- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 65 Hour
- Reading permission
This post was edited by gork at 2013-7-3 02:05|
Sheep are meant to be sheared.
Once you deposit money in a bank, from a legal standpoint, that money is no longer yours. Instead, the bank owns it. You are an unsecured creditor.
. . .
During a traffic stop, Nebraska state troopers asked Gonzolez for permission to search his vehicle. During the search, the troopers found bundles of currency totaling $124,700. Based on a dog sniff, police seized all the money.
Gonzolez contested the forfeiture in court. Prosecutors neither convicted nor accused Gomez or any of the other owners of the seized cash of any crime. Nor did police find any drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records connected to the cash. Despite these facts, a federal appeals court upheld the confiscation of every dollar found in the vehicle.
- Civil Forfeiture of Cash: It Could Happen to You
The law was changed in Amerika in the 19th century so that depositors became creditors. In other words, if the bank can't repay you the money it owes you, then it's your fault for LENDING them the money. Imagine leaving your furniture with a warehouse and then finding they've sold most of it because they needed the cash.
The law is also seizing cash in what can only be described as theft and that's on top of the inflation stealth confiscation. This is how bankrupt, insolvent and desperate Amerika is. But it's no suprise at how ruthless they are as they murdered 80 (including 20 kids) at Waco for no reason other than to justify the budget of the ATF which is just an FBI offshoot, job creation scam.
Here's some more gangster shake-down:
One rice producer gained an award of $500,000 even though the crop for 2010, the year of the disaster, actually made higher levels of profit than previous years.
. . .
In other cases multi-million dollar payments have been made to businesses hundreds of miles inland where the link to the spill appears at best tenuous. The approach appears to be – if you send in a claim we will settle in your favour.
. . .
One letter I've seen from a firm representing claimants starts innocuously enough with "Dear business owner". It goes on: "The craziest thing about the settlement is that you can be compensated for losses that are unrelated to the spill." The word "unrelated" is helpfully set in capitalised bold type just in case the "business owner" had missed it.
All any business needs to do is show a drop in revenues over a 2010 period and a similar period in 2011 and the money will follow. It's a mathematical formula, not a matter of legitimacy.
- Uncle Sam's proxy war against British business
BP has been beset with numerous "accidents". Two refinery explosions in Texas, two pipeline leaks in Alaska and then the Deepwater Horizon. In answering questions on the earlier accidents, Lord Browne was ousted as chairman when he was said to have lied about his homosexual private life. Amerikan Bobby Dudley was in charge of the Deepwater Horizon and was also accused of sabotaging the BP/TNK joint-venture by wasting time and money on exploration rather than production right up until the price peaked in July 2008 at $147 a barrel.
Is it any wonder that they've imposed the so-called "Patriot Act" which has posted the TSA gropers at all airports to block all the exits? Is it any wonder that they threatened a retro-active tax on anyone who renounced citizenship? Is it any wonder these gangsters despise gold so much? What beggars belief is that the amerikan sheeple ever allowed them to confiscate gold, though only about a half complied with the demand that they hand in their gold in 1933, despite the massive fines that were threatened.
The gold-price smash has seen a stark divergence between physical demand and the dumping by institutional banksters playing with other people's money.
Don't forget that the two custodians for the gold and silver ETFs are HSBC (US) and JP Morgan respectively and they're also the biggest shorters of the very same metals. The ETFs were obviously designed to draw demand away from physical, which is why the annual charges are a mere 0.4% and despite the supposed costs of insurance, security, opportunity cost and storage; blatant fraud if ever there was one. But the liabilities of this scam appear to have ballooned and an ETF default was probably imminent. Now that they've sold off ETF shares, the gold price may be allowed to rocket much higher. The Jan1980 gold price of $850 was merely the level where it would cover the monetary base of the US and it's alleged but unaudited 8,134 tonnes of gold. Today's price would have to be $15,000 by the time B.S. Bernanke's QE explodes the monetary base to $4trn at the end of this year.
Meanwhile the propaganda denying a hyperinflationary monetisation of debt descends into farce: Every boom and bust cycle runs its own course, but I would strongly argue any comparison to 1937 is misguided. In no way do I believe the 2008 financial crisis was the current historic cycle's 1929. There was indeed significant financial and economic stress in 2008/09. But there was definitely no global collapse in credit or economic activity - no globalized economic depression.
- Uninsurable risks
In Dougno-land there is no such thing as debt monetisation, unless perhaps, it is sneering at other nations. SMEs are definitely being starved of credit in order to avoid any hyperinflation. Only buyers of unproductive homes are allowed to indebt themselves, bid up house prices and increase profits for the banksters. The global depression is currently readily apparent.
Back then the lies were flying freely too: Friedman thus sided with the central planners, contending that the market of the day was wrong and that thousands of banks that already had excess reserves should have been doused with more and still more reserves, until they started lending and creating deposits in accordance with the dictates of the monetarist gospel. Needless to say, the historic data show this proposition to be essentially farcical, and that the real-world exercise in exactly this kind of bank reserve flooding maneuver conducted by the Bernanke Fed forty years later has been a total failure—a monumental case of “pushing on a string.”
. . .
More crucially, the “excess reserves” in the banking system grew dramatically during this forty-five-month period, implying just the opposite of monetary stringency. Prior to the stock market crash in September 1929, excess reserves in the banking system stood at $35 million, but then rose to $100 million by January 1931 and ultimately to $525 million by January 1933.
- When Professor Friedman Opened Pandora’s Box: Open Market Operations
One of the enduring lies of the last Great Depression was that there was a credit-crunch where those who wanted to borrow were not credit-worthy, whilst those who WERE credit-worthy didn't want to borrow. Then as now, those who are credit-worthy can't even roll over their existing debts because the banksters don't want a hyperinflationary run on the currency. Clearly, then, Friedman was a liar.