In my blog post “What Negative Interest Rates Mean” dated 29 May 2015 I explained what voluntary negative interest rates functionally mean in the real world. I made some edits today to make it more clear. What I did not anticipate until moments ago, when I read the CNN article I will cite below, is that negative interest rates can be efficiently imposed.
The pundits have no idea what will happen. Hah! Our leadership had no idea about the housing bubble either. Anyone occasionally reading the Wall Street Journal saw it coming 6 months out or more. They lie, about being pundits if they don’t actually know what I am about to tell you. Economics as popularly theorized is nonsense to hide the truth of tax farming.
From “Janet Yellen: Negative rates possible in U.S.” by Heather Long dated 11 February 2016 (bold added to show international scope):
“We’re taking a look at them … I wouldn’t take those off the table,” Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen said Thursday at a Congressional hearing.
Yellen and other experts stress that the U.S. economy would have to get much worse before the Fed would contemplate such a move.
But if the U.S. does go negative, it wouldn’t be alone. Five central banks — Denmark, the Eurozone, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan — now have negative interest rates. In fact, Sweden’s central bank took its rates even deeper into negative territory on Thursday.
Negative interest rates as monetary policy was viewed as risky and highly experimental only a few years ago. Now it’s becoming a trend, as central banks try almost anything to stimulate economic growth.
“It is feasible for the U.S. to do it, but the hurdle is really high,” says Dan Sichel, a professor at Wellesley College and former Fed economist.
This is the big idea that means trouble, but we gave up control to banksters long ago:
“When the central bank turns interest rates negative, it charges banks a fee to hold SOME of their money at the central bank.”
Holding legal fiat money will become increasingly illegal for ‘bankers’, but those with access to the printing press and government exceptions (like the exceptions for Obamacare) will be able to bank with impunity. Imagine your choice as a banker not part of the globalist regime. You must pay money to the government as a penalty or lose money on bad loans, which means loans to delinquents playing adult because the government says they are special snowflakes.
The U.S. economy is currently said to be the strongest economy in the world, and it is still fucked up from the housing bubble of 2008. Obama addressed a joint session of Congress chastising the banks for making those bad loans, but he made the bubble by suing Citibank for redlining, for not making loans to unqualified black people because that was dezcriminashen.
From Pres. Obumba’s Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on February 24, 2009:
In other words, we have lived through an era where too often short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity, where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time, on some other day. Well, that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.
He lied. What’s new? Any quality politician lies. In this case the evidence is federal case Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, docket no. 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) Here is the case summary (I added the bold):
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.
This case has received a good deal of press and blogger attention because one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers was Barack Obama, then just a couple of years out of law school.
U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
The parties settled the case on May 12, 1998, with an agreement that provided for waiver of some fees for class members, should they reapply for a loan, and also for various procedures to ensure that Citibank followed its own loan policies in a race neutral way.
Andrew Nash – 06/02/2008
As president, Obumba has made nice deals with Citibank according to online articles as I write this. Once again Ben Swann is on the case:
But all that is just the backstory.
When the government can outright confiscate money from banks (where it is safer to keep ‘your money’ than under your mattress) but in an incremental way with nationalized costs that don’t effect most sheeple very much in any attention time span, then we have a total reduction of the banking system to not crony capitalism but crony communism, which is the only communism that can exist in real life.
With crony communism the elite with government power will choose what economic activity does and does not occur. A black market economy is certain, once the police struggle to buy things with their legal paychecks. How much misery and death is necessary to get there? A rhetorical question.
Involuntary socialized negative interest rates can only collapse the economy to a 100% state economy.
I concluded in my earlier post “The First Global Death of Monetary Policy” dated 28 October 2015:
Regardless of what the distant future or final throe may be, I predict that the verge of a decade of near-zero in-house base rates at the great imperialist central bank is the start of a new era. Monetary policy is dead and will remain impotent and spread to the rest of da vurld. The fundamental rate of the British farm, the base rate analogous in design to the Fed’s discount rate but used primarily and exclusively, has been 0.5% since 5 March 2010. The equivalent in-house target rate at the European tax farm (called the marginal lending rate) has been 0.3% since set there on 10 September 2014.
Confiscation will now be more obvious, more brutal, more deadly. The wool is gone. Now it will be flesh, one pound after another. The best animals will win. A rationalist can be a great animal if he puts his mind and heart to seduction and winning. Widespread success is an illusion of film and circus. Enticing liberated brain stems for sex is only the antechamber of the House of Rational Sovereignty.
The Fed did raise interest rates a quarter of a percent to a range of 0.25%–0.50% on 16 December 2015. It is a psychological ploy to get us working and spending like things are normal. Apparently, the great leaders did not get their own memo on the new normal. What I did not anticipate was that they would intensionally collapse and conquer the economies of the West by negative interest rates. If they are rolling out negative interest rates across the IMF tax farm, they sure as hell can’t raise interest rates, so my assessment stands—except they are more nefarious and bold than I had supposed.
If they are not nefarious on purpose but plain stupid, would that be better?
The collapse of the global economy is likely to happen in your lifetime. 🙂
Enjoy the silver lining, which will be the political liberation of you and other high culture men. We have not yet begun to fight. When you see the pinks of their vaginas or the yellow of the streaks down their fleeing backs, you will know what to do.
I hope all the liberated bitches out there have a lousy Valentine’s Day!
To rework a phrase favored by Rob Fedders, give women the valentines they deserve: none.
That is about what they can afford the way they have managed politics and economics with their special feeeeeeelingzzzzzz.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 13 February 2016