This looks like where the authorisation to confiscate the deposits in
Cyprus's banks came from.
The G20 meeting in Seoul in 2010 was agreed by members, which included
Australia. Whether Australia has ratified or adopted I do not know.
It would seem to be the basis for Canada's recent legislation and the
justification for Cyprus.

Next, in Seoul 2010, “G20 leaders endorsed this framework and the timelines and processes for its implementation.”

That framework is set out in the FSB’s “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions” (pdf).

On the 11th November 2010 the G20 conference in Seoul agreed to a document that set up
the procedure to seize the funds of depositors amoungst others.

Preamble

The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make feasible the resolution of financial
institutions without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to loss, while
protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms that make it possible for
shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects
the hyrachy of claims in liquidation.

What is of serious concern though, is its power to “transfer or sell assets and liabilities,
legal rights and obligations, including deposit liabilities and ownership in shares,
to a solvent third party,” … without consent -

Under General Resolution Powers

Paragraph 3.2 vi states

Transfer and sell assets and liabilities, legal rights and obligations. including
deposit liabilities and ownership in shares, to a solvent third party,
notwithstanding any requirement for consent or novitation that would otherwise
apply (see key attribute 3.3);

The question is, has Australia agreed to or indeed ratified this G20 agreement.
It would appear that this agreement is the basis for the recent Canadian legislation.

Here is the link where I came across this info.

http://tinyurl.com/d2hzjrn

It seems that what I always understood to be meant by a bank has changed.

"We need a revolutionary change in mind-set, not a bandaid, not a tweek here or there."

Yes we do, but more of the same is not that revolutionary change, is it? And what is your suggested remedy - even more regulation by those presiding over the massive fraud and corruption - but more of the same?

The revolutionary change in mind-set that we need is: freedom. The history of money has been one long history of abuse by governments of their monopoly power, from the days of debasing coins with less precious metals, to every kind of jiggery-pokery imaginable.

The one thing that has never been tried, is to abandon money socialism.

This does not mean "NO regulation". It means that the legitimate function of government is to enforce the law against fraud, and the law of contract, not to “manage” the money supply. The reason is, because such management cannot take any other form, than manipulating the flow of treasure in its own direction, and anyone who can help get their hands on it – the banksters.

So you’re contradicting yourself, because on the one hand you say the system is corrupt and stinks, which is true, but on the other hand you say the solution is more of the same – monopoly government privilege to manipulate the money supply.

The idea that government magically creates benefits for society by printing money is just complete rubbish, and we need to recognise that. It’s why Alan was completely unable to defend it, went round and round in circles when challenged, and just ended up referring me off to the statistical compilations of the western world, as if that proves it! If you can’t recognise basic logical errors and dodgy crawling to those in power, what makes you think you can re-design society?

Just think: if the solution were more regulation, then how could that NOT take the form of granting legal privileges for some people to benefit at other people's expense? What would be an example of government regulation of money that did not answer that description?

Bazz, I think you may be missing the point a little here.

>>This looks like where the authorisation to confiscate the deposits in Cyprus's banks came from.<<

If a Bank is allowed to fail, that money would disappear completely anyway. "Confiscation" would not enter into the discussion; the funds would simply be lost.

What the governments are trying to do is reach a position where the depositors don't lose their savings completely, hence the various levels of government guarantees around the place. The EU standard seems to be 100,000 Euros, the UK 's is Stg 85,000. Above that level, the bets are off. But wouldn't you agree that given the choice of keeping a hundred grand or losing the lot, you probably would opt for the former?

Once again, "confiscation" is entirely the wrong word, since in a failed Bank there are, literally, no funds to confiscate. They don't exist.

In Greece, they helped the Banks survive by giving their bondholders a "haircut" on the money they were owed, reducing the Banks' debt exposure. Cyprus' Banks had few bondholders, but many depositors, so their only recourse is those deposits.

Another option - one that was exercised in the UK early on in the GFC - was where the government nationalized the failing Bank, and takes on its liabilities. This could not be implemented in Cyprus, as the Banks balance sheets represented 800% of the country's GDP.

Banks have failed throughout history. There has not been a time when depositors' interests were so cherished and protected by governments as today.

Fact.

"We need a revolutionary change in mind-set, not a bandaid, not a tweek here or there."

Yes we do, but more of the same is not revolutionary change, is it?

And what is your suggested remedy but more of the same: even more regulation by governments, implicated up to their necks in massive systemic fraud and abuse?

The revolutionary change in mind-set that we need is: freedom. The history of money has been one long history of abuse by governments of their monopoly power, from the days of debasing coins with tin, to every kind of paper and digital fraud imaginable.

The one thing that has never been tried, is to abandon money socialism. What you’re suggesting is MORE socialism, not less.

This does not mean "no regulation". It means that the legitimate function of government is to enforce the law of contract, and the law against fraud, not to “manage” (ha ha) the money supply. Such management cannot take any other form than manipulating the price of money to benefit political favourites at the expense of the productive class.

So you’re contradicting yourself, because on the one hand you say the system is corrupt and stinks, which is true, but on the other hand you say the solution is more of the same – monopoly government privilege to manipulate the money supply.

You are reluctant to abandon the panoply of government controls, with its prestigious mystique, because you IMAGINE that government thereby magically creates benefits for society by printing money. But what if your theory is wrong? What makes you think you would know? Where would you find out? From the government? From compulsory state education? From the mass media, drenched in Keynesianism? Where?

If the theory of government’s necessary and beneficial management of the money supply is wrong, that would have explaining power, wouldn’t it? It would explain the GFC to a ‘t’, wouldn’t it?

And it would explain why when challenged, Alan was completely unable to defend it, went round and round in circles, and just ended up referring me off …

(cont.)

Bazz. With reference to hydrogen, I believe it should be reserved for very large projects, like rail, where the fuel cells and capacitor banks, gas pipes, can be located alongside rail/tram lines.
This would make those transport options, the cheapest ever!
Fuel cells degrade over time, given water cooled polymer converters. The more expensive platinum, is definitely more durable, but inordinately expensive for practicably purposes.
The very cheap polymer films are easily replaced, say every ten years, and the old material recycled.
Electric cars will be virtual hybrids, with the conventional engine replaced with CNG or scrubbed biogas, (methane) converting ceramic fuels.
The fuel cell weighing less than the conventional engine it replaces.
Something around 85% of the energy consumed by the conventional engine is used up spinning the flywheel and the attached alternator, which by the way, weighs nearly as much as its companion conventional engine.
Energy regenerative braking and storage capacitators, will extend the range well beyond that of petrol powered engines!
The ceramic fuel cell has the highest energy coefficient in the world at 60%, and virtually all of the energy produced goes directly to the wheels or inboard amenities.
The exhaust from the process is mostly water vapour.
This option eliminates the need to carry/transport half a ton of extremely expensive batteries.
Green car money stumped up by the Govt, should only ever go to locally manufactured carbon fibre vehicles, powered by the foregoing option.
This would also create a massive export market and economies of scale, we can only dream about!
Also, we have copious NG supplies, but still need to import almost every litre of highly refined petrol or diesel! And all paid for with increasingly limited export dollars!
Local suppliers, are on the public record claiming, even with a fuel excise imposed, they could supply domestic NG for around 40 cents a cubic metre. A cubic metre of NG having the same calorific value as a litre of petrol.
Rhrosty.

… to the statistical compilations of the western world! But correlation doesn’t prove causation! If you can’t recognise basic logical errors, and obvious crawling to the powerful, what makes you think you can re-design the monetary system or society?

Just think: if the solution were more regulation, how could that NOT take the form of granting legal privileges for political favourites to benefit at other people's expense? What would be an example of government regulation of money that does not answer that description?

If you say that the answer is more regulation
a) as Alan has just proved, you can't justify this magic-pudding theory that wealth comes from printing paper and sponsoring wasteful boondoggles, rather than the more obvious explanation,that such policies simply take from A (owner/producer) and give to B (political favourite)
b) you can't justify it ethically
c) you ignore the fact that all the gross abuses and corruption that you correctly identify, have happened and are happening under government regulation, so what makes you think more of the same is going to improve it?

Democracy is only the best theory if it DOESN’T mean massive systemic theft.

But it does under Keynesianism, which is why Alan can’t distinguish the Keynesian rationale for political versus criminal wealth redistributions. Democracy would only be the best theory if it meant respecting the property rights of others, which central banking intrinsically infringes and corrupts.

Every time you infer that government creates benefits by manipulating the money supply, you cement in the mentality that is causing the problem, for which you yourself say the remedy is a revolutionary change in mind-set.

Perhaps you could start with yourself? Merely examining your own beliefs to remove your self-contradictions would be a good start, wouldn't it? At least make an attempt to understand what you’re talking about. I respectfully recommend the following to see through the bullsh!t spun by the Pharisees.

“What Has Government Done to Our Money?” by Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

“The Mystery of Banking” by Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf

"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf