Zilo,
There were no personal attacks until you started the name-calling. I questioned the credibility of your references because they are motivated to make an issue out of the bail-in legislation to suit their own agenda rather than out of concern for the safety of deposits in banks.
Let's start with the video.
John Adams said in the video that the government, the RBA and APRA have all stated that deposits are excluded from a bail-in. He also said that banks can change their terms and conditions on loans and accounts. But that isn't news; they have always been able to do that. The banks answer to APRA and they can't use deposits for a bail-in if the RBA and APRA don't permit it.
Martin North states in the video, after interviewing John Adams, that he has his money in the bank and he doesn't think a bail-in with deposits can or will happen. He is saying that it is a non-issue, and he doesn't agree with John Adams that deposits are unsafe in the bank. In an earlier post, you noted that an article I referred to had some differing views posted by commenters at the bottom, and concluded that it discredited the article. Are you going to make the same conclusion about the video because it contains a dissenting view from the interviewer himself?
Now let's look at the article you referenced (
https://www.adamseconomics.com/post/...gainst-bail-in).
It was written by John Adams, the same bloke being interviewed in the video. At the bottom of the article it states that "John Adams is a Chief Economist of As Good As Gold Australia".
In his article, he goes into great detail about what could happen with a bail-in and the loss of deposits. He then suggests that there are safer places that people can put their money, and recommends they buy gold. If you look at the website for As Good As Gold Australia (
https://www.asgoodasgoldaus.com.au/) you will see that their business is selling gold. So, how better to stir up some business than running around telling anyone who will listen that their money in the bank isn't safe?
Now to your comments about the FCS. In your first post you stated:
"But wait...we have the $250k guarantee..
Turns out that each of the banks has a set amount that is allocated to each one in their insurance cover.
It turns out that their "cover" will not cover all deposits, so...let's say if your surname starts with "A" you are fine...
But if you start with a "K" the money will have run out and you get...zip"
That is not how the FCS works. The banks do not rely on insurance cover for the money to be paid. It is paid by the federal government, and it doesn't matter what letter of the alphabet your name starts with. I've asked you before where you got this idea and you haven't provided an answer. You said in your second post:
"I didn't say it was with an insurance company". What are you talking about then?
Where did this issue begin? With Robert Butler, a solicitor from Chatswood and a member of the Citizens Party. Here is a link to their website and his legal opinion:
https://citizensparty.org.au/how-saf...s-banks-really
Butler received 14 votes in the last Senate election and he would be keen to raise awareness of his party. One way he is going about this is to provide a legal opinion on what he thinks is a loop-hole in the legislation and create a scare campaign about it. It might win him more votes in the next election. That is his motivation rather than really being concerned about the security of bank deposits.
And to end with the trivia you've raised: you're reckoning of my post count in the Word Association thread is wrong. It is closer to half of what you guessed. But you do tend to exaggerate. I will go back there because it beats conversing with members like you. And you can go back to scratching yourself as you informed us in post 11.