# economic collapse question -



## DWSinTXS (Nov 30, 2014)

Hello everyone, 

I am new to prepping. Have a CHL, live in the Dallas Texas area. Just starting my preps, doing lots of reading and studying on the subject.

Here's my question:

I have always wondered if an economic collapse could be precipitated by our government, if they 'appropriated' all of our money. If they decided to pay off the national debt for instance, and decided to just 'take' all of the money in the banks in our individual checking and savings accounts. Not taking any corporate monies, but just raid all the private citizens checking and savings accounts and say, 'it was for national security' for the sake of the country as a whole. 

They might not even take it all, but do something like place a 72 hour freeze (or 1 week, or 30 days, or whatever)on all accounts and appropriate all funds in excess of $10,000 or some other arbitrary amount.

Is this even possible?

Thanks,
DWS


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

There would be rioting thru out the nation if they tried that and they know it.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Welcome to the forums.

I do not believe that the US Federal Government (Dems or Repubs) care about the debt one rats ass. I do believe that they care about taking my and your hard earned money and giving it to others via what they deem to be "fairness distribution".

The economics at play are influenced by The Federal Reserve printing money, increased regulation and taxation, and over-reaching social policies that stymie individualism and free market capitalism. Creating an environment where young healthy people are dependent on others. 

Making cheap energy (coal and oil) expensive. Breaking up the Family Unit. Denigrating those who speak the truth, and turning Good into Evil and Evil into Good.


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

Seems like I've heard about this happening, in Greece or Cyprus?...


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

What's the debt, something like 18 trillion dollars (18,000,000,000,000) 

As far as I am concerned, that is fake money. It does not exist it the way that your money in your accounts do.

Furthermore, the way they keep printing and the stock market is at 18,000 or so, it's going to pop. Maybe not in the obvious way, but I think in run away inflation (more so than it is).

This is why we paid off our house a few months ago. Before inflation goes full-idiot-mode and our savings is worthless.

Same reason we are are now looking for land to put the rest in.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Not sure the exact order it will proceed but among the several steps on the leftist drawing board should be:
1. Declaring our present currency obsolete and coming up with a new version of paper money. That would get a bunch of counterfeit money and ill gotten gains/drug money etc. out of the system. For example anybody with large amounts of cash would be given 30 days to exchange it for the new money with the first 10 k being exchangeable with no questions asked. Higher amounts than that would required proof as to where it came from or lose it. That could knock out about a quarter of the National Debt. 
2. Robbing all public and private pension plans (worth about 17 trillion) pumping the money into SS and distributing according to how the commies wish it distributed. Obummer already has this one tuned up from when he stole the pensions from the salaried GM Delphi employees during the auto bail out and gave the money to the UAW. 
3. Cashless society with a computer chip stuck in the forehead or hand.


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

slewfoot said:


> There would be rioting thru out the nation if they tried that and they know it.


Only if it hits enough people.

Something like 20 or 25 percent of the population are already on govt food assistance of some sort. No one is complaining.

Look at all the Free Siht Army folks out there getting theirs while everyone else works. Where are the riots?

Heck, even if the govt started raiding bank account, no one will bother to notice. Why? Most Americans don't have more than a month or two of emergency money saved up. Figure what 2 or 3 grand? Lets say the gooberment decides that the citizens are going to do a "bail in" (greece and cyprus to use as models) of about 5% of bank account holding greater than 50 grand. "So, they ain't coming after me!"

What about $25,000? "So, they ain't coming after me!"

$10,000? "So, they ain't coming after me!"

I would say that $5000 dollar banking haircuts would not even faze most.

"They got money to cover it! It's just a few hundred dollars!!"

No riots. People got their iToys, computer, porn, GMO food, cable TV, video games. They also have their hollywood idols shirking about fairness while avoiding real life taxes all because of the politicians they fluff.

So yeah, no riots.


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

3percent said:


> What's the debt, something like 18 trillion dollars (18,000,000,000,000)
> 
> As far as I am concerned, that is fake money. It does not exist it the way that your money in your accounts do.
> 
> ...


In an inflationary scenario having debt is actually a good thing. As a matter of fact two of the most successful hedges against hyperinflation is precious metals and real estate debt. The principal amount owed on your mortgage doesn't change as the value of the dollar comes down putting you in a good position as far as equity goes in your real estate portfolio. You should have taken some of your savings and bought some silver it is crazy undervalued right now. Most "people in the know" follow the 33/33/33 rule for hedging which is 1/3 Precious Metals, 1/3 Real Estate, 1/3 Artwork or other material objects.


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

rjd25 said:


> In an inflationary scenario having debt is actually a good thing. As a matter of fact two of the most successful hedges against hyperinflation is precious metals and real estate debt. The principal amount owed on your mortgage doesn't change as the value of the dollar comes down putting you in a good position as far as equity goes in your real estate portfolio. You should have taken some of your savings and bought some silver it is crazy undervalued right now. Most "people in the know" follow the 33/33/33 rule for hedging which is 1/3 Precious Metals, 1/3 Real Estate, 1/3 Artwork or other material objects.


I have heard that and ran numbers and scenarios on spread sheets and with my wife. I think on paper it works out. But in real life...No way. I have a very relaxed feeling knowing that our house is totally paid off and we owe taxes and insurance and that is it. Less than a grand a year between the two.

Why did we do it?

Mainly, we were concerned about hyper inflation destroying what our savings was.

If we sat on our money, sure, they payment of the house stays the same, but your money sitting in the account becomes worth less and less.

Interest rate of house? 5.6% (we bought in 2004 and when we went to refinance for a lower rate a few years ago, they wanted tons of personal info. I'm on a prepper forum, so you know I was not liking that, haha)
Savings interest : .03 or something stupid like that
Inflation : 2.5 to 3 % per year.

So we were losing purchasing power of our saved income. No way to win in that position. If we carried out the full term of the loan, we would have lost something like $130,000 in interest. We paid off in 10 years and saved $75,000. That's why I don't buy into that good debt thing. Not on something this expensive.

Plus, one thing we all under estimate is the blood lust of local politicians and banks. You think that if it got that bad they would not find a way to strip the value of the dollar to zero? Wrong.


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

Oh yeah, I have silver. It just holds my money. I am not into PM's like a lot of folks. I get it, but it won't buy crap from me if it got that bad. Some folks like glittery shiny things. I like food, land, guns/ammo, medical supplies. Stuff like that.

But yeah, I have silver.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

3percent said:


> I have heard that an ran numbers and scenarios on spread sheets and with my wife. I think on paper it works out. But in real life...No way. I have a very relaxed feeling knowing that our house is totally paid off and we owe taxes and insurance and that is it. Less than a grand a year between the two.
> 
> Why did we do it?
> 
> ...


I'm with you 3%. Bought land a few years ago, sold the big house in the suburbs and eliminated a mortgage, then built a small, well designed and effeccient passive solar home on the farm with no mortgage in a lower property and income tax state.

"The borrower is slave to the lender" and I will be a slave to no man. We can now take what we used to pay for mortgage and high property taxes and invest; both in tangible goods and long term safe investments. Plus we have no stupid yuppy subdivision fools to deal with!


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

"The borrower is slave to the lender"

Yes, I fully believe that.

When you owe something to someone, you have to answer to them. I see it with family members as well. As grown adults with families, they still borrow money from parents. Then they fuss and complain when the parents intercede with their lives. Well, that's what happens when you are beholden to someone.


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

3percent said:


> Oh yeah, I have silver. It just holds my money. I am not into PM's like a lot of folks. I get it, but it won't buy crap from me if it got that bad. Some folks like glittery shiny things. I like food, land, guns/ammo, medical supplies. Stuff like that.
> 
> But yeah, I have silver.


If politicians torpedo the value of the dollar to zero and things really got that bad owning land doesn't really mean much. What is owning land? A piece of paper at your local town hall saying you own it? Pretty worthless in a shtf scenario as anyone with guns and ammo can take it from you. What will you do? Waive your deed at them? No thanks, I'd rather let the bank hang on to the piece of paper and I will use my money to buy more resources. When it totally collapses do you think the bank will come and take it from you? No, they will be too busy looking for food and water themselves.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

It will not end well for those who try and take mine.


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

rjd25 said:


> If politicians torpedo the value of the dollar to zero and things really got that bad owning land doesn't really mean much. What is owning land? A piece of paper at your local town hall saying you own it? Pretty worthless in a shtf scenario as anyone with guns and ammo can take it from you. What will you do? Waive your deed at them? No thanks, I'd rather let the bank hang on to the piece of paper and I will use my money to buy more resources. When it totally collapses do you think the bank will come and take it from you? No, they will be too busy looking for food and water themselves.


As I have told many people "Don't Tread On Me. It's not a request, It's a warning."

I am going to ask you a question and don't get upset. Do you own a home? I have a feeling that you do not.

What is owning land? What is "owning" anything. You cannot prove one thing or another as for what you own. None of us can. We allow laws to dictate what we call ownership and that's all. But I assure you that IF it were to get that bad and men with guns start taking property...Well, just read my above statement.


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

3percent said:


> As I have told many people "Don't Tread On Me. It's not a request, It's a warning."
> 
> I am going to ask you a question and don't get upset. Do you own a home? I have a feeling that you do not.
> 
> What is owning land? What is "owning" anything. You cannot prove one thing or another as for what you own. None of us can. We allow laws to dictate what we call ownership and that's all. But I assure you that IF it were to get that bad and men with guns start taking property...Well, just read my above statement.


I do own a home, I actually built my own home. My point to you was in an actual collapse will it matter that you have paid off your home early or could that money have been put to better use in resources? Obviously the scenario will dictate actions that are appropriate and in a normal every day scenario paying off your house early is a massive financial win, but that is not what the thread was based on.


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

Good! I obviously misread that based on past experience of conversations with people.

I helped Mom and Dad build their house just before I joined the military. It's a hell of a good feeling!

I get what you are saying. Yes, in an actual collapse, most rules are out of the window. 

As for better resource allocation. Believe me, we are better off than most when it comes to being able to cope. Wife and I were very fortunate with our jobs as they were well paying. I am no longer employed and her job is still great. No kids= less money spent. We saved and saved and put it to good use. No debt. Period. We have never lived like there was no tomorrow, but we have fun. We just make sure that our financial priorities are first.

Back to SHTF. Last year, it did hit the fan at my company. Our program cut about 40-50% of our staff. I was not part of the cut at first, but after a few more months, I had to go. No biggie. Nearly 40 years old and that was the first time it happened. But, the main thing was that when the announcements were made, pants were shat. People started freaking out. Crying, cussing, that kind of stuff. I sat there and kept my mouth shut. Why? No debt. The house was not paid off at that time, but we only owed a few grand. We had a good amount saved and plenty in investments. I was making less than most, but better off than most in that group. This was October of 2013 when the idiots in DC started to play their games. So yeah, it was gov't related SHTF.

They goobs in DC are in collusion with the banking industry. No doubt about it. So the wrecking of the dollar is happening, just at a slow pace. Kind of a "Debt by a thousand cuts." (get it? debt/death?? haha)

Anyway.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Yes, they will take your money.
Nancy POS Pelosi, when she was House speaker said---"Those IRA's-- that's our money . We will just go get it"
Anyone believe that Beohner and the Rebubs thinks differently?


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

tango said:


> Yes, they will take your money.
> Nancy POS Pelosi, when she was House speaker said---"Those IRA's-- that's our money . We will just go get it"
> Anyone believe that Beohner and the Rebubs thinks differently?


I am pretty sure that was from a satirical article posted online. I am no fan of pelosi or the democrats but I can't stand when people regurgitate whatever they hear on the internet as gospel. I cringe every time I hear someone reference Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin's "I can see Russia from my house" remark as if she actually said it.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

3percent said:


> I have heard that and ran numbers and scenarios on spread sheets and with my wife. I think on paper it works out. But in real life...No way. I have a very relaxed feeling knowing that our house is totally paid off and we owe taxes and insurance and that is it. Less than a grand a year between the two.
> 
> Why did we do it?
> 
> ...


Hear you on that. When I retired about 3 years ago we took a lump sum from the retirement plan which was enough to pay off this little empty nester crib we got plust enough left to buy back some retirement time from another place which happens to give out a heck of a good deal on health insurance to retirees plus subsidizes dependents. Only way it would work. Just turned 65 and got a big cut on the property taxes. We are surviving. Hope Obummer keeps them SS checks coming..lol.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

rjd25 said:


> In an inflationary scenario having debt is actually a good thing. As a matter of fact two of the most successful hedges against hyperinflation is precious metals and real estate debt. The principal amount owed on your mortgage doesn't change as the value of the dollar comes down putting you in a good position as far as equity goes in your real estate portfolio. You should have taken some of your savings and bought some silver it is crazy undervalued right now. Most "people in the know" follow the 33/33/33 rule for hedging which is 1/3 Precious Metals, 1/3 Real Estate, 1/3 Artwork or other material objects.


I like 33 33 33 plan

33% Rice
33% Beans
33% PM silver and Lead

1% seasoning and brown gravy mix


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Welcome to the forums.
> 
> I do not believe that the US Federal Government (Dems or Repubs) care about the debt one rats ass. I do believe that they care about taking my and your hard earned money and giving it to others via what they deem to be "fairness distribution".
> 
> ...


Taxing Tobacco and Booze


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

I don't see why they would raid private bank accounts before they just cooked the books, or are they already cooking the books? Nobody told me!

On the taxes thing. They just raised a gas tax, just after it went down too. I think it was 10-15 cents a gallon.


----------



## 3percent (Dec 28, 2014)

James m said:


> *On the taxes thing. They just raised a gas tax, just after it went down too. I think it was 10-15 cents a gallon.*


Of course they did. It's for Mother Gia and the children.

Funny: these idiots in DC and elsewhere were all concerned about gas guzzling cars and the environment and peak oil. Cars start getting better MPG and the cash-holes in DC and your state capitals start freaking out because of....lower gas tax revenue. They don't care one siht about the environment. Only green they give a damn about it the green in your wallet (or purse, for the ladies).


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

We are far more likely to be boiled like a frog in a hot tub then skewered like a phat hog in Hawaii....


----------



## Makwa (Dec 19, 2014)

I think if the banks accounts get raided it will by the banks looting to cover loses on their poor investments, not the governments themselves. It's called bail-in and 
there are many who say this is a distinct possibility if we have too big to fail banks fail again. When you stick your money in the bank these days you lose control of it and it is just digital money that is considered to be you 'investing' in the bank. Rest assured, between the government, banks and other large corporations that fund politicians, they will suck you dry.

I personally advocate only keeping enough in the bank to pay monthly bills.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

They would have to shut down the FDIC first.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Welcome to the group from Arizona. 
Land of Sun, Surf, and Sand. 
Ok, I lied, no surf, but enough sand 
to fill all the sand bags I’ll ever need!

I think there would be a revolution.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

Some Pension Checks Vulnerable Under New Law

Terry*Savage*

*12/15/14 09:33 PM ET

Are you expecting a monthly pension check during retirement? If so, better check again. If you are covered by a multi-employer pension plan -- typically administered by unions that cover workers in a single industry -- some new rules passed by Congress as part of the omnibus spending bill may lead to cuts in your promised retirement benefits.

Under these new rules, the benefits you've been promised in multi-employer plans can actually be cut if your plan is in jeopardy of failure within 15 years and is less than 80-percent funded. (Retirees age 80 years old and older would be protected from cuts.) This is a huge change from longstanding federal rules that prohibit scaling back pension benefits.

It's no secret that many pensions are "underfunded," having promised more future benefits than the current investments can provide. Even with the stock market at all-time highs, some of those promises are in jeopardy since the appropriate contributions were not made in time to create the growth needed to pay the pensions.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

updated 12/18/2014

Severely distressed multiemployer pensions will be able to reduce benefits paid to retirees under an amendment to the Continuing Resolution/omnibus spending bill (dubbed "cromnibus")*that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on Dec. 16, 2014.*H.R. 83,*the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015, had been*approved by the U.S. Senate on Dec. 13,*two days after House passage.

The pension measure included in the omnibus legislation, the*Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, was negotiated by a bipartisan group of congressional leaders but opposed by some retiree advocates and their congressional allies. It*is intended to let deeply underfunded multiemployer plans avoid bankruptcy and termination, and by doing so to keep solvent the multiemployer pension insurance fund overseen by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC), the federal pension insurance program.

The provisions apply only to multiemployer pensions and not to single-sponsor corporate pensions, which are subject to a different set of regulations and higher funding-level requirements. The PBGC maintains a separate insurance fund for single-sponsor pensions. Multiemployer, or "Taft-Hartley," pension plans commonly are administered by labor unions on behalf of their members and funded by multiple employers in a given industry, subject to collective bargaining contracts with the union.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

The debt of the US government is in dollars, which are produced by the government, so they can either raise taxes or print more dollars to keep the machine going, albeit at the cost of inflation or some other economic consequence. Other countries like Greece or Cyprus have debt in currencies that they do not control, so their situations are not directly comparable.

The pension issue is not about debt of the government but the underfunding of union sponsored pension plans. If you are in one of those plans the recent action means the plan is able to adjust for changing life expectancies. Anybody with a Defined Benefit Pension plan has a risk that the plan could be underfunded and go bust. That isn't a government debt, except to the limits of the PBGC, and shouldn't be mixed into the discussion.


----------



## K9 Prepper (Jan 9, 2015)

Well anything is possible, but like said on here there would be chaos if that ever happened. No matter what reason the governemnt would give the S will HTF.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

K9 Prepper said:


> Well anything is possible, but like said on here there would be chaos if that ever happened. No matter what reason the governemnt would give the S will HTF.


Pension funds go bust or get changed all the time. Notice any chaos? The whole pension issue is an interesting issue, but it isn't a SHTF event.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Yall say S would HTF but what would you really do about it? Stand in a group on the side of the road and picket holding signs and dont tread on me flags?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

keith9365 said:


> Yall say S would HTF but what would you really do about it? Stand in a group on the side of the road and picket holding signs and dont tread on me flags?


No we don't all say that an economic collapse would be a SHTF event, not do we agree on what an economic collapse would look like. What to do about it is moot until we have a common understanding of what it might look like.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

If you are worried about the economy collapsing maybe having tangible assets, land, PMs and such would help to quell that fear. I'm no financial expert, yet if you own it and the economy tanks you may loose your shirt yet you'd still have something to show for it. 

I would be terrified of a collapse if all my assets were in financial institutions and instruments, since there is a chance a large chunk of those assets would simply disappear. In the financial crisis of 2008 wasn't it something like 40% of the wealth in the US simply vanished. I think if you were looking for a wake up call 2008 might have been it.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

There isnt enough dollars in circulation to pay the debt.

Learn about Fractional reserve.

It is quite impossible to "pay off" the us debt with US fed res dollars as every dollar made is a dollar of debt plus interest.

On the other hand the US dollar holds no real value and is tied to a surplus gold stock - the US actually isnt in debt but actually the fed holds gold in trust for the US gov. It is sort of complex but it is safe to say the us dollar is thereto stay for a decade or longer.

The only thing that can lead to sudden economic collapse of the US is major calamaty.

This does not exclude hiccups. It is highly unlikely that congress would facilitate its own collapse. The US is likely to embark on a path of decline like the british in 1850 though this the last decade of US domination of global affairs. The emergence of a new global multiparty order is unfolding with China finally emerging as the superstate as the malthusian doctrine shows itself. Without global dieoff we are approaching climax on population growth. The next few decades are a stumbling blick for humanities growth period in history. It is a wall.

This is not to say the US will wither and die the Brithish 100 years on are stilk a powerful Rump. In an age of megastates the US is evermore on among many and likely moreso as the endtimes unfold.

The stakes are too high for anyone to walk out of a great war on their feet as in yesteryears age of diplomacy.

We have time but without great change S will HTF in ourlifetime , oldfarts excluded perhaps (boomers). We the Gens are within reach of immortality with a population crisis on the earth.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Seneca said:


> If you are worried about the economy collapsing maybe having tangible assets, land, PMs and such would help to quell that fear. I'm no financial expert, yet if you own it and the economy tanks you may loose your shirt yet you'd still have something to show for it.
> 
> I would be terrified of a collapse if all my assets were in financial institutions and instruments, since there is a chance a large chunk of those assets would simply disappear. In the financial crisis of 2008 wasn't it something like 40% of the wealth in the US simply vanished. I think if you were looking for a wake up call 2008 might have been it.


No 40% of the wealth in the US did not vanish. Market prices dropped on houses and in the stock market. The stock market is now at a record, so if you simply held on you are now ahead and houses have returned to normal in some parts of the country and on their way in others.

However, I agree that 2008 was a at least a wake up call and perhaps was the event that everyone seems so worried about.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

There are some interesting conflicts afoot in that world.

Detroit didn't the judges approve of changes / cuts to retirement benefits?
Stockton, CA I know the judges ruled "F" the bond holders the retirement benefits are 100% protected.



Diver said:


> Pension funds go bust or get changed all the time. Notice any chaos? The whole pension issue is an interesting issue, but it isn't a SHTF event.


----------



## TacticalCanuck (Aug 5, 2014)

Diver said:


> The debt of the US government is in dollars, which are produced by the government, so they can either raise taxes or print more dollars to keep the machine going, albeit at the cost of inflation or some other economic consequence. Other countries like Greece or Cyprus have debt in currencies that they do not control, so their situations are not directly comparable.
> 
> The pension issue is not about debt of the government but the underfunding of union sponsored pension plans. If you are in one of those plans the recent action means the plan is able to adjust for changing life expectancies. Anybody with a Defined Benefit Pension plan has a risk that the plan could be underfunded and go bust. That isn't a government debt, except to the limits of the PBGC, and shouldn't be mixed into the discussion.


I may of misunderstood the source but I believe that the federal reserve controls the printing of US dollars and that printing more money at the request of the U.S. Government is one of two ways more money get in circulation. The other is they print it at their own whim driving inflation and decreasing the value in every dollar in circulation. I don't think the federal reserve is owned or operated by the U.S. Government nor is its book keeping public record.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Ripon said:


> There are some interesting conflicts afoot in that world.
> 
> Detroit didn't the judges approve of changes / cuts to retirement benefits?
> Stockton, CA I know the judges ruled "F" the bond holders the retirement benefits are 100% protected.


In a bankruptcy the obligor has more debt than he can repay. Someone is going to get screwed. With a corporation the pension fund is usually terminated (not always) and the retirees wind up getting what the PBGC provides. In municipal bankruptcies, different rules apply by state as to who gets paid and who get stiffed. The pension fund may be ahead of certain other debt holders and behind others in priority.

My main point is simply that this sort of thing happens now and adjustments to pensions do not appear likely to be a SHTF event.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

TacticalCanuck said:


> I may of misunderstood the source but I believe that the federal reserve controls the printing of US dollars and that printing more money at the request of the U.S. Government is one of two ways more money get in circulation. The other is they print it at their own whim driving inflation and decreasing the value in every dollar in circulation. I don't think the federal reserve is owned or operated by the U.S. Government nor is its book keeping public record.


The key point here is the US debt is in a currency it controls, where many other countries have debt in some currency other than their own. That gives the US flexibility other countries do not always have.

Regarding the organization of the Federal Reserve, that is a favorite topic of some folks, but really tells you nothing about when an economic collapse will occur because it doesn't change. Whether you think the organization is good or bad, the Federal Reserve has been organized as it is now for over 100 years. Technically, it is not owned by the Federal Government, but if you don't think it is controlled by the Federal Government I have a tin foil hat I'd like you to try on.

As for it's bookkeeping being public record, it is as transparent as other central banks. The issue some would like you to think matters is auditing of the Fed. I'm not aware of other central banks being audited, or other parts of the Federal Government being audited in a conventional sense, so again it says nothing about when an economic collapse might occur.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

slewfoot said:


> There would be rioting thru out the nation if they tried that and they know it.


It would be possible if they had their way on firearms confiscation. Our guns are the only things that keep them in check.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Makwa said:


> I think if the banks accounts get raided it will by the banks looting to cover loses on their poor investments, not the governments themselves. It's called bail-in and
> there are many who say this is a distinct possibility if we have too big to fail banks fail again. When you stick your money in the bank these days you lose control of it and it is just digital money that is considered to be you 'investing' in the bank. Rest assured, between the government, banks and other large corporations that fund politicians, they will suck you dry.
> 
> I personally advocate only keeping enough in the bank to pay monthly bills.


Why would banks "loot" to cover poor investments rather than simply declaring bankruptcy? Frankly if I were in charge of a major banking institution and had a problem of that magnitude, I think I'd let it go bankrupt rather than compound my problems with criminal acts.

BTW: We do have "too big to fail" banks but the term now used is "systemically important". Same deal. Nothing has been done to change the system in that regard.

Regarding large corporations "funding politicians" it sounds like you are on the same side of that issue as Obama. Is that what you intend to say?


----------



## DWSinTXS (Nov 30, 2014)

Well, there's been a lot of interesting answers, but i don't feel as if my original question has been answered. I was under the impression that this had actually happened before (in Cyprus?) and was thinking it could happen here.

Maybe i'm just not correctly understanding the economic scale of it all. It just seemed to me that a good way to tip off and start an economic SHTF scenario would be that the government needs a quick way to wipe out the deficit and the easiest way to get that cash is to take it from the citizens, laws or not, I feel that the government if they really wanted to, would quickly adopt laws (a la Homeland Security - National Security) and just take what was needed. As one post said, 'what are we going to do about it, wave protest signs and yell at them?' 
Thy wouldn't care if we did. . .


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

What occurred in Cyprus was the government went broke. The money it owed was not in its own currency. Their banks held substantial deposits from foreign investors, so the government confiscated funds from depositors. To do this in the US would require a change in US law, but more importantly, the US government debt is in US dollars. They can simply print more dollars and have no need to resort to a Cyprus style solution.

As to whether it could happen elsewhere, I would look to countries with substantial debt in a currency they can't control and a substantial base of foreign deposits.

At present I don't think you'll find many examples as the foreign depositors have largely exited such countries.


----------

