Blame the bankers?
We are enduring an era whereby institutional society is playing an identical game to the likes of Monopoly. Bankers have the opportunity to create money out of no-where and play by a different set of rules in order to make the game more interesting. Consequences for bankers may be to “pass go” and not collect their bonus but consequences for the unfortunate will either contribute to a devaluation of their existing currency and/or prejudice their position within the pecking order. The board game can even accommodate players that wish to set up cartels and fix interest payments on money borrowed from the bank similar to other real life events.
An anomaly that springs to mind when trying to find an example to illustrate a similarity to the NatWest debacle (where I.T went down and people were unable to draw their own funds from their accounts) – A banker that has been playing Monopoly for hours: he’s lost interest, there is no obvious upside for him continuing to play, his vision has become blurred and all he can hear is a ringing in his ears. At this point people would probably decide to pack the game in or choose a different banker. In reality however, what better alternative is there? More banks – similar problems.
The market is starting to cotton onto the fact that money kept in the bank shouldn’t be a game for the rich that control it, nor should it sit there exposed to devaluation, inflation and counter-party risk. Instead, Savvy investors are protecting their cash and backing it with Physical Gold that (at worst) maintains its value with inflation. By owning Physical Gold – you are eliminating counter-party risk and removing the banker by maintaining your own wealth.