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.

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.

In Communist America, Goldman Sachs Forks You

August 6th, 2009

Yesterday morning, Chris Martenson told us that we’re being robbed by Goldman Sachs. Which prompted me to do some of my own research, whereupon I discovered that the real victims of Goldman Sachs all meet the following criteria:

  1. Not a current or former Goldman Sachs employee

I know: you already knew that Goldman Sachs is the Devil incarnate, because you read The Great American Bubble Machine (loved it!) and then you saw some tin-foil-hat-wearing kook’s videos on YouTube, right? But Martenson’s account is not full of colorful metaphors or wild-eyed conspiracy theories (not that there’s anything wrong with either), instead, he paints the picture by numbers:

Trading losses [for Goldman Sachs] occurred on two days during the months of April, May and June [2009].

Goldman Sachs took in a whopping $100M+ in daily revenue on forty-six separate days during 2Q 2009.  An entire financial quarter, and a tumultuous one at that, during which GS brought in something like $5 billion and only lost money on two occasions.  This is statistically inconceivable, and lest you have any delusions about where that money is coming from, Martenson is quick to remind you:

the most probable source of these funds, the ultimate loser, is the taxpayer.

Shortly after the meltdown began, GS became a “bank holding company” which normally requires a greater capital reserve (less risk) and quickly received $63.6 billion worth of federal subsidies. The decision to become a holding company is particularly noteworthy because the Bloomberg article that Martenson cites justifies Goldman’s profits on account of their willingness to take risk that others wouldn’t.  But their positions as a “bank holding company” should be less risky, what with the higher reserve requirements, right?

Wrong.

Goldman asked to be exempted from these rules, which the Fed granted without question. So in a time when they should be shoring up their reserves, and playing conservatively, they continue to pile risk on top of risk with our hard-earned money.  And unless you know something I don’t, you’re not getting a dividend check in the mail.

To be fair, a number of other institutions (e.g., American Express) filed to become “holding companies” in order to reap a slice of the Bailout Pie.  For what in God’s creation they are using these funds, is ultimately anybody’s guess. The only certainty is that whatever money they get, regardless of whether or when they pay it back, is corporate fucking welfare, paid for by you and me.

Indeed, the taxpayers are big losers in this game, a game that Goldman Sachs has completely rigged.  We are underwriting their profits and absorbing their losses.

As I’ve said before, “the primary purpose of modern financial markets is to concentrate real economic power for the State and its beneficiaries.” None of the paper wealth which was miscast as “growth” in the past decade ever really existed. Every last bit of it, every hour of labor, every ounce of resources that we foolishly consumed/destroyed while perpetrating the growth charade was economically destructive. The rest of us understand this — and if we don’t, our bank accounts do.

What’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for Goldman Sachs, end of story. Everyone else gets boned.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics