How will banks survive deep NIRP?

babyjake1961 said:
When your computer's operating system is too badly messed up, the only way out is to format the hard drive and install a new one. It's pretty much the same thing here.

Crashes and depressions are the only viable way to rid the world of the long unsustainable debt which prevents economic growth.

Problem is with the information age we're living in. While our grandparents during the Great Depression might have felt largely confused and looking for a salvation by the authorities, the modern-day rulers have compromised themselves beyond belief. So when the SHTF, quite a few of them might quickly end up hanging down from the nearest trees while angry crowds will go on with their armed rampage.
More...
While I don't agree, in general, with with the idea you express that 'Crashes and depressions are the only viable way to rid the world of the long unsustainable debt which prevents economic growth,' because it draws a too broad brush and is too general in my opinion. I do, nevertheless, agree that crashes and depressions may be the ultimate result of "unsustainable debt". In your remarks, there seems to be an implication that the 'world' is on the verge of such a calamity, and that is specifically what I would not agree with. Certainly neither the majority of EU countries nor the U.S. are anywhere near the level of unsustainable debt that would cause such a calamity. We saw an event, such as you speak of, in the case of the Weimar Republic, and so that might be a good example of what can follow in such a circumstance. In that instance, unsustainable debt led to 'ultimate[ly]' to extreme nationalism, a Keynesian economic miracle, and a hideous war.

I have lived a long time, and in the course of my life I have learned that I have often been wrong because I was unaware of things I would have had to know in order to be right. Lately, my record has somewhat improved, I must have learned something along the way.
 
babyjake1961 said:
Google is power: http://www.examiner.com/article/does-dodd-frank-set-up-bail-for-u-s-banks-to-follow-cyprus
More...
Actually reading a bill before you pontificate on what it contains is power. I asked for the specific section of the bill that says "depositor's money will be confiscated in case of bank insolvency, in order to recapitalize them". You send me a link to a talking head from the LaRouchePAC who makes the same unsubstantiated claim that I'm asking to have backed with an actual reference in the bill.
Thanks for making my point though, that neither you or apparently zdreg have actually read Dodd-Frank, despite the fact that its freely posted on the internet (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr4173/text). Instead you form unshakable opinions on what it contains based on something you read secondhand on the internet. The onus is on you to substantiate your claim on what the document says by pointing to the exact section of the document that says it. It appears you can't manage to do that.
 
babyjake1961 said:
Pass on, nothing to see here: http://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2...-Bank-Account-Be-Aware.html?sitetype=fullsite

I encourage all the Fed believers to pump more money into their savings accounts as NIRP deepens. Just hoping for the Clinton dynasty to preside, whereas under Trump it might crash all too fast.
More...
OK, again you're not referencing the bill but an article about the bill. Nothing in the article, or more importantly the bill, says that "depositor's money will be confiscated in case of bank insolvency, in order to recapitalize them". Full stop, it just plain doesn't say that even if an article on the Kitco Metals Inc website, a seller of gold to the paranoids, claims it does!
The section quoted in the latest article you put up simply states the claim precedence in event of a bankruptcy, which is the same claims precedence that any company has had in bankruptcy for decades. Depositors are creditors to the bank and creditors are paid based on the precedence stated. That in no way involves "propping" anything up or "bailing it out". If a company is bankrupt, it has fewer assets than liabilities so creditors aren't going to be paid in whole and the shareholders are going to be wiped out no matter what if they can't pay all the liabilities. That's a fact of life, has been for years and it didn't change because of Dodd-Frank. Again I ask you, have you ever read the bill you pontificate so authoritatively on?
 
I've tried in vain to explain to you that Dodd-Frank does not only legislate bail-ins but pretty much gives the FDIC a complete carte blanche with regards to the operation of a troubled financial institution. Sapienti sat but it would be perfectly just if the Fed believers lost their savings in the NIRP aftermath.
 
babyjake1961 said:
I've tried in vain to explain to you that Dodd-Frank does not only legislate bail-ins but pretty much gives the FDIC a complete carte blanche with regards to the operation of a troubled financial institution. Sapienti sat but it would be perfectly just if the Fed believers lost their savings in the NIRP aftermath.
More...
You've linked to a couple articles from very biased sources. That's not "explained". Explaining would be quoting the relevant parts of Dodd-Frank that support your assertions. You've completely failed to do that. And done a great job of avoiding the question of if you have in fact ever read Dodd-Frank, which at this point it's clear you never have. So just to be clear, you're an expert on Dodd-Frank despite never having read it and we're supposed to be convinced by you because you said so. Great, glad we understand that.
 
Sig said:
You've linked to a couple articles from very biased sources. That's not "explained". Explaining would be quoting the relevant parts of Dodd-Frank that support your assertions. You've completely failed to do that. And done a great job of avoiding the question of if you have in fact ever read Dodd-Frank, which at this point it's clear you never have. So just to be clear, you're an expert on Dodd-Frank despite never having read it and we're supposed to be convinced by you because you said so. Great, glad we understand that.
More...
The New York Fed must have joined the conspiracy: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/2014/1412somm.pdf

Not to worry - the Fed will take care of your posterity's financial well-being. Over and over again.
 
babyjake1961 said:
The New York Fed must have joined the conspiracy: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/2014/1412somm.pdf

Not to worry - the Fed will take care of your posterity's financial well-being. Over and over again.
More...
Well at least you've learned that you can go to the Fed to get correct information. I doubt you've read the article however. You can get by, if you just want to understand "bail in" by starting with subtitle 3 and read on from their. You'll find in the article the arguments in favor of bail-in for mega banks as a better way to resolve liquidity and solvency crises. You'll learn that there is no conspiracy and that depositors accounts up to the insured limit are just as safe as always. You can stop the nonsense now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top