Depositors to bail out NZ banks?

[mashman]

Yes, rules and regulations do save people. The dispensing of medicines is reglated to protect people, medical procedures are regulated, land ownership is regulated, food safety is regulated, driving on our roads is regulated. That is how a society works, by establishing sets of rules and laws to knock off the rough edges of the unscrupulous.

The criticisms made are that all rules/regs become out of date, inefficient, difficult to implement or non-existant. Sometimes our leaders simply get it wrong - the elastic building regs which led to leaky homes is a classic example.

True, rules and regs are useful in many cases, well sensible process that is, and they do become out of date as the "unscrupulous" push the boundaries of the rules and in many cases lobby to have them changed. The only way we find out that they're out of date is by catching those who have pushed those boundaries too far. Tis just a shame that those boundary pushers are generally looking to save themselves money at the expense of others. In all honesty a sensible process shouldn't allow for any boundary pushing and should need absolute minimal tweaking to bring it up to date. Sorry, getting all unrealistic again .

[Banditbandit]

It's only the paper money which we associate with it that changes in value.

In a nutshell ... this is it ... it's all paper ... all a stack of paper waiting to fall when people decide it's just paper and not worth shit ...

[Akzle]

But going into people’s savings accounts; stealing their money; and handing it over to banks – is all hunky dory?

Well, I’m glad that’s settled.

you voted for it. suck it up.

Savings are what I have left after everyone else in the world has taken their part of the pie. My savings are mine, I have a bit of an issue with being taxed on the interest on what I've managed to scrape together over the years never mind making it available for thieving, robbing, scumbuckets that think they have a better use for it.

In short, my savings and my old body are all I have that I can call my own, so, John Key, the cypriot government, the Nazi party and anyother mofo that wants it can Feck off . Bail out the banks? bollocks!

unfortunately. out of everything you said and think you have, "your old body" is the sum total.

y'see, funny story, but you don't have "money" you may have accrued "legal tender" - but that aint worth shit, so you can just ignore it.
second, like, you've been representing a corporate fiction, to accrue said credit (/legal tender)
the bank account isn't yours (it's opened through your NAME), the paper isn't yours, the game isn't yours. so you loose, when they change the rules. you can tell them to fuck off all you like (believe me, i do) but when the dudes rock up in the holdens pointing glocks at you, to enforce government policy... who you gonna call?

Yeah .. just like the Nazis raided the Jewish Banks ... and bank accounts

yes, but jews invented ursury, which is pretty much the root cause of ALL THE SHIT that has happened since.
as a race, i believe the world would be better today if young adolf had succeeded in removing them.
there's a reason we put the on foot patrol in the desert for 4 decades, but the fuckers came back, and " 'murica, hoo rah!" gave their full support.
rothschilds, goldman sachs, rich jews, larry silverstein and his 5 billion dollar terrorist insurance (on property "worth less than 3") google this shit.
fucking jewry.

If the bank has no depositors because of risk of loss, wont said banks collapse from no collateral?
I confused. Savings will become extinct due to risk? Peps will live in fear of losing savings from a traditionally safe place.
Gold will go up, art, collectables, share market will come alive, nightly digs in the garden....

banks already suffer from a lack of collateral. in the form of: they don't fucking own anything - except the collateral provided by the sign-nature's of the millions of corporations (corporate fiction=legal person=the name on "your" driving license) and their collective promise to go and be slaves for the remainder of their life to fund the game of commerce.

good fucking deal.

if you want something worth anything - work out what is.
newton overvalued gold, the fed and the "commonwealth" snatched the gold off those untrustworthy subjects of the state, for, y'know, safekeeping, and now gold is "worth" 1800 USD an oz. compare with only 10 years ago when it was worth less than 200.
so... what's it worth? to me, fuckall, i can't eat it, it's no good for casting bullets and it's a bit of a waste to use as fishing sinkers.

what's changed?

Just for the sake of clarity, nobody has become rich from the GFC. There might be a few counter-cyclical investors who did well but they are rare.

no, but the 3 guys who bought 4 million dollar lambos don't seem to be feeling the pinch too much. bill gates is still paid 200$ PER SECOND to be alive.
but you're right. those poor, poor rich folk must really be suffering through the recession.

1: gold - the real stuff, in my hot hand, not dodgy paper certificates from some company

2: land - but only if not mortgaged

3: timber - a "growing" investment

consider that anything is only worth somewhere in between: what you're willing to sell it for, and; what someone is willing to pay for it. have all the gold you like, after they let the virus loose, i'll value my potatoes more.

second, like. you DO NOT OWN LAND.
in NZ
the crow retains alloidal TITLE, y9ou, at best, can "own" fee simple title.
which doesn't actually mean you own it. infact, there's all sorts of rules (vis "the crown"'s prior right/ higher title) ie, you must pay rates, you may not erect lightning rods, if you discover oil, you don't own it, you can't take groundwater, you can't collect roof water (true story, in some places, because some dick came up with "you're stopping the water from going into the ground, fucking up the eco system (as if the 20 truckloads of concrete, tonneage of wood, paint and other house-ly things is so good for the environment))

so yes. you don't own land. ever.

isnt this how it is supposed to work anyway?Ie the bank lensds you some money cos they actually have some money to lend.Not some speculative thing that its all just figures written on a balance sheet?

bahahahahahhahhaha

The property/houses are the tangible asset (product).

perpetrated by buying up the worthless loan bundles for 10 cents on the dollar to acquire many of the underlying products

You do know that this is all very legal and is actively supported by international govts in exchange for access to loans from the world central banks (which are paid for by enslaving us taxpayers to pay back exorbitant rates of interest on top of the loan itself).

I swear that we are the dumbest motherfucking animal on the planet.

:drinksin:
1) as above
2) similar to above, but that again, the banks only ever hold title, the position people subjugate themselves to as a mortgagee, is that of a semi-interested party, with fuckall rights, and a stack of obligations to stand-under, due to the bankers lien. which goes against the title, before you sign for it.
technically, when the mortgage is up, the lien is removed, in practice, fuck knows.
3) i do know that.
4) as a whole, "good society" - yes, they are. as thinking individuals, some of us are quite neat.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Scheme in the US did work but only because the government stood behind it with more funds. *borrowed from china

The idea of a guarantee is good but there is a problem - the guaranteeing insurance company/fund can go broke itself.

"crown underwriting" and re-insurance.
making money off money off money (none of which exists and all comes at the expense of the denizens' sweat)
y'know in anti-jewism/ islam, that shit's illegal?

Yes, plenty of us do know this stuff. Not the average person admittedly but then why should they?

The thing is our financial system has been in place and evolved over the past 800 years when commerce between nations got started. It ain't going to change. I think there have been four recessions in my lifetime and the recoveries have always led to a better quality of life for most people.

why should they? don't know. if your society tells you you're expected to spend the best 40 years of your life slaving "for the good of the nation", shouldn't you be allowed to ask why?

i don't think much "evolution" has happened, quite teh contrary like, devolution, well, for the average dick and jane, the rich jews are still rich.

a better quality of life? rly? by what fucking yardstick is this? have you seen the poverty in this country?
(comparatively speaking, but NZ is touted as a socialist state and a "first world nation", which is BS with the amount of homeless et al.)

No no no.

There are very strict rules around mortgagee sales. Any money left after the mortgagee is repaid goes to the mortgagor (owner). That is extremely rare because by that time the debt is way above the sale value.

no. no. no.

as above, it's all title and liens, there is no "owner"
and bascially, GFY, when "the bank" wants to take your shit.

(commercial banks) by imposing rules that may greatly reduce the ability of banks to carry out their total range of business which isn't just lending.

there is no lending. they don't have anything to lend. lending you someone elses money would be unlawful, without that person's agreement.

when you get a loan/ "mortgage", they make that shit up, your SIGNATURE creates the "credit" (debt)

fucking neat deal eh? my signature is worth as much as house (if i was part of your society) fucking sign some traffic infringement notices and shit, get rid of them.

and, as above, the account is opened through "your name", it really, really, is a big game, this commerce. the government is banking on you.

This is the reality of our "new world" and it isn't going to change coz the financial system can't be allowed to fail.

The authorities can't monitor everyone... well they could but that'd be a hell of a world to live in (and is)... and if you are (or "own") the authorities, then who's monitoring you?

i seriously think it wont be too long before micro chipping at birth (for poor people, which is you all) - everything can be linked to the one account, your pay, your fines, court stuff, the cops wont even need to pull you over, just drive past a microwave scanner and *bing* it's racked up to your corporate account. tax, work, everything "so easy". go shopping, don't need cashiers, again, an RFID reader at the door...

and the authorities don't need to monitor everyone - just the one's making noise about their silent black helicopters and using tinfoil hats to prevent brain-scanning and thought control (or any dissident, really) keep them under the thumb (poor) and that'll scare the middle class enough to keep turning up for work, they get paid, you get a puppy, everyone's happy. innit.

[mashman]

i seriously think it wont be too long before micro chipping at birth (for poor people, which is you all) - everything can be linked to the one account, your pay, your fines, court stuff, the cops wont even need to pull you over, just drive past a microwave scanner and *bing* it's racked up to your corporate account. tax, work, everything "so easy". go shopping, don't need cashiers, again, an RFID reader at the door...

and the authorities don't need to monitor everyone - just the one's making noise about their silent black helicopters and using tinfoil hats to prevent brain-scanning and thought control (or any dissident, really) keep them under the thumb (poor) and that'll scare the middle class enough to keep turning up for work, they get paid, you get a puppy, everyone's happy. innit.
[/COLOR]

Aye, it'll likely be socially justifiable at some point or other. I often wondered if it would come in the guise of preventing terrorism. If you ain't chipped, then you'll be tagged as a terrorist. Why else would you not be chipped? Praps it'll be Minority Report styleez, dunno, but I agree, something is gonna be put in place to keep the good people being good people.

It was reported to me a couple of months ago that tin foil hats would actually amplify thoughts and not dampen them. Some nerdy stoners proveded it supposedly. The kids'll be happy getting a puppy, they've always wanted one, but I shan't, not whilst we line in concrete jungle.

[Zedder]

[QUOTE=Akzle;1130521022][COLOR="#139922"]there is no lending. they don't have anything to lend. lending you someone elses money would be unlawful, without that person's agreement.

when you get a loan/ "mortgage", they make that shit up, your SIGNATURE creates the "credit" (debt)

fucking neat deal eh? my signature is worth as much as house (if i was part of your society) fucking sign some traffic infringement notices and shit, get rid of them.

and, as above, the account is opened through "your name", it really, really, is a big game, this commerce. the government is banking on you.



Do some reading about Fractional Reserve Banking.

[Akzle]

@flying croc
how would it not work like that in nz? you register a live berth, (incorporate the corpse) and play the game of commerce, it's all world banks now-a-daze, the slave system is alive and well down under.

[Akzle]

Do some reading about Fractional Reserve Banking.

why the fuck would i read about that shit. i've read too much shit. my head is full of shit (cue maha, he's not that clever and needs this shit handed to him.)

the whole thing has to come back to there is no money. they're not lending anything. (fractional deposit lending=frb) the "wealth" they're lending against: DOESN'T EXIST.
and THEY'RE NOT LENDING ANYTHING.
they're creating "credit" (debt) against your corporate person's ledger.

YOU, acting as the corporate person, are actually creating the "wealth" they're gambling with.
(unfortunately you don't get a say, as teh "legal"-enators get to make decisions about their legal tender. how and where it's used, what you can and can't buy with it, how much (as a %) must be payed back to the legal-enators ("the crown") for the priviledge of using their legal tender paper currency shiite.)

good fucking deal.

[Zedder]

why the fuck would i read about that shit. i've read too much shit. my head is full of shit (cue maha, he's not that clever and needs this shit handed to him.)

the whole thing has to come back to there is no money. they're not lending anything. (fractional deposit lending=frb) the "wealth" they're lending against: DOESN'T EXIST.
and THEY'RE NOT LENDING ANYTHING.
they're creating "credit" (debt) against your corporate person's ledger.

YOU, acting as the corporate person, are actually creating the "wealth" they're gambling with.
(unfortunately you don't get a say, as teh "legal"-enators get to make decisions about their legal tender. how and where it's used, what you can and can't buy with it, how much (as a %) must be payed back to the legal-enators ("the crown") for the priviledge of using their legal tender paper currency shiite.)

good fucking deal.

Well if you don't want to read about the "shit" then at least lay off the drugs which may cure the "shit" in your head.

As for the other things you wrote about, I'll leave it for the others to respond 'cos it's hard to write while laughing so much...

[Winston001]

Here is an extremely shortened explanation of Basel III.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...he-main-points

The objective is to require banks to have enough investments in reserve that a run on the banks will not cause a collapse. As Zedder has said, some banks are not happy because establishing proper Tier I, Tier II, and Tier II reserves means the banks are (in their opinion) severely restricted in the amount they can lend.

Frankly given the fiasco in world banking - the current Cypriot panic is an object lesson - the sooner banks move to a conservative position, the better off we will all be.

In fairness the Australian (and NZ) banks are above all of this because they adopted careful policies before the GFC.

[Zedder]

Here is an extremely shortened explanation of Basel III.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...he-main-points

The objective is to require banks to have enough investments in reserve that a run on the banks will not cause a collapse. As Zedder has said, some banks are not happy because establishing proper Tier I, Tier II, and Tier II reserves means the banks are (in their opinion) severely restricted in the amount they can lend.

Frankly given the fiasco in world banking - the current Cypriot panic is an object lesson - the sooner banks move to a conservative position, the better off we will all be.

In fairness the Australian (and NZ) banks are above all of this because they adopted careful policies before the GFC.

I actually wrote about some bankers fearing the new Basel III rules "may greatly restrict the ability of banks to carry out their total range of business which isn't just lending."

[Naki Rat]

No, the "products" were subprime mortgages which were sold then on-sold then on-sold etc.

Look up Credit Default Swaps and Collateral Debt Obligations if you're interested, I'm off for a motorbike ride.

Or get hold of a copy of The Big Short by Michael Lewis. His take on how the GFC came about is an interesting read, and worrying due to the lessons that it is now obvious have still not been learnt in many cases

This interview with Rod Oram on Nat Radio yesterday is one of the most straight shooting views of the Open Bank Resolution I have heard. OBR from about 5:00 minutes in but the GDP discussion prior is worth listening to as background info.

[Akzle]

Well if you don't want to read about the "shit" then at least lay off the drugs which may cure the "shit" in your head.

err, in a nutshell, the banks must have a certain amount, say a fraction of a relativistic percent, of pretending stuff, before they can pretend to give you pretending stuff?

what did i miss?

... Michael Lewis. His take on how the GFC came about is an interesting read, and worrying due to the lessons that it is now obvious have still not been learnt in many cases ...

did it inklude learnign teh correkt speeling of learned?

[Zedder]

Or get hold of a copy of The Big Short by Michael Lewis. His take on how the GFC came about is an interesting read, and worrying due to the lessons that it is now obvious have still not been learnt in many cases

This interview with Rod Oram on Nat Radio yesterday is one of the most straight shooting views of the Open Bank Resolution I have heard. OBR from about 5:00 minutes in but the GDP discussion prior is worth listening to as background info.

Good interview alright, I like his articles too. Cheers.

[Twiglet]

So ditch your foreign owned high street bank, join a NZ owned and operated credit union instead. Credit unions are cooperatives - owned by the customer with full bank services. http://www.nzacu.org.nz/

[jonbuoy]

Here is an extremely shortened explanation of Basel III.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...he-main-points

The objective is to require banks to have enough investments in reserve that a run on the banks will not cause a collapse. As Zedder has said, some banks are not happy because establishing proper Tier I, Tier II, and Tier II reserves means the banks are (in their opinion) severely restricted in the amount they can lend.

Frankly given the fiasco in world banking - the current Cypriot panic is an object lesson - the sooner banks move to a conservative position, the better off we will all be.

In fairness the Australian (and NZ) banks are above all of this because they adopted careful policies before the GFC.

It's all sensible lending as long as house prices keep rising. I don't think any country can escape the effects of the GFC. If house prices fall in NZ or AU the banks will have toxic debt. EU and US are Chinas biggest customer- has to have a knock on effect.