Bail-in is the next bailout

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-bail-in-and-how-does-it-work-1979089

like UBI is the next QE.

Because hyperinflation is evil unless given to the People.

All those goy coddling their FANG portfolio will get a nasty shock.

Couldn’t happen to nicer atheists.

Doubt me? Laws are already in place in America and ‘deposits’ to banks are only covered (per banking license) by the UK government up to about £70k in this country, in case of bank failure. That wouldn’t even cover a mortgage on a shoebox.

I’ve been doing my research. Rich people aren’t real.

Cyprus seized savings.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/29/bank-of-cyprus-depositors-lose-savings/2595837/

47.5%. One bank, one fell swoop.

If a thief dresses in a suit and calls himself a banker, the victims will come to him and just give him everything.

That is the King you pay fealty to, no Christian. You don’t curtsy, but you are legally obliged to queue up and pay the bankers.

Usury is a sin. Not just the lending side. Thou shalt not steal.

Video: Crash-causing debt

A jubilee is a bailout of bad investors, fuck ’em. Everyone has a sob story, equal outcomes is still cancer.

Screw the stupid, not responsible. They deserve to suffer.

Greedy people suffering poverty is FAIR. There’s deserving poor. Social mobility must be allowed to also go down to ever recover the society. Middle-class people who ‘resent’ slipping down shouldn’t have bought cliche Hermes belts and tacky Gucci slippers.

Meritocracy – the greedy fools lose their shorts. And if they were so smart, they’d be fine with slipping down knowing it wasn’t just luck and they could make it back, right?

The average cannot bail out low IQ and it shouldn’t have to.

Someone’s labour would be devalued. That’s slavery. Pay the piper.

I wanna buy a sportscar. I don’t. Why? First, I’m not a man so there’s no phallic inferiority complex going on but generally, it’s because I am not a thief. I refuse to get into debt dishonestly. Old-fashioned I know. It just seems like a bad idea. Jeremiah 17:11.

Likewise, by contrast I know people, lots of people otherwise sane, who are running up huge allowance credit cards assuming their parents will ‘help’ them buy a house to get grandkids or that they’ll definitely get their dream job and promotion. Lumping in the reckless with the responsible will breed resentment. Idiots only learn the hard way.

Every time they see me not doing this, struggling like young people are supposed to, they’re really smug about their ‘cunning plan’.

It’s literally most people under 30 I’ve ever met. EVER.

Every country, every occupation, every industry, every class bracket, every income level.

EVAAAAAAAAH. Consider the scope of that. People triple their age do it too. It’s the New Normal.

They all have the same fucking ‘genius’. You cannot talk them out of it.

They’re “not like other investors” TM. Every one of them is that arrogant.

It’s like fiscal Jesus is gonna rapture them out of debt, it’s creeping me out.

Magical thinking in the worst possible place. It’s impossible at this point, post-70-80s.

At this point I’m scared to bring it up. They attack like hyenas if you suggest the Government isn’t omnipotent like God and can’t spare you the Hell of responsibility for your own credit card purchases on shoes, be they Louboutins (painful) or Nikes (break).

They vote like rich celebrity assholes because they think they’ll be bailed out like rich celebrity assholes.

This cannot end pleasantly for them. They must learn the short term game ends in loss, long-term.

You have to let them fail now. Yes, even the Boomers. You’re WAY too old to claim ignorance.

When you’ve been doing the same infantile bullshit for over half a CENTURY, it isn’t really a ‘mistake’.

I take my lumps now and push ahead with less so I don’t have to do it old, ill and with less ability to recover. That’s natural law. You can’t circumvent another person who pissed their life away doing the easy thing every time. There’s no rewind button to circumvent those consequences of immoral choice. You can’t reverse decades of selfish stupidity bearing rotten fruit. You had your fun, for years. You spent while others saved. It’s winter now, you starve.

There aren’t enough beach-houses to go around. What everyone on the planet feels entitled to, it’s impossible to dole out equally.

You cannot cover arse for shitty time preference. It leaves someone else out in the cold.

I’m tired of the musical chairs dance. Yet I get it. I truly do.

They took the ending of Fight Club a little too literally. Wiping the slate won’t bring down the high IQ or raise the low IQ, it won’t make the fat thin and the thin less vegan, it won’t end Third World wars and it won’t be a magical blowjob machine of financial utopia. It doesn’t raise the dead who voted in the race and immigration melting pot shit so we can kick ’em (although the Cromwell treatment is on the table). It’s just nothingness.

Most of the Millennial “socialists” are like (90+%) actually of the Cloward-Piven let-it-burn motherfuckers school.

If you actually talked to them. “What if socialism fails and the economy collapses?”

They’re HAPPY about it, it’s spiteful on purpose. That’s a feature, NOT a bug.

If ‘paying dues’ gets you screwed. All Gen Y/Z heard from the conceited Boomers was, “you gotta pay your dues, you gotta pay your dues, you gotta pay your dues” well now we’re the major voting bloc it’s “you first”.

We’re not letting you take it with you. This is across left/right, we all agree.

It’s the last-ditch attempt to cut out the cancer of the corrupt.

They made us poor, …let’s return the favour.

Hey, the hippies loved to lecture us on the Golden Rule.

How do you hurt a rich person Trading Places logic.

Fix it or we break it even more.

Historical r/K-like waves in the economy

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/approaching-winter-super-cycle-has-turned

Just don’t chart the migration habits of a certain group.

Reminds me of biohistory.

The do-gooders, by “feeding the world”, have killed everyone else.

The world cannot slave to feed Asia and Africa. It is impossible.

Why is the UK property market fake?

https://cyberlibris.typepad.com/blog/files/Goodharts_Law.pdf

No more corset controls on the banks since 1979/80. Goodhart pre-empted it.

Now they loan to things that don’t boost GDP including mortgages.

It’s included in debt to GDP though.

Boosted in addition to the retarded notion of a crumbling hovel being a “retirement” fund.

Funds and other assets don’t depreciate.

Don’t bail out bad property investors, they’re idiots.

You wanted the reward, the risk is also ALL yours.

The ‘competition and credit control’ reforms, which removed direct controls on bank
lending, had been introduced in September 1971 and a dramatic surge in bank
intermediation, leading to broad money growth rates in excess of 25%, had resulted in
1972 and 1973. The conclusion drawn by policy makers in 1973 was that the only
option was to supplement monetary targets with direct controls on banks through
Supplementary Special Deposits known as ‘the Corset’ (See Zawadzki, 1981).
Modest interest rate changes seemed powerless in the face of this monetary expansion
and the previously stable money demand function seemed to have broken down. This
was clear well before 1975, but Goodhart (1975b) was a summary of the current
problems of monetary management, as the title suggests.

So Labour want rent controls but not bank controls.

I wonder (((why))).

Goodhart’s Law is the statement missing from the square brackets in the quotation
above. It says: “Ignoring Goodhart’s law, that any observed statistical regularity
will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes”.

“Houses as Collateral”
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/02v08n1/0205aoki.pdf
“First were the removal of exchange controls in 1979 and the direct control of bank lending (“the corset”) in 1980″

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.600.6032&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“The abolition of exchange controls in 1979 and the abolition of the last of the quantitative controls on bank lending heralded a period of rapid deregulation and increased competition in British banking during the 1980s”

They weren’t more productive in the 80s, they stole from the future (you).

“Stash cash under your mattress” ~ Fund manager

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11686199/Its-time-to-hold-physical-cash-says-one-of-Britains-most-senior-fund-managers.html

It’s short and they’ve been going SJW so, in full so I can explain;

The manager of one of Britain’s biggest bond funds has urged investors to keep cash under the mattress.

Ian Spreadbury, who invests more than £4bn of investors’ money across a handful of bond funds for Fidelity, including the flagship Moneybuilder Income fund, is concerned that a “systemic event” could rock markets, possibly similar in magnitude to the financial crisis of 2008, which began in Britain with a run on Northern Rock.

“Systemic risk is in the system and as an investor you have to be aware of that,” he told Telegraph Money.

deanwinchester supernatural wink flirty hey hello nice
Some of us like it that way. A little chaos spices up the day.

The best strategy to deal with this, he said, was for investors to spread their money widely into different assets, including gold and silver, as well as cash in savings accounts. But he went further, suggesting it was wise to hold some “physical cash”, an unusual suggestion from a mainstream fund manager.

He knows something. He grew a conscience?
Reminds me of the Most Honest Stockbroker in the Entire World.

His concern is that global debt – particularly mortgage debt – has been pumped up to record levels, made possible by exceptionally low interest rates that could soon end, and he is unsure how well banks could cope with the shocks that may await.

He daren’t mention the other 3 horsemen of the economic apocalypse: student loans, pensions/welfare and the NHS.

lestat rat judgemental

He pointed out that a saver was covered only up to £85,000 per bank under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme – which is effectively unfunded – and that the Government has said it will not rescue banks in future, hence his suggestion that some money should be held in physical cash.

WRONG.

Idiot isn't as much a person as a process of doing things wrong

Per banking LICENSE.
Many banks operate under a single license, meaning you’re entitled to 1 (one) £85k payment. You need to check yourself. This assumes the currency value doesn’t change compared to nominal.

He declined to predict the exact trigger but said it was more likely to happen in the next five years rather than 10. The current woes of Greece, which may crash out of the euro, already has many market watchers concerned.

Oh, he means the EU collapse.

I will add for the record that being a hater doesn't make you wrong

Mr Spreadbury’s views are timely, aside from Greece. A growing number of professional investors (see comment, right) and commentators are expressing unease about what happens next.

The prices of nearly all assets – property, shares, bonds – have been rising for years.

House prices have risen by 26pc since the start of 2009, and by 68pc in London. The FTSE 100 is up by 75pc.

Although it feels counter-intuitive, this trend of rising prices should continue if economies remain weak, because it gives central banks licence to keep rates low and to carry on with their “quantitative easing” programmes.

franklook

Conversely, if the economy does pick up and interest rates need to rise, the act of doing so is likely to stall the economy and force them to be reduced again. Once more, demand for those mainstream assets would be rekindled and the asset boom continues.

But then there is the shock event. Daily Telegraph columnist Jeremy Warner also captured some of the concerns this week when he wrote that the trigger for an “inevitable correction” could come from “a clear blue sky – a completely unanticipated event.

Like a…. Black Swan? If only there were a name for this effect?

How are fund managers preparing for this gloomy possibility?

Sadistic glee since they’re making bank twice (getting out before this Black Swan crash plus future selloff). 3x if you count ’08 but who does?

Mr Spreadbury sticks to bonds because of the remit of his funds. Within that world, he said a shock to the system would cause a flight to safety and the price of British government bonds, or gilts, would rise sharply. He also holds bonds of companies that would be most protected in times of turmoil – water companies, power network operators – and those where the bonds are secured on a solid asset, such as land or buildings.

Sounds like he’s prepping for a war.

Examples include Center Parcs and Intu, which owns shopping centres.

Marcus Brookes, another well regarded fund manager who looks after billions of pounds worth of investments, is less constrained in where he invests, because of the different remit of his funds. Schroder Multi-Manager Diversity, for example, can pick and choose between assets.

Mr Brookes said the probability of a major shock event was small but even he holds 29pc of the Diversity portfolio in cash, a huge proportion compared with most funds. This decision is due to his concern that bonds are overvalued and may fall. He aims to deliver returns of 4pc above inflation so can’t afford to put too much in assets that he believes will lose money.

“The problem is that people are struggling to work out how to diversify if QE programmes stop,” he said.

no what I don't believe it can't be true disbelief pushing daisies
I wouldn’t give those people Monopoly money.

Mr Spreadbury added: “We have rock-bottom rates and QE is still going on – this is all experimental policy and means we are in uncharted territory.

Seems pretty planned to me.

“The message is diversification. Think about holding other assets. That could mean precious metals, it could mean physical currencies.”

But you said above….
Nevermind, they don’t have a clue.

Apocalypse incoming. Got it.

UK/EU bank balance seizure law

I spoke too soon discussing American pensions the other day. At least that isn’t life savings-level of investment (or shouldn’t be).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-03/bail-ins-coming-eu-gives-countries-two-months-adopt-rules

11 countries face legal action if bail-in rules are not enacted within two months
– Bail-in legislation aims at removing state responsibility when banks collapse
– Rules place burden on creditors – among whom depositors are counted
– Austria abolished bank deposit guarantee in April
– “Bail-in regimes” coming globally

Technically when you deposit in a bank it’s legally classified as a loan.
This is why they pay you interest, however low the percentage.
This is also why they want to remove the cash option, because commodities are already regulated.

Savings are at a record low. Have fun taking 100% of sweet fuck-all.

The Guardian teaches its readers what Brexit is

Armageddon, it seems;

…And a new word has entered the political lexicon, which may soon become inescapable.

“Brexit” is shorthand for British exit from the European Union – a possibility that is looking more realistic by the day. Ukip, after all, are in the midst of a seemingly endless political summer…

…Moreover, plenty of Europeans are beginning to think of the UK as a power that has already turned its back on them. “We’re not actually making many constructive suggestions about the future of Europe,” says Leonard. “So we’re not really much good to anyone else at the moment.”

sherlock bbc cracking up lol laughing so hard

At the very least, I suggest to him, a British exit would create no end of economic turbulence. After all, when it looked as if Scotland was thinking seriously about leaving the UK, billions of pounds were wiped off the stock market. So imagine what would happen if Britain leaving the EU actually came to pass: an economic catastrophe, some people reckon.

Wait, is The Guardian agreeing with me?
(My rationale for the opinion, however, is hang the EU, it’s doomed anyway.)

…But what of all those grim predictions about Brexit’s dire economic consequences? “I simply don’t believe them,” she says. “The EU is actually causing economic chaos at the moment.” Evans runs a marketing and PR firm: she talks about the costs implementing European directives, claims that it is big business that defends the EU while small firms suffer, tells me that trading in the EU can be a bureaucratic “nightmare” and ends with a rhetorical question: “How can being able to negotiate our own trade deals again, in our own interests, be worse than the status quo?”

Guardian on the side of the bankers and capitalists.

There is no precedent for a country of Britain’s size leaving the European project. …None of these examples, needless to say, shines much light on what would happen if a country with 65 million people and such a huge economy decided to sling its hook.

This gives me hope a rare quantity

“Leaving wouldn’t be a straightforward process,” says Leonard. “It could take years and years and years, and cost an enormous amount of money. Think about the tens of thousands of regulations we have that govern every industrial sector, and everything that gets made. Or passports: you’d need new ones, new forms, new border controls … new everything. Tens of billions of pounds would have to be spent, just on managing the transition.”

Cost benefit ratio of leaving early or crashing with the EU as a member?

In terms of popular support, the political drive to leave the EU is largely based on public concerns about immigration….

They dare not explain why. Rotherham…?

“That’s something that I think would be unacceptable to the people of Scotland and the Scottish government.” She will not be drawn on exactly what she means, but she says this, with a hint of menace: “I have a warning that there will be very serious consequences indeed, and I’m not sure they have been properly thought through.”

Fine, leave too. You’re a net drain with your free University education and better NHS anyway.

…. He thinks that the Eurozone’s economic woes mean “the whole thing is beginning to crack”, and sketches out the unlikely-sounding scenario of David Cameron realizing his current approach to renegotiation isn’t ambitious enough, and somehow leading an argument that would lead to a “a whole new architecture in Europe”.

Better likelihood of Cameron coming out as gay.

…“But the costs are worth it if you’re going to preserve your democratic right to govern yourself, and be a free and prosperous country.” All this, he assures me, is better than being “being inflicted by an unstable and imploding Europe that doesn’t work. And if we exit, other countries will follow us. That’s my judgment.”

It’s us and Germany. Even Germany is beginning to doubt the EU’s might isn’t worth the cost.

Again, the prospect of stock market meltdown is swatted away: “I don’t think that follows at all … if you’re coming forward with a positive proposal to trade across Europe and the world, a lot of the stock markets would say, hooray.”

GB would be fine, which British taxpayer gives a shit about elsewhere?

If Britain leaves the EU, Cash says, it will mark something as historic as the abolition of slavery, the repeal of the corn laws (which, with echoes of what may happen again, split the Tory party), the franchise-extending Reform Act of 1867, and the convulsive events of the 1930s. Not for the first time, I’m reminded of the drastically different ways that each side of the argument thinks about what’s at stake.

One camp worries about jobs, border posts and passports; the other talks passionately about national sovereignty, and hears the call of history. Europhobes are from Mars; Europhiles are from Venus. And as the great political war about Europe grinds on, any kind of truce seems more unlikely than ever.

We shall leave. It is an eventuality at this juncture.

My sentiment on the tide against PC.

My sentiment on the tide against PC.