the Federal Reserves Charter. COnfiscate all the money from the FED banks AND all the wealth from the stockholders of the bank-rule all their phony debt claims null and void and return the power of printing our own money to us via the US Treasury. This is of course the ONLY legal way to print money under our Constitution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/duncan.jones.967 Duncan Jones

    What do you expect from a moron who thinks there in “infinite” money to print

  • Slipmatwax

    “…the U.S. will never, ever seize any American’s bank deposits under any scenario whatsoever … without exception” Unless rampant money printing is not considered theft

 

 

Twitter