With the source and scale of the multiple bank failures and the corresponding response by the Biden administration and the Treasury Department recently, some are beginning to question whether the government’s strategy will affect what may be an inevitable outcome—Bank Failure 2.0. President Biden and Treasury Secretary Yellen’s combined framing of the second and third largest bank failures in history, potentially portend seismic consequences for the larger economy. But is the stabilization of the banking system the problem they intend to arrest -- or an opportunity they intend to leverage?
The genesis of poor Federal Reserve policy and Treasury’s response reaches back to the 2007-2008 sub-prime crisis and the Fed’s ill-conceived, money-printing response known as Quantitative Easing (QE). Though finally ended late last year, it was a fifteen-year policy response that did nothing substantial, after QE1, to prepare the larger economy for what might come next. Then in 2020 the pandemic brought more poor policy decisions, including unrivaled spending and more money-printing, causing inflation to soar.
With this well-established history of effective counterfeiting (since our currency is no longer backed by anything but a hope and a prayer) as a backdrop, the administration and Treasury now fail to instill broad market confidence. This adds to the speculation about what might happen when up to 300 regional banks begin to fail, as is the chatter coming from those with offices near Yellen's at Treasury.
The poisoned gift.
But while politicians and industry leaders seek to explain away a potential bank failure, the American people understand the plain facts that underpin the current circumstance. Beyond the obvious incompetence of bank executives to employ risk mitigation strategies for their respective portfolios in an inflationary environment, or the failure of bank regulators to demonstrate independence from those they regulate, perhaps the most obvious underlying factor in the failures both past and future, is the industry-wide obsession with the environmental social and governance scheme known as ESG. It has moved people’s boardroom attention away from excellence and toward mediocrity.
Dubiously developed by the founder of the neo-fascist World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, and promoted and implemented by WEF Trustee, and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and his colleagues at the largest asset management firms in the world, ESG has become the primary driver of leadership decisions in boardrooms throughout the financial sector and in the companies and corporations they fund. Smaller banks and their business clients have been forced to subordinate sound banking and business principles in favor of diversity, equity, and inclusion posters and environmental slogans throughout their boardrooms.
Created to re-direct capital markets toward political and social objectives deemed important to this new ideological brand of central bankers and financial-sector social agitators, ESG must now be confronted in a meaningful and lasting way. With the monolithic focus by bank executives on "diversity" at the expense of diligence, ESG is plainly destructive and untenable. So destructive to investors’ returns has ESG been, that BlackRock made history last year when it reported a $1.7 trillion loss of investor capital in the first six months of the year.
But rather than BlackRock's utterly predictable losses offering a cautionary tale about the dangers of ESG for investors, the Biden administration continues its efforts to integrate ESG considerations into every agency in the American government, most recently by allowing retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when choosing 401K investments. But while legal action is underway, who is left to protect investor capital against the aims of these business and political leaders, intent on market manipulation and self-enrichment like common financial criminals?
Thieves like them.
With political ideology so central to economic unraveling, could these bank failures offer an opportunity to consolidate depositors’ funds into “too big to fail” banks that already support ESG, making it easier for politicos at Treasury and the Fed to move toward what appears to be their hidden goal: digital currency controlled by a central bank? Physical currency (Federal Reserve notes) are the only type of central bank money available to the general public today. By moving to digital, the Fed asserts, the general public could make digital payments.
What the Fed and WEF don’t explain is that this isn’t just about digitalization. It also amplifies the power government would inherit to dictate who is permitted to participate in society. Antithetical to liberty, digital currency is intended to enhance government’s ability to control everything from what one purchases, to where one can go, or even whether one can participate in society unimpeded by government overseers at all. In the name of "carbon footprints," social- credit scores and government-mandated standards of living, currency surveillance is the end of a free society. Think it's not possible? Just look at the currency surveillance common in Communist China or observe how Canadians’ bank accounts were locked by the tyrannical Trudeau regime last year when Trudeau’s political power was threatened by the peaceful protests of displeased constituents.
The WEF, famous for government-centric policy promotion is already at work furthering the establishment of central-bank digital currency. According to their own writings, the WEF is in Phase II of their CBDC effort. Notably absent from their programming is even the slightest concern about its impact upon societal liberty. In the WEF's recent publication entitled, “Central Bank Digital Currency Policymaker Tool Kit,” the reader is told, “as policy‑makers navigate this process, they should consider how CBDC may introduce new capabilities that support regulatory goals while also introducing new risks or compliance vulnerabilities.”
Creating new capabilities to support government regulation and control is not an objective anyone should support. As investors, depositors, and citizens who value free markets and free societies, we must make every effort impede the government and its private-sector partners from their efforts to gain more control of the economy or society—digital or otherwise.