no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

The FDIC Does Not Protect You

August 17th, 2009

You may hear more about recent bank failures, looming bank failures, and the FDIC in the coming days or weeks. I’ve seen predictions for “bank holidays” as early as Monday, August 24. Although I do not take such predictions seriously, I do not believe that everything is AOK. In my estimation, the best-case scenario is that the FDIC is dangerously overextended.

Excluding the stress-test list, banks with nonperformers above 5 percent had combined deposits of $193 billion, according to Bloomberg data. That’s almost 15 times the size of the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund at the end of the first quarter.

And a number of sources are reporting that the FDIC is bankrupt. But the spokesmouth for the FDIC, one Sheilar Bair, says there’s nothing to worry about.

The FDIC continues to stand by the nation’s insured deposits with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. No depositor has ever lost a penny of their insured deposits

Although the plain facts may be in accord with Ms. Bair’s claim that “The FDIC continues to stand by the nation’s insured deposits with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. No depositor has ever lost a penny of their insured deposits,” the truth of the matter is somewhat more complicated.

If losses exceed the amount of reserves held by the FDIC, the FDIC will simply ask the Treasury to print some new currency in order to satisfy insured depositors during a bank failure. Whatever amount of money is created out of thin air in order to satisfy the “insurance” obligations of the FDIC is “lawful money” according to legal tender laws which require private citizens to honor such fraudulent notes for “all debts, public and private.” A more accurate statement from Ms. Bair would say something like: “The FDIC ‘insures’ the nation’s deposits with the full force and violence of the U.S. government.”

And what else? Whatever new money is printed or digitized into existence does not add materially to the well-being of any individual in society. It merely devalues any existing currency and redistributes wealth in real terms. Whatever happens, those most responsible for the problem (the bankers, and to some much lesser extent, their customers) will not be punished for the financial collapse, while the rest of us will be. Although no physical diminution of deposit balances takes place, in real terms, the value of these deposits will be decimated.

So the government says “put your money in a bank and don’t ask any questions about where it goes or what it does, we will protect you.” This creates a moral hazard, virtually ensuring that the banks will misappropriate your money. The banks like this arrangement because most of the time they can get away with it, and when they can’t, the government bails them out on the backs of the taxpayers. Rest assured, some of these banks will fail, and the other well-connected banks (like Goldman Sachs) will get to acquire them with your money, for pennies on the dollar, and if they’re not able to turn a profit, they’ll simply unload the non-performing assets/divisions on the government.

Why would the government — your government — play along with this game? The obvious answer is that it’s not your government. Never was. But that fiction sounds nicer than the truth, so just go right on believing it, if it suits your fancy.

You need to understand that everything you’ve ever been told about government is a lie; it’s all a ruse. The FDIC isn’t there to protect you, it’s there to protect the fucking Ponzi scheme of a banking system by providing a shroud of legitimacy and credibility.

Is it “Un-American” to Disagree with Nancy Pelosi?

August 11th, 2009

I read Doug Mataconis’ post at the Liberty Papers the other day, discussing a USAToday Op-Ed in which Pelosi and Hoyer accuse basically any opponent of national socialism government-mandated health care of trying to silence the “facts”. Ironically, Pelosi and Hoyer craft a lengthy fairy-tale about what Obamacare will actually be, which is almost entirely devoid of anything even remotely resembling a “fact”.

The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies.

Except that the 1,000+ page bill:

  1. Doesn’t allow any person the choice of not buying a policy. Ergo, less choice, not more.
  2. And that the government decides what level of care is acceptable, and fines you (they call it a “tax”) if you don’t comply. Ergo, less choice, not more.
  3. And that the government will effectively set the prices for all private health plans, effectively mandating that you buy certain plans or else. Ergo, less choice, not more
  4. And that there will be a government committee in charge of deciding what treatments and benefits you get. Ergo, the choice is not left to doctor and patient.

(Do you notice a pattern here?)

To be fair, there are over 1,000 pages in the bill (PDF), so I don’t blame you for not wanting to read it. In fact I would be surprised of Pelosi and Hoyer have read it themselves, and I would be downright flabbergasted if someone like Nancy Pelosi, who has all the moral and intellectual capacity of a Geranium, actually comprehended what she had read. Fortunately someone else did read it, and summarized the healthcare monstrosity. But I digress.

Doug seemed to take issue with the fact that the health care nazis are calling people “un-American”.

Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Hoyer should be ashamed of themselves for calling the exercise of a precious Constitutional right “Un-American.”

No. They should be sentenced to nothing less than permanent exile. Further, he comments:

So, a town hall filled with disruptive Code Pink demonstrators is “democracy in action,” but a town hall filled with opponents of ObamaCare is Un-American. Or at least that’s how the calculus works in Nancy Pelosi’s universe.

I’m surprised that he’s surprised by this; it’s nothing new in the game of politics. Recall a few years back, when the Bush administration played the same game? Sure, the circumstances were a little bit different, but it boiled down to the same argument, crystallized in the famous Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists speech, which would become a staple of the latter Bush Regime.

Stirring up fear, creating enemies where there are none, and then accusing anyone who’s not on the bandwagon of being “un-patriotic” has been the modus operandus of politics (electoral and otherwise) for hundreds of years. Politicians have to pit brother-against-brother, because that’s how they lever their control. They create, instigate, or imagine a “problem”, and then propose that they alone are uniquely qualified to handle the problem. Or they make fantastic promises to Paul, which can only be “kept” as long as the politics can keep Peter in a condition of servitude, in order to provide for those promises.

Thus the despot subdues his subjects, some of them by means of others, and thus is he protected by those from whom, if they were decent men, he would have to guard himself;The true rewards of tyrants. just as, in order to split wood, one has to use a wedge of the wood itself.

— The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, E. La Boettie

This behavior, these false accusations and empty promises, the rhetoric of “I know what’s best for you” or “You have to do this for me” or “for the poor” or “for the children” — always conditioned upon the unspoken: “or else!” — is the behavior of a sociopath. It is the behavior of someone who cares not for your needs, wants, desires, freedoms or objections (moral, religious, or otherwise). These are the behaviors of people who wish to keep you in chains.

Is it “un-American” to reject these crimes for what they are? Doug says maybe it is, and if so, “Make the most of it.”

Is it “un-American” to disagree with someone? Is it “un-American” to want to put an end to other people telling you what to do, where to go, how much to pay, how to live, how to die? If it is so, I want absolutely nothing to do with being “American”.

If this is truly “un-American” then we’ve got a hell of a lot more allies out there.

Was the DDoS Attack on Twitter a Test Run?

August 6th, 2009

Someone or something temporarily shut down Twitter this morning (Facebook was also temporarily disabled). Because of the nature of the attack, “client applications that depend on the Twitter API could also not connect to the service, creating a complete Twitter blackout.”

In response, George Donnelly tweeted about the DDoS attacks on Twitter and Facebook:

RT @MacFaux spooky. Twitter up. Facebook up. That was a test run. Someone wanted to know if they could quiet the tubes.

If you don’t know how to make your own tin-foil hat (to prevent the CIA from reading your brainwaves) or if you’re disinclined to entertain conspiracy theories, consider this fair warning.

MacFaux is right. It is very spooky. Only two groups of people would want to shut down Twitter or Facebook. Only one of those groups of people has any real incentive to do so. Sure, some hacker might get a stiffy because he was able to pwn the intertubes. And yeah, that is kind of neat, I’ll be the first to conced that.

But social-networking sites are going to be the bread-and-butter of 21st century insurgencies. Communications channels like Twitter and Facebook, using minimally affordable technology accessible to all, allow for rapid organization and rapid dissemination of news and information, on scales heretofore inconceivable. This is a significant hurdle for an aspiring police state.

what’s coming is distributed, peer-to-peer, organic, cypherpunk- and crypto-anarchist-created Facebook- and Twitter-like social networking and communication services that support unbreakable hard encryption, market-produced unfalsifiable digital identity management, mathematically guaranteed transactional and locational anonymity by default or at will, untraceable anonymous digital bearer certificate trading networks and, of course, assassination markets.

And when those things launch, they’re going to launch on all channels.

— Can the Military Coexist with Social Networking Sites? NoState.com, 5 Aug., 2009

From Milwaukee to Tehran, governments are learning that this is a powerful force for good. For a government, especially one that’s facing crises of epic proportions and growing unrest, the ability to silence dissent and discoordinate dissenters is real incentive.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics