Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1666783, member: 26302&quot;]Thanks for the insight. My first thought when reading about this was why would the money &quot;taxed&quot; not be changed into bank ownership positions. It sounds like that is what they did. Doesn&#039;t make it &quot;right&quot;, but I feel better about it that they just didn&#039;t take the money, but rather was a forced cash investment into their banking system.</p><p><br /></p><p>Would I be happy if this were done to me? Oh heck no, but I would be a lot less happy if they just took the money, than if it were basically a forced investment.</p><p><br /></p><p>Actually in this structure such a thing seems more likely in the US. Think about it. If they can force a farmer in the middle of North Dakota to have to buy health insurance whether he likes it or not, why can&#039;t they force bank depositors to be shareholders whether they like it or not. We are not so different than this story at this point in our history. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in