Greece, Bailouts, Banks, and Robber Barons

Have not checked the veracity of the claims in this article, but that the banks got bailed out by the taxpayers is clear.

Just which banks and who owns them is not something I’ve chased down. (But since this one has been aging a while, I’m not going to get to that step, so it’s going up ‘naked’ with just the lone link.) I think this might have come from tips, long ago, so if you put me onto it, h/t and stand up…

Who Got the Bail-outs Granted to Greece? The Name Is Rothschild

Posted on July 1, 2015 by Anders

For Greece, the membership of the Euro zone seems to be drawing to and end. If it does after the referendum on Sunday it would be a gain for Greece who would suddenly have the mechanisms to regulate its currency: 1) Interest rate increase and 2) devaluation. A big NO to the Euro is expected.

And at this point we know the people said they wanted a “No” and the money, but settled for just the money…

This will mean poverty – but what is going on so far is a cure that is worsening the disease: With every bail-out the country sinks deeper into the debt quagmire, and new austerity measures are placed upon a people already on the verge of revolution.

Oddly, it is impossible for me to find a list of Greece´s private creditors and their outstanding credits.

And who has benefited from the bail-outs? Rothschild´s banks – not least his Goldman Sachs – the scourge of the world.
Although being very similar to the black rider of the Apocalypse, Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein (left) says: “I´m doing God´s work”, his God being Mammon/Rothschild. (Heinrich Heine: The god of our time is Mammon. And Rothschild is his prophet)

The Guardian 29 June 2015: Only 10% of the €240bn total bailout money Greece received in 2010 and 2012 found its way into the government’s coffers to soften the blow of the 2008 financial crash and fund reform programmes. Most of the money went to the banks that lent Greece funds before the crash.

Athens was forced to dramatically reduce its deficit by squeezing pensions and cutting the minimum wage.

That is a pattern that has become all too familiar in our “Too Big To Fail” post crash world. Now what I want to know is why the management of any bank getting bailout money is not walked out the door for having made such bad lending decisions that they put themselves on the dole? The BANK may be “to big to fail” but the management isn’t.

The other thing I’d like to know is why “too big to fail” is fixed via mergers when it ought to be fixed by breakup.

So I’d give this story zero credence had I seen management being told “No bonus for you this year” and perp-walked out the door; and the Big Banks being turned into a dozen Small Banks “Under New Management”… But when you see bonuses for bailouts on the Taxpayer’s Back, and mergers to the horizon, well, it just smells of “special favors”.

Now I’m generally an advocate of capitalism and free markets. In this case, I still am…

But what we have here is anything BUT capitalism. It is that peculiar type of Socialism called “Third Way Socialism” or “Market Socialism”, where the major enterprises are doing what the government wants, and in exchange bankruptcy does not happen. (Check it out, “avoidance of bankruptcy” is a tenet of Marxism.) Often called “Crony Capitalism”, it is on the hairy edge where markets give way to Central Planning and the corruption that comes with it. Now you can argue it either way. Socialism Lite with Markets, or Crony Capitalism with Central Planning. It is what it is, and what it is is evil.

In the end, the richest of the rich who own and manage banks (be they Rothchild or not) get the money and the taxpayer pays. IMHO, exactly wrong. The banks took the risk and made the loans, it ought to be their problem, not ours. Let the chips fall as needed.

Oh Well. We’ll see how long this works before the Grand Collapse. It is not a sustainable system. You would think they had learned that by now. Free markets are stable, but chaotic and cruel. Marxism and Managed Markets are smoother and fair; right up until the corruption and rot causes a catastrophic collapse. Pick your poison.

(Me? My favorite is a lightly regulated market as the USA had in about the ’50s to ’70s; but it seems to be unstable toward the Lange Type Socialism and Managed Market 3rd Way that we’re passing through now on our way to collapse…)

At least it will be interesting watching the race. Who collapses first? China? EU? USA? I think it will be in about that order, but not with enough certainty to bet on it…

All depends on who spends all the other guy’s money first, and which one notices the cookie jar is empty when… Southern EU States (can’t really call them Nations any more…) are in the lead, but Germany and the north might keep propping them up a lot longer. China is in freefall (having noticed that we can’t buy any of their stuff when they have collected all the chips…) but their government is puffing into the harpooned balloon with $Millions per day. And the USA is doing just fine, as long as you ignore our race to poverty and borrowing a couple of $Trillion per year to consume… from folks who may notice we can’t ever pay them back and have no intention of every doing so in real terms.

So place your bets on who smells the dead roses first, the wheel is about to spin…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Economics - Trading - and Money, Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Greece, Bailouts, Banks, and Robber Barons

  1. JBK says:

    I’m no expert on the Greece fiasco, but I understood that the current creditors are mostly governments or NGOs like the IMF. The banks got their money in the last bailout along with a haircut. The current bailout seems to work like this, Germany hands Greece X billions of Euros, Greece hands the money back to pay for the loans that the Germans already made.

    This Rothschild thing, again I don’t know but it has a certain whiff of Der Stürmer to it. Not to say Goldman Sachs hasn’t been making money off of this situation.

  2. Larry Ledwick says:

    Interesting issue about a free market economy and growth of companies. Growth and free competition are pretty much universally accepted as being good in a true free market. When companies grow so big that they approach monopolies or become 600 pound gorillias that can crush all competition most folks accept that that is bad.

    I think the one thing missing from the basic concept of capitalism and free markets is that there is every incentive to grow until you become one of those “bad companies” and no incentive to split as you grow larger. Perhaps if companies were required to spawn smaller independent units before they could execute a stock split it would create such an incentive for branching at the top so that no one company became a destructive monster to the detriment of the whole. Standard Oil was split up by government action, and monopoly busting was popular for a while (see AT&T) but did those splits really solve the problem or just make it harder to track?

    Even more importantly what exactly is the legal basis for breaking up very big companies. Who decides Google or Micro Soft or Apple etc. are too big and have become destructive to innovation and growth. In Defense contractors post WWII there was a conscious effort to keep multiple players in the game by bouncing contracts round robin through the list of capable contractors. Multiple ship yards, multiple aircraft companies etc.

    Some where along the road that idea has gone away and you now have mega corporations like Lockeed Martin and Rockwell, and McDonald Douglas which has now merged with Boeing which control so much of the pie that they have to sublet contracts to each other so they have become effectively one company in many contexts. Same applies to large distributed contracts for aircraft supported by manufactures in multiple countries. You now have global contracts for large projects (partially because the project is so complex and expensive) and also as a bit of pay back to all the players to keep them on the same side.

    What is the natural (non-punitive) limit to perpetual growth in a free market to keep companies from becoming so big they begin to crush all competition and tip the balance of all government decisions in their favor?

    Same issue with banks and financial institutions which are so big they can play the market with impunity.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Larry says “….I think the one thing missing from the basic concept of capitalism and free markets is that there is every incentive to grow until you become one of those “bad companies” and no incentive to split as you grow larger….”

    I think the founders of the USA had a solution to that problem. A corporation had a set life and a limited venue.

    I am not sure how true this info is E.M. may know.
    Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

    ….After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

    Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:
    * Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
    * Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
    * Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
    * Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
    * Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
    * Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

    For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow….

    This would not keep people from being sole proprietors and conducting business.

  4. E.M.Smith says:


    The large private banks were bailed out a while back via the expedient of swapping the debt they held to the present holders. That’s why the IMF, ECB, and Governments hold so much.

    Nice visual here:

    And while “foreign banks” still hold some, the bulk is in Central Banks, IMF, or other Eurozone country banks. Germany the lion’s share at €56 Billion, then 2nd is “other bonds” at € 49 Billion, with France third at € 42, Italy € 37 Billion, “Other Eurozone” next at € 34 Billion, then comes IMF at € 32 Billion, Spain € 25 Billion, The European Central Bank ECB at € 20 Billion, and only then do you get to the local banks and smaller holdings:

    Greek Banks € 11 B, “Other Loans” € 10 B, Bank Of Greece &euro 4.3 B, and Foreign Banks € 2.4 Billion.

    Now that “Other Bonds” will likely be scattered all over the globe, some in private hands, much more likely in fund holdings and who knows what. So that is likely to hurt smaller folks.

    Hopefully that’s useful.


    Part of the problem is that large bonuses for managers and large fees for “investment banks” like Goldman come with mergers. Personally, I’d love to see a simple ban on mergers and buyouts. You can buy the assets at bankruptcy, but not merge or buy it wholesale. (There is a HUGE business in lending excess money to weak companies so that the stockholders can then be run out in a bankruptcy proceeding and the ‘goods’ go to the bank. I’d also forbid that via saying any loans are ranked in order based on when issued. Oldest loans get paid first; and ALL of them after ALL back wages and outstanding invoices are paid. AFTER all that, senior management can be paid any “bonuses” from what’s left… )

    It is taught in business school that the goal is to get monopoly pricing power. You can get it via patents, via trademarks and trade secrets, or via buying all the competition. Once you get down to an oligopoly of about 5 players, the Government starts to watch you. The “standard” is “acting like a monopoly”, which in practice means getting caught using that monopoly power you worked so hard to get in too obvious a way… So price fixing, collusion in setting prices, that kind of thing. For Microsoft it was the “must bundle” thing of “If you buy our OS you MUST buy our Office suite” and similar “restraint of trade”. There is an entire Government office devoted to deciding who is acting bad… but it hasn’t done much in ages.


    Folks can also form large operations as Partnerships. Many law firms were historically that way.

    Yes, the Corporation has grown out of all bounds. Now even given political and speech rights to choose our government (thanks to the Supreme Court …)

    It definitely needs fixing, but don’t hold your breath… I’d start with limiting it to commerce ONLY. No speech rights. No political rights. Act as a corporation for political purposes, you are not a corporation any more. (Rather like “non-profits” rules today… why ought non-profit good hearts be barred from what Evil Bastard Capitalists are allowed?…)

    Then again, I’d dump the whole idea of a non-profit “corporation” anyway. We just don’t need NGOs other than folks volunteering to work cooperatively. The corporate form is only to reduce liability (that maybe ought not be reduced…) and funnel money untainted by things like taxes and / or accountability to folks who ought not get it …

    But it is the only approved form at present.

    Effectively, to control Evil Bastards, we have created a giant Sock Puppet that they can run instead and let them recruit 10s of thousands of Useful Drones to help manipulate it. This controls the Evil Bastards how?…

Comments are closed.