A question in from a network member:
So I would like your take on the situation: Is the movement to nationalize banks:
- a way to increase productivity and predictability – by eliminating a
whole layer of middle management and a eliminate partners, who may have
proven unreliable or not as easy to control as desired? - part of a grand scheme to further centralize and strengthen the crime
syndicate while increasing impermeability (the FED gets more power but
the FED is owned by private banks – so the whole thing is a shell game)? - something else or a combination of above?
My answer:
The large banks have been managing the collateral fraud and derivative positions used to manage the markets — stock market, precious metals markets, etc. The economy has been managed politically, rather than economically. This means in addition to the losses they have been taking as agent for the NY Fed as depository and manager of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, their business has become increasingly uneconomic. The financial system now has significant excess capacity. There is no more bubble to fund the bubble designed infrastructure. In combination, no one in the system trusts them. They are untrustworthy and insolvent. Only a complete government guarantee would permit other players to “trust” them.
One of the problems with nationalization is that it will allow government workers to see and understand the ongoing frauds and would subject their operations and assets to public disclosure laws. So engineering nationalization is complex. By nationalizing a large bank, you protect system liquidity. However, by allowing a large number of government workers access to knowledge about how the various collateral and derivative frauds work you threaten not just financial liquidity but the integrity of the entire global governance system.
Wait until the entire private side of the financial system loses its magical powers to intimidate a group of GS-15’s. And shortly thereafter, through intertwined networks, to state and local government bureaucracies. Oh boy, watch out.
And clearly the folks who lose their equity would prefer a different alternative that allows their equity position and control to endure. I suspect threats of a possible nationalization encourage them to stop promoting their various “dumps” and make good to various creditors and counterparty positions.