Hang Onto Your Wallets: Negative Interest, the War on Cash, and the $10 Trillion Bail-in

www.commondreams.org...

Banks used to make their living securing deposits, investing those funds and making a profit. They returned a portion of the proceeds directly to depositors as interest to encourage further deposits. The interest rates on 'savings' have declined over the last forty years while during the same period the banks revenues (based on OUR deposits) have increased at a rapid pace.

Banks used to provide service to it's depositors as additional 'return on investment'. That's about to change with the introduction of "negative interest" as outlined by Ellen Brown (www.webofdebt.com...) in the referenced article.

The subtitle:

In uncertain times, “cash is king,” but central bankers are systematically moving to eliminate that option. Is it really about stimulating the economy? Or is there some deeper, darker threat afoot?

Four European central banks – the European Central Bank, the Swiss National Bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, and Denmark’s Nationalbank – have now imposed negative interest rates on the reserves they hold for commercial banks; and discussion has turned to whether it’s time to pass those costs on to consumers. The Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve are still at ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy), but several Fed officials have also begun calling for NIRP (negative rates).

The stated justification for this move is to stimulate “demand” by forcing consumers to withdraw their money and go shopping with it. When an economy is struggling, it is standard practice for a central bank to cut interest rates, making saving less attractive. This is supposed to boost spending and kick-start an economic recovery.

The problem with imposing negative interest on savers, as explained in the UK Telegraph, is that “there’s a limit, what economists called the ‘zero lower bound’. Cut rates too deeply, and savers would end up facing negative returns. In that case, this could encourage people to take their savings out of the bank and hoard them in cash. This could slow, rather than boost, the economy.”

Again, to the ordinary observer, this would seem to signal that negative interest rates won’t work and the approach needs to be abandoned. But not to our undaunted central bankers, who have chosen instead to plug this hole in their leaky theory by moving to eliminate cash as an option. If your only choice is to keep your money in a digital account in a bank and spend it with a bank card or credit card or checks, negative interest can be imposed with impunity. This is already happening in Sweden, and other countries are close behind.

As always Ms Brown has loaded her piece with a treasure-trove of information in easily understandable language and style.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Just had to add another quote:

The scheme to impose negative interest and eliminate cash seems so unlikely to stimulate the economy that one wonders if that is the real motive. Stopping tax evaders and terrorists (real or presumed) are other proposed justifications for going cashless. Economist Martin Armstrong goes further and suggests that the goal is to gain totalitarian control over our money. In a cashless society, our savings can be taxed away by the banks; the threat of bank runs by worried savers can be eliminated; and the too-big-to-fail banks can be assured that ample deposits will be there when they need to confiscate them through bail-ins to stay afloat.

The comments are worth reading as well.

a reply to: FyreByrd

First Flag and star, Fyrebird! There is the reason to do as little
business with thieves and other repugnant flavor of scoundrels.
It should also be enough to induce anyone with a couple viable
synapses left to rub together to remove their savings from ALL
of the banks.

It doesn''t matter how they're trying to coat this big ^$$ pill,
it's grand theft and will be treated that way by Americans. This
is how the central bankers will finally wake up the Americans to
who's really in charge-- and are going to turn it into Hellas.
(Squirts in a couple cc's of earwash to put the CPU out)

Glad I'm not any of them "... they still all have addresses." Bob Chapman
Follow Finland's recipe, and damn the consequences. In fact, follow
them home and keep your torches dry.

a reply to: FyreByrd

My problem with this is that I can see central banks charging consumers negative interest on deposits outside of a struggling economy, soon it would become common practice for banks.

Would it not?

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: FyreByrd

My problem with this is that I can see central banks charging consumers negative interest on deposits outside of a struggling economy, soon it would become common practice for banks.

Would it not?

You've got it brother!

originally posted by: derfreebie
a reply to: FyreByrd

First Flag and star, Fyrebird! There is the reason to do as little
business with thieves and other repugnant flavor of scoundrels.
It should also be enough to induce anyone with a couple viable
synapses left to rub together to remove their savings from ALL
of the banks.

It doesn''t matter how they're trying to coat this big ^$$ pill,
it's grand theft and will be treated that way by Americans. This
is how the central bankers will finally wake up the Americans to
who's really in charge-- and are going to turn it into Hellas.
(Squirts in a couple cc's of earwash to put the CPU out)

Glad I'm not any of them "... they still all have addresses." Bob Chapman
Follow Finland's recipe, and damn the consequences. In fact, follow
them home and keep your torches dry.

So how do you function in the economy? Or are you completely 'folding' cash based?

Myself - I use a credit union.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Another quote, this time from the comments:

et the Banksters set monetary policy and what happens?
ALL money is theirs, not ours.
Instead of printing its own money our govt borrows from the Banksters.
Despite the Constitutional authority to print its own.
OK .. "coin" its own .. but it amounts to the same thing.
That is the problem.
It's time to break up the Big Banks.
And that includes the Biggest Bank - the Fed.
Bring back Abraham Lincoln's United States Note.
They worked fine from 1862-1971.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I still believe property and precious metals are the only forms of assets that are relatively safe. Yes, properties and Gold have been confiscated over the years, and not only by 3rd world countries but even 1st world countries. The US did it with gold in 1933

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't think this can't happen again. Recently a number of countries implemented legislation allowing banks to bailin, effectively meaning that it will be legal for the govt to take your money in the bank (Deposits) - I.e. Seize it. Sadly, Canada is one of those nations

www.zerohedge.com...
www.zerohedge.com...

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: FyreByrd

My problem with this is that I can see central banks charging consumers negative interest on deposits outside of a struggling economy, soon it would become common practice for banks.

Would it not?

I don't see that happening. There would be a massive amount of people withdrawing their deposits from these banks. Keep in mind, that banks are allowed to lend out 10 times what's on their books. So for every $1 withdrawn, they effectively lose $10 worth of lending power.

a reply to: TortoiseKweek

Very true, as mentioned in the OP many would end up withdrawing and hoarding their cash.
Although I think a few would still keep their money deposited in banks and take the risk of being charged negative interest.
It's pretty circumstantial at best, but maybe your right.

yes, it's bad.......The market is bouncing around and showing little spikes as the countries jocky for that weeks economy.....I stopped trading 30 days ago.....bought Gold till 1180 fell........preparing for the theatrics they the operators will pull.

T-bill curve has never done what it's down to now........GO OUT and sluice for Gold in Colorado and dig for gems in Montana.........Take a modern metal detector in if allowed. Those are being limited for some stupid reason.....

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: derfreebie
a reply to: FyreByrd

First Flag and star, Fyrebird! There is the reason to do as little
business with thieves and other repugnant flavor of scoundrels.
It should also be enough to induce anyone with a couple viable
synapses left to rub together to remove their savings from ALL
of the banks.

It doesn''t matter how they're trying to coat this big ^$$ pill,
it's grand theft and will be treated that way by Americans. This
is how the central bankers will finally wake up the Americans to
who's really in charge-- and are going to turn it into Hellas.
(Squirts in a couple cc's of earwash to put the CPU out)

Glad I'm not any of them "... they still all have addresses." Bob Chapman
Follow Finland's recipe, and damn the consequences. In fact, follow
them home and keep your torches dry.

So how do you function in the economy? Or are you completely 'folding' cash based?

Myself - I use a credit union.

The credit union is of itself well unhooked for now... but the time will
come when even they get gouged or risk losing their charters.

Personally and as a retired guy, I have a love/hate relationship with a
major satellite bank of the RBS-- and will soon move away from the town
where I started banking there over 20 years ago: about 18 BGI (before
Greece Imploded LOL). Dysfunctional is pretty subjective, it has the
unintended (to the high rollers) consequence of making me irrelevant.

There's a small state bank down in the intended destination that will
take the electronic deposit-- and have displayed no gambling monkey
with others' money in their balance sheets. A real plus, since the results
are keeping the bank solvent for now.

I also would never keep more in the bank than to pay my immediate
bills anyway; and if the poor thing collapses of its own accord we can
remain blameless and other than liable... no matter what GoldSachs
or the professional liars otherwise pretend.
PS.
Sorry about the stall, Fyre-- I had to download a browser update that
wasn't full of scam. Got a good one in Bucket No. 6..

originally posted by: TortoiseKweek

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: FyreByrd

My problem with this is that I can see central banks charging consumers negative interest on deposits outside of a struggling economy, soon it would become common practice for banks.

Would it not?

I don't see that happening. There would be a massive amount of people withdrawing their deposits from these banks. Keep in mind, that banks are allowed to lend out 10 times what's on their books. So for every $1 withdrawn, they effectively lose $10 worth of lending power.

Did you read the article - it's already under discussion!!! That is precisely why 'the banks' want to eliminate cash/coin so that depositors can't remove themselves from Banks.

Credit Unions people. Unless you want to keep gold coins of various values buried in your backyard (I don't) and 'gold' certificates are the same as depositis.

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: derfreebie
a reply to: FyreByrd

First Flag and star, Fyrebird! There is the reason to do as little
business with thieves and other repugnant flavor of scoundrels.
It should also be enough to induce anyone with a couple viable
synapses left to rub together to remove their savings from ALL
of the banks.

It doesn''t matter how they're trying to coat this big ^$$ pill,
it's grand theft and will be treated that way by Americans. This
is how the central bankers will finally wake up the Americans to
who's really in charge-- and are going to turn it into Hellas.
(Squirts in a couple cc's of earwash to put the CPU out)

Glad I'm not any of them "... they still all have addresses." Bob Chapman
Follow Finland's recipe, and damn the consequences. In fact, follow
them home and keep your torches dry.

So how do you function in the economy? Or are you completely 'folding' cash based?

Myself - I use a credit union.

The credit union is of itself well unhooked for now... but the time will
come when even they get gouged or risk losing their charters.

Personally and as a retired guy, I have a love/hate relationship with a
major satellite bank of the RBS-- and will soon move away from the town
where I started banking there over 20 years ago: about 18 BGI (before
Greece Imploded LOL). Dysfunctional is pretty subjective, it has the
unintended (to the high rollers) consequence of making me irrelevant.

There's a small state bank down in the intended destination that will
take the electronic deposit-- and have displayed no gambling monkey
with others' money in their balance sheets. A real plus, since the results
are keeping the bank solvent for now.

I also would never keep more in the bank than to pay my immediate
bills anyway; and if the poor thing collapses of its own accord we can
remain blameless and other than liable... no matter what GoldSachs
or the professional liars otherwise pretend.
PS.
Sorry about the stall, Fyre-- I had to download a browser update that
wasn't full of scam. Got a good one in Bucket No. 6..

Well you can't keep it all stuffed in a mattress and Credit Unions (or public banks) are the best option that I can see now. Credit Unions (in the US) have been under attack - quietly - for decades and are floundering.

Ellen Brown talks a lot about public banks (as does Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the like) as a necessary alternative to commercial banking. Commercial banks were never intended to handle private banking in the first place.

Bon Chance.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TortoiseKweek

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: FyreByrd

My problem with this is that I can see central banks charging consumers negative interest on deposits outside of a struggling economy, soon it would become common practice for banks.

Would it not?

I don't see that happening. There would be a massive amount of people withdrawing their deposits from these banks. Keep in mind, that banks are allowed to lend out 10 times what's on their books. So for every $1 withdrawn, they effectively lose $10 worth of lending power.

Did you read the article - it's already under discussion!!! That is precisely why 'the banks' want to eliminate cash/coin so that depositors can't remove themselves from Banks.

Credit Unions people. Unless you want to keep gold coins of various values buried in your backyard (I don't) and 'gold' certificates are the same as depositis.

My post was to NateTheAnimator, not your OP, yet you quote me on that and reply to it? Did you read my other post? I am for physical precious metals, and/or property. Certificates? That's paper and will hold no value should we get blasted with an EMP.

originally posted by: TortoiseKweek

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TortoiseKweek

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: FyreByrd

My problem with this is that I can see central banks charging consumers negative interest on deposits outside of a struggling economy, soon it would become common practice for banks.

Would it not?

I don't see that happening. There would be a massive amount of people withdrawing their deposits from these banks. Keep in mind, that banks are allowed to lend out 10 times what's on their books. So for every $1 withdrawn, they effectively lose $10 worth of lending power.

Did you read the article - it's already under discussion!!! That is precisely why 'the banks' want to eliminate cash/coin so that depositors can't remove themselves from Banks.

Credit Unions people. Unless you want to keep gold coins of various values buried in your backyard (I don't) and 'gold' certificates are the same as depositis.

My post was to NateTheAnimator, not your OP, yet you quote me on that and reply to it? Did you read my other post? I am for physical precious metals, and/or property. Certificates? That's paper and will hold no value should we get blasted with an EMP.

Thought this was a discussion. Sorry you are offended (angered, annoyed....) by my reply.

I'm sorry you are offended - I still think you might learn something new by reading the referenced article.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Just had to add this into this post.


Cash can't be traced to anyone.

Signing a credit card slip is a hit and miss affair, signatures can deliberately wrong.

PIN numbers enable the transaction to be traced to 2-3 people but does still not 100% accurately identify the person who did the transaction enough to lead to conviction.

Cashless provides 100% traceability to you and only you and it will lead to automatic conviction. Other forms of personal identifcation such as biometric data only adds to the certainy.

A cashless economy means that you will never be able to keep your money anywhere other than in a bank. Perhaps that’s why we have bail in laws.

They will be able to account for every single cent the state, an employer, friends, family or anyone else gives you and for each and every cent you ever spend. Each and every 'un-unauthorized' transaction will be known at the press of the enter key and you will have some explaining to do.

It enables a lifelong 100% accurate financial transaction history from cradle to grave. It also makes it impossible for you to do a bit of work for cash in the hand. Bartering will be outlawed and become a risky proposition.

Surveillance capability - A child buys 2 ice creams in one week after school on the way home. A red flag pops up on a screen somewhere, is it bad parenting, predisposition to obesity, education failure or is it the rebel gene? Weighty questions indeed. Perhaps a visit to the family and considertion of takeing the child into protective custody.

A check of the fathers spending shows he purchased a gun 20 years ago and he buys 1.5 litres of alcohol each Friday night. Perhaps this wrrants security survileance couple times a week and the name gets entered into a xyz regsitery
Get the drift?

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.

Cashless means you cannot ever keep your money under your bed.

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 spending it.

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

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


PS couple days after Charlie Hebdo the French PM said that they must move to a cashless society, keep yur ear out for that again.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Is there any type of 401K that's safe? Does having your money in a local Credit Union protect your money from these "bail-ins"?

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: FyreByrd
Cash can't be traced to anyone.

Cashless provides 100% traceability to you and only you and it will lead to automatic conviction. Other forms of personal identification such as biometric data only adds to the certainy.

A cashless economy means that you will never be able to keep your money anywhere other than in a bank. Perhaps that’s why we have bail in laws.

I have mentioned this as well in other ATS posts. The "Owners of Capital" are also betting on the Singularity, Cell Regeneration, Mind-clones and AI to provide their creature comforts in the future. We are approaching an era where the "Owners of Capital" will not need laborers of any kind to live a life of comfort. But, our civilization is not quite there yet, technology-wise, so the "Owners of capital" need to "keep people calm and unsuspecting" until the trigger can be pulled decisively without consequence.

So, what are the possible scenarios that regular folks will experience, during this "interim period", while the technology needed to create the Singularity, Cell Regeneration, Mind-clones and AI, is maturing?

Young people don't understand that this tech, that they are addicted to, can be used VERY effectively, to further their indentured servitude.

The "Owners of Capital" will simply extract the little remaining labor wages from the lower classes, by decree, through the implementation of a cashless system. Consumers will not have choices in the future because purchases will be mandatory in some way. Policies structured like Obamacare should have taught us ALL how these kinds of scenarios will play out. Obamacare is merely the test run of how to implement future legislated purchases on a large scale. "Click-Wrap Agreements" coupled with a "cashless society" will make that transition easier for the "Owners of Capital" to force on the general populace.

What do I mean exactly?

Many forget that we now live in what "could" be considered a fascist country, with oligopolies running it behind the scenes. What usually results, is a situation where the "owners of capital", can and will "legislate" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections (for the good of the nation of course, i.e., Too-Big-to-Fail).

So for example, if someone chooses not to buy unneeded goods or services, they will simply pay a "penalty" at tax time or some scheme involving a "negative interest rate". The "owners of capital" have, at this point, run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy, in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc. We are approaching a day when they will simply make it law that you have to buy goods, in certain quantities before tax season (just like the current Obamacare that can be coupled Flexible Spending Accounts), except one day we will have an FSA to be used for ALL goods and services, and you can bet those accounts will be "use-it or lose-it". Also, since you won't be able to own things like the new "digital cars", that are currently being developed, nor will you own the current "digital media" being rented on Hulu, Netflix, etc., means that likely, in the future, you could be billed for "damage to the vehicle or product" from the "real owners" of that vehicle or product at any time.

Regular People will not be allowed to be frugal in the future because the "owners of capital" can choose, AT ANY TIME to, take close to the same amount of lost revenue back, when a person tries to save money by reducing purchases, in the form of "tax penalties" or other method (cashless, digital currency, negative interest rate, instant credit to cover shortfalls and deductions from bank accounts, ALL DONE whenever the "owners of capital" see fit). A cashless society, dominated by "click-wrap agreements" is the easiest way to structure "forced purchases" into the larger economy. Another scenario that regular people will face in the future, is when someone chooses "not to buy" and then doesn't have the proper "proof of purchase" coupon, etc, to prove they bought these items, in the required quantities, when tax fillings come due. I can guarantee that the IRS or some other agency will have some way to calculate the amount "you should have purchased" (sounds a little like a college FASFA aid forms in reverse doesn't it?). People will also have to pay a monthly fee to keep their digital money in the bank and there won't be any alternative way to store it, without paying the monthly fee. This process will result in an instant, predictable, revenue generator for public companies, that the stock market will then feed off.

Note, bartering used as a circumvention method has been suggested before, but the IRS already has a plan and system in place to deal with it somewhat. They will tax bartering, by an estimate, the same way they do for restaurant servers receiving tips. There will likely be HUGE penalties for barter and I will bet EVERYONE will automatically be assumed to have "bartered" some amount over the year at tax time (perhaps an estimated $500 in barter per year, that is taxed whether the person in question did any actual bartering or not). The most likely outcome though, is that one day, bartering will simply be deemed an illegal activity, I don't recall it being a named constitutional right anywhere.

Look at solar roof panels, as another example, many local governments are taxing people for installing them because they reduce dependence on local utilities, which in turn, drives down privatized revenue being collected by the contract companies hired running the utilities.

Millennial's and the generation after them, falsely believe tech will save and unite them, when in reality it was designed by "corporate committee" to do just the opposite. The only way to prevent that shift, is for Millennial's to immediately STOP buying such tech, opposing the development of said tech and discouraging others from buying and using it, even if it means using physical force. But, they will NEVER do this because they have drank the cool-aid and are to a certain extent addicted to technology. Think about it, I'm seeing commercials for ordering pizza on a smartphone app, but whats the point, really? To appease Millennial's? Perhaps. But, did this consuming cohort of fools take the time to think about whether it is really more convenient to type an order in on an app, as opposed to calling the order in on a phone? No they didn't AND by using the smartphone app to place a FOOD ORDER instead of a phone, the pizza seller can then become a data broker making money selling customer info, instead of making money by providing a quality food product.

Part II below:

Part II continued:

Then there is the issue of behavioral "data simulations" being conducted on citizens by corporations and government for revenue projections. I can guarantee that some people will not be able to be "simulated", due to high levels of inaccuracy in the data that exists on file is collected on them. Some simple examples would be homeless people, old people that don't use credit or the internet, and low wage earners functioning soley on cash, whom use cell phones or have utility bill etc on a relatives account, which their name is not on (I have a brother-in that does all of the above and couch surfs, there's no way a simulation would know anything about him because he has virtually no digital footprint).

Th rub is when these "behavioral simulations" becomes a real part of business revenue projections, directly influencing tax revenue projections and collection methods. These people that "cannot be simulated" will be labeled criminals and put on some kind of supervised probation and forced to adapt habits that can be tracked digitally. I can GUARANTEE this will happen. As I stated above, Millennial's are likely the easiest to simulate already because they have already given away the keys to the castle and have no intention of taking those keys back.

Right now most Americans are expected to and are coerced by employment requirements to buy/finance a car, buy/finance education, buy/finance healthcare, buy/finance insurance and eventually buy/finance a home of some kind.

What do you think the "Owners of Capital" will do when "life-extension", "self-driving car", "robot AI home worker", "AI networked appliances" or "cyborg implant" tech become viable commercial products?

They will simply coerce people to buy it, even if the recipient doesn't want to have the procedure done and the methods used to coerce the general populace in the United States, will not require any additional lobbying or law changes on the behalf of the "Owners of Capital".

Imagine a world where life-extension tech is sold and financed to regular people, over long repayment periods, to people that don't have the ability to pay for it, in cash, up front, similar to a cars, higher education or home mortgages.

Want to opt-out? Sure you have the "choice" to do anything you want. We are a "free country" after all.

Imagine the unfolding of the following fictional scenarios, resulting from a person "choosing" to NOT have the life-extension procedure:

Do you want health insurance? Sorry, but we don't insure people whom have not had the life-extension procedure. However, there is another provider that we can refer you to that will, but that company has both a high deductible and high premium, so as to reduce the coverage risk of your shorter life span, to the provider.

Want to get a job? Sorry, but we don't hire people whom have not had the life-extension procedure, they cost more to insure and are un-insurable in some cases. We don't consider this discrimination, however, because its no different than requiring you to have a car or a driver license for employment with our firm. Especially with the Supreme Court declaring that those refusing the life-extension procedure are not considered disabled, nor are a protected class.

Do you need a credit card or a business loan? Sorry, but we have to charge you a higher interest rate because our actuaries have found that people whom have not had the life-extension procedure are a higher risk, have higher unemployment rates and have lower profit margins, due to a shorter life expectancy.

Do you need a bank account or cell/internet/communication service plan? Sorry, but we don't open accounts to people whom have not had the life-extension procedure, they cost significantly more to service, due to not being plugged directly into the system.

Again, as I said above, this mandatory purchase strategy will not be limited to " life-extension tech". Just replace the word "life-extension procedure", in my above example, with the word "self-driving car", "robot AI home worker", "AI networked appliances", "Cell Regeneration" or "cyborg implant" and the result is the same for the regular person.

Last, "Private Cities" owned by corporations, will be exempt for labor and civil laws. The rally to create this cities will be done to lower human labor costs before the Singularity, Mind-clone and AI tech fully take over, rendering regular people back to old indenture servant system that used to exist in the USA.

Want to get a job in a "Private City"? Sorry, but we don't hire people whom have not financed the life-extension procedure and/or do not have an AI car or home worker".

In a "Private City" the "Owners of Capital" can make ANY RULES THEY WANT, without "due process" or pesky "labor laws" getting in the way.

All of the above also does not include fact that employers will require people working for them to hold bank accounts with negative interest rates and it won't matter if the person is paid by on 1099 or has a W-2.

Do you want to get paid in a cashless society? If so, you will need to have an open and active "negative interest" bank account.

Maybe there will be successful bank runs in other countries, but certainly not in the USA.

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.

In the USA I suspect that the "Owners of Capital" will "legislate purchases", little by little, then do a surprise unload of the negative interest polices on existing accounts. Regular people won't see it coming and will hit them like a ton of bricks, with no alternatives to fall back on.