The Coming Confiscation of Financial Assets

M

mr2

Protestant
Remnant
The Great Taking thegreattaking.com is a free ebook by David Rogers Webb.

It describes an impending mass confiscation of most financial assets as a consequence of rule/law changes that have been made over the last 10-15 years combined with a future (inevitable) financial crisis. I'd like to start a discussion here on the merits/issues of his thesis. I have been trying to discern how much is true. The book is 130 pages but 30 pages is appendix so it's a quick read. Quick to read but requires much more time to really evaluate.

https://republicbroadcasting.org/news/the-great-taking-how-they-can-own-it-all/ provides a nice summary which I'd recommend before reading the book.

The book and even the article above state many facts which would need to be true for it all to happen that way. I have started digesting it but it needs more eyes and brains of people smarter than me.

MODS: If this belongs attached to another thread, please feel free to combine it. It could be part of a financial reset thread, but I thought it worthy of it's own separate discussion.
 
I haven't read the book but it seems to me that the easiest way to take away everybody's property and accomplish "You will own nothing and be happy" is to get them all in debt and allow the economy to deteriorate to the point where they will never be able to pay off their property, thereby making them all perpetual renters. In other words, what we're seeing now.
 
mr2 said:
MODS: If this belongs attached to another thread, please feel free to combine it. It could be part of a financial reset thread, but I thought it worthy of it's own separate discussion.
Click to expand...

Gave it a broader title. This is a good long-range topic, as advanced liberal democracies have indeed quietly passed asset confiscation laws in the wake if the GFC and I think they go ahead with that in the 2030s, when I think social democracy collapses. The democracy part is already a sham.


GodfatherPartTwo said:
where they will never be able to pay off their property,
Click to expand...


50 year mortgage is the stepping stone. Governments could take many actions to address the unaffordability crisis, that they don't tells you all you need to know.
 
I've read it. What's funny is that I've assumed for quite a while now, though I don't actively worry about it (yet), that the stocks that we own on the screen aren't really there. It was always just basic reasoning from knowing that you don't get a certificate to prove you own anything, to the whole sham system we have that takes advantage of everyone who thinks the way things work is as suggested. A great example of this as well that has been uncovered, or proven (thanks Richard Werner), would be what people think about banks. Even if they don't think about banks or know what fractional reserve banking is in the least, they'd at least like to believe or assume that banks use other people's money that they get in deposits to initiate new loans. Nope.
 
It's a stupid thesis because the people who would be in a position to confiscate all financial assets would have far more to lose than they would ever gain by doing so. Money is less important to these people than raw power, and their power would be severely curtailed if they intentionally impoverished the upper-middle class demographic that constitutes the vast majority of the people whose labor actually keeps the country functioning. Besides, they already own an enormous chunk of existing financial assets, anyway. They don't need any more of our money. The analogy here would be a wealthy man who inexplicably decides to rob his bodyguard, his cook, his butler and his driver of their relatively modest wages, all of whom then quit in disgust. The wealthy man suddenly finds himself with a small excess of money, but no one to actually perform the labor he has come to rely on. Extend this analogy out to the societal scale and it becomes rather obvious that the elite cannot confiscate all financial assets without screwing themselves over in the process.

What is more likely is what GodfatherPartTwo suggested: a gradual deterioration and reduction of economic/financial wellbeing that results in more and more people never owning any financial assets whatsoever, creating a permanent renter class that is more easily exploited for their labor and controlled by the government. There's no need to steal something if someone doesn't possess it in the first place.
 
scorpion said:
It's a stupid thesis because the people who would be in a position to confiscate all financial assets would have far more to lose than they would ever gain by doing so. Money is less important to these people than raw power, and their power would be severely curtailed if they intentionally impoverished the upper-middle class demographic that constitutes the vast majority of the people whose labor actually keeps the country functioning. Besides, they already own an enormous chunk of existing financial assets, anyway. They don't need any more of our money. The analogy here would be a wealthy man who inexplicably decides to rob his bodyguard, his cook, his butler and his driver of their relatively modest wages, all of whom then quit in disgust. The wealthy man suddenly finds himself with a small excess of money, but no one to actually perform the labor he has come to rely on. Extend this analogy out to the societal scale and it becomes rather obvious that the elite cannot confiscate all financial assets without screwing themselves over in the process.

What is more likely is what GodfatherPartTwo suggested: a gradual deterioration and reduction of economic/financial wellbeing that results in more and more people never owning any financial assets whatsoever, creating a permanent renter class that is more easily exploited for their labor and controlled by the government. There's no need to steal something if someone doesn't possess it in the first place.
Click to expand...
Your thesis would then also make fun of the "Great Reset" for not being real, or that it's stupid, and they aren't really trying to do it. Money is power in both scenarios, because it's not about them getting the money as much as it is making your poor (and controllable).

Part of your analysis is true, which includes that functioning of the country, but if that's the case they never would have put forth measures to increasingly rob people of their money or make them more aware of decreasing standard of living and checking out, yet they did all of those things. So your assessment is invalid according to your own reasoning, even.

Your last sentence is actually what the great taking is, but of course they are stealing it precisely because no one possesses it but them. I'm not sure exactly what is going to happen because I don't believe these people will be successful in anything but causing and lot of death and harm over the next several years. Their plans largely won't come to fruition but I do believe the population will continue to decline significantly.
 
The Great Reset has nothing to do with blatant asset confiscation, nor does reducing the population's standard of living. Both objectives can easily be achieved (and are in the process of being achieved as we speak) without need for such heavy-handed measures.

Basically, there is no need to confiscate financial assets, and doing so would be needlessly inflammatory and self-sabotaging. "You will own nothing and be happy" does not necessarily imply, "We will steal everything you own." It's more along the lines of, "We are deliberately sabotaging the economy and free society to ensure the gradual impoverishment and enslavement of the population."

The idea that the government is going to confiscate peoples' 401ks is doom-porn click bait for Boomers. They don't need anyone's money. They can print trillions on demand, and will continue to do so until the system breaks down. Confiscating financial assets would only dangerously hasten the collapse to such an extent that the situation would become risky and unpredictable even to the elites.
 
RedLagoon said:
They're putting "rates" (another form of land tax) up so much arbitrarily that almost no one can afford property here anymore, unless you're uber rich. This thing is really happening as they have no real resistance. That is land confiscation through extortion.
Click to expand...
The trick was that you caused asset bubbles, so that normal types of rates now rendered absolute values of money that are exorbitant. It's not about the rates (quite obviously, since they were 2-4% for a long time) but rather that you created fake values in the assets, which is in this case, real estate/homes.

It's not as if the bubble won't burst though, and home values won't go back down. They will. What has to happen is a market glut from people dying OR no demand for a while due to too high of prices with too high of interest - the latter part being the complaint, as that takes time and everything is thus unaffordable until the bubble bursts.
 
bubs said:
They are blocking the younger generations from wealth gain thru high property values, inflation and rates. They are removing wealth from older generations through higher property taxes, maintenance/repair, inflation and the most quick wealth grab/depletion of all…healthcare, and elderly care costs.
Click to expand...
Apropos to this title is to mention the only unconfiscatable asset. And people still object to it. Yes, it's better than real estate for all of these same reasons or objections. It's funny because it's been "young people's" only real option to get back into the game, and people still refuse to believe it.
 
Blade Runner said:
Please don't make me explain BTC and the network again. Sigh.
Click to expand...



Are you saying that Bitcoin cannot be seized or what? I'm aware of how BTC works. But I'm also aware of how the government works when it decides to flex its muscles.

Reality: there is no 100% foolproof safe haven financial asset. The idea that Bitcoin cannot be confiscated is hilariously naïve, since the ledger and all addresses are public and your seed phrase is only as secure as your ability to resist the substantial pressure the government is able to put on you.
 
scorpion said:



Are you saying that Bitcoin cannot be seized or what? I'm aware of how BTC works. But I'm also aware of how the government works when it decides to flex its muscles.

Reality: there is no 100% foolproof safe haven financial asset. The idea that Bitcoin cannot be confiscated is hilariously naïve, since the ledger and all addresses are public and your seed phrase is only as secure as your ability to resist the substantial pressure the government is able to put on you.
Click to expand...
You're doing this silly thing where you go for this strict technicality part of a larger definition to try to prove your point, but I can still address it. For the purposes of a financial asset spread out over the entirety of a population, yes, BTC is unconfiscatable. And that's what actually matters. You're focused on the seizure essentially of a PERSON, and you'll force me to go to the ultimate definition of it too - you don't ever have to give it up - it's the only thing ever created that you can own and no one else can, and you can be certain about it. So you'll lose arguing that as well.

If they come after you and you had buried gold somewhere, someone might find that gold eventually. You don't have to tell someone your keys. Ever. They die with you. That's the point.

You got money in the bank? Confiscatable. You got stonks there on the screen? Confiscatable. You got a house there and the IRS or state/local jurisdiction levies taxes too? Confiscatable. See the commonality with these? They don't even have to come to you, except maybe if you live in a house, but again by law they can do what they want if they desire to screw you.

Everything in life carries risk. If you own BTC, or any other asset, you'll possibly be a target. So yes, BTC is not without risk - I've always said that. That's what you are talking about. In a world where everyone, or most people, hold an asset like BTC, the government can do much less to people than they can even do with the cash system. Again, they can take physical things. They can't take this decentralized, non physical asset. They can only try to make you give it to them, which cannot be said about any other asset, and that's what I'm talking about here.
 
Blade Runner said:
They can't take this decentralized, non physical asset. They can only try to make you give it to them, which cannot be said about any other asset, and that's what I'm talking about here.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's certainly true, but confiscation isn't the only avenue of attack against Bitcoin. Simply declaring it illegal and/or shutting down exchanges would crater the price overnight. No need to confiscate something that is inherently worthless and which can be rendered unconvertible at any moment. Further, if Bitcoin actually does pose such a powerful threat to governments, wouldn't that only further motivate them to take action against it? That seems pretty obvious. Governments, like individuals, act first with their own self-interest in mind, and seek to protect themselves from threats of harm (see the absurd degree to which governments persecute dissident speech these days - they recognize unrestricted free speech as an existential threat). Yet the U.S. Government seems completely blasé about these supposed enormous risks to its power posed by Bitcoin. Why do you think that is? It's almost as if Bitcoin is a complete paper tiger than can be (and will be) shredded at will. Likely before the introduction of a CBDC, which will be justified in part by the necessity of governments acting to regulate and stabilize the financial system, possibly in the wake of an engineered Bitcoin collapse (or as part of a broader economic/financial crash which will also wipe out Bitcoin).

Bitcoin is a false god, and your faith is misplaced.
 
scorpion said:
It's a stupid thesis because the people who would be in a position to confiscate all financial assets would have far more to lose than they would ever gain by doing so. Money is less important to these people than raw power, and their power would be severely curtailed if they intentionally impoverished the upper-middle class demographic that constitutes the vast majority of the people whose labor actually keeps the country functioning. Besides, they already own an enormous chunk of existing financial assets, anyway. They don't need any more of our money. The analogy here would be a wealthy man who inexplicably decides to rob his bodyguard, his cook, his butler and his driver of their relatively modest wages, all of whom then quit in disgust. The wealthy man suddenly finds himself with a small excess of money, but no one to actually perform the labor he has come to rely on. Extend this analogy out to the societal scale and it becomes rather obvious that the elite cannot confiscate all financial assets without screwing themselves over in the process.

What is more likely is what GodfatherPartTwo suggested: a gradual deterioration and reduction of economic/financial wellbeing that results in more and more people never owning any financial assets whatsoever, creating a permanent renter class that is more easily exploited for their labor and controlled by the government. There's no need to steal something if someone doesn't possess it in the first place.
Click to expand...

It's useful to think about this as dekulakization. The bolsheviks wanted and impoverished, dysfunctional society and that's what they got.
 
scorpion said:
Simply declaring it illegal and/or shutting down exchanges would crater the price overnight.
Click to expand...
... and also make it moonshot over the long term, since that's actually what happens when you admit something is valuable, as has happened to everything in the history of "banning".
scorpion said:
Further, if Bitcoin actually does pose such a powerful threat to governments, wouldn't that only further motivate them to take action against it?
Click to expand...
They are, but the cat is out of the bag. They are trying to control it at this point, and one of my theses is that they'll allow for an elite class to hold it, which still means you should recognize what it is - unless you want to have fun staying poor (be my guest).
scorpion said:
Bitcoin is a false god, and your faith is misplaced.
Click to expand...
It's not a god, it's a technology, and like any, can be used for good or evil. As the soundest money ever created, it takes away power and abuse from the real abusers, which you indirectly support by trying to dissuade people from owning it or being self sovereign. I plan in this world according to my talents, and one of those talents has been recognizing BTC and its network for what it is.

Just like with covid, I can only help the people who are willing to listen, who have ears to hear.

I have no problem continuing to debate this and answer your questions, if you desire, but I have one for you if you please: What would make you wrong about BTC? This seems to be a question that the naysayers won't answer, and one which proves their general dishonesty or lack of critical thinking regarding the asset. They also move the goalposts since at this point it's already a legitimized asset.
 
Blade Runner said:
... and also make it moonshot over the long term, since that's actually what happens when you admit something is valuable, as has happened to everything in the history of "banning".
Click to expand...
The problem with this thesis is that Bitcoin is intrinsically worthless and has no natural demand, unlike other things that are commonly banned (dissident literature, religions, weapons, drugs). It Bitcoin cannot be used for transactions or converted into other assets, it just sits there doing nothing. It can't even collect dust since it doesn't even exist. No one has any use for Bitcoin if they can't make money from it.
Blade Runner said:
They are, but the cat is out of the bag. They are trying to control it at this point, and one of my theses is that they'll allow for an elite class to hold it, which still means you should recognize what it is - unless you want to have fun staying poor (be my guest).
Click to expand...
So the ultimate tool of resistance against the corrupt elite will also be held by the elite? Could your views on Bitcoin get any more schizophrenic? Also, I'm not poor, and am not desperately relying on a Bitcoin moonshot to secure my financial future.
Blade Runner said:
It's not a god, it's a technology, and like any, can be used for good or evil. As the soundest money ever created, it takes away power and abuse from the real abusers, which you indirectly support by trying to dissuade people from owning it or being self sovereign. I plan in this world according to my talents, and one of those talents has been recognizing BTC and its network for what it is.
Click to expand...
"It takes away power from the abusive elite... who will also hold the Bitcoin themselves!"

You certainly have a talent for making nonsensical arguments, I'll give you that.
Blade Runner said:
Just like with covid, I can only help the people who are willing to listen, who have ears to hear.
Click to expand...
With statements like this, the quasi-religious nature of Bitcoin enthusiasm becomes impossible to ignore.
Blade Runner said:
I have no problem continuing to debate this and answer your questions, if you desire, but I have one for you if you please: What would make you wrong about BTC?
Click to expand...
You're the one making the wildly fantastic argument that useless computer code that does nothing but consume vast amounts of energy is the most revolutionary technology since the printing press. I'm simply saying, "Hey, not so fast there." If you told me that you saw a flying unicorn and I rightly objected and doubted your claim, the proper response is not, "What would make you wrong about the fact that I saw a flying unicorn?" Rather, it's to provide me some actual compelling evidence for what you saw. You have no evidence or even rational argument that Bitcoin is a transformative technology, just a fervent belief based on a mishmash of greed, delusion and wishful thinking.
Blade Runner said:
They also move the goalposts since at this point it's already a legitimized asset.
Click to expand...
What makes you think Bitcoin is a legitimate asset? Because Wall Street types have been pushing for a Bitcoin ETF to more easily gamble on? Is that really your definition of legitimate? Once again, we see the schizophrenic nature of your arguments - that Bitcoin is at once the tool by which mankind will be freed from the tyranny of the elite... but is also observably a legitimate asset because it's increasingly embraced by those same elite!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top