I rather doubt it but I was wondering what other people thought of this question. I doubt it because of how well they have done for the last several hundred years but I also think that that could be because of normalcy bias on my part. And just so we are clear, in my view there is no fate too horrible for those people.
If they have been able to hide their true wealth I'm not sure how they could hide it all, maybe decent portions of it but I don't know how they could hide significant portions. If anything they would probably have found a way to hide it in plain sight.
Thoughts please.
The bankers never lose. You will though.
Owned by the same company. It's a trick land management uses. One company goes under and sells to a new company owned by the investors.
The House always wins.
That is an excellent idea/object for a lesson, the banking cartels were explicitly never supposed to be the house.
On the contrary, monopolizing positions of power in finance to gain control akin to 'The House' vs. gamblers is the whole point of banks organizing into cartels in the first place. That level of organization exists explicitly to rig the financial game.
For example: in it's highest form of expression, 'banking cartels' equates to the organization of the central banks-- which exists to control the power of the mint; they are 'the house' because they own the chips. If they are losing, then they can mint money until they aren't-- paid for by the public via inflation. Add in fractional reserve banking and the management/milking of every boom/bust cycle, and you wind up with a truism: The House always wins.
I was thinking in terms of the constitutional dictate on this. Which isn't to say that the government would have been a lot better but at least congress would implicitly have at least some better understanding of the importance of maintaining the value of currency rather than how it is now where most of the congress critters literally have no idea at all of how it works and instead feel that Federal Reserve cartel must surely know what they are doing and/or that they (congress) can point the finger at the cartel when things go bad.
It is also a good bet that we would not have had an endless string of wars if the cartel never got a hold of control of the US currency. Oh well, if it didn't happen here it would have happened elsewhere I suppose.
I hear you. It's a lesson from history lost on most people. The last American politicians advocating for that type of constitutionalist anti-National Bank stance with any fervor went down with the Titanic.
Every politician since has kissed the ring. Lickspittles, the lot of them.
Yep. All the destruction of war, from the bombs, to the collateral damage, to the debt, must be financed with rented money. Imagine collecting compounding interest on even a single war's worth of debt for the rest of time.
The cartels have-- and they will continue to do so.
The Congress understands all too well.
No. That was decided in 2008 when in response to a shamefully poor performance on the part of the big banks, they were rewarded for this with taxpayer money rather than being broken into smaller banks that could be permitted to collapse.
That was the moment when it was decided that the US government would sacrifice the livelihoods of the population to prop up the banks.
Really, that depends on what you mean by "goes bust" and what form that takes. In the extreme, physical possession will be the only thing maintained, and it's not possible to physically possess millions of acres of land and thousands of houses. Ownership will revert to a more common-law interpretation.
This is why it is going to be important to root out all of their assets which I suspect is going to be more difficult than we imagine. If these are truly a family operation they will hide assets for generations before making further attempts to seize control again.
Even individuals can play the shell corp. game.
Panama. Papers.
Systemic rot is bone deep.
Nah, if the dollar goes, their assets evaporate. You think anyone's going to leave their father's farmland or the house they've been in for forty years because someone claims to own it based on the old times?
They need continuity to maintain control.
“To big to fail”
So no they will get a bailout while the rest of us get screwed
Only if it gets so bad they the people rise up to tear them from their decadent nests.
If the dollar fails, remember that the banks have a significant amount of other assets, such as gold available to them. It will probably hurt them, but...not as much as it would hurt everyone else.
Their foreign operations become more valuable but it's more expensive to expand their foreign operations using USD denominated capital. So it depends. Overall, I think for most banks, it's just changing market conditions they can adapt to and it doesn't necessarily spell worse or better prospects on average.