Sunday, April 7, 2013

1933 Video "Benefits of Inflation" & Banking Crisis Refuge



Here is a newsreel from 1933 that explains how inflation stimulates demand to get the economy moving again. I believe economist  Dr. Paul Krugman uses this film as one of the prime teaching videos in his macroeconomics classes. If nothing else, this YouTube video is an amazing window into the great economic and social crisis of 80 years ago and probably essentially represents what one major political party still believes is the solution to our economic malaise. It is really a  much more "hip" production than what contemporary people might expect from what we generally consider a "stodgy" era. You can become a time traveller by investing just 10 minutes in this video. Here is the link:  http://www.popmodal.com/video/2066/Vintage-pro-inflation-propaganda         Provided courtesy of TCM

I am also sending a link to a guest post by Ellen Brown on Barry Ritholtz's The Big Picture site on an alleged US-UK plan to take the bank savings deposits of savers (depositors) and use them to recapitalize the banks in the event of a financial crisis so great that it dwarfs the ability of the FDIC to cover insured bank deposits. The NCUA is the insurance entity for credit unions that does what the FDIC does for banks. I am not sure what it's ratio of capital to liabilities is, but it may not be much better than that of the FDIC (which is 5%). The Ellen Brown article has a short educational section on the actual legal staus of bank depositors under the fractional reserve banking system, which is unpleasantly different from what I thought it was. This has made me start thinking about where I could invest a large savings account that would give me the highest priority creditor status. This is an action that would have to be completed ahead of time because bank accounts would be frozen as they have been in Cyprus once such a calamity struck. This kind of event could be worse than the Banking Crisis of 1933 because the US Treasury has a much worse balance sheet than it carried in 1933 and the Federal Reserve has a vastly huger balance sheet (of which vulnerable mortgage-backed securities comprise a large part). In 1933 the US Government had the financial strength and credibility to back up the US banking system. That is quite questionable now. The FDIC has only 5% of the money it would need to pay off all insured depositors (up to $250k per depositor for each account class, that is: regular savings or IRA) if all the banks failed simultaneously. This admittedly is an unlikely event, but not an impossible one. The acquisition of gold/gold coins to keep as real money is so widely discussed at the site http://www.safehaven.com/  that it is unnecessary for me to repeat the extensive arguments made there.
    I am thinking that short term US Treasury notes and bills would be the safest thing to be in because the US Government must redeem these notes in order to be able to keep financing its operations. But the purchaser of Treasury instruments can no longer hold these directly, but must place them in custody of a dealer (like TD Ameritrade) who holds them in electronic custody. That raises the question of whether the Treasury is personally liable to you for your investment if the broker-dealer fails. I think the answer is that the US Treasury must be, or it's creditworthiness would be a sham. But I can't assert that assumption with absolute knowledge so I must research this crucial topic. Anyone else who has knowledge on this subject is invited to comment. I am going to post this letter on my blog at the Unraveller's Spool on Google Blog. This is the link to my blog if you are interested: unravellersspool.blogspot.com. Outlook express wouldn't turn the preceding web address into a clickable link so you will have to copy and paste it into your browser address line if you want to use it. However, what is much more important is that you read the Ellen Brown article at this link: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/bank-confiscation-scheme-for-us-and-uk-depositors/

                                                 The Unraveller

No comments:

Post a Comment