At that time I refreshed readers memories on several previous posts regarding the bail in or haircut scenario
There won't be a bailout. It will be haircuts. Remember? The plans have been made.
This banker scam was first mentioned in 2013 and recently below- Going Global!
Links back to the two 2013 posts are included in the post from Nov 11/2014
So, here is Ellen Brown's take on this situation!
On December 11, 2014, the US House passed a bill repealing the Dodd-Frank requirement that risky derivatives be pushed into big-bank subsidiaries, leaving our deposits and pensions exposed to massive derivatives losses. The bill was vigorously challenged by Senator Elizabeth Warren; but the tide turned when Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorganChase, stepped into the ring. Perhaps what prompted his intervention was the unanticipated $40 drop in the price of oil. As financial blogger Michael Snyder points out, that drop could trigger a derivatives payout that could bankrupt the biggest banks. And if the G20’s new “bail-in” rules are formalized, depositors and pensioners could be on the hook.Continue reading at Ellen Brown's blog
The new bail-in rules were discussed in my last post here. They are edicts of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), an unelected body of central bankers and finance ministers headquartered in the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. Where did the FSB get these sweeping powers, and is its mandate legally enforceable?
You may also want to read this from Market Watch - How Obamacare helped Wall Street
In passing a grand bargain $1.1 trillion spending bill, Congress approved an amendment that essentially puts taxpayers on the hook for bank bailouts. The change eliminates the so-called “push-out” rule, which was part of the Wall Street overhaul, the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. The act specifically banned Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. or Federal Reserve protections to banks’ derivative losses.
In other words, in the watered-down Dodd-Frank Act, it was probably the most effective new law other than the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Of course, the banks hated it. Not just any banks, the big banks. The five of the six biggest banks: Bank of America Corp. BAC, -0.77% , Citigroup Inc. C, -3.07% , J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPM, -1.23% , Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS, -1.20% and Morgan Stanley MS, -1.14% account for 96% of derivatives trading.
So, the banks essentially shifted their effort from repealing the “push-out” rule to simply jamming a repeal into the nation’s big annual spending bill. To that end, Wall Street found the perfect guy for the job: Kansas Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder. In a statement, Yoder said he introduced the amendment on behalf of farmers and regional banks in his district, which by the way, is mostly a suburb of Kansas City.
Yoder seems to have drawn inspiration not from the people of Overland Park, but Park Avenue: a Citigroup memorandum apparently was reflected in 70 of the 85 lines Yoder submitted in the amendment.
In an editorial, the Kansas City Star called Yoder’s amendment “regrettable” and stated the congressman aided a “nefarious goal.”
You probably won’t be surprised to find out that Yoder took nearly $300,000 from financial companies and the real estate industry in the last election cycle. Wall Street represented more than 10% of his $2.1 million in fundraising, more than any other industry, according to Opensecrets org.
But it would be unfair to simply blame Yoder. There could have been an outcry. Democrats of the Sen. Elizabeth Warren wing of the party. Anti-bailout Republicans of the Sen. Richard Shelby variety.
There weren’t, or at least weren’t enough, of course. The amendment passed without a formal recorded vote amid heavy pressure from Wall Street. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive and chairman of J.P. Morgan, reportedly called lawmakers to urge passage of the spending bill in the week before the vote.
Perhaps Dimon reminded his friends in Congress that the financial industry spent $1.2 billion in lobbying and campaign finance this election cycle. Or maybe, like Citigroup and Yoder, he was worried about farmers suffering from a lack of rain and the disappearance of a taxpayer backstop on credit-default swaps. You know, agriculture stuff.Take it all in.. Christmas is almost upon us. The time when bankers and their lackies get the job done!
You should be aware....