Saw this on ABC News the other night and just did a google search on it...... Wondering if 17 Billion is enough or just a slap on the wrist??? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...-billion-us-dollars-over-gfc-products/5688974
I have no doubt these fines banks get slapped with, in the end wind-up back with the bank after its circulated around the system for a while
$17 billion in fines? What's the CEO's bonus going to be this year? I'm sure they saw this coming which is why earlier this year: "Bank of America chief executive Brian Moynihan was awarded $14 million for his performance in 2013, about 17 percent higher than the year before"
Putting aside the actions of BOA, consider this statement in relation to the Australian property market and those owners, investors and speculators who are heavily in debt: Now imagine if there were a GFC II where large numbers of voters lose their jobs and the value of property declines. There will be massive pressure for "consumer relief" and in Australia that means levies on citizens, not fines for the banks, especially given that so much super money is tied up in the share market (which would decline) so any action that would impact bank share prices would be avoided. Savers and tax payers would be reamed.
Where do banks get that $17 billion from? Well, from the people that come to them to deposit what they earnt. Where else? So what happens here? They just pass depositors money to State. As a loan to not pay back. And if they might not have enough deposited money, States' central bank will help. This entire money caroussel between State, central banks and its member banks, is just 1 machine. Any inbetween shift is meaningless, and so are these fines.
What happened over the past decades? Large numbers of voters lost their jobs. And State became their new employer. Their next vote being the narrow choice of a dependent. We didn't see that massive pressure then, why would it show up now? And one should look at tax this way: tax is not on citizens. Because the NET amount matters. The sum of all the freebies and all the costs. And the pivot of that NET difference sits not on the citizen level. It sits on the transition point between producing and parasiting. So in the case of a GFC II, this transition point will make a big jump. The outcome of that GFC II, will depend on in which direction that jump was. If it's to the producing side, it may mean recovery. If it's again to the parasiting side, it may not stay in the world of electronic figures. Classifications alike Citizens Savers Taxpayers Voters Consumers. are just terms that are used with the same goal as in communism / fascism. Their usage is to divide people in classes (remember Caesar?) and to obfuscate the real differences.
