Why Go After the Depositors To Save 'the Taxpayers?'

"Bail-in" has been in the cards since 2009. I have a series of papers eventually approved in final form by G-20 with BIS co-ordination. The wording has been consistent throughout. The Plan was that it would be made into law by members without fanfare. But of course the cat was let out of the bag re Cyprus. That no doubt frustrated the people who had put in so much effort. However, having buried and reference to it on Pg 140-47 in Canada's Action Plan 2013 (Budget), it was only found as a result of the template and bail-in references. What I have found sense is that nobody gets it straight and the MSM muddies the waters. The average person I have talked with has no clue of the implications of "other creditors", nor that derivative parties go to the front of the line. In short, with a majority government, it should pass.

And despite the efforts of people like Jim Sinclair, people will leave there money in the bank until it's not there any more. Cyprus is a distraction, as was Greece. In a bail-in, the company/bank or whatever does not go bankrupt...therefore depositors' insurance is not necessarily triggered - unless the Committee (think Troika). decides that it will. This essentially throws out all bankruptcy law and usual methods of trusteeship. They have been deemed too slow and inefficient.

The Committee can pounce on an institution if it deems it necessary; it can fire managers and the board; and they are covered from any and all liability for actions carried out in good faith. The US has it buried in Dodd Frank someplace; NZ has it period; Canada will have it when the budget passes; the EU was on the verge when it became public; and the UK, I gather, requires only minor tuning of it's Bank Act to ensure - as all involved must - that the courts and regulators are elbowed out of the game. I advise people to get hold of any of the documents starting with the Basil Committee (BIS link) in March 2010; a BOE document March 2012; an FSB one from July 2011; or take a closer look at Cyprus and what is being done. I'm sure there are other sources...basically all saying the same thing. They are vague, and they allow the "Resolution Committee" great flexibility --- but if done as intended, the Committee will trump the current method of resolution --- that is why they can rightly say, at risk financial institutions will be used resolved on a case-by-case basis.

I don't think anyone understands it because it is written vaguely. But the language used is not bedtime reading, and that is deliberate. What finally goes into legislation is short, sweet and would not normally set of any alarm bells. But it's implications are potentially huge in application. It has to do with a total change in the money system (nationally, and in terms of the global reserve currency). You have been warned...if Jim Sinclair hasn't gotten your attention already.