It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by watcher3339
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
I kind of feel like they are either being very cautious or they think a big one could be about to fall. Was the JP Morgan silver shorting situation ever resolved? They are also drawing a lot of Federal attention right now....
I guess that I would like to think that smaller, more local banks (where they still exist) are safer. That they are safer both because of the types of products they have pushed and the types of investment positions that they have taken. Then, their size alone indicates that FDIC would be able to cover a smaller bank if it were an isolated situation. But the big guys....They are all overlapped in investments and if one goes it could have a very negative impact on others.
The U.S. has done a lot of stress testing so I would like to hope that things are in better shape than in 2008 but the regulations have *shifted*. The legal links have been put in place to say that FDIC doesn't apply in certain situations. And FDIC is now per person rather than per institution. So those with a lot of money are on the front lines to lose but that doesn't mean that others aren't right there with them. It also seems as if the new regulations would encourage the rich to place their money elsewhere. So, they become one of the investors in the derivatives and are better protected than Dick and Jane with 14K in the bank. And perhaps the rich -- who pay people to follow these things for them, are moving their money. They buy more stock -- market has been doing well during the same time period that these regulatory changes are phasing in to place. April 1 is the new FDIC day, it is the no physical gold from the Dutch day, and it comes hot on the heels of an holiday weekend in most of the Western world. Funny how all the big stuff hits at holidays.
You make some great points here. The BRICS nations are forming a bank right now to compete with the IMF... the writing is indeed on the wall
Originally posted by watcher3339
reply to post by frazzle
I agree with you about a lot of the back story. I think China is going to run with us though. I have no proof whatsoever for this but I tend to think that their "special economic zones" and our agreement to let them pretty much run rampant through Africa is the real cost of our loan. Also, they are to take our side politically with North Korea. This is just my gut feeling from current events and the way the tide of our relationship and some of their currency comments (anti dollar versus pro dollar) have evolved over time. I could totally be wrong though!
Originally posted by sasquatch5100
reply to post by frazzle
So the BRIC's put a currency together for themselves. Europe already has that. USD will be in trouble soon with all the printing. When the dust settles this time will the world be left with maybe 4 or 5 baskets of currencies for the whole planet? Then in a generation it happens again and those currencies are eliminated for the "one world currency?" Hmmm
Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by sasquatch5100
reply to post by frazzle
So the BRIC's put a currency together for themselves. Europe already has that. USD will be in trouble soon with all the printing. When the dust settles this time will the world be left with maybe 4 or 5 baskets of currencies for the whole planet? Then in a generation it happens again and those currencies are eliminated for the "one world currency?" Hmmm
I would first want to know if the currency being created by BRICS is based on usury and I don't know the answer that question. If not, it will be 100% better than the dollar or the euro, at least for the PEOPLE. If they stick with loaning money at interest, the new currency won't last any longer than the dollar or the euro, they are both Ponzi schemes and cannot NOT fail.
buy silver
Originally posted by IntelRetard
This happens in almost every decade (banks going under). Check to see if your bank is FDIC insured. Even if it is you better have some money tucked away while the bank is annexed by another and the doors get reopened.edit on 29-3-2013 by IntelRetard because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
The FDIC is a fraud. They have $30 Billion and a $100 Billion credit line... to insure $10 TRILLION in deposits. I wonder how that will work out
So you are expecting a 100% thieving of all US deposits, by all banks, simultaneously? I find that highly unlikely as even being remotely possible.
Anyway, the point is, that the article says that UNSECURED deposits were what was at risk for being stolen, which I believe means money that is over the 250k insured limit. Which means that if you do NOT have over 250k in the bank, you are not at risk based on this specific development.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so the website that sells gold and silver is saying we should buy gold and silver
k
Originally posted by watcher3339
reply to post by frazzle
I guess I think we are getting China because the plays are moving too fast. China is holding too many dollars to go against us. 2 Years from now? I think that they might have been able to unload it by then if that was their point, but for now they are holding and owed enough dollars in a scheme that is moving so fast that I think we have their cooperation. Though, it would not at all surprise me to see it go Cold War style after that time. I have in other threads absolutely considered that China/Russia/Iran/Pakistan/and North Korea would side together. Multiple nuclear powers, tech heads, and oil and natural gas...not a hand I would like to have to play against. So, perhaps it is just optimism that makes me think some of their recent commentary sounds like a decision has been reached to not go against us --at this time.
So you are expecting a 100% thieving of all US deposits, by all banks, simultaneously? I find that highly unlikely as even being remotely possible.
Anyway, the point is, that the article says that UNSECURED deposits were what was at risk for being stolen, which I believe means money that is over the 250k insured limit. Which means that if you do NOT have over 250k in the bank, you are not at risk based on this specific development.