If there is a run on the bank, any bank in the EU, you better be among the first to get your money out.
Although it’s your money, the EU wants to Freeze Accounts to Prevent Runs at Failing Banks.
European Union states are considering measures which would allow them to temporarily stop people withdrawing money from their accounts to prevent bank runs, an EU document reviewed by Reuters revealed.
The move is aimed at helping rescue lenders that are deemed failing or likely to fail, but critics say it could hit confidence and might even hasten withdrawals at the first rumors of a bank being in trouble.
The proposal, which has been in the works since the beginning of this year, comes less than two months after a run on deposits at Banco Popular contributed to the collapse of the Spanish lender.
Giving supervisors the power to temporarily block bank accounts at ailing lenders is “a feasible option,” a paper prepared by the Estonian presidency of the EU said, acknowledging that member states were divided on the issue.
EU countries which already allow a moratorium on bank payouts in insolvency procedures at national level, like Germany, support the measure, officials said.
“The desire is to prevent a bank run, so that when a bank is in a critical situation it is not pushed over the edge,” a person familiar with German government’s thinking said.
The Estonian proposal was discussed by EU envoys on July 13 but no decision was made, an EU official said. Discussions were due to continue in September. Approval of EU lawmakers would be required for any final decision.
Under the plan discussed by EU states, pay-outs could be suspended for five working days and the block could be extended to a maximum of 20 days in exceptional circumstances, the Estonian document said.
I side with Charlie Bannister of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME), who says “We strongly believe that this would incentivize depositors to run from a bank at an early stage.”
Why Might Customers Want to Run?
Here are a trillion reasons: Over €1 Trillion Nonperforming EU Loans: EU vs US Percentages.
- I am unsure why the graphs sometimes use different country codes than appears in the first column. Where different, I show both symbols. The list of country codes is shown below.
- Forb ratio stands for forbearance ratio.
- Cov ratio stands for coverage ratio: (Loans – Reserve balance)/Total amount of non-performing loans. It’s a measure of how prepared a bank is for losses.
Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland have a combined €606 billion in non-performing loans.
The entire European banking system is over-leveraged, under-capitalized, and propped up by QE from the ECB. Simply put, the EU banking system is insolvent.
That the EU has to consider such drastic measures proves the point.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Bone Fish said:
I’d be slippin on my boogie shoes and sliding out the door first thing Monday morning …
Rockville Bridge Milky Way and Grafton Ghost Town
Very nice Mish (picture)! “Upon seeing it without the info you supplied, it appears to have a sun setting behind it. Interesting that you get the same effect, but with alot more work for the image.
expect a run on Italian and Spanish banks starting Monday am.
I even venture that ATMs are being cleaned out all weekend.
The Greek situation was closely observed by the Italians & Spainards. They learned
Doubt they did.
Those populations are compliant, old and now do as they are told.
They cease to exist as sovereign peoples.
I agree, I’m Italian, I can ensure you that nobody will took a single cent out, they are so deeply anesthetizite to not be able to see the reality even after it happened.
But 90% of people around the world is in that way!
If I lived over there I would make a preemptive strike and withdraw my money prior to their vote and stick in in a safe location. At today’s interest rates I wouldn’t lose much. That way I wouldn’t have to stand in line with everybody else demanding my money when the economy eventually goes up in smoke
Medex Man said:
Take your money out of Europe now while you still can.
Obviously the problems with the EU is much much worse than the eurocrats are letting on, otherwise this state sponsored theft wouldn’t be considered
State sponsored theft is always considered Iin fact, it’s business as usuall – not just Europe either. It just isn’t usually spoken of publicly without a stronger pretext than they have now.
If they are concerned about banks that are in trouble, don’t they have an obligation to let people know which ones they are?
Chaos in Italy and Portugal soon?
Nod Nostrebor said:
Just as planned, Europe and China collapsed simultaneously. God bless America. We’ll be next, landing on top the mess again. “Even in a depression, this is a marvelously rich country,” Will Durant, historian extraordinaire, circa 1930.
Peace on Earth. Goodwill toward all men. Keep your loved ones close, and your enemies closer.
First they do everything to ban cash money and offer credit cards to everyone saying it’s for our own good.
Then they ban cash money and put limits how much one can use on daily basis.
Not to mention that in our banking system they guarantee only up to 100K euros a single customer in one bank. And one has to question even that since if there will real insolvency there will be no money to pay the customers. In our country there was a haircut on the money back in the history. Many lost 50% of the value of their savings.
EU is committed to fail, it seems.
You write “in our banking system THEY only guarantee…….. Who is THEY. I bet you don´t know who They are because the insurance is not backed by any reserves. Its a verbal undertaking from somebody. I don´t know who.
THEY in this case refers to a fund that is very ill-prepared since it is VERY unfunded in a scenario that anything like a bank run would occur. The fund is financed by the operating banks but as said, it would make little or no difference in deep recession.
So, in a way you are right. Much hot air and very little anything else.
Phoenix Pilgrim said:
Very interesting link. It seems to imply that central EU control already governed what are advertised as individual countries’ bank functions, including cross-country exchange rates for local branches of the the big banks in a different country in the event of “bank-runs”.
I even venture that ATMs are being cleaned out all weekend. The Greek situation was closely observed by the Italians & Spainards. They learned…
Nah, First 30 pages of Spanish newspaper about Neymar, Pages 31 and 32 are about some train. Then back to more pages about who will replace Neymar. A few pics of women’s butts, in bathing suits, interspersed throughout.
Italy, goes on vacation starting Tuesday, so they’re too busy packing to concern themselves with this. Also, lots of pages on Neymar.
Looks like this Neymar guy, whoever he is, could bail out the banking system himself. Just curious, why are they paying him all this money, he looks terrible, he doesn’t even know how to pick up the ball and run with it. Just keeps accidentally kicking the stupid thing.
Surely British banks have teller machines in Europe.
Tend to be a shared installation. I draw on a British bank from foreign ATMS in buildings of other banks.
Remember the UK having to fly cash into Cyprus when Cyprus had their ‘crisis’ ? i.e. the UK could not guarantee the European framework would still be working to access UK accounts.
That was not the reason: the cash flown to Cyprus was for MOD employee wages that if paid into Cypriot Banks would not be accessible by the recipient account holders as at that time Cypriot Banks were either closed or were restricting withdrawls to minimal amounts. The Cypriot economy unsurprisingly favoured cash in hand at that time too.
Jarhead John said:
EU and Ferengi rules of acquisition number one…Once you have their money,
you never give it back…
Maximus Minimus said:
It was a constant puzzle for me, but now I can see why bitcoin is so popular. With friends like these who needs enemies.
Exactly. These governments cause the very crises they seek to prevent, guaranteeing the rise of cryptocurrencies. Once that fully happens, governments will freak-out & try to freeze that activity.
I still think physical is where it’s at.
It is more than likely that People will do nothing till the crisis arrives (it cannot happen here or to me syndrome!) and then all of them will together make a made rush for it when it is too late. Human nature at work. Government, Politicians, banksters and central banksters know how to make it work to their advantage. If you are a sucker you deserve to be bilked out of your money.
At the time of Perestroika many Russians who trusted their government got royally screwed by leaving their money in the banks over there. It was devalued down to nothing. They lost their live savings and their pensions were nearly obliterated. Turned into paupers overnight.
History almost always repeats itself. Those who do not learn and adapt to the lessons of history get bent over and violated. History is very unforgiving.
Maximus Minimus said:
And where would you put your money away? Overpriced real estate, frothy stock market or mattrasses? They have blocked all exits already. The next move will be to ban cash, but that might be too revolutionary an idea – even the overfed, drugged, bamboozled folks might start a revolution.
Deanna Johnston Clark said:
Many “suckers” as you call them are people with serious responsibilities caring for others and no time for reading all these articles and suspecting all institutions. They may get robbed, but they aren’t suckers who “deserve it”.
If 2008 did not show the “people with serious responsibilities” that institutions and regulators are in bed together and are conniving thieves (banksters were giving loans to anyone who could breathe and could never repay, without doing their fiduciary duty of lending prudently after due diligence, rating agencies were rating companies, despite knowing that the asset they were rating was dog**** in a chocolate wrapper, as AAA, regulators who bailed out the banksters and companies by screwing savers, retirees, pension funds and prudent people and throwing tax-payers money by the trillions at them – all in the guise of helping common man) then nothing ever will.
If the “people with serious responsibilities” cannot see this and allow the very same agencies to rob them again because they cannot find the time to find out more about it, then I would say that is not being responsible and they do deserve it. If “people with serious responsibilities” cannot take the effort and make themselves safe, knowing fully well that unlike banksters, they are not going to be bailed out, then it indictes they have been delinquent and you lose the right to complain.
“People with serious responsibilities” should know that while banksters will get bailed out (if they don’t, the world will suffer – everything will be worse), central banksters can print money (and have no responsibility — they will simply say no one can see it coming and wash their hands – the guys who were seeing it were crying wolf) and government can always put their gubby hands in the tax-payers money jar and help themselves, they are the ones who will be holding the bag. “People with serious responsibilities” have to wake up if they want to live up to the tag of being responsible, seriously!
Ralph Musgrave said:
That EU “ban withdrawals” idea more or less amounts to converting the bank system to a full reserve system. Full reserve was advocated by Milton Friedman, James Tobin and other Nobel laureate economists. Reason banning withdrawals more or less equals full reserve is thus.
In the event of withdrawals being banned, there’d be nothing to stop people selling the contents of their bank account to someone else – the price would be below the nominal value of the contents of course. That effectively turns those accounts into equity, and under full reserve, loans are funded just via equity!!!
That EU “ban withdrawals” idea more or less amounts to converting the bank system to a full reserve system.
Nonsense – it makes it a reserves do not matter system
You sound like a Federal Reserve PhD economist.
Maximus Minimus said:
I stopped listening to what the economic officialdom has to say about anything just before around 2007. It was a good move.
Some how or in some way they will blame Trump or the members of his family.
The EU proposal surely only reflects what would likely happen anyway: it is axiomatic that banks facing runs close their doors.
An early, stark sign to me that HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) was in serious trouble came when it pretended technical issues prevented automatic withdrawls (there was a facility to give a withdrawl instruction via a telephone call to a non-human system), requiring in substitution a time-consuming call during office hours to a human-operated system which when it was known substantial withdrawl was sought, asked the unprecedented question as to the reason. I declined to relply to that, but its asking prompted me to close my account and so some months later I watched HBOS’s insolvency with rather more calm than I would have otherwise.
They are banning high denomination notes, obviously to stop easy physical hoarding outside the banks. Might be in preparation for end of ECB bond buying if they expect the supported to collapse.
Work out if your bank is weak and if so get out – NOW.
Stuff some in physical and some in more than one “strong” institution – NOW.
Consider some in physical PM’s, some CHF, some GBP, USD – all have risk but offer some diversity – NOW.
At least the EU is open about their intentions, and certainly the track record in Cyprus, Greece, etc. is out there for all to peruse. In contrast, USA banks are not allowed to reveal federal policies to customers (e.g. with safety deposit box secret regulations/rules). As in Greece, small businesses like restaurants compelled by law to use EU banks to deal with vendors will get screwed up the kazoo as their working capital will get confiscated and their vendors will collapse as collateral damage. Personal accounts of politicians and insiders will always escape unscathed, so that class can comfortably be oblivious.
Debt at all levels has consequences. This saga of undercapitalized (overleveraged) banks defaulting on depositors seems to be as cyclical and regular as the tides or the rising and setting of the sun. Humankind as a whole seems to never learn. Same thing with war, USA Neo-cons falling into same trap of ignorance, as all their territorial and other gains will get reversed first chance the other side gets. You would think after all the centuries of warring between UK and France, and all the civil wars, that at least those two countries would get it. A testament to public education systems worldwide adopting the Prussian propaganda approach too effectively for their own good. A good education system should teach people to buy gold and stay away from banks as much as possible.
Look at Franco-German wars. 1873-1946. 3 off, 2 involving the world and millions of deaths.
When was the last Franco-Anglo war?
2nd WW may not have happened if not for the French desire to punish Germany after the 1st.
It wasn’t so much about punishing Germany for the great war as it was trying to extract payment for the extreme amount of war damage to that part of France that German forces occupied which included a great deal of industry including a part of the arms industry. WW II happened because the UK wasn’t terribly interested in stopping Germany from rearming or from stopping Hitler’s plans. As it was, the repatriations Germany was suppose to pay amounted to less than a third of the French war damage. Of course the French, having to count on the Americans to finally tip the balance of attrition in the allies favor, then proceeded to shoot themselves in both feet and arms with the continued insanity of the third Republic. But that is another story.
As for Mr Joelg5, perhaps a bit too much moralizing about human affairs has clouded his judgment. Whether one is a neocan or a progressive the lessons of history seem to escape both camps. But that is the way of the world. One finds excuse or blame depending on one’s orientation.
Put it this way, the post WW1 treaty helped fuel the developments leading to WW2.
Very much agreed. The ultimate pity of that period is that almost every country has a hand in creating that second world war.
“It wasn’t so much about punishing Germany for the great war as it was trying to extract payment for the extreme amount of war damage”
History is quite clear that it was intended as punishment. Germany only agreed to surrender because USA president Wilson promised a different peace settlement. Versailles was classic “bait and switch.” The French leader Clemenceau had a deep gut hatred of Germany predating WWI, and in his utterances and writings made it quite clear that it was all about punishing Germany. Of course, getting the money seemed justified as the war was deemed to be solely Germany’s fault. All sides, including Germany and its allies, suffered damage from an idiotic war that should never have happened. Germany was stripped of its African colonies, and Turkey lost its Middle East empire. Of course the Germans disagreed about whose fault the war was, and the perceived lack of fairness and betrayal fueled German politics. Indeed, the German leaders at first refused to sign, but were locked into Versailles like hostages by the French and told they would not be allowed to eat or leave the room until they signed the treaty. No negotiation, imposed terms.
The not-yet-famous economist Keynes was on the UK Versailles negotiating team, and quit in protest, writing a best-selling book in 1920 revealing the behind the scenes stuff (UK and French leaders were bent on vengeance and punishment, and that was all they could talk about). Keynes said the war debt (punishment) against Germany would lead to another war, because Germany would find the debt impossible to pay. Indeed, in the 1920s France had to invade Germany multiple times to seize industrial and mining assets when the German government was broke (post-war economy was in depression, and not enough revenues to tax). This fueled Germany’s desire to get vengeance on France in World War II. Definite cause and effect. BTW, Clemenceau lived long enough to recognize and publicly admit that his punishment of Germany was a mistake.
I refer you to William Shire’s The Fall of the Third Republic. Yes, there were those French who were for “punishing” Germany, but that was not the main consideration for repatriations. The matter is a bit more complicated that US history books like to make the matter. Even the historian Chambers (American) in his Age Of Conflict tends to grossly overlook the subject. Of course the events of the Great War, it’s build up (from 1870), and its resolution into WWII is filled with the works of many scholars. And as always, a word to wise. bias is everywhere. The social sciences and humanities are the art of picking and choosing one’s best supporting evidence to one’s thesis.
Shirer’s 3-volume memoirs are better than his more famous best-selling book, and well worth reading for the parts where Shirer admits and details the reasons for botched USA reporting from 1930s Germany (similar to reasons media gets it wrong today). The cardinal rule of historians is to get as close to the primary sources as possible, which in the case of Versailles is source documents and primary participants such as Keynes, Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, the German leaders present at Versailles, and their staffs. In 1919, Shirer was a continent away in grade school in Missouri when WWI and Versailles happened. In contrast, Keynes, Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and their staffs were the architects of the Versailles treaty, and along with the German leaders present at Versailles are what historians call primary sources. If Clemenceau, who designed the punishments says the purpose was punishment, and Keynes, Wilson, et al. agree, that is stronger evidence. Legal courts operate similarly, admitting primary evidence.
If you had read Shirer then you would know that he relied on a great many sources including the proceedings at Versailles. He also conducted interviews with many of the actors who shaped those peace talks, went through extensive memoirs, etc. France was bled white by the Great War. A great deal of their industry had been seized by the German forces was close enough to be otherwise destroyed by artillery. The amount of infrastructure damage was far in excess of the actual cost of the war itself for France. The US and the UK also extended loans to the French to buy arms and munitions to the tune of some 19 billion and expected France to repay that money. finally, the other critical point that the French leaders tried to make was that they needed security from any future war with Germany.
You forget that the population of France was at the outset of the Great War only two thirds that of Germany Percentage wise,the lost of life and causalities hit harder on the French than the Germans. Germany sustained almost no war damage and was left almost economically intact. For those French leaders who pushed for preparations, it was less about blood money and more about their own economic survival ability. These two points, security and economic suitability were the two crucial concerns of the French. That war wrecked economic havoc on France, Belgium, and to a lessor extent, the UK. Reparations was not a question of blood money but who should bear economic responsibility and cost for the war. To miss this point is to misunderstand much of the arguments at Versailles. By the way, Sherier was born 1904, hardly grade school age at the time. He covered western Europe as a reporter during the late twenties and up the the second world war. Don’t sell the man short, he was a decent amateur historian with a good eye for extensive research.
Are there other histories out there worth reading on the subject? Yes, although are more concerned with political events and military aspects. Certainly Tushman comes to mind, but she didn’t do the extensive research into the Versailles as I recall.
My main point is simply that Keynes, Clemenceau and those actually present at Versailles in 1919 are better sources than Shirer if you are specifically interested in Versailles rather than the Third Reich in general. I am reading Shirer’s 1934-1941 Berlin Diaries at the moment, and intro says Shirer went to Paris in 1925 to finish his college education and start in journalism. So maybe high school in the USA in 1919, but I do not have the memoirs handy to check. Vienna in 1929. Spain in 1932 to recover from loss of an eye in a ski accident. In 1934 back to Paris and onto Berlin until 1941. Keynes, on the other hand, was a Versailles negotiator in 1919 and his book is an insider’s view. Keynes had access to all the key Versailles documents, even helped draft some, and argued with the key treaty drafters. I do not know what was published on the German side, but to understand Versailles you need to know both sides of the story. Books by or about Clemenceau would also be useful, as he was the major shaper of the Versailles Treaty and soon thereafter called the reparations a mistake and said they should not be enforced (but it was too late for that).
Probably matters little whether the German payments are called punishment, war booty or justified war reparations. End result is the same, WWII. In the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, England got Germany’s overseas colonies. Poland got part of Upper Silesia. France got Alsace-Lorraine, and occupied Germany’s industrial heartland, the coal and steel producing Ruhr region and the Rhineland. When Germany fell behind in payments in 1923, additional troops from Belgium and black African soldiers from Senegal, a French colony at the time, became part of the occupation force in Dusseldorf, Essen and other German Ruhr cities, which spelled doom for the Weimar Republic as the communists, national socialists, etc. took to the streets. I noticed on Amazon some new books on the Versailles Treaty, one just released August 1, and perhaps there will be more as we get to the 100th anniversary in 2019.
“Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World” -This book looked particularly interesting on Amazon: From Publishers Weekly: A joke circulating in Paris early in 1919 held that the peacemaking Council of Four, representing Britain, France, the U.S. and Italy, was busy preparing a “just and lasting war.” Six months of parleying concluded on June 28 with Germany’s coerced agreement to a treaty no Allied statesman had fully read, according to MacMillan, a history professor at the University of Toronto, in this vivid account. Although President Wilson had insisted on a League of Nations, even his own Senate would vote the league down and refuse the treaty. As a rush to make expedient settlements replaced initial negotiating inertia, appeals by many nationalities for Wilsonian self-determination would be overwhelmed by rhetoric justifying national avarice. The Italians, who hadn’t won a battle, and the French, who’d been saved from catastrophe, were the greediest, says MacMillan; the Japanese plucked Pacific islands that had been German and a colony in China known for German beer. The austere and unlikable Wilson got nothing; returning home, he suffered a debilitating stroke. The council’s other members horse-traded for spoils, as did Greece, Poland and the new Yugoslavia. There was, Wilson declared, “disgust with the old order of things,” but in most decisions the old order in fact prevailed, and corrosive problems, like Bolshevism, were shelved. Hitler would blame Versailles for more ills than it created, but the signatories often could not enforce their writ. MacMillan’s lucid prose brings her participants to colorful and quotable life, and the grand sweep of her narrative encompasses all the continents the peacemakers vainly carved up. 16 pages of photos, maps.
Sounds like an interesting book. Of course France was “greedy”, if one wants to use that word. As I have said, the cost of rebuilding the war damaged areas of France far exceeded the cost of the war for France. The cost in lives lost or otherwise destroyed was higher percentage wise than either the UK or Germany. And the realization that its allies really didn’t give a shit for France’s need of border security helped to contribute to the anxiety of the country less than a decade later when Hitler came to power and started to occupy the west bank of the Rhine. The fact was that in less than a generation France had not recovered from the first war and essentially lost the will to fight a second one. Any historian who ignores these issues is deluding themselves as to the events and reasons of that era. By the time the second war came round, the population of France was half that of Germany. In 1870, the population of France was slightly greater than Germany’s. MacMillian’s book sounds like a nice side road in history, but unless she has addressed the problems I state above all she offers is an irrelevant side trip.
Hardly a side road. Versailles is the main highway linking WWI to WWII. All your arguments are good, and I am sympathetic to the French plight. But France flubbed it big time at Versailles. French grievances may have been good, but destabilizing Germany at Versailles was a horrendously bad policy move by France, as Keynes pointed out in his 1920 book. That is the bottom line. France rates a big fat zero in treaty negotiations judging by outcomes (insufficient reparations plus WWII). Aside from some hapless African nations offering little resistance, the French military has a dismal record in modern times. France only prevailed in WWI because of USA intervention. Without USA intervention WWI was a stalemate, and Germany would never have agreed to an armistice and Versailles. In WWII the French army was a pitiful joke, and could neither defend its borders nor regain their invaded territories. Without the USA, Britain, Russia et al. in WWII, much of France would be part of Germany today. I give France A+ for formulating grievances, D+ for treaties, D- for border defenses.
Yes, the fact is that by the end of WW I, that France sliding into second rate country status as a world power. But it is a mistake to rely solely on the Versailles convocation as the means that pushed WW II. One might argue that France flubbed the terms of the agreement but they had plenty of help from the UK, the Americans, and the Italians. It becomes almost impossible to negotiate when your allies are stabbing you in the back. There is plenty of material in the memoirs of those who were in power as well as the French general inquiry in 1946 and the official records of the various governments to suggest that the French were greatly mistreated at Versailles.
Reparations were not the great cause for WW II, True, Germany did suffer from the great depression but that was more of the government making. a look at the Wiemar government policies show a deliberate practice of cheapening the Mark for purposes of sidestepping the reparations payments. When payments were missed willingly France occupied the west bank of the Rhine to try and enforce payments at least in kind. Interesting that France was not hurt by the great depression until 1934, which by then the reparations had ceased.
As for the French army, it went from the philosophy of attack to one that emphasized defense. The Maginot Line was a good idea but they built it in the wrong place. The thinking was that they would offend Belgium if they actually built a string of defense fortifications from Dunkirk to the Ardennes. and they believed that much of their defense against new German aggression would come from Belgium and British units in cooperation with their own army. But Belgium had no interest in common defense and the British have no more than five divisions, their main defense was the sea and their rather large navy. Hence, the French became surrender monkeys. The Brits became so concerned with peace that they allowed themselves to be lulled into doing very stupid diplomatic polices. And in all the meetings with Hitler, they constantly sold the French down the river. Not that the French less that happy to be sold. But let us not place all the blame on France. There were secret treaties galore (as if no one learned from the last war) and lots of scheming. The allies created the new Poland who promptly engaged in war from 1920 – 1921 and absorbed parts of the old Prussia, parts of the Ukraine, and parts of White Russia. Hence when it came time for the Germans to invade the Poles were still adverse to help from the Russians. Every country had their fingers in the pie of the coming war. A reading of the inter war history reveals that Europe was a going concern as a brothel long before we came into the act. Versailles was just another one night stand.
You really got me looking more into Versailles, and at local library found A Shattered Peace by David A. Andelman. Text inside cover flap (reproduced on Amazon): “For more than half a century, it has been widely recognized that the Treaty of Versailles, founded on retribution against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, created the circumstances that led inevitably to World War II. Less acknowledged and understood is the treaty’s profound impact on many other parts of the world―an impact that echoes to this day across Asia, the Balkans, and throughout the Middle East. In A Shattered Peace, veteran foreign correspondent David A. Andelman takes a fresh new look at the Treaty of Versailles as the point of origin for many of today’s most critical international issues. This revealing history exposes the powerful lessons that a six-month period in a long ago era has for us today. Andelman turns the spotlight on the many errors committed by the peacemakers that directly led to crises and bloodshed from Algeria to Kosovo and wars from Israel to Vietnam. Focusing on the small nations and minor players at the negotiations, including figures such as Ho Chi Minh and Charles de Gaulle who would later become major names, he traces the outcome of the deliberations through the history of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. His conclusion is ominous: not only did the paternalism, ignorance, and self-serving approach of the Great Powers who sculpted the treaty lead to disastrous consequences that were predicted at the time, but current policies of the world’s developed nations continue to repeat and reaffirm these same mistakes.
Andelman also paints a vivid picture of the glittering and often chaotic social whirl that accompanied the negotiations. Elsa Maxwell threw her first party; young Franklin Delano Roosevelt flirted with Parisian widows to the humiliation of his wife, Eleanor; princesses and young gentlemen in formal attire danced gaily to the hot new sound of American jazz―all this as prime ministers Georges Clemenceau and David Lloyd George ogled huge maps, dividing up territories and cementing their nations’ positions as leading world powers for decades to come. Complete with a new preface by Sir Harold Evans, a new introduction from the author, and a never-before-published chapter on establishing a global economy, as well as insightful quotations from the diaries and correspondence of participants and previously unpublished photographs of the proceedings and their surroundings, A Shattered Peace will change the way you think about twentieth-century history, its influence on current events, and where we should go from here.”
Thank you for the information. I shall have to obtain a copy and read it. History has come a long way since the 17th century when its authors relied primarily on what few facts were available and provides almost no interpretation of events and the personalities involved.
“When was the last Franco-Anglo war?”
The better question is will there be another Franco-Anglo war, and what form will it take (economic, trade, migration, fishing rights)? Time will tell if the UK and France have settled down to a new era of permanent peace. EU plans to punish UK for Brexit make me wonder. But fact that France and UK have teamed up twice in 20th century to wage war against Germany could be an indication of a new era of Franco-Anglo cooperative warfare against third parties. Depending upon your perspective, that can be viewed as an improvement. If UK and France cooperate with USA to wage war on Iran, Russia, etc., will they be better off than waging war against each other?
Mish, what implications to the EU/Eurozone of higher/lower $ and rates.
Their inflation, GDP etc.
Might be the straw that breaks the camels back.
in the usa, making a run on a bank is difficult right now. banks only carry a small amount of cash and have to order larger amounts from the fed. they have to give fed reason for the increase about normal operating amounts. they order each week for the following week. so it takes at least a week to get your cash.
read the fine print on your account agreement. mine already has a clause that says they can limit amount of withdrawals for any reason should they deem necessary. i’ll bet you will find a similar clause at your bank, no matter the size, or condition of the bank.
…and they try charging you an extra few hundred dollars as a service charge for doing that. A nice temper tantrum tends to get that waived. For lesser “large” amounts, I just go drive from branch to branch – make a game out of it.
Because the banks don’t have your money.
hempforfood.org (@hempforfood) said:
Just goes to show how dependent we’ve become on our handlers who quietly took away our local farms/ecomomies while we were busy watching football. Fortunately, our Twinkies have a shelf life of 20 years…
Mish, is not the obvious next step to ban hard currency entirely? Look at India. Seems like that is the plan there longer term.
Coming I believe
I agree. That is the plan.
While Indian govt. Is trying its best to do away with cash and touts great progress, the huge leap is on a very very low base. In fact we are back to using cash mostly. Demonetisation only worked because Modi was able to pull wool over people by making it appear it was a war on corruption. That it did not work as the guys with the cash managed to deposit it. The govt is still going after huge deposits during that period but it is not going to be easy.
In fact IMO, Sweden is already there. The only thing left is the ATM limits and higher negative rates.
Michael Sykes (@MJ_Sykes) said:
Andreas Antonopoulos agrees with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu5Mtvy97-4&t=1s
“We strongly believe that this would incentivize depositors to run from a bank at an early stage.”
Simple “solution” for that – a cashless society! That, BTW, is one of the reasons the PTB push for it. Let’s hope people aren’t’ stupid enough to fall for it although I’m not confident.
Physical cash, electronic cash (or as you say “cashless”), crypto currency, gold etc. are all mediums of exchange (“money” if you will).
To function as a modern society, we need a medium of exchange. For the medium to work effectively, we must all (or close to all) be willing to accept and trust that medium.
For most of recent history, governments were in charge of the medium. We know from history that many governments choose to debase their currency, which occasionally (some would argue “eventually”) leads to the destruction of that currency. Loss of trust.
In the last century, governments, together with central banks and the banking system are together in control of this “money” system. There is a lot of distrust of this system, as in many countries it is being poorly run (to the benefit of some, more than others). If people lose trust, the currency will fail.
Crypto currencies, such as bitcoin, are a possible alternative, as they can be set up to not be controlled by a government. That’s one reason that some see them as the future medium of exchange. This comes with its own set of problems, as it can enable criminal organizations, terrorists, the underground economy and so on. And it will only work well when everyone trusts it. Will we trust it universally?
Alternatively, government can set up and control their own crypto currency. Will we trust that?
For those who have mentioned having a “stash of cash” somewhere outside the banking system; that is a prudent personal strategy. But there is no guarantee that you will be able to actually use it, if physical cash is no longer a medium of exchange.
I fail to see why anybody would put money Into bitcoin. It´s a pyramid scheme, ultimately based on government currency by real countries, but with a huge wealth transfer to early adopters if people were to accept. You can´t run a society on scams like that.the chinese understood this a long time ago, no counterparty.
it´s one of the things millenials could believe in. Just like level 5 autonomous driving.
Anything can be used as a medium of exchange, even gold, has no human value without people to attribute it to.
Bitcoin is exactly what it is, a certain way to keep and settle accounts, even if it were not tradable to $, or if it were valued in $ at a million. That people value it one way or another (nothing, a pyramid, or effective) is what will set its ‘price’.
People choose bitcoin (or other crypto currencies) for many reasons.
Some distrust the present government/banking system and are looking for an alternative or to diversify. Some of these people will also be stashing some cash as well, I suspect.
Some are looking to “hide” their transactions to avoid taxation or the legal system.
Some are speculators hoping to profit.
Some see it as an alternative to gold.
It will work if enough people trust it and use it. The jury is still out.
I am not recommending any crypto currency. I am just pointing out why some people do use them.
Also, they are currently exchangeable with existing currencies. But a crypto currency can exist on its own, so it does not have to be tied to to any fiat currency (as you stated). It can simply be a medium of exchange in its own right.
As pointed out by a lot of other people: what makes a cryptokey or computing work, more special than my excrements. And i have to use some government money to buy it, and then potentially sell it to a different government money. It´s just gambling.
Stuki Moi said:
The cryptography behind bitcoin, is public. Verifiable by all to, amongst other things, not enable printing by anyone “privileged.”
Early on, Bitcoin was also supposed to be “anonymous.” But that anonymity was quickly shown to be somewhat illusory. But now, there are extensions with much stronger anonymity guarantees, and those will eventually find their way into the ecosystem.
Due to lack of privileged clowns with asymmetric access to low cost means of printing as mush money as they please, as well as anonymity, cryptocurrencies very much bring something to the table that other means of transacting/storing wealth lacks:
-You can be sure you own a certain fraction of all outstanding ones, and that this fraction doesn’t suddenly shrink. IOW, you have guarantees against debasement.
-Noone else knows how much you own. No thief nor robber (whether nominally employed by some government or not), no kidnapper, no ambulance chaser, no jilted whore.. Nobody.
-Noone knows what you buy, and from whom. Nor who you hire, and for what. Rendering the particularly insidious spy apparatus required to keep activity taxation rackets (income, sales, VAT) unsustainable. And doing the same for those who fancies themselves proper judges of what others should, and should not, be allowed to spend their own money on, as well as deciding who is supposed to be allowed to hire whom and for what.
The whole speculation nonsense, is just a childish side show. Orchestrated by the dumb. For the dumber. Brought about by generations having been so indoctrinated to become good bankster and ruler worshipers, that they can no longer even fathom how anything can have properties more important, that whether it has arbitrarily “gone up” or not. But, of course, the same two bit sycophants are by now so well indoctrinated and pliable, they have fallen lock stock and barrel for the same drivel, even as pertains to something as fundamental as the roof they have over their heads. Against that kind of backdrop, one can hardly expect them to be any more reflective wrt something as comparatively esoteric as crypto currencies.
Michael Sykes (@MJ_Sykes) said:
If you are open minded, videos can give you new insights into the nature of money and bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDto3IHr_v57h3FFYlLN3-3_J9H8lMFaH
An excellent set of videos. Thanks MJ.
You do not have to use government money to acquire crypto currency. You can exchange a product or service for it. Hence, it is a medium of exchange.
A lot of early buyers got the “currency” for free. That makes it a scam, 1 billion x the fed.
That is not the definition of a scam. People involved in business startups often get stock options “for free” in exchange for their participation. Perhaps you think that is a scam as well.
If you don’t like crypto currencies, then you should stay away from them. But there are many people who are using crypto currencies. And I don’t think they will stop just because you insist they are scams.
But they will stop at my door unless they bring some silver coins.
There is a theory that governments would like to eliminate all physical forms of “money” (cash in coin or paper money form, gold or silver coins bars certificates, and so on). If all “money” was electronic and traceable by government, that would theoretically reduce crime, fraud, counterfeiting, tax evasion, terrorism, the underground economy etc.
I believe that governments are moving in this direction in order to reduce these problem areas. I’m not saying that there are co-ordinated plans with timelines for the elimination of physical mediums of exchange, yet. But I am saying that an all electronic system is so enticing for governments, that they will all eventually adopt it.
Then, all the cash, and gold/silver coins will be pretty useless.
Will the homeless have digital accounts?
Probably, if you can get them entered into some sort of social assistance program. And if you want to get even more creepy, you can put it all into a microchip inserted under the skin near their hand. No need for a currency card in a wallet or purse that you lose. Companies have already started asking employees to accept microchips. It is indeed a brave new world we are living in.
For those in the USA who are unaware of this bill, it was quietly introduced into the Senate and assigned to committee two months ago, in May 2017.
“S.1241 – Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Counterfeiting Act of 2017”
It essentially de-cashes the USA by trying to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens who carry and use cash for everyday purchases. This IS the de-cashing legislation that the PTB in the USA are going to use to accomplish that.
Most likely they will attach it as a rider to a larger bill later in the year when they are “in a hurry”, like a health insurance bill or omnibus budget bill or defense spending bill. Virtually no one will notice it at the time and one day we will wake up to find out it is law.
Americans need to contact their Senators and member of Congress and put a stop to this now. Let them know you are on to this ruse and that you are not a criminal just because you carry and use cash.
All governments will want to move in this direction because it provides a fairly effective solution to a lot of problems that governments face: organized crime, counterfeiting, tax evasion, terrorism, the underground economy etc. I’m not saying it’s the right thing, but it will be difficult for governments to resist.
Some will say that it’s all a conspiracy to “control” the average citizen. While I don’t think that will be the intent, it will indeed be the result. It will probably be more difficult to hide things from your government in the future.
So, if you want to keep your cash and silver coins in your mattress and work in the underground economy, and avoid paying your taxes, this is going to make it more difficult.
Perhaps to paraphrase Junker, when it gets serious one has to steal from the rest of the world.
I must be naive but I was imagining US banks weaker than many European ones.
At least for France, I see only strong banks well managed.
I maybe delusiinal to believe each bank has its accountancy and I shall see EU situation as one like in USA… Lol
That is what happens to non-Europrans fail to understand each country has its own way and there is no unified system (yet), although theere is one ECB.
Same way, I can’t believe about USA having so few NPL while I know American pay with credit cards which are actually a minority of cards in France at least.
I have no figures to throw in but my experience of the rules gives me a good overview of what can happen. Systemic crisis happen too because of people behaviour and economy education.
Some European countries are under fire (Spain, Italy…) But far from representing what is defining Europe.
I use several banks but that is by simple wisdom.
We are about to witness the profound wisdom of Brexit.
Pray do tell us Peter what that profound wisdom would be.
That UK banks are in even worse shape than on the continent?
I’m not Peter nor know the answer but UK banks, far from perfect, have been through the valley of low equity and reserves.
My take is he means the EU banking problem is an EU banking problem.
Doesn’t it all land on the German taxpayers doorstep as the primary beneficiaries and paymasters in the Euro zone?
I was scratching my head trying to understand the hystrionics of German banks attempting to steal away London banking business. Now I get it. Capital flight into London banks is about to begin and Germany belatedly hopes to intercept as much of that as possible. If Britain remains the financial center of Europe and EU capital flight explodes Germany gets the EU bill while Britain gets the benefit. Genius. Watch the pound. If it strengthens expect more unpleasant threats from Brussels. The currency wars are entering a new uglier phase.
Others have predicted similar.
After Fukushima an episode of the Simpsons showing a nuclear meltdown was taken off air in Germany as it might upset the population.
Imagine the panic when the average German understands what is happening to their currency.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Have you actually looked at GBP / EUR? You guys are delusional. The big banks are all making plans to move their offices from London to Dublin.
Ron J said:
“Although it’s your money…”
A deposit account is a loan to the bank. The G20 changed the rules for depositors in November 2014, in anticipation of the coming financial crisis.
In 2005, congress changed the bankruptcy rules in anticipation of the 2008 financial crisis.
The G20 changed the rules for depositors without consent of the governed. So much for the myth called democracy.
It’s dead unless you vote for what they want you to vote for.
The EU is an absolute expert at it.
It is not money, it is credit, and the banks own the paper it is written on, litterally.
Ron J said:
“The desire is to prevent a bank run, so that when a bank is in a critical situation it is not pushed over the edge,” a person familiar with German government’s thinking said.
It isn’t really about a bank, it is about the entire system. The G20 changed the rules for depositors because the system is facing a critical situation.
Its likely a trial balloon to see if anyone is paying attention. Buy the rumor and sell the news. Time to get your money out of those banks.
How do we get our loans out of those banks?
Interesing question. Does the loan get extinguished if the bank goes belly up?
Yep. Will the privately owned federal reserve own the whole world? Although the us still is the worlds only superpower I don´t think that is realistic. i´m a prepper, one of my prepper items is popcorn.
Unlikely. The new buyer would have a lien on the borrower’s assets, i thought.
Credits can go to zero in an instant but debits rarely do.
Someone will come looking for some of the debt, if only 10c in the $.
No. Bankruptcy law is pretty clear on these things.
The original source :
Mish, if you banked in the EU, would this action by the ECB perhaps prompt you to use ‘trapped’ euros to buy bitcoin, et al?
Mish, if you banked in the EU, would this action by the ECB perhaps prompt you to use ‘trapped’ euros to buy bitcoin, et al?
Not at all
I would buy more gold and get my cash assets out of the EU
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
Germans take their currency seriously.
Imagine what happens when the average German understands what is happening. They are on the hook so will want their pound of flesh in return.
That pound of flesh will be fiscal control of other nations but will that pound of flesh be taken without blood?
Merchant of Berlin.
Michael Sykes (@MJ_Sykes) said:
Not all bank accounts can be frozen….
Pingback: It’s Your Money But You Can’t Have It: EU Proposes Account Freezes to Halt Bank Runs « Socio-Economics History Blog
Pingback: Poland, Article 7 And The Coming Failure Of The EU – TakeJob