When I saw this story, my very first thought was, “Here we go…this is part of the agenda to further consolidate and centralize banking and financial power…and again, the powerful will line their pockets on the backs of ordinary people.”

What the government elite have made clear in this series of bailouts is:
– While they want to kill jobs to stifle inflation, they don’t want kill THESE banking and tech jobs. Their goal is the working class and small businesses. Not their rich friends in banking and tech.
– The federal government is blatantly creating incentive for people to take their funds out of smaller banks and deposit them at the big banks, by clearly signaling that they will only backstop the big banks…”because they are systemically critical”

This is part of a deeper agenda to further shift financial power away from ordinary Americans and into the hands of the elite. And in the process, further centralize banking and economic power.

This is only the beginning…do you see it yet? Let me know your thoughts!

#bailouts #thefed #globalization…(read more)

LEARN MORE ABOUT: Bank Failures

REVEALED: Best Investment During Inflation

HOW TO INVEST IN GOLD: Gold IRA Investing

HOW TO INVEST IN SILVER: Silver IRA Investing

Bank Bailouts & The Agenda to Further Centralize Power

The issue of bank bailouts has been a contentious topic in recent years, particularly in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. While the concept of bailing out troubled banks may seem like a necessary evil to prevent economic collapse, there is growing concern that these bailouts serve a hidden agenda. Many believe that bank bailouts are part of a broader plan to further centralize power and control in the hands of a select few.

At first glance, bank bailouts appear to be a measure taken by governments to stabilize financial institutions and protect the economy. When banks face insolvency, governments step in by providing financial assistance, injecting capital, or guaranteeing their liabilities. This prevents a chain reaction of bankruptcies and ensures the functioning of the financial system. However, digging deeper into the consequences of these bailouts reveals a darker truth.

One of the primary concerns is that bank bailouts perpetuate a flawed financial system. By continuously rescuing troubled banks, governments create moral hazard, enabling reckless behavior and discouraging responsible decision-making. Instead of letting poorly managed banks face the consequences of their actions, bailouts encourage banks to take excessive risks, knowing that they will be rescued by the state if those risks go sour. This, in turn, perpetuates a system that is inherently unstable and susceptible to future crises.

Moreover, the banks that receive bailouts often end up becoming even more powerful. As smaller, struggling banks are allowed to fail or are merged into larger ones, the concentration of power in a few major financial institutions increases. This consolidation is alarming as it limits competition, reduces consumer choice, and gives these large banks significant control over the economy. Critics argue that bank bailouts, under the guise of preserving stability, actually serve to strengthen the hold of these powerful institutions over global finance.

Another dimension to the centralization of power is the influence of international financial institutions and regulatory bodies. When governments seek assistance in bailing out their banks, they often turn to organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank. While these institutions may provide much-needed financial support, they also exert considerable influence over the policies and decisions of recipient countries. This can lead to a loss of sovereignty and increased dependence on external actors.

Centralizing power in the hands of a few financial institutions and international bodies raises concerns about democracy and accountability. With power concentrated in the hands of a select group, ordinary citizens may find themselves with limited influence over economic policies that affect their daily lives. Furthermore, these powerful entities may be less accountable to the public, as decision-making becomes more opaque and detached from democratic processes.

Critics argue that alternatives to bank bailouts exist that could address the root causes of financial instability more effectively. For instance, implementing stricter regulations, breaking up large banks, and promoting a more decentralized and diverse financial system are potential solutions. Such measures would help prevent the consolidation of power and encourage a healthier, more resilient economy.

In conclusion, bank bailouts may seem like a necessary response to financial crises, but they have implications that extend beyond the surface. There are concerns that these bailouts perpetuate a flawed system, concentrate power in the hands of a few, and erode democratic accountability. Exploring alternatives that prioritize systemic stability and a more diverse financial landscape is crucial to curbing the centralization of power and ensuring a fair and stable economy for all.