Canadian banks: Legalized bandidos
By Jane Gaffin
Government documents are masterminded by professional con-artist word jockeys who intentionally frustrate the general public's comprehension with Orwellian Doublespeak. I faced this dilemma when trying to make sense out of the rosy-sounding "Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity, an Economic Action Plan 2013" that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled in the House of Commons on March 21.
The 433 pages of verbiage calls for implementing a comprehensive risk management framework for Canada's systemically important banks in the "unlikely" event that "one of" the banks "becomes non-viable".
I would have simplified the last part to read: "...in the ‘given' event that the banks ‘crash'", which is evidently the expected outcome.
The signs are hovering all around Canada as banks of the Western World grapple with financial disasters. After the bankruptcies, the six big U.S. central banks that created the shambles step over the rubble with a "Hi, we're here to bail you out".
Only the Economic Action Plan doesn't mention the passé term "bail out". Instead, it discusses "bail in", the current bureaucratic cover-up for robbing customer accounts! "The Government proposes to implement a ‘bail-in' regime for systemically important banks...This will reduce risks for taxpayers. The Government will consult stakeholders on how best to implement a ‘bail-in' regime in Canada."
What's the difference between "account holders" and "taxpayers"? Not much, except the government can extort bank accounts faster than it can taxes.
As the "legal right" for banks to burglarize customers' deposits becomes standard practice in the Western World, the institutions don't bother any more to cloak their chutzpah with lame excuses about inflation, unpaid debts, bad business decisions and international investment bungles.
Dollar Vigilante financial analyst Jeff Berwick's interpretation is that: "...this governmentguaranteed ability to raid deposits will make the banks act more recklessly and also guarantee that the deposits will be raided."
Why would banks earning billions of dollars in profits every year and rewarding top brass with million-dollar annual bonuses need either "bail outs" or "bail ins"?
I suspect it's a protective shield should the Canadian banks lose playing risky gambling games, or if the Bank of International Settlements reneges on debts because too much funny money is circulating in the artificial marketplace, exacerbated by the BitCoin. Another factor is that some 20 years ago the United Nations decided everybody should be afforded the dignity of owning a house. Interest rates were low. And banks were forced to hold mortgages and approve loans even when the jobless, debt-ridden borrower obviously couldn't repay.
Another interesting tidbit from the Economic Plan says: "Canada's large banks are a source of strength for the Canadian economy. Our large banks have become increasingly successful in international markets..." (page 144).
Indeed, the banks have been endowed with a large digital money supply (they want more) to compete with the Big Boys in the high-stake global financial markets, especially gambling on corrupt derivatives, a perfect place to lose both their shirt and shorts.
No amount of resources will stop the global central bank vultures from quickly picking Canada's carcass too clean to even do an autopsy. Doesn't matter. The account holders are on the line to provide a full "bail in" rescue.
Mr. Berwick stressed that fact in his article titled "Canadian Deposits As Safe As Cypriot Deposits": "The big banks in Canada will get to take on enormous risks in pursuit of greater profits for themselves without having to worry about their losses."
He further cautioned that: "After all, any losses will now be covered by the bank customers money that they put in there with the crazy notion that it would be safe from theft."
Another Economic Plan nugget states: "The Government also recognizes the need to manage the risks associated with... those banks whose distress or failure could cause a disruption to the financial system and, in turn, negative impacts on the economy. "This requires strong prudential oversight and a robust set of options for resolving these institutions without the use of taxpayer funds..."
A while back, economist Mark Carney, an international superstar and outgoing Bank of Canada governor, rang alarm bells over extreme individual household debt, the kind that banks lured low-income people into with easy credit.
Economists have harped about the more than 10 years that household spending has exceeded disposable income, leaving consumers so far in hock they can't repay loans, and the "too-big-to-fail" banks are overextended with risky loans.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the banks are culpable for their own misdeeds. But it's the no-fault customers who are penalized with mopping up the mess.
The debt build-up "is going to end in tears", Chief TD economist Craig Alexander once predicted. News Flash! It's going to end in a lot worse than tears.
The best two-step method for freezing society dead in its tracks and destroying the middle class is to first seize all the people's money and safety deposit boxes, then confiscate their real property, most of which the banks own.
Canada has cunningly provided an Economic Plan that is a dead-ringer for establishing the United Nations' dream of a totalitarian nightmare. The mass population will be instantly paralyzed serfs put at the mercy of complete government control. Carney's legacy, before accepting his new role as Bank of England's governor on June 1, was to order the banks to rein in student loans, auto loans, credit card debts, mortgages and anything else on the books.
Obviously, he meant by hook or by crook. Yet most bank managers and frontline employees seem unaware--or do not want to reveal--that new strategically-located theft departments were set up covertly more than a year ago.
It is hard to get one's mind wrapped around the possibility of a bank failure since Canada's banking system is the darling of the world.
Its top rating appears to be attributable to regulation by a federal government that also controls an endless supply of taxpayers' dollars and is the proud owner of a printing press. It also operates a sophisticated computer system, designed to divvy out digital dollars and run hacker software to commit larceny without leaving telltale fingerprints. The only logical reason I can figure for an anticipated bank failure here would be by rogue design.
For many years, Canada's five major banks have yearned to merge capital into two mega-banks. So far, administrations have rejected the request. Something to do with prudence and a pesky Bank Act. Regardless of what is currently transpiring behind closed doors in Ottawa, Canadians, raised on ideals that banks are honest, are far from ready to accept the thought that they may be dealing with a bunch of bandidos.
However, many Canadians and Americans, already stung with account seizures and daily withdrawal restrictions, have turned to credit unions.
I can't vouch for credit unions, but a knowing senior teller once advised me: "If you don't want banks seizing your money don't leave money in your accounts."
It is still in vogue, however, that if customers catch a "careless" or "manipulated" mistake and complain loudly, the banks usually will reimburse the account so not to draw attention to the truth.
Nevertheless, banks prey on negligent customers who have come to depend entirely on direct deposits, automatic payments, credit and debit card transactions. Customers who don't keep ATM and debit card receipts, don't review monthly credit card and bank statements, and don't reconcile personal records are particularly vulnerable to surprise thefts.
Gerald Celente, a New York-based Trends Forecaster and gold broker who's been fleeced by financial institutions to the tune of six figures, keeps reiterating: "If your money is not in your pocket, you don't own it."
Jane Gaffin is a freelance writer living in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada and can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.