Banks stealing our savings

Tafia

Hi folks,

I keep reading that banks have given themselves the right to swipe money from our savings accounts should they feel the need. See:

It Can Happen Here: The Confiscation Scheme Planned for US and UK Depositors

Posted on March 28, 2013 by Ellen Brown (google Ellen Brown for more)

Confiscating the customer deposits in Cyprus banks, it seems, was not a one-off, desperate idea of a few Eurozone “troika” officials scrambling to salvage their balance sheets. A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland; and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds.
Quote ends.

Does this apply to building societies? Would our money be safer with building societies than with banks?

Thanks

T.

Totton

Makes no difference if it is a bank or BSoc. I read that the EU scheme to steal the money from Cyprus account holders was well known in advance by Governments. There was apparently an agreement around December time that UK, US and EU leaders would treat any savers as equity holders, i.e. a saver was considered to be an investor that enabled the banks to use their money to lend and speculate, hence the saver was profiting from the bank business and was thus considered an investor.

As an investor it was considered appropriate that you should be hit with confiscation of your assets in that institution should problems arise. I believe this agreement is still in place, the only saving grace is that the EU was forced to back down and preserve the agreed £85k protection for savers (100k euros). Hence you should ensure that no more than the protected amount is held with any one institution

http://www.fscs.org.uk

dktreesea

A deposit in a bank is a loan to the bank in return for a promissory note, to repay that money, either on demand, or at some point in the future, with an agreed rate of interest for you lending them the money.

The fact that we call this lending to the banks "deposits" just creates an illusion and totally clouds our understanding of the real nature of the transaciton.

Just like a bank can call in our overdraft at any point in time, we can call in our loan to them. Usually they cover that on the overnight money market, borrowing just enough to bring the reserves they are meant to hold up to what they need to be as per government regulations.

If the bank can't afford to repay you, because they can't raise the necessary money on the overnight money market to cover that repayment, it's the money you have lent to them that you lose. The idea that money put into the bank is an asset, placed with the bank for safe keeping, is completely incorrect.

Regarding the post that was quoted but the OP,

...."and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds",

it would have been more accurate to say "and the result will be to cancel the orignal loan (from the "depositer" to the bank), allowing the bank to have all the advantages of going bankrupt without actually going bankrupt."

agrinnall

Well done, overinflated thread title of the day.

In what way are 'the banks' stealing anything? Even if it did happen, the money goes to the government, and eventually to whoever is providing the money to keep them afloat, not to the banks [although they may be beneficiaries of whatever stability the action taken might lead to].

innovate

Tafia wrote: »

I keep reading that banks have given themselves the right to swipe money from our savings accounts should they feel the need.

You might keep reading but you seem to also keep drawing the wrong conclusions. Where in that extract you quote does it say that "banks have given themselves the right to swipe money from our savings accounts should they feel the need"

Anyway, whether you keep your money in a bank or a BS, you, them, and your money, are all subject to the same legislation.

Glen_Clark

Not the same in Britain because the Government has got their own printer, and are falling over themselves to lend on property to pump up house prices before the election. Hence Osbornes interest free loans on £600k sub prime mortgages.

Tafia

agrinnall wrote: »

Well done, overinflated thread title of the day.

In what way are 'the banks' stealing anything? Even if it did happen, the money goes to the government, and eventually to whoever is providing the money to keep them afloat, not to the banks [although they may be beneficiaries of whatever stability the action taken might lead to].

There is always one in every forum. If you don't think that taking virtually interest free loans from savers and using the cash to pay themselves huge "bonuses" for simply doing their jobs, in some cases very badly, is not a form of theft, then what is it? Calling it something else doesn't change the outcome. Money which should be going to savers is being kept by the banks. We are told to spend to stimulate the economy yet it takes seven savers to fund one borrower. The scam helps the banksters and borrowers and takes savers money to do it. It's not rocket science.

Tafia

innovate wrote: »

You might keep reading but you seem to also keep drawing the wrong conclusions. Where in that extract you quote does it say that "banks have given themselves the right to swipe money from our savings accounts should they feel the need"

Anyway, whether you keep your money in a bank or a BS, you, them, and your money, are all subject to the same legislation.

Perhaps you need to read it again.

Tafia

Totton wrote: »

Makes no difference if it is a bank or BSoc. I read that the EU scheme to steal the money from Cyprus account holders was well known in advance by Governments. There was apparently an agreement around December time that UK, US and EU leaders would treat any savers as equity holders, i.e. a saver was considered to be an investor that enabled the banks to use their money to lend and speculate, hence the saver was profiting from the bank business and was thus considered an investor.

As an investor it was considered appropriate that you should be hit with confiscation of your assets in that institution should problems arise. I believe this agreement is still in place, the only saving grace is that the EU was forced to back down and preserve the agreed £85k protection for savers (100k euros). Hence you should ensure that no more than the protected amount is held with any one institution

Saw a finance programme some time ago which claimed that if a big bank failed, there would not be enough cash in the compensation scheme to pay all the savers in that bank.

jimjames

Tafia wrote: »

Saw a finance programme some time ago which claimed that if a big bank failed, there would not be enough cash in the compensation scheme to pay all the savers in that bank.

That has already happened. The BoE and Govt will lend the money to the scheme to pay back.

Tafia wrote: »

There is always one in every forum. If you don't think that taking virtually interest free loans from savers and using the cash to pay themselves huge "bonuses" for simply doing their jobs, in some cases very badly, is not a form of theft, then what is it?

Theft is taking something without permission of the owner. You lend your money to the bank and can get it back at any time so where is the theft? A theoretical risk of not getting money back in the UK does not equate to the exaggerated title of this thread.

dunstonh

Tafia wrote: »

Saw a finance programme some time ago which claimed that if a big bank failed, there would not be enough cash in the compensation scheme to pay all the savers in that bank.

Yet it managed with all the failures so far.

Although the Govt had to step in with RBS and Lloyds because they were too big to fail.