More webbot data...
whats coming will be 10-1000 times bigger than 911, so since 9/11 killed about 3,000 so this time 30,000 - 30 million people involved.
There will be a planetary crisis over paper debt - a derivatives crash is the start of it - this will change how the world works. For many people the death of the dollar will be a severe shock, catching them offguard and destroying their lives. Lots of banks go bust.
Criminal investigations of banks and politicians starts November - expect some murders of people who it is deemed 'need silencing'.
The full extent of the woes in the international monetary system, may not be allowed to be reported in the (mainstream) media because the bosses (TPTB) dont want the info known.
As the chit chat already suggests, people will be being laid off in droves - industries such as advertising, printing, media, packaging (wot no goods being sent anywhere??) and much more. A few years ago I heard it predicted that one of the major nationwide department store chains will go bust (a name well known to Americans)
starting 27th October (may be more pronounced from November onwards) solar system events will impact the earth and all of humanity. floods, tsunami. food shortage (even if produced cannot be transported to places where people are hungry), and much more
Changes will continue as far as (if not beyond) time period webbot report looks at - affecting many surface transport modes, both land and sea, and as a consequence impacting food distribution too. Waterman also used the expression 'snow in June' but this is nothing new / its happened before - not just from the middle ages (when it killed crops and caused hfood shortages) but even in my own living memory - for instance some years ago when early morning snow fell in central London on the day that the cricket season started (a popular 'warm weather' ball game typically played in Britain and many of its former colonies)
Apparently the UK is spending money training civil defence people on earthquake rescue, etc - yet in 1000 years only 8 people died here from quakes - my thoughts turn to the (hopefull) possibility of training 'search and rescue' teams for sending to disasters overseas...
But alas Waterman did say that he saw a mention of weather related events causing devastation to British and French coastal regions - which I wonder if could be tsunamic in nature and tie-in with other predictions relating to events in the Atlantic Ocean???? Zetans talk of land rising causing many Atlantic Ocean coastlands to be swamped by large tsunamis.
some earthchanges (quakes, etc) are not natural in origin - instead caused by scaler & hyperdimensional weaponry and these may also cause electrical meltdowns.
New land 90 deg east of Southern Indian Ocean.
Russia flooding - dam break after 3 years of rain in a week! (Geez!) This could tie in with a prophecy once made by the Boriska boy about floods in Russia.
Water vapour in the sky becomes visibly dense - my thoughts, could this be the re-creating of the firmament, as some channelled sources talk about??? (unsure / looking for comment)
*Yipes...so Simon, tomorrow the 27th will be the START of something BIG huh? OK, I can wait the one day. Meanwhile...back in the bleak glow of 'down to Earth' for the moment....
Four Big Banks Should/are probably Planning to Bail Out of Europe…
…With all the 'Dollar' Speculation, what's really happening regarding 'economies' worldwide. The long and short of it is…'The Dollar will continue, even against all odds', but Europe is in big trouble. Turns out…The 'Dollar' is being used in a 'Diversion & Miss Direction' move/'S'
Here's what's being said in Financial Circles RIGHT NOW:
Forget terrorism, cyber-warfare and deadly viruses. Some European countries face a more imminent threat to their national security: Big banks could bring down the economy if they failed.
Right now, regulators are approaching it in different ways. The British may split up retail and investment banking. The Swiss are looking at almost doubling the recommended bank- capital requirements.
Not surprisingly, the banks are fighting those proposals and claiming that such measures would cripple their ability to compete in the global market.
There is a simpler solution, and one that would be fairer to the banks that are too big and the nations that are too small to host them: The lenders should move to a bigger country. Four banks in particular -- HSBC Holdings Plc, Barclays Plc, UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group AG –
should be making plans to leave Europe. An amicable divorce would be better for both sides.
There is no question that governments and financial regulators are right to be giving some serious thought to the issue of banks that have become too big to fail.
The near-collapse of Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc during the credit crunch left the U.K. with a huge bill. In Switzerland, UBS had to be bailed out.
In Iceland, the meltdown of the financial industry has just about bankrupted the country. Ireland is still paying the price for the excesses of its banks.
Both the U.K. and Switzerland are aware that the collapse of HSBC or Credit Suisse would easily turn them into another Iceland or Ireland. It would be irresponsible not to try and prevent it. It is as much of a threat to national security as the Soviet Union was at the height of the Cold War.
So how should they deal with that? True, better regulation is part of the answer. You need a lot of faith in the ability of the supervisors, however, to feel confident they can spot every crazy risk the bankers might be taking. In reality, even the board may not really know what liabilities have been tucked away in some complex derivatives contract, and how they might blow up one day. It is impossible for outsiders to be certain.
The U.K. has set up a commission headed by John Vickers, an Oxford University professor and former Bank of England economist, to look at the possible separation of retail and investment banking, as well as banning proprietary trading.
In Switzerland, a government panel has recommended the country's biggest banks should hold total capital equal to at least 19 percent of their assets. That's almost twice the 10.5 percent level that the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision recommended last month.
They are both perfectly sensible proposals. Splitting up the banks would make the system safer.
The investment arms take most of the risks. Hive them off into separate units, and if they go bust, it doesn't matter much to the rest of the economy.
Likewise, the more capital a bank holds, the safer it is. If there are big losses on an investment, then the money is there to cover them. It needn't be catastrophic.
HSBC and Barclays have both said they may relocate overseas if the U.K. moves to split them up.
In reality, both the banks and the regulators are getting this issue upside down.
Time to Move
The problem isn't that the banks are too big. It is that they have grown too large for the economies of the nations where they happen to be based. And once you put it like that, the solution is obvious. Barclays and HSBC should leave the U.K., while UBS and Credit Suisse should leave Switzerland.
It is rough on British or Swiss taxpayers that they have to shoulder the responsibility for huge banks that don't have much to do with their own economy -- and most of whose staff are far better paid than the average taxpayer in either country.
And yet, it is hardly fair on the banks to be placed at such a disadvantage to their main competitors. Obviously, it's going to be impossible for HSBC and Barclays to keep up with Citigroup Inc. and BNP Paribas SA if they have to split their businesses. And it will be tough for Credit Suisse to stay at the top of its industry if it has to hold twice as much capital as its international competitors. Capital, after all, is the raw material of banking. The less you have of it to play with, the less you will be able to do.
So why not just move elsewhere? That way, taxpayers are freed of the potential burden of a bailout, and the banks are released from rules that make it impossible for them to compete.
There is nothing that unusual about a bank moving when regulatory regimes change. HSBC has already done it before: In 1993, it moved its head office from Hong Kong to London, and the Bank of England became its lead regulator.
Where would the big banks go? China or the U.S. would be possibilities. Of course, the U.S. might not want another too- big-to-fail bank on its soil. But they would bring much-needed jobs and tax revenue. In the end, it is for the banks and local authorities to decide.
But as any marriage counsellor would concede, sometimes a relationship has been outgrown by both sides. And when it has, it is simply better to move on.