Bail-Ins Are Fraudulent

VANCOUVER, Canada ( Bullions Bull Canada) -- In condemning the open criminality of Western regimes as they planned well in advance and then executed the robbery of funds from peoples' bank deposits in Cyprus, it's important to understand that such condemnation is not based merely on sentimental/populist grounds. Rather, the entire premise of the "bail-in" (as it was perpetrated in Cyprus) is fundamentally flawed.

The bank robbery committed in Cyprus was based upon blatantly fraudulent reasoning. The regimes in Europe which have carried out this crime, and the North American regimes which have made it their own official policy, are being intentionally dishonest in "marketing" it to their own people.

Specifically, there is no possible basis where bank depositors should be expected to indemnify the reckless gambling of the banks in which they have stored their savings. There is a glaring and inexcusable fiction being pedaled by the mainstream media and our governments here: that bank shareholders (i.e bank investors) and bank depositors (i.e. savers) are somehow equivalent classes of sheep to fleece in "bailing-in" the reckless gambling and gigantic losses produced by big banks. They are not.

There is a direct and legitimate basis in both logic and contract law for assigning losses to bank investors foolish enough to entrust their risk capital to the world's most-notorious gamblers. When one "invests" in any company, one implicitly assumes the risk of some or all of their capital being consumed if the company experiences serious losses.

There is no legal or factual parallel with respect to bank depositors, i.e. savers. By definition, savers are individuals who have chosen not to "invest" their wealth. They have chosen not to expose it to risk. Indeed, these same countries have all created laws which explicitly recognize this legal principle: depositor's insurance.

Why do our governments (supposedly) provide "100% insurance" of our bank deposits? To serve the principle that such wealth should be entirely immune from any risk/loss, other than being eaten up at a voracious rate by the "inflation" created by these same big banks and governments.

Do bank shareholders receive such protection? No. Has anyone ever suggested that bank shareholders should have such protection (other than bank shareholders)? No. Because it is explicitly understood they have chosen to expose themselves to such risks (in return for enormously greater potential to profit from their investment).