AngryVanMan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2016
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 1
Cyprus suffered what is known as a "bail-in" vs. the bail outs like we had in the US during the Great Recession. You can see more details here. Basically, Cyprus was a large offshore banking provider, held bad debts and tax-sheltered money for offshore companies and oligarchs, and it became a problem during the global recession. The oligarchs and corps fled with their money after working with the Cypriot government to engineer a banking holiday, where Cypriot citizens' banking assets were frozen and used to pay off the private bad debt by shifting it onto the public. It is the same as any austerity measure where the public bears the burden of private market gambling or corruption. Major withdrawal restrictions were imposed on the citizens to recapitalize the banks after the banking holiday was lifted.
Similar measures are being undertaken in EU countries in the form of negative interest rate policy (NIRP) on central bank holdings. This is slightly different, but the desired effect is to spur investment and spending while providing a disincentive for savings (or "hoarding" in doublespeak terms.) Once NIRP trickles down to the consumer level, the interest you earn on your personal savings will be negative, i.e. a fee to save money in a bank. Central banks are trying to determine what to do about the "cash problem" now as cash holding would interfere with NIRP effectiveness, and they propose to solve the problem by banning or severely restricting cash and cash purchases. Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland are all in negative interest rate territory today.
NIRP is being explored as an option by the US Federal Reserve right now, they have added NIRP to their large bank stress testing to see how large banks would react under that type of regulation. Personally, I would consider it the writing on the wall. Cash is king, but he's looking to be overthrown. I recommend gettin' while the gettin' is good...
A secondary effect of limiting cash transactions is to functionally reduce or eliminate the financial privacy of a countries citizens.
Similar measures are being undertaken in EU countries in the form of negative interest rate policy (NIRP) on central bank holdings. This is slightly different, but the desired effect is to spur investment and spending while providing a disincentive for savings (or "hoarding" in doublespeak terms.) Once NIRP trickles down to the consumer level, the interest you earn on your personal savings will be negative, i.e. a fee to save money in a bank. Central banks are trying to determine what to do about the "cash problem" now as cash holding would interfere with NIRP effectiveness, and they propose to solve the problem by banning or severely restricting cash and cash purchases. Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland are all in negative interest rate territory today.
NIRP is being explored as an option by the US Federal Reserve right now, they have added NIRP to their large bank stress testing to see how large banks would react under that type of regulation. Personally, I would consider it the writing on the wall. Cash is king, but he's looking to be overthrown. I recommend gettin' while the gettin' is good...
A secondary effect of limiting cash transactions is to functionally reduce or eliminate the financial privacy of a countries citizens.