Warning: Banks Are Seriously Discussing Negative Interest Rates For Normal People's Savings

a reply to: infolurker

Good for them, just another reason NOT to keep my money with them.

#ing criminals...

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: infolurker

Or we could eliminate the central banks and all the imaginary money they created along with the BS debt.

These people are criminally insane. Or insane criminals if you like.

Private Central Banks are the problem. Eliminating them is the solution.

the solution doesn't have a chance...too entrenched, with too much financial power...the 2008 financial collapse was caused by totally unregulated derivative investments....to this day, it is STILL unregulated, and not one wall street banker has went to prison. in fact, many are still running the same institutions or different financial companies today.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

www.truth-out.org...

The real writing on the wall is how the western nations sold out their people to the Banks - You think Cyprus haircuts were bad - you ain't seen nothing yet

New G20 Rules: Cyprus-Style Bail-Ins to Hit Depositors and Pensioners
Tuesday, 02 December 2014 10:17
By Ellen Brown, The Web of Debt Blog | News Analysis
font size decrease font size increase font size Print
2014.12.2.G20.Main
World leaders meet at the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, November 15, 2014. (Photo: Palazzo Chigi / Flickr)

On the weekend of November 16, the G20 leaders whisked into Brisbane, posed for their photo ops, approved some proposals, made a show of roundly disapproving of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and whisked out again. It was all so fast, they may not have known what they were endorsing when they rubber-stamped the Financial Stability Board’s “Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution,” which completely changes the rules of banking.

Russell Napier, writing in ZeroHedge, called it “the day money died.” In any case, it may have been the day deposits died as money. Unlike coins and paper bills, which cannot be written down or given a “haircut,” says Napier, deposits are now “just part of commercial banks’ capital structure.” That means they can be “bailed in” or confiscated to save the megabanks from derivative bets gone wrong.

Rather than reining in the massive and risky derivatives casino, the new rules prioritize the payment of banks’ derivatives obligations to each other, ahead of everyone else. That includes not only depositors, public and private, but the pension funds that are the target market for the latest bail-in play, called “bail-inable” bonds.

“Bail in” has been sold as avoiding future government bailouts and eliminating too big to fail (TBTF). But it actually institutionalizes TBTF, since the big banks are kept in business by expropriating the funds of their creditors.

It is a neat solution for bankers and politicians, who don’t want to have to deal with another messy banking crisis and are happy to see it disposed of by statute. But a bail-in could have worse consequences than a bailout for the public. If your taxes go up, you will probably still be able to pay the bills. If your bank account or pension gets wiped out, you could wind up in the street or sharing food with your pets.

a reply to: infolurker

What it always boils down to is making having cash look bad. They can't track cash purchases, and stick their noses into our business if we use mostly cash, and those on power can't stand that.

You can Not fly with a lot of money on you.
if the cops stop you and you have a lot of money.
some take it off you and keep it.
I bet they do it if they find lots of money in your home.
Why? if its your money?
they say you May be a terroist or criminal!

a reply to: texasyeti

I was going to say that same thing. In fact I really dont understand how the masses havent figured out yet that credit unions are a solution and have been for awhile.

I would rather be a member than just a simple customer at a bank.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
from www.forbes.com...

If You Want To Know The Real Rate Of Inflation, Don't Bother With The CPI

I've written about this here before. Since the reforms to CPI in 1982 which Reagan implemented in order to stop the runaway on paper inflation rate, we've essentially just been tabulating it different while not actually addressing the problem. The result is that because the on paper inflation rate has been lower, wages and such have gone off of that rate while the cost of goods themselves are reacting to the real inflation rate.

Prior to the reforms we calculated the change in the cost of goods from year to year like this:
Year 1 - $6 buys you 3 sandwiches at $2 a piece
Year 2 - $6 buys you 2 sandwiches at $3 a piece

We can say the cost of sandwiches went up by 50% so the rate of inflation is 50%. That's not how we calculate inflation now though. Instead inflation is tracked by the change in cost of total expenditures from year to year. So to use the above example, because you spend $6 on sandwiches in year 1 and $6 on sandwiches in year 2 there was a 0% change in your expenses so the inflation rate is 0%. It's absurd, but that's how it's calculated.

Even more absurd is that the formulas used to calculate CPI this way are not public information, only a handful of people have access to the information used to calculate the typical basket of goods used to determine the inflation rate. Which means that not only are we using a screwed up system to calculate it, but that even the screwed up system might not be based in reality.

In your article the "changing how inflation is calculated" isn't really changing the method, but rather changing the basket of goods.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: infolurker

Cashless society along with the micro chipped or barcoded human will be the installation of the Global totalitarian distopian nightmare that NWO conspiracy theorists have prophesied about for decades.

OMG, if we were microchipped or barcoded they could verify ID when we vote. So that will never happen.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
OMG, if we were microchipped or barcoded they could verify ID when we vote. So that will never happen.

There's a much better way to handle voting that makes voter ID completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure people much smarter than me have thought of better systems but here's one I came up with. I'll just leave the link since it's pretty off topic to this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This scenario is more likely to occur in countries like Switzerland, Israel and Japan where the Central banks are already flirting with basically free central bank loans to member banks.

Usually when a nations central bank raises interest rates their currency rises in value.

The obvious solution would be to use the balance of your savings account to buy a more favorable foreign currency, or invest in a fund that was priced in that appreciating currency.

Given the nature of modern connected global markets perhaps traditional "savings accounts" will become just a new smart phone App that seamlessly drags and drops your money bag icon into the best forex ETF.

I suppose they could MAKE us use wheel barrows.

If they do such a thing there will be bank runs. I wold certainly pull my money out of any bank charging negative interest on my accounts.

originally posted by: asmall89
If they do such a thing there will be bank runs. I wold certainly pull my money out of any bank charging negative interest on my accounts.

Any attempt at negative interest rates requires removing cash from the system so that you can't pull your money out of the banks, you can at best move it to a credit union, but even they too will offer negative interest rates because treasury rates will be set to negative.

originally posted by: infolurker
A nice insidious way to justify doing away with cash. Long article, a few highlights below. But they are openly discussing it publicly, which means they already have a plan.

www.businessinsider.com...

The problem then becomes whether consumers would actually spend their withdrawn cash or hoard it physically. Hoarding would have several weird distorting effects on society, including a new incentive for burglars to loot houses looking for piles of money under mattresses. So further harsh policies that would restrict consumer access to cash might need to be imposed.

If central banks were faced by deposit withdrawals, a less radical alternative could be to impose controls on cash withdrawals. Given the potential social and political problems arising from such a policy, thresholds could be set sufficiently high to encompass only very high net worth individuals. Some European nations have already announced restrictions on large cash purchases and monitoring of cash withdrawals to combat illegal economic activity.

'Tax currency holding ... or abolish it altogether.'

That sounds extreme. But Haldane is not the only central banker wondering whether it might be the next step. In a speech in May, titled "How binding is the zero lower bound?," Benoît Cœuré of the ECB said banks may either have to tax physical cash or ban it:

... perhaps the most prominent proposal is to either to tax currency holding à la Gesell [an economist who invented the idea of negative interest] or abolish it altogether, and hence to remove the arbitrage between bonds and cash. One can indeed imagine several advantages associated with such a policy, on top of pushing the lower bound further into negative territory. For example, tax on cash can act like a tax on illegal activities and would foster greater transparency. In addition, we could economise on the costs of storage and use of currency, which are not insignificant.

Notice that after the Clarlie Hebdo thing in france, the French PM said they need to move to a cashless society as soon as possible? Perhaps this is why?

First some evidence of this statement - Small denomination notes are intended to be a disincentive to use cash. Ever wonder why there no bigger notes than $100 notes? Given inflation over the years since the $100 note first came out, one would expect to a see $500 or even $1,000 notes getting about.

A cashless economy means that you will never be able to keep your money anywhere other than in a bank. Hence, those bail in laws.

It also makes it impossible for you to put a little money in jar in a cupboard in case of an emergency.

Cashless enables central banks to impose negative interest rates in hard times because you can’t take your money out of the bank for safe keeping, that is, without it costing you.

Cashless means there will be no ‘run’ on the banks. It works like this. Suppose the govt or the bank imposes a withdrawal tax of 10% and limits withdrawals. It means they can then push interest rates into negative territory because you will then choose to lend money out at negative -5 or -6% because that’s less than the 10% withdrawal tax is'nt it?

Gotcha by the short and curleys.

Legalising street drugs will be the sign they are clearing the way for a cashless economy.

If I have auto deposit from my employer into my bank account and I use just my debit card to buy things, as a consumer I have created a cashless way of operating, however I still need an account for that money to go into and come out of.
I don't mind if don't get interest on that account but I am not paying the bank to hold my money with ludicrous negative interest rates. I would pull it all out and go with one of the many credit unions, we have other options.
Banks with credit unions in their area would be stupid to try this.

originally posted by: darkbake
Banks make money off of the money we give them to store, that is how a banking system works. It only makes sense that they pay an interest rate to the customer as a payment in return. Forcing negative interest rates is insanely unethical. So unethical, in fact, that people would simply take their money out of the bank - but the banks are going to deal with this, too by trying to get rid of cash. That would force people to spend the money with their debit cards, but they could still hoard physical objects like houses for example.

You beat me to it.

Physical currency doesn't carry a surcharge or a fee, so naturally the big wigs would want to eliminate physical currency. Online shopping is only going to exacerbate the problem as they require electronic transactions-and in the future you will be charged exorbitant fees for every online transaction because we all do it.

On the plus side if we revert back to physical currency it could help keep local businesses' heads above water.

originally posted by: asmall89
If they do such a thing there will be bank runs. I wold certainly pull my money out of any bank charging negative interest on my accounts.

Maybe there will be successful bank runs in other countries, but certainly not in the USA. I talked about this in my earlier post, please take a look at it again.

In the USA the government has the power to simply make certain actions illegal on a whim because unlike Europe, we have no real consumer, civil or labor protections. This also doesn't account for the private banks just outright refusing to give you your money, on bank run day, requiring you to attempt to press charges against them or suing, in hopes of successfully gaining access to your funds in the far future.

But the reality is, if, bank runs become a possible reality, the private banks will know well in advance and will have taken all the physical cash out of the local bank locations, before the public becomes aware. The government will also make carrying cash over a certain amount illegal, say something like, no more than $100 physical cash on your person, inside residences, private storage, vehicles or business locations.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: boohoo
I am surprised your analysis hasn't received more stars, very prescient

Take a look at some of my other posts on ATS and you'll find this happens to me quite a bit (with few replies to many of my posts as well). Its seems there are many people that have not taken a liking to my analysis of the current state of the USA and the legal foundation that will lead us into future guided solely by Fascist and Feudalistic policy.

a reply to: infolurker

Working in retail over the years this doesn't surprise me...thanks to the Patriot Act we have a limit on how much a cash transaction can be in almost all retail stores, anything over a certain amount (a few thousand) in cash, or the purchase of over $1000 in gift cards results in a report to the department of homeland security.
Now many stores offer not only a credit card, but even a debit linked card...Nordstrom and Target for example both have cards that aren't credit cards, but pull from your checking account like a regular ATM card...the point being that you earn rewards from that store...When I worked at Nordstrom they actually told us that the Dept of Homeland Security suggested to Nordstrom they offer this card to persuade people to not use cash, because they cannot track cash, but can track purchases made on a card.

Basically the government thinks we're all terrorists, all the while letting real terrorists pour into this country

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
You beat me to it.

Physical currency doesn't carry a surcharge or a fee, so naturally the big wigs would want to eliminate physical currency. Online shopping is only going to exacerbate the problem as they require electronic transactions-and in the future you will be charged exorbitant fees for every online transaction because we all do it.

Actually, it does. Cash depreciates at a rate equal to the real inflation rate. If you store $100,000 in your mattress it is going to be worth significantly less 30 years from now than it is worth today.

originally posted by: boohoo
In the USA the government has the power to simply make certain actions illegal on a whim because unlike Europe, we have no real consumer, civil or labor protections. This also doesn't account for the private banks just outright refusing to give you your money, on bank run day, requiring you to attempt to press charges against them or suing, in hopes of successfully gaining access to your funds in the far future.

If a bank run happens and FDIC fails (which it's almost guaranteed to do in a major crash), they will probably reimburse each account up to $X rather than the $250,000 they claim they will cover. What this means is, don't cap your accounts at $250,000. Cap them at something much less like $10,000 on the assumption that that's all FDIC will insure. Nothing says you can't have a bunch of bank accounts.

a reply to: infolurker

Interesting that some banks (private companies) could make a tax(??) on the people in general. Think about that for a minute.

So what's next? Walmart makes a tax on the general public because it didn't meet it's quarterly earnings; reasoning people aren't buying from them and therefore are not contributing their part to sustaining our economy with Walmart jobs, and inversely contributing to homelessness and crime?

Besides,if they could convince legislatures, how would this apply to those who don't bank?

Keep the interest rates so low for years, and when another recession looms they don't have any direction to go but down.