Martin Armstrong Warns Europeans Of The Coming Expropriation Of 10% Of Everyone's Accounts

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-02/martin-armstrong-warns-europeans-coming-expropriation-10-everyones-accounts

As we have discussed in depth previously (2 years ago here as "muddle through has failed" and most recently here as the IMF discussed a "one-off" wealth tax), a confiscation (akin to Cyprus overnight debacle) is coming and Martin Armstrong believes sooner than most think.

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics,

Anyone who thinks it is a fantasy that government will simply just confiscate 10% of everyone’s accounts in Europe better have another look at the fool they see in the mirror staring back at them. This IMF solution is traditionally French and is really coming because the people in charge are effectively Marxists and this idea came from the IMF under the control of French ideology. They will expropriate these funds to save a banking system that they screwed up and will never reform anything because they are incapable of admitting any mistake.

These European government officials really are playing a dangerous game that is inviting total chaos, civil unrest, and may set themselves up for invasion. Instead of Napoleon invading Russia (1812.479), it may be the other way around when they smell weakness.

The Marxist comment made me smile.

Politicians can never admit mistakes, it's how they get into the club.

[silver surfer]

Would you take financial advice from someone with a Tyler Durden avatar?

[wonderpup]

The idea that the IMF is a Marxist organisation is pure comedy gold- the IMF exist to enforce the bankers debts - the fact that they are shifting to direct expropriation is not a sign of their incipient socialist conversion- more a sign of pure desperation on the part of the moneylenders that their unsustainable mountain of IOU's is about to fall over.

[Debbiebegood]

The idea that the IMF is a Marxist organisation is pure comedy gold- the IMF exist to enforce the bankers debts - the fact that they are shifting to direct expropriation is not a sign of their incipient socialist conversion- more a sign of pure desperation on the part of the moneylenders that their unsustainable mountain of IOU's is about to fall over.

+1

Marx never suggested such thing, and Socialism never did that.Back in those days savers were valued with decent interest rates,etc.Yet again,socialism is mentioned totally wrongly.As always, it is used by people who never lived in socialism,hence they do not have a slightest clue.

[happy_renting]

Um... isn't Martin Armstrong an 'expert' on expropriating other peoples assets?

[doahh]

Um... isn't Martin Armstrong an 'expert' on expropriating other peoples assets?

Released without charge as I understand it..

Finally, in September 2011 Armstrong was released, after enduring the longest incarceration for civil contempt in the history of the US legal system without having committed a crime.

[R K]

Apart from the fact that this is what ought to have happened 6 years ago, i.e. the excess savings were wiped out but the politicians pretended they still existed to save their own skins, Zero Edge pumps out this sort of stuff whenever gold hits fresh lows.

ZH are bothered about a 10% fall in savings when gold has crashed 35%, silver 60%, and gold miners 70%.

Quite amusing really.......

[numpty]

In all seriousness, what about a confiscation of say 3% on bank accounts and a charge of 3% on all property values where if you don't pay then interest is applied until eventual sale?

[Venger]

Apart from the fact that this is what ought to have happened 6 years ago, i.e. the excess savings were wiped out but the politicians pretended they still existed to save their own skins, Zero Edge pumps out this sort of stuff whenever gold hits fresh lows.

ZH are bothered about a 10% fall in savings when gold has crashed 35%, silver 60%, and gold miners 70%.

Quite amusing really.......

Fine, providing they take equity stake in your home.

Some of us haven't had a life of bouncing around in Bentleys since we were very young, and the glow of living in fancy areas with chronic constant HPI, keeping out the riff-raff people who've saved towards buying for years.

House prices need to fall. It's the house prices. Let them have a controlling equity stake in your home, or one of your relatives, before you offer up savers to have their savings skimmed.

[Executive Sadman]

The idea that the IMF is a Marxist organisation is pure comedy gold- the IMF exist to enforce the bankers debts - the fact that they are shifting to direct expropriation is not a sign of their incipient socialist conversion- more a sign of pure desperation on the part of the moneylenders that their unsustainable mountain of IOU's is about to fall over.

The IMF/World bank is possibly the most evil active organization in the world today.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Sometimes I wonder if Americans have never got over the reds under the beds stuff - and therefore any vaguely sounding commie phrase is applied to something they don't like. Calling the IMF Marxists is just slightly more high brow than "commie barsteward".

Edited January 4, 2014 by StainlessSteelCat

[davidg]

They tried a retroactive tax on life insurance policies in France just before christmas. Life insurance is the major savings vehicle for retirement beyond state pensions. The govt had to back down as the country is on the edge of revolution with all the taxes, unemployment. It would only take a 10% on bank savings for a number of politicians to find themselves swinging from lampposts.

The problem for most EU governments is they have very few people under arms to put down any revolution these days. Long gone are the standing armies of 1 million.

[man o' the year]

They tried a retroactive tax on life insurance policies in France just before christmas. Life insurance is the major savings vehicle for retirement beyond state pensions. The govt had to back down as the country is on the edge of revolution with all the taxes, unemployment.

Do you have any links for this please?

[TheCountOfNowhere]

the British government and the boe have already then their cut from savers through inflation and low interest rates.

if only they would stop at ten percent!

[R K]

Fine, providing they take equity stake in your home.

Some of us haven't had a life of bouncing around in Bentleys since we were very young, and the glow of living in fancy areas with chronic constant HPI, keeping out the riff-raff people who've saved towards buying for years.

House prices need to fall. It's the house prices. Let them have a controlling equity stake in your home, or one of your relatives, before you offer up savers to have their savings skimmed.

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

What is the basis for that argument?

If you buy a car you'll lose money. If you buy a house you can lose money. If you buy equities or bonds you can lose money. Why do you think the taxpayer must insure your savings 100% up to any value even if the bank you lend it to is sh1te?

The UK govt. doesn't agree with you by the way. It only insures £85k (under sufferance presently due to it being the EU limit) raised from £35k prior to the Irish bank collapse. As I'm sure you know the Treasury/BoE are looking at where this limit ought to be, and how to deal with uninsured deposits. BoE under King was very woolly on this imo. Tucker was more decisive, wanting a clear insured limit a priori. My sense is that they've decided to intentionally fudge it so they can make decisions as they arise rather than prescriptively.

Edited January 4, 2014 by R K

[dances with sheeple]

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

What is the basis for that argument?

If you buy a car you'll lose money. If you buy a house you can lose money. If you buy equities or bonds you can lose money. Why do you think the taxpayer must insure your savings 100% up to any value even if the bank you lend it to is sh1te?

The UK govt. doesn't agree with you by the way. It only insures £85k (under sufferance presently due to it being the EU limit) raised from £35k prior to the Irish bank collapse. As I'm sure you know the Treasury/BoE are looking at where this limit ought to be, and how to deal with uninsured deposits. BoE under King was very woolly on this imo. Tucker was more decisive, wanting a clear insured limit a priori. My sense is that they've decided to intentionally fudge it so they can make decisions as they arise rather than prescriptively.

Deposits not safe in a bank just further undermines the belief in the "elites" system, by grabbing deposits they just take a dump in their own sandpit. I think it will kick off in the UK if a snatch of deposits was attempted, the only thing worse would be trying to tell people their house isn`t worth what they thought

[@contradevian]

Thrush?

SPECTRE (or Quantum).

Edited January 4, 2014 by aSecureTenant

[zugzwang]

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

What is the basis for that argument?

If you buy a car you'll lose money. If you buy a house you can lose money. If you buy equities or bonds you can lose money. Why do you think the taxpayer must insure your savings 100% up to any value even if the bank you lend it to is sh1te?

The UK govt. doesn't agree with you by the way. It only insures £85k (under sufferance presently due to it being the EU limit) raised from £35k prior to the Irish bank collapse. As I'm sure you know the Treasury/BoE are looking at where this limit ought to be, and how to deal with uninsured deposits. BoE under King was very woolly on this imo. Tucker was more decisive, wanting a clear insured limit a priori. My sense is that they've decided to intentionally fudge it so they can make decisions as they arise rather than prescriptively.

Banks don't lend out deposits! The loan and the deposit are created simultaneously on opposite sides of the balance sheet. Since all deposits are created ex nihilo by the banking system, and since banks are bound by charter to operate in a legal and proper manner in their creation, I'd suggest that a good case could be made for statutory deposit protection.

But what are we trying to achieve here anyway? Skimming savings accounts is just another attempt at lowering the cost of money after ZIRP and QE have failed. But the cost of money isn't actually the problem. Cheaper money is unlikely to persuade anyone to take on greater risk if the outlook remains poor. What we're experiencing is a deep and sustained fall in the marginal efficiency of capital. The economy is locked in a balance sheet recession with individuals and corporates alike struggling to throw off the Ponzi debts they accumulated during the boom years. Banks are now able to lend more cheaply than at any time in their history but cannot do so because of the dearth of qualified borrowers. Trying to generate inflation in such a scenario just adds stress to the system, reducing real spending power and hence economic activity.

Edited January 4, 2014 by zugzwang

[Dorkins]

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

They should pay out less than 100% of deposits only once the shareholders and bondholders have walked away with nothing. Depositors are supposed to be senior creditors to banks.

[happy_renting]

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

What is the basis for that argument?

If you buy a car you'll lose money. If you buy a house you can lose money. If you buy equities or bonds you can lose money. Why do you think the taxpayer must insure your savings 100% up to any value even if the bank you lend it to is sh1te?

The UK govt. doesn't agree with you by the way. It only insures £85k (under sufferance presently due to it being the EU limit) raised from £35k prior to the Irish bank collapse. As I'm sure you know the Treasury/BoE are looking at where this limit ought to be, and how to deal with uninsured deposits. BoE under King was very woolly on this imo. Tucker was more decisive, wanting a clear insured limit a priori. My sense is that they've decided to intentionally fudge it so they can make decisions as they arise rather than prescriptively.

In case anyone missed it (and I have mentioned it a couple of times on HPC threads myself) the BoE and SEC issued a joint white paper last December.

Buried withing it's pages was an idea (read: embryonic plan) to use the depositor insurance funds (in the UK, the FSCS funds) to prop up failing banks before they need a bailout/in. So if the bank subsequently needs a bailout/in, the depositor rescue fund might be all gone. The funds would effectively have been used to try to save the bondholders, not rescue the depositors funds. All with the connivance of the BoE.

I think that having even a few £K in a bank, for negligible interest, is now an insane risk. The £85K FSCS guarantee might better be understood as being a scheme to lure suckers in.

[interestrateripoff]

In case anyone missed it (and I have mentioned it a couple of times on HPC threads myself) the BoE and SEC issued a joint white paper last December.

Buried withing it's pages was an idea (read: embryonic plan) to use the depositor insurance funds (in the UK, the FSCS funds) to prop up failing banks before they need a bailout/in. So if the bank subsequently needs a bailout/in, the depositor rescue fund might be all gone. The funds would effectively have been used to try to save the bondholders, not rescue the depositors funds. All with the connivance of the BoE.

I think that having even a few £K in a bank, for negligible interest, is now an insane risk. The £85K FSCS guarantee might better be understood as being a scheme to lure suckers in.

Sounds like an interesting court case if a bank goes under and the authorities decide to renege on the £85k limit.

Certainly if you have more money there is a huge risk, and to be honest it's only the people with large savings that can fund the bankers.

[shindigger]

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

What is the basis for that argument?

If you buy a car you'll lose money. If you buy a house you can lose money. If you buy equities or bonds you can lose money. Why do you think the taxpayer must insure your savings 100% up to any value even if the bank you lend it to is sh1te?

The UK govt. doesn't agree with you by the way. It only insures £85k (under sufferance presently due to it being the EU limit) raised from £35k prior to the Irish bank collapse. As I'm sure you know the Treasury/BoE are looking at where this limit ought to be, and how to deal with uninsured deposits. BoE under King was very woolly on this imo. Tucker was more decisive, wanting a clear insured limit a priori. My sense is that they've decided to intentionally fudge it so they can make decisions as they arise rather than prescriptively.

Do you have an actual job?

I'm thinking of not getting out of bed for 2014.

Seems to be the way to go. By your logic if i go to work i lose money too.

You're clearly no fan of gold now you're saying cash is fair game.

Arent all banks just a little bit shyte?

So what do you suggest?

An over-hyped stock market? Property?

One thing i will never get my head round is how the price of shiny WENT DOWN after the outrage in Cyprus.

Could not, and cannot, get my head round that little sucker to this day.

I wonder what happened...

Edited January 4, 2014 by shindigger

[shindigger]

In case anyone missed it (and I have mentioned it a couple of times on HPC threads myself) the BoE and SEC issued a joint white paper last December.

Buried withing it's pages was an idea (read: embryonic plan) to use the depositor insurance funds (in the UK, the FSCS funds) to prop up failing banks before they need a bailout/in. So if the bank subsequently needs a bailout/in, the depositor rescue fund might be all gone. The funds would effectively have been used to try to save the bondholders, not rescue the depositors funds. All with the connivance of the BoE.

I think that having even a few £K in a bank, for negligible interest, is now an insane risk. The £85K FSCS guarantee might better be understood as being a scheme to lure suckers in.

I have to say, every time i've heard that ad on the radio, i've thought to myself,"why are they doing this"?

[FLASH_2007]

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

What is the basis for that argument?

So a bank makes dodgy loans between years 2000-2007 and then gets bailed out in 2008. I then start up a business in 2009 and earn £1m and deposit it in the bank why should some of this money be taken from me?

[Venger]

Apart from the fact that this is what ought to have happened 6 years ago, i.e. the excess savings were wiped out but the politicians pretended they still existed to save their own skins, Zero Edge pumps out this sort of stuff whenever gold hits fresh lows.

ZH are bothered about a 10% fall in savings when gold has crashed 35%, silver 60%, and gold miners 70%.

Quite amusing really.......

?

so you think anyone should be able to deposit, say, £1m in a bank, and if that bank p1sses it up the wall lending it to, say, Spanish property developers, there should be zero consequences for the person lending money to the bank?

You think they should be made good 100% on those savings?

What is the basis for that argument?

If you buy a car you'll lose money. If you buy a house you can lose money. If you buy equities or bonds you can lose money. Why do you think the taxpayer must insure your savings 100% up to any value even if the bank you lend it to is sh1te?

The UK govt. doesn't agree with you by the way. It only insures £85k (under sufferance presently due to it being the EU limit) raised from £35k prior to the Irish bank collapse. As I'm sure you know the Treasury/BoE are looking at where this limit ought to be, and how to deal with uninsured deposits. BoE under King was very woolly on this imo. Tucker was more decisive, wanting a clear insured limit a priori. My sense is that they've decided to intentionally fudge it so they can make decisions as they arise rather than prescriptively.

I've not bought gold. silver, shares, a car ect. Well I have bought a cars and I accept their value depreciates. Savings in money form, and on deposit, is a unit of account. Not a car, silver, gold, the wonderful houses that are "not in a bubble" ect.

Money and savings in sterling/euros that is already vulnerable to exchange rate changes. I've been saving towards a house and am under the government protected guarantee limit.

There is only limited access to information to what I can decide a bank's risk profile. Never used Iceland accounts as not in UK and higher interest usually entails higher risk. The authorities / rating agencies should do most of that work. When it goes wrong, it's asset prices that should fall, and allow good money in.

For savers who've saved, not got heavily into debt, missed out on a house which have now almost quadrupled because of eagerness of others.... just rip up all the rules, that I've followed for years, as house prices rocketed away. Lock in the HPI. Yes?

How can you say house prices are not particularly over-valued in our area, encourage people to buy, talk about new rounds of reflation for house prices (you were right on that call since late 2008/09), and as I understand it, promote how good a scheme HTB1+2 is (might be wrong but that's my information)...... yet at the same time eagerly push the cause for savers to have their savings skimmed?

Defining Money and Credit

Money is a socially accepted medium of exchange, value storage and final payment. A specified amount of that medium also serves as a unit of account.

According to its two financial definitions, credit may be summarized as a right to access money. Credit can be held by the owner of the money, in the form of a warehouse receipt for a money deposit, which today is a checking account at a bank. Credit can also be transferred by the owner or by the owner's custodial institution to a borrower in exchange for a fee or fees - called interest - as specified in a repayment contract called a bond, note, bill or just plain IOU, which is debt. In today's economy, most credit is lent, so people often use the terms "credit" and "debt" interchangeably, as money lent by one entity is simultaneously money borrowed by another.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Venger