zobrazit v plné velikosti
Too big to fail too big to jail banks continue to engage in all of the same sorts of high risk gambling and other practices that led to the highly unpopular 2008 bailouts. They have no incentive to change - they pocket any gains, and any losses get covered by someone else; I could clean up at a local casino myself if I were given free license to gamble with someone else's money risk free. The bailouts got people's attention, though, and played a role in the emergence of the occupy movement as citizens realized that it was only ordinary non super wealthy people with real needs that enjoyed no protection under this system. Recently in Cyprus, they tried something new: why not let the bank bail itself out by seizing money account holders had deposited instead? It's not all that different, they risk your money, they pocket any gains, and when there's a problem you lose your money, they're just sort of eliminating the middle man - those expensive politicians that made it possible last time. Did you mistakenly think that money you put in your bank account was still yours, to, you know, pay bills with or if you're lucky enough save for a rainy day? Well think again. Cyprus style bail ins are likely coming to a bank account uncomfortably near you. That's what you get when economic policy is consistently written by bankers themselves.
Here's an article on these new style "bail-ins" coming to the US and UK. http://www.globalresearch.ca/it-can-happen-here-the-bank-confiscation-scheme-for-us-and-uk-depositors/5328954
And to Canada, too.http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/cyprus-style-bank-account-confiscation-is-in-the-new-canadian-government-budget
If that's not a reason to bring down the big banks, I don't know what is.