4 ms·

Was rhetoric always like that, or are people stretching their points harder nowadays? For example: Monday "can be confiscated at whim, frozen by any banker at

by Arnt 7y ago

Was rhetoric always like that, or are people stretching their points harder nowadays? For example: Monday "can be confiscated at whim, frozen by any banker at any point in time". Oh really? Any banker can confiscate any customer's money on a whim? There's more. I find it very annoying. "How many Greeks do you think had insurance on their bank accounts? All of them. What happened to that? Poof, in one afternoon. Vanished. 20% haircut." He makes it sound as if deposit insurance is supposed to insure against a tax claim by the state (in this case a rather sudden, surprising tax). It's admirable, in a way, how some people manage to make weird things sound reasonable.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
You're negating your own point. The "claim by the state" was the justification used to confiscate the money. The confiscation was demanded by bankers, and the state was acting as their enforcer. There are other examples. Such as the foreclosure mills set up around 2008 which literally stole some people's houses - even if they didn't have a mortgage. And in the UK the banks make a lot of their profits from excessive "overdraft fees", which they claim - on a whim, just because they can - unless legislation is passed to prevent them. And in times of financial stress, banks have the option to prevent withdrawals of customer funds. That's not a permanent confiscation, but it's a very bad thing if you need to buy food and have no idea why your card isn't working. These can all be fought through the courts, but most individuals have neither the time nor the resources to fight them. The bottom line is that banks like an unofficial branch of government. From the Fed down, they control the money supply - and since there is no such thing as "money" in any tangible sense that isn't symbolic of political power, that's identical to being able to exercise immense power over people's lives with no political accountability.
- Arnt 7y ago
  I'll bite once more. I'm not negating my own point. First, a digression. I can't read Greek and haven't read that particular insurance policy's scope. But I've read all of mine, and they all say "insures against <list> and only that". They don't insure me against generic other mishaps, and exclude force majeure. If the legislature decides to expropriate all or part of someone's property, that act doesn't extend the list of protections afforded by an insurance policy. Perhaps the legislature shouldn't have done what it did, I'm not arguing that point. But a legislature is sovereign, it can do things. If a bank or someone else tricks, cajoles, persuades the legislature to expropriate all or part of someone's property, that act still doesn't extend the list of protections afforded by any insurance policies. That they banks could have done other things instead of going to the legislature is entirely correct, but not relevant. Once the legislature acted, the thing that actually happened was out of scope for the deposit insurance, because the legislature's sovereignty is a unique force. And after that digression, my point is that the original article bends the truth too much. In this case by making it sounds as if an insurance policy was worthless ("poof") because it didn't protect citizen against expropriation ordered by the legislature of the citizens' country, without arguing that what happened was in-scope for that insurance. He didn't argue either that the legislature was acting beyond its powers, or that the insurance policy covered the what happened. He could have argued, but didn't, he just put words next to other words. The words are spatial connected, not causally, and my point is that that's ugly and misleading. It sucks for the Greek who lost part of their deposit, but that doesn't license anyone to be bend the truth about what a particular insurance covers.
- corodra 7y ago
  No, banks do not have the legal right to withhold a customer's funds with an account freeze if they don't have a warrant signed by a judge. It's still "your money" on loan to the bank. The silliness of being scared of a big-bad bank needs to end. If a bank does this to you, you call up (in the USA) the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). They do a check on you to make sure no law enforcement agency considers you a terrorist. Once cleared, they tell the bank to release the funds. No court needed. This literally happened to me after depositing a check for my business. I agree, banks, especially the top 5, can be cunts. But don't go all tin foil hat about it. Don't watch 10 minute youtube cartoons about "how money really works because the lizard Illuminati actually control it". It's bad for your mental health.
  - rwmurrayVT 7y ago
    Is there a time delay where the OCC can't in fact make them release funds? Several major banks have deposit limits of 5-days or even 30-days for funds inside of a new bank account to prevent check fraud.
    - corodra 7y ago
      From what I understand, most verifications are done because the OCC regulated them to do so. Maybe an agency here and there added other stuff. But at the end, the OCC is the one who knocks if a bank fucks up on information due diligence. But 30 day is still beyond me as to where that comes from. 3 to 5 day. Sure. But 30 makes zero sense. My situation was a bit unique due to the account being frozen out of the blue.
elif 7y ago
You may not have been locked out of your money by an arbitrary decision of a banker, but I don't follow how you are "annoyed" that I have.
- Arnt 7y ago
  Oh, I'm not. But I may be annoyed if you say that happened "at a banker's whim" when in fact it happened because of written regulations.
  - hndamien 7y ago
    I had money stolen from my account on a bankers whim.Wasn't enough to go to court over, but it was a significant amount.
    - 97b683f8 7y ago
      Could you elaborate ? How did you figure out ? Just with the missing amount, or was there a line about this debit in your bank statements ?
      - hndamien 7y ago
        Australia. Yes, there was a line. It was lodged as a fraud reversal charge due to them having another customer account hacked. Payment was made for a sale and cleared from that account. Since it was interbank, they decided to help themselves to the cleared payment, despite my asset already having been sold.
        hndamien 7y ago
        Sorry, Intrabank.
    - corodra 7y ago
      What country? If it's the USA, you have either the OCC or straight up the FBI to rectify it.
Foivos 7y ago
Taxes are not meant to be sudden and surprising.
- Arnt 7y ago
  Is that a valid reason to stretch the truth when one tells something that's meant to be heard as a factual description?
  - Foivos 7y ago
    His phrasing could be worded better, but I still agree with the message he is trying to convey. In this context, I interpret the word "insurance" as the belief that the government will "defend" their savings.
pjc50 7y ago
I think he's mistaken Cyprus for Greece. I can't find reference to Greece having a "bail-in". As far as I know the only place it happened in the Euro banking crisis was Cyprus. If I'm reading the correct bit of wikipedia: > "Remaining good assets and deposits below €100,000 with Laiki Bank would be saved and transferred to Bank of Cyprus (BoC), while shareholder capital would be written off, and the uninsured deposits above €100,000 – along with other creditor claims – would be lost to the degree being decided by how much the receivership subsequently can recover from liquidation of the remaining bad assets. As an extra safety measure, uninsured deposits above €100,000 in BoC will also remain frozen until a recapitalisation has been implemented (with a possible imposed haircut if this is later deemed needed to reach the requirement for a 9% tier 1 capital ratio)" It was not a tax by the state. It was the other way round: it was the refusal (or rather inability) of the state to act as lender of last resort and cover a private company (in this case a bank) which had gone insolvent. The average Cypriot, not having €100k in their bank account, was not affected. Some local business owners were. The majority of victims were those using Cyprus as a tax haven due to its low corporation tax rate: https://www.taxjustice.net/2017/10/26/21561/ https://www.taxjustice.net/2017/10/26/21561/
- buboard 7y ago
  Yeah he s probably talking about greek cypriots. The bail in was carried out by the bank though. The stolen haircut amounts was converted to BoC shares.
corodra 7y ago
>Any banker can confiscate any customer's money on a whim? That's the point behind the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). They're to make sure that does not happen. Broad brush stroke, SEC for the banks. Chase bank actually tried this on me after depositing a check from a client. They wanted to hold the check for 31 days and they froze my account (which included my payroll and day to day funds). Granted, it was a big check and the biggest one I ever got by a large amount. But verification of legality for that amount was only supposed to be about 3 days (which I don't have problems with). Anyways, did about 5 minutes of extreme panic research and discovered the OCC. Literally that easy to find. Called them up, explained the situation and they said they need to do their due diligence with my info. 2 days later (they researched the payment, fyi I was sub-sub-contract on a gov job) they scheduled a call between me and Chase bank at a branch. They forced the funds released and account back in working order. Chase gave me a huge apology. I literally told them to shove their apology in their ass and to cash out my company's account so I could open a new one elsewhere. They claimed they can't cash out in such short notice, the guy from the OCC on speakerphone speaks for me and goes "Your office has 30 minutes to figure it out." Literally, my favorite gov agency since I did feel pretty baller going against Chase bank. The Chase branch had 2 lawyers and a regional vp with their branch manager waiting for me. I think the CFPB got involved too, on my side, but OCC took lead. At least the guy I always talked to was OCC. I was just surprised how fast acting these people were. From account freeze to walking out was only 3 days. Makes me wonder though, what other agencies are out there, that baller, that protects the public? Now Greece, sure. Not like they truly have a functioning government to begin with.
buboard 7y ago
It wasnt a tax. Deposits in euro countries were/are insured up to 100k. Those accounts were not affected, the bank bail in affected amounts beyond that Confiscated a whim? Not really in western countries Frozen at whim? Why yes, many countries implement capital controls.

by Arnt 7y ago

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

You're negating your own point. The "claim by the state" was the justification used to confiscate the money. The confiscation was demanded by bankers, and the state was acting as their enforcer. There are other examples. Such as the foreclosure mills set up around 2008 which literally stole some people's houses - even if they didn't have a mortgage. And in the UK the banks make a lot of their profits from excessive "overdraft fees", which they claim - on a whim, just because they can - unless legislation is passed to prevent them. And in times of financial stress, banks have the option to prevent withdrawals of customer funds. That's not a permanent confiscation, but it's a very bad thing if you need to buy food and have no idea why your card isn't working. These can all be fought through the courts, but most individuals have neither the time nor the resources to fight them. The bottom line is that banks like an unofficial branch of government. From the Fed down, they control the money supply - and since there is no such thing as "money" in any tangible sense that isn't symbolic of political power, that's identical to being able to exercise immense power over people's lives with no political accountability.

Arnt 7y ago
I'll bite once more. I'm not negating my own point. First, a digression. I can't read Greek and haven't read that particular insurance policy's scope. But I've read all of mine, and they all say "insures against <list> and only that". They don't insure me against generic other mishaps, and exclude force majeure. If the legislature decides to expropriate all or part of someone's property, that act doesn't extend the list of protections afforded by an insurance policy. Perhaps the legislature shouldn't have done what it did, I'm not arguing that point. But a legislature is sovereign, it can do things. If a bank or someone else tricks, cajoles, persuades the legislature to expropriate all or part of someone's property, that act still doesn't extend the list of protections afforded by any insurance policies. That they banks could have done other things instead of going to the legislature is entirely correct, but not relevant. Once the legislature acted, the thing that actually happened was out of scope for the deposit insurance, because the legislature's sovereignty is a unique force. And after that digression, my point is that the original article bends the truth too much. In this case by making it sounds as if an insurance policy was worthless ("poof") because it didn't protect citizen against expropriation ordered by the legislature of the citizens' country, without arguing that what happened was in-scope for that insurance. He didn't argue either that the legislature was acting beyond its powers, or that the insurance policy covered the what happened. He could have argued, but didn't, he just put words next to other words. The words are spatial connected, not causally, and my point is that that's ugly and misleading. It sucks for the Greek who lost part of their deposit, but that doesn't license anyone to be bend the truth about what a particular insurance covers.
corodra 7y ago
No, banks do not have the legal right to withhold a customer's funds with an account freeze if they don't have a warrant signed by a judge. It's still "your money" on loan to the bank. The silliness of being scared of a big-bad bank needs to end. If a bank does this to you, you call up (in the USA) the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). They do a check on you to make sure no law enforcement agency considers you a terrorist. Once cleared, they tell the bank to release the funds. No court needed. This literally happened to me after depositing a check for my business. I agree, banks, especially the top 5, can be cunts. But don't go all tin foil hat about it. Don't watch 10 minute youtube cartoons about "how money really works because the lizard Illuminati actually control it". It's bad for your mental health.
- rwmurrayVT 7y ago
  Is there a time delay where the OCC can't in fact make them release funds? Several major banks have deposit limits of 5-days or even 30-days for funds inside of a new bank account to prevent check fraud.
  - corodra 7y ago
    From what I understand, most verifications are done because the OCC regulated them to do so. Maybe an agency here and there added other stuff. But at the end, the OCC is the one who knocks if a bank fucks up on information due diligence. But 30 day is still beyond me as to where that comes from. 3 to 5 day. Sure. But 30 makes zero sense. My situation was a bit unique due to the account being frozen out of the blue.

elif 7y ago

You may not have been locked out of your money by an arbitrary decision of a banker, but I don't follow how you are "annoyed" that I have.

Arnt 7y ago
Oh, I'm not. But I may be annoyed if you say that happened "at a banker's whim" when in fact it happened because of written regulations.
- hndamien 7y ago
  I had money stolen from my account on a bankers whim.Wasn't enough to go to court over, but it was a significant amount.
  - 97b683f8 7y ago
    Could you elaborate ? How did you figure out ? Just with the missing amount, or was there a line about this debit in your bank statements ?
    - hndamien 7y ago
      Australia. Yes, there was a line. It was lodged as a fraud reversal charge due to them having another customer account hacked. Payment was made for a sale and cleared from that account. Since it was interbank, they decided to help themselves to the cleared payment, despite my asset already having been sold.
      - hndamien 7y ago
        Sorry, Intrabank.
  - corodra 7y ago
    What country? If it's the USA, you have either the OCC or straight up the FBI to rectify it.

Foivos 7y ago

Taxes are not meant to be sudden and surprising.

Arnt 7y ago
Is that a valid reason to stretch the truth when one tells something that's meant to be heard as a factual description?
- Foivos 7y ago
  His phrasing could be worded better, but I still agree with the message he is trying to convey. In this context, I interpret the word "insurance" as the belief that the government will "defend" their savings.

pjc50 7y ago

I think he's mistaken Cyprus for Greece. I can't find reference to Greece having a "bail-in". As far as I know the only place it happened in the Euro banking crisis was Cyprus. If I'm reading the correct bit of wikipedia: > "Remaining good assets and deposits below €100,000 with Laiki Bank would be saved and transferred to Bank of Cyprus (BoC), while shareholder capital would be written off, and the uninsured deposits above €100,000 – along with other creditor claims – would be lost to the degree being decided by how much the receivership subsequently can recover from liquidation of the remaining bad assets. As an extra safety measure, uninsured deposits above €100,000 in BoC will also remain frozen until a recapitalisation has been implemented (with a possible imposed haircut if this is later deemed needed to reach the requirement for a 9% tier 1 capital ratio)" It was not a tax by the state. It was the other way round: it was the refusal (or rather inability) of the state to act as lender of last resort and cover a private company (in this case a bank) which had gone insolvent. The average Cypriot, not having €100k in their bank account, was not affected. Some local business owners were. The majority of victims were those using Cyprus as a tax haven due to its low corporation tax rate: https://www.taxjustice.net/2017/10/26/21561/ https://www.taxjustice.net/2017/10/26/21561/

buboard 7y ago
Yeah he s probably talking about greek cypriots. The bail in was carried out by the bank though. The stolen haircut amounts was converted to BoC shares.

corodra 7y ago

>Any banker can confiscate any customer's money on a whim? That's the point behind the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency). They're to make sure that does not happen. Broad brush stroke, SEC for the banks. Chase bank actually tried this on me after depositing a check from a client. They wanted to hold the check for 31 days and they froze my account (which included my payroll and day to day funds). Granted, it was a big check and the biggest one I ever got by a large amount. But verification of legality for that amount was only supposed to be about 3 days (which I don't have problems with). Anyways, did about 5 minutes of extreme panic research and discovered the OCC. Literally that easy to find. Called them up, explained the situation and they said they need to do their due diligence with my info. 2 days later (they researched the payment, fyi I was sub-sub-contract on a gov job) they scheduled a call between me and Chase bank at a branch. They forced the funds released and account back in working order. Chase gave me a huge apology. I literally told them to shove their apology in their ass and to cash out my company's account so I could open a new one elsewhere. They claimed they can't cash out in such short notice, the guy from the OCC on speakerphone speaks for me and goes "Your office has 30 minutes to figure it out." Literally, my favorite gov agency since I did feel pretty baller going against Chase bank. The Chase branch had 2 lawyers and a regional vp with their branch manager waiting for me. I think the CFPB got involved too, on my side, but OCC took lead. At least the guy I always talked to was OCC. I was just surprised how fast acting these people were. From account freeze to walking out was only 3 days. Makes me wonder though, what other agencies are out there, that baller, that protects the public? Now Greece, sure. Not like they truly have a functioning government to begin with.

buboard 7y ago

It wasnt a tax. Deposits in euro countries were/are insured up to 100k. Those accounts were not affected, the bank bail in affected amounts beyond that Confiscated a whim? Not really in western countries Frozen at whim? Why yes, many countries implement capital controls.