The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Banking Royal Commission and the risk that dare not speak its name > Comments

The Banking Royal Commission and the risk that dare not speak its name : Comments

By John Murray, published 28/3/2018

The Banking Royal Commission seems to be revealing a situation that looks like systemic risk, but because its terms of reference don't include systemic risk, this serious issue cannot be confronted.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Bazz,
"The agreement between the G20 countries, including Australia, and the IMF
means that if a bank gets into trouble then the IMF's Financial
Stability Board can arrive on any banks doorstep one morning and take
any amount of depositors funds to pay the the debt of the defaulting bank."

I've called you out on this before. WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO TELL LIES?

The Financial Stability Board is not part of the IMF. Neither they nor the IMF have any power whatsoever to confiscate even a cent from depositors.

By claiming otherwise, you are defaming both the Financial Stability Board and the banks. I know they are unlikely to sue, but libel is still immoral.

What the FSB actually does is devise procedures to hep prevent banks from collapsing. But implementing those procedures is a matter for national governments.

Neither Swan nor Hockey made any deal to put depositors' money at risk.

As for that Italian man, ISTR he was a bondholder not a depositor.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 2 April 2018 1:58:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aiden, I must pull you up here. Bazz may have some of the details a little off, but his general argument is correct. If you were to go back to my previous posts, you will find I have been preaching on this very topic for years. The name I know it by is 'BAIL IN'. And Bazz is right. The way it was described to me was, a bank has a periodic reconciliation. The example I was given was weekly. If the figure is in the red, meaning the bank has lost money, they take money from depositors accounts. So when they open again Monday morning they are solvent, or in the black again. I did not believe this myself, until it was confirmed by the CEC a group who's job it is to keep an eye on the govt and all it's scams. I thought the banks would take some other form of revenue, I could and still do not want to believe this, 'BAIL IN'. The other thing I have preached about is called 'Glass-Steagall'. Look it up, this was the names of the two guys that got the govt to separate investment banking from commercial banks in the US back in the 1930's. It was repealed in 1999 by that arse-hole B Clinton. And so the banks were given the free hand to gouge and so we ended up with the the GFC amongst other disasters. Turnbull had the chance to re-introduce Glass-Steagall recently, but chose not to, because he is just another Rothschilds puppet.
Posted by ALTRAV, Thursday, 5 April 2018 3:02:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy