Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buy and Sell Signals, and Other Market Perspectives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Felix who wrote (45025)	1/31/2013 11:32:38 AM
From: Seismo	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220694

The HSBC money laundering crime shows that the regulators view these banks as not only too big to fail but to big to even criminally prosecute. They were fined $9 billion for money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels. Why no criminal prosecutions? The regulators said that if they brought up criminal charges then HSBC might lose their banking license and that might have a destabilizing influence on global finance. NOTHING has changed from 2008. The banks are now not only too big to fail but literally too big to prosecute. They own politicians globally.

To: Steve Felix who wrote (45025)	1/31/2013 12:28:45 PM
From: FCom777	Respond to of 220694

There certainly have been ample opportunities to hold the Banksters accountable for theft that has already occurred - and you're absolutely correct - the Powers That Be looked the other way and did nothing. That's most likely because the PTB are still in bed with the Banksters - and if it is at all possible - they will continue to protect them. My suggestion is that there will come a day when this is not possible. Base it on the numerics associated with the the budget, debt, etc. Our current course is not sustainable. I really do not believe that there is very much debate about this point. The debate has to do with the timing of the debacle. Politicians have proven very adept at kicking the can down the road. The question is how much longer can they do it ? Many would say for a lot longer - and they are probably correct - which is why I threw in the ten year number. Historically, I think the best analogies are with the McArthey (sp?) hearings of the 50's and the Nixon hearings of the 70's. These events did not occur overnight. They both directly challenged the power structure that existed at that time. I'd also suggest that they were the result (or at least given the appearance of) being caused by a popular up swell. I'm too young to fully understand the factors behind the McArthey hearings but with Nixon -it took a few years to build the momentum needed to effect change. My sense is that a similar up swell against Bankster antics is already occurring - but is still in its early stages. Probably the best litmus test is the Fed Audit bills being considered by Congress. Sure, the Banksters have effectively used their pull and influence to de-fang any real attempts to disclose their thievery, but each time a new Congress gets elected - the issue is re-raised and the opposition to the Banksters gets a little stronger. Sooner or later,- a real audit will occur - and that will signal the beginning of the end for the Bankster elite. The irony is that it really can not occur any other way. The Banksters are effectively perpetuating an agenda that - in the end - will seal their fate. There already is no way out of the American financial debacle without defaulting on the majority of the debt that has been incurred. Banksters view it as 'Game Won'. Their bet is with Government suppression of the American population and law enforcement of the status quo - I do not think that is a good bet - at the end of the day - since it will be too easy to scapegoat the banksters when the time comes.