3 ms·
That's just crazy, or shill talk. Anyone saying something like that clearly has absolutely no clue or concept what the counter-party risks of doing so are nor
by than3 3y ago
That's just crazy, or shill talk.
Anyone saying something like that clearly has absolutely no clue or concept what the counter-party risks of doing so are nor how bureaucracies actually work in practice. Just promoting that kind of narrative is fundamentally deceitful because its outcomes pose such harm to not only yourself but everyone else you've enrolled in the process.
You'd wake up one day and not be able to get your money. The account would be frozen, they'd refer you to some other department, who would then point back to the first department in a circle. No escalation route, 8 hours getting through to 1 department, another few days, your back in a loop no resolution. In the meantime funds are still going into your account but they can't be removed.
You'd say that will never happen, but this type of finger pointing happens all the time in business and bureaucracies alike. There is a fundamental lowest common denominator, and in a state funded systems that denominator is ultimately negative production value. Business can't afford it, but government gets paid by the money printer (stealing value from those holding the currency over time).
That's not even going into what they'll use your banking information for? We see you deposited and withdrew cash in 200+ dollar amounts multiple times over the span of a year. This is structuring, in addition to your reported income you owe taxes on the undeclared amounts and this has been referred to department X for further investigation, they make a finding and take your money first, wait time for their due process before returning (if you can prove its yours) or just keeping the money (in the case of non-responsive/lost mail). Civil Asset Forfeiture 2.0. Nevermind you do group grocery shopping on behalf of someone else (elderly who can't drive), or other plausible explanations, you are guilty until innocent because they have your money and you lack the power to stop them.
- AstralStorm 3y agoBusiness can definitely afford a certain level of "negative" production value. In fact, doing so to their worst clients or especially would be competition can be beneficial to them, as the funds cannot be removed for a time. Yes, doing this is probably illegal due to banking regulations... If it can be proven to be malicious. A public institution has to at least actually care about their public image or risk getting voted out, protested or picketed if it annoys sufficient amount of people, or sufficiently powerful people, in a democracy. A private one would just declare insolvency, restructure and rename, while still keeping the profits it achieved by "negative" bureaucratic actions.
- than3 3y agoThe point is they can't do it to all their clients. Government can. The bar for proving intent is very high. Its why most defamation suits fail. > A public institution has to... No, they don't have to do anything. Look at California. Specifically EDD and FTB. There are plenty of horror stories you can Google.
- arcticbull 3y ago> That's just crazy, or shill talk. lol, yep, just waiting for my check from Soros. What you're describing has literally never happened in over 100 years of banking in the US and there's no indication that it'll start other than a fringe fanatical movement towards shiny pebbles backing the money.
- than3 3y ago> This has literally never happened in the US over the last 100 years. You know what's also literally never happened in America. Converting a fractional to a non-fractional reserve banking system under the nose of the general public. They set reserve requirements to 0% in 2020 and adopted Basel III which itself is fundamentally flawed counting market capitalization exposure as capital reserves in lieu of deposit reserves with asset valuations based upon varying weighted complex formulas with less reporting, also comingling potentially third-party issued debt as a reserve asset paving the way for Ponzi. Fun fact also, asset valuations/reporting requirements for bonds have also been fixed and are no longer market-based if the bank elects to hold the bonds to maturity, at least according to everything that I've read. Sure sounds as sensational as climate change and ice shelf's the size of Rhode Island breaking off. Except, its not a movie and this actually happened, were you paying attention and noticed or is this news to you? Check out the FDIC website if you don't believe me. Bank of International Settlements has a detailed rundown on Basel III, quite a technical dive but well worth it.