Tuesday, September 23, 2014
   
Text Size

Search our Site or Google

Polish Bail-In Changes Everything

Articles & Blogs - International Commentary

User Rating: / 8
PoorBest 

Ingesting the daily pablum from the Corporate Media is inevitably a two-stage process. First one reads the lines. Then one reads between the lines. When dealing with serial liars; it is always when one reads between-the-lines that “the news” gets interesting.

Case in point is the bail-in maneuver recently announced by the government of Poland, leading to the immediate question: when is a bail-in not a “bail-in”? The Polish government refused to characterize its taking control of financial assets as a bail-in when it defended this move. The Corporate Media (agents of the One Bank) refused to call it a bail-in in harshly criticizing the government’s actions.

We have the government of Poland refusing to call this act of financial piracy a “bail-in” (despite knowing precisely what it is doing) because it is expedient for it to do so. Conversely, we have the One Bank (via the Corporate Media) also refusing to call this maneuver a “bail-in” (despite understanding exactly what is taking place) because it is also expedient for it to do so. And so we see this pair engaged in this public display of “tap-dancing.”

The critical clue in sifting through the deceptive language of Reuters as it describes this scenario comes in the following excerpt:

Polish officials have tried to reassure investors, saying that the overhaul avoids the more radical options of taking both bond and equity assets away from the private funds outright. [emphasis mine]

Too funny!

In making this statement, we see an unequivocal illustration that the government of Poland fully understands the Golden Rule in the Crime Syndicate financial system of the 21st century which has been imposed on us by the One Bank:

Control is superior to ownership with respect to any asset.

Indeed, this is a point which I made in subtle, implicit terms in a previous commentary, The One Bank – but where I lacked the space to delve into this critical distinction explicitly. When I wrote about this “single, banking monopoly”; it was scrupulously noted that this shadowy entity (or “super-entity” in the words of the Swiss researchers) controlled rather than “owned” 40% of the global economy.

What is the legal (and factual) distinction between “ownership” and “control”? Why is control now superior to (mere) ownership? The answer to the first question has always been simple and apparent. The answer to the second question has become apparent – thanks to the recent crimes of the One Bank, and its Minions.

Ownership (by itself) neither explicitly or implicitly confers anything other than “legal title” of the asset in question. Control, on the other hand, directly implies legal and/or physical possession of the asset(s) in question. Why is control now actually superior to ownership?

In societies which respect and uphold the Rule of Law, ownership (i.e. legal title) reigns supreme. However, several years ago the One Bank assassinated the Rule of Law in most Western regimes – while our Puppet Governments sat back and watched.

It has now demonstrated the reality of that assassination with several blatant financial crimes, which its Stooges in the Corporate Media (and our own governments) have the audacity to call “precedents”. The pattern is as clear and obvious as it is repugnant.

 

The lights go out. The stealing starts. The lights come back on. Presto! The financial entity (i.e. Bank) which used to only “control” particular financial assets now “owns” those assets. The (former) Owner – who lacked control – ends up with nothing. The perfect crime.

MF Global? The lights go out. The stealing starts. The lights come back on? Presto! MF Global now “owns” the assets of its account-holders…which it then hands to its “creditor” – The One Bank. PFG Best? The same thing. The Cyprus Steal? The same thing.

The lights go out. Banksters (i.e. the One Bank) end up “owning” assets; while the (former, legal) Owners end up with nothing. Not only do the Corporate Media and our Puppet Governments lack the integrity to identify and stop this stealing; they continue to call the thefts “precedents”.

Repeat again (and again and again), until the One Bank goes from a paltry “40% control” of the global economy to 100% ownership. The perfect crime…until the government of Poland came along and upset its apple-cart.

The Polish government has taken control of a large chunk of the nation’s pensions assets (wresting it from the vice-like grip of the One Bank); and in doing so the One Bank’s familiar “two-step” now has a very different ending.

The lights go out. The stealing starts. The lights come back on. Et voila! With the Polish government controlling these assets before the lights went out; it is the Polish government which will own these assets (on behalf of the Polish people) when the lights come back on – not the One Bank.

Naturally the One Bank is livid, and so its drones in the mainstream media launch their predictable (and laughably hypocritical) attacks on this move:

the changes may be unconstitutional because the government is taking private assets away from them without offering any compensation.

Bravo! We have the Corporate Media (and thus the One Bank itself) explaining the principal nature of its own crimes with MF Global, PFG Best, the Cyprus Steal, and its endless list of intended future Victims. “Taking” private assets “without compensation”; or as those who prefer plain talk might say: stealing.

But note the very, very important legal distinction here; one not available to the One Bank as a defense to its own crimes. The Polish government is not “taking private assets…without compensation” in the legal sense; because as it is careful to note itself, it ‘merely’ has control of these assets – not ownership (i.e. legal title).

Conversely, with each-and-every one of the One Bank’s “precedents”; bankers ended up owning assets. The assets were unequivocally “taken without compensation” – stolen. And thus we now have a delightful no-win scenario (for the One Bank) as the move by the government of Poland creates a new precedent.

Suddenly the world of bail-ins becomes a two-way street; not merely Banksters stealing, and everyone else being Victims. Suddenly we see a scenario where the Banksters are on the “giving” rather than “receiving” side of the equation – the most-horrific nightmare of the One Bank.

Only two things can happen here. First of all; the government of Poland can be slapped-down by some (corrupt) judge, ruling that even taking mere control of financial assets (without compensation) is “unconstitutional” or otherwise illegal. The new precedent? Bail-ins (all bail-ins) are illegal.

The other possibility is that this move is upheld as being nice-and-legal. In that scenario, the dynamics are equally obvious. What has the government of Poland really done here? As the entity in control of all of these financial assets; in the next (inevitable, staged) “financial crisis” it has made itself rather than private banks Too Big To Fail.

When the next “crisis” occurs; as the controlling entity it is the government of Poland which will require a “bail-out” (and now a “bail-in”), which simply means that when the lights come on and the stealing stops that as the Too Big To Fail entity it will now “own” any/all surviving assets – on behalf of the people of Poland.

How long before other sovereign (non-corrupt) governments engage in a similar preemptive move, because they decide that they – and not the One Bank’s subsidiaries – should be Too Big To Fail? The Polish bail-in changes everything.

Trackback(0)
Comments (8)Add Comment
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, September 12, 2013
This whole reform was the fraud from the beginning, and what not a fraud was reversed by next government in early 2000s. In effect, the public pension system has huge deficit. Currently arfound 70-80 billions of pln, which are borrowed through bond selling. After paying interest of those bond, fund are funneled to zus, which funnels 1/5 of them (or used to till 2011, since then it's less), 3,5% are hair cut by OFE (initial rate was 10%), then what's left of it ~2/3 are spend on bonds, on which government pays interest again, and ~1/3 of them is spend on equities (like paying 700 pln/per share in 2006 which is quoted in 2013 at 0.10 pln per share...). Gaugauing by money held in the bank on time deposit, OFE currently have around 50% of the funds the man would have having have kept them in the bank. But... as the system is obviously is the vehicle to pillage citizens, it were many court cases brought in by various entities both in civil and administration branches which always were stating in the verdict that these are money collected by government in tax (directed, but nonetheless the tax) so they are state money. No wonder that complicit OFE stating that it's THEIR MONEY could cause such a public outcry. And while there are stil about 15 OFEs, not all are controlled by one bank. And while polish government must borrow to pay INTEREST, it's Game Over, lesser dendrils and banks not controlled by one bank are ousted.



SilverSeeker, I really do think you're missing the gist of what is taking place here. Poland's government is NOT claiming "ownership" of these pension assets (or engaging in any acts of "conversion"). Thus what is taking place now is totally NEUTRAL with respect to issues of pension solvency. This doesn't make the pension system more (or less) solvent.

The object (as I see it) was exclusively to get the nation's pension assets OUT OF THE HANDS of the One Bank...because any financial assets within its "control" it tends to devour. smilies/sad.gif
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, September 12, 2013
Poland is a rotten country. I chatted with a woman friend from Poland for ten years until they murdered her. I wanted to get her out of that rotten place but they wouldn't let her out and killed her with forced cancer treatment which she didn't need. she would be fine until her obligatory treatments and then get sick. The people there aren't any better than the government either except for my deceased friend. Even her family was rotten.



Roon460, what always goes through my mind when I hear such anecdotes is "relativity". In this case, the question would be: has this woman who "hates" Poland so much spent significant amounts of time in OTHER (decaying) societies in the West.

What Western population does NOT have "horror stories" to tell about its own government?

In this particular case; note the assessment of Reuters itself (which is clearly hostile to this move). It suggests that this taking control of assets FROM the Big Banks will "improve its popularity" with the population.

When was the last time any of our OWN governments did anything which would/could make it "more popular" with the people...???
SilverSeeker
...
written by SilverSeeker, September 12, 2013
This whole reform was the fraud from the beginning, and what not a fraud was reversed by next government in early 2000s. In effect, the public pension system has huge deficit. Currently arfound 70-80 billions of pln, which are borrowed through bond selling. After paying interest of those bond, fund are funneled to zus, which funnels 1/5 of them (or used to till 2011, since then it's less), 3,5% are hair cut by OFE (initial rate was 10%), then what's left of it ~2/3 are spend on bonds, on which government pays interest again, and ~1/3 of them is spend on equities (like paying 700 pln/per share in 2006 which is quoted in 2013 at 0.10 pln per share...). Gaugauing by money held in the bank on time deposit, OFE currently have around 50% of the funds the man would have having have kept them in the bank. But... as the system is obviously is the vehicle to pillage citizens, it were many court cases brought in by various entities both in civil and administration branches which always were stating in the verdict that these are money collected by government in tax (directed, but nonetheless the tax) so they are state money. No wonder that complicit OFE stating that it's THEIR MONEY could cause such a public outcry. And while there are stil about 15 OFEs, not all are controlled by one bank. And while polish government must borrow to pay INTEREST, it's Game Over, lesser dendrils and banks not controlled by one bank are ousted.
roon4660
...
written by roon4660, September 11, 2013
Poland is a rotten country. I chatted with a woman friend from Poland for ten years until they murdered her. I wanted to get her out of that rotten place but they wouldn't let her out and killed her with forced cancer treatment which she didn't need. she would be fine until her obligatory treatments and then get sick. The people there aren't any better than the government either except for my deceased friend. Even her family was rotten.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, September 11, 2013
What's the difference who steals our money?
The One Bank (I love that concept Jeff), or the government thugs?
It's coming here too; mandatory 401K & IRA investments in "safe" government bonds.
The fact is, the thieves are all the same.
The one bank, the one government, the one mafia.


No, Bobbbny, all of these entities are not the same -- as we see clearly with this maneuever.

What are our (obviously) corrupt governments doing with respect to bail-ins? Making it easier and easier and easier for the Banksters to steal.

What is the Polish government doing here? Taking financial assets out of the custody of the Banksters -- i.e. making it harder for the Banksters to steal.

As I just finished explaining in this commentary "control is more important than ownership" -- and the Banksters just lost control of these financial assets.
Jeff Nielson
...
written by Jeff Nielson, September 11, 2013
The government of Poland, with interest paid on debts crossing 20% of the budget this autumn, and no money to pay them... guess what they did? Declare bankruptcy? No. Stop paying to the one bank? No. Give equal haircut to all bond holders? No. What they did is 0% haircut on the one bank bonds and 100% haircut on it's own people, and stolen money are given to the one bank and other bond parasites.


SilverSeeker, admittedly this news report is somewhat vague; but there are two reasons why I reject your characterization.

First and foremost; as the Polish government stressed, it has "taken" nothing (in terms of ownership). I has merely replaced BANKS as custodians for the peoples' pension assets.

Think of it this way: it was impossible to remove the Fox from the Henhouse. So, instead, we have the Polish government moving the Hens to a "safe-house" -- it's own custody.

The other reason is what I already observed: the Corporate Media (mouthpiece of the One Bank) is harshly criticizing this move...while being very careful not to call this a "bail-in". If only the people were being screwed, and the Banksters are losing nothing, then why is that the Banksters are complaining -- while the media reports this will improve the government's popularity with the people...?

smilies/wink.gif
bobbbny
...
written by bobbbny, September 10, 2013
What's the difference who steals our money?
The One Bank (I love that concept Jeff), or the government thugs?
It's coming here too; mandatory 401K & IRA investments in "safe" government bonds.
The fact is, the thieves are all the same.
The one bank, the one government, the one mafia.
SilverSeeker
...
written by SilverSeeker, September 10, 2013
The government of Poland, with interest paid on debts crossing 20% of the budget this autumn, and no money to pay them... guess what they did? Declare bankruptcy? No. Stop paying to the one bank? No. Give equal haircut to all bond holders? No. What they did is 0% haircut on the one bank bonds and 100% haircut on it's own people, and stolen money are given to the one bank and other bond parasites.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy

Latest Commentary

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Latest Comments

Disclaimer:

BullionBullsCanada.com is not a registered investment advisor - Stock information is for educational purposes ONLY. Bullion Bulls Canada does not make "buy" or "sell" recommendations for any company. Rather, we seek to find and identify Canadian companies who we see as having good growth potential. It is up to individual investors to do their own "due diligence" or to consult with their financial advisor - to determine whether any particular company is a suitable investment for themselves.

Login Form