Is This What The New "Swiss Bank Account" Looks Like?

Tyler Durden's picture

There was a time when everyone (who was anyone) wanted a Swiss bank account, as much as an offshore cash parking vehicle as for its hushed prestige, whispered to a select few during Hamptons' cocktail parties. Those days are now gone, with the last remaining anonymous offshore private banking bastion left being Singapore, if even that. So in a world in which country after country is scrambling to hike income (and soon financial wealth and asset) taxes on the superrich, is this, paradoxically, what the new "Swiss bank account" is going to look like? And with the Obelix case study officially in the books, who will be the next to take advantage of the former KGB spy's taxation generosity?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Karlus's picture

People with Russian wives? That are specifically NOT us citizens?

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Interested single guys might want to see if any of those ChristianMingle gals are from Russia...

Half_A_Billion_Hollow_Points's picture

try taxing bitcoins, phd morons


1. go to

2. look at number of subscribers

3. wait 5 minutes

4. press reload, watch higher number of subscribers

5. get the fuck out of the TBTF world; embrace hyperinflation; love The Bernank!

Karlus's picture

Help me out here. Why would I trust my fortune converting USD (or gold) to some unknown company's chits?

How do I know that they are anything different that soverign's fiat?


*** Serious question, I dont understand the benefits of bitcoin

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Russian Passport? Income tax is only 13% in Russia. Russia is the New America because the collectivists have gotten hold of the USA.

And the proof is in the new Pravda and how Russia came to our rescue;

Global warming, the tool of the West

By Stanislav Mishin

For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consiquent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.

What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as a new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.

Various groups have fought back. This is including Russian hackers, who published a huge database of UK government, scientific and university emails depicting the fixing of data to sell Global Warming, er Climate Change (as if it never changed on its own). And while taking hit after hit, the beast, like Al Quida, will not die. As a matter of fact, the beast is on a steady come back, as it is quite useful during the down times recession. The US alone spends $7 billion each year on warming "studies", which is, in truth, nothing but a huge money laundering operation, as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only product generated.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Surely Russia's position has nothing to do with their vast oil and coal reserves (2nd in the world in coal).  Believe what you want, but always consider the agenda of your sources.

HoofHearted's picture

You can always become your own central banker. Starve the beast and make sure that you have a few matchbooks from the local strip club. "I spent all my EBT at the Cougar Club, officer." Also you should go canoeing often.

nmewn's picture

Well thats certainly something to think about ;-)

Manthong's picture

To paraphrase a gag from a recent comic strip:

Old guy: “Back in my day we had a word for global warming.. it was called “August”.”

nmewn's picture


The paradox of cold/hot/wet/dry global warming alarmists

SilverDOG's picture



Geological history's proof is in stone. We are warming globally.

The paradox happens to be, the short sightedness of mankind.

Such an immature mindset. 

Forgotten is, what the future becomes.


I did not + -



Clever Name's picture

Or the innocent, falsely accused.



Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

The stupid part about hyperadvocating for man-made global warming is that, in addition to being pretty shaky scientifically, it distracts from actual, practical environmental issues, like clean air and clean water.  The environmental movement would be a shitload more effective if it simply couched it's concerns as "hey, maybe we should not put poison in the air and water, because our kids our injesting poison right now, due to (insert company here) dumping (insert toxic shit here)."

Peterus's picture

I agree. However in case of AGW "scientists position" is certainly not out of scope of investigation.

Controling some global agency that may rule CO2 emissions is extreme power. It could actually accomplish reinstatment of mass poverty in the West, effectively suffocate sinful industrial revolution to death. Things that some green ideologues wanted for quite some time. It also makes some scientist in small and undeveloped branch of science into saviours, gives them constant funding etc.

Both sides are suspect. So I'm waiting for a string of consequitve, accurate and concrete guesses about climate in 10, 20 years (let's say some median rise in temperatures, where it is going to be highest and where lowest). If they pull it off might be convinced. So far each prediction is grimmer and less accurate than the previous one. Not good enough to demand retooling of the entire global industry.

Lumberjack's picture



Does NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) keep two separate sets of climate books for the USA?


Glaring inconsistencies found between State of the Climate (SOTC) reports sent to the press and public and the “official” climate database record for the United States.

First, I should point out that I didn’t go looking for this problem, it was a serendipitous discovery that came from me looking up the month-to-month average temperature for the Continental United States (CONUS) for another project which you’ll see a report on in a couple of days. What started as an oddity noted for a single month now seems clearly to be systemic over a two-year period. On the eve of what will likely be a pronouncement from NCDC on 2012 being the “hottest year ever”, and since what I found is systemic and very influential to the press and to the public, I thought I should make my findings widely known now. Everything I’ve found should be replicable independently using the links and examples I provide. I’m writing the article as a timeline of discovery.

At issue is the difference between temperature data claims in the NCDC State of the Climate reports issued monthly and at year-end and the official NCDC climate database made available to the public. Please read on for my full investigation...

...Based on my reading of it, with their SOTC reports that are based on preliminary data, and not corrected later, NCDC has violated these four key points:

In the guidelines, OMB defines ‘‘quality’’ as the encompassing term, of which ‘‘utility,’’ ‘‘objectivity,’’ and ‘‘integrity’’ are the constituents. ‘‘Utility’’ refers to the usefulness of the information to the intended users. ‘‘Objectivity’’ focuses on whether the disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable, and unbiased. ‘‘Integrity’’ refers to security—the protection of information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification. OMB modeled the definitions of ‘‘information,’’ ‘‘government information,’’ ‘‘information dissemination product,’’ and ‘‘dissemination’’ on the longstanding definitions of those terms in OMB Circular A–130, but tailored them to fit into the context of these guidelines.

I’ll leave it to congress and other Federal watchdogs to determine if a DQA violation has in fact occurred on a systemic basis. For now, I’d like to see NCDC explain why two publicly available avenues for “official” temperature data don’t match. I’d also like to see them justify their claims in the next SOTC due out any day.

I’ll have much more in the next couple of days on this issue, be sure to watch for the second part.

For now, in case the SOTC reports should suddenly disappear or get changed without notice, I have all of those NCDC reports that form the basis of Table 1 archived below as PDF files.


Michaelwiseguy's picture

Wow, thanks. I was over there posting today the Pravda article. But this story is big, really big in the scientific community. I expect heads to roll over this one.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Some agendas are natural like oil, coal, and gas. Others like Agenda 21 and man-made climate change are manufactured for our enslavement.

trav777's picture

that round earth stuff was too

BlueCheeseBandit's picture

Surely the environmentalist's positions have nothing to do with the government grants to be had, money to be made selling green products, and political power to be garnered from pushing the climate change agenda.

The trouble with ad hominem arguments...

laboratorymike's picture

Being a researcher right now, I can tell you firsthand that the green movement is both driven by orgs. like DOE and NSF selectively handing out funding to "green" research. Also, the development of green products has been a big boon for the research area because conventional oil-based chemistry has basically been studied to death, and as such there isn't a need for the old oil and gas research anymore. I've heard time and time again since ~2004 the excitement of professors about how they are working "In a brand new area, no one has done any work on this before!"


On campus, all I can say is that the rhetoric has gone from the bizarre to the sublime. Every time the heat index goes over 100 I hear OHMIGOSHGLOBALWARMINGISKILLINGUSALL! And every time there's a heavy snow the College Republicans come out with signs while chanting "Al Gore lied! It's cold outside!" There is no rational discussion on global warming, at least that I can see.

Raymond K Hessel's picture

Sounds like you've very rational....follow the money.  You helped follow it from researcher to government.  

As for global warming being real as a given and then having a discussion from that...I also agree with you.  It's completely irrational to take global warming seriously.

trav777's picture

totally dude, you know, despite that pesky evidence and all that

willwork4food's picture

What evidence? Are you referring to climate CHANGE?

What fuckin hypocrites our leaders are to jam us up the ass with a carbon tax, when they passed NAFTA to allow China to become the environmental cesspool of the industrial world with their blessings.

laboratorymike's picture

That pretty much sums it up, through so many agreements the USA get's Canada's resources, Mexico's cheap labor, and China's goods, and in return they get the USA's inflation and pollution. I wonder who won on that deal. And when the world will stop giving us so much stuff at a steep discount.

laboratorymike's picture

    For following the money, here's how the money works from what I can see: University prestige is defined in terms of the number of professors invited to sit on advisory boards of state and federal agencies as policy experts, and in terms of the amount of research funding brought in to a university. The federal+state governments control both of these. So, the NIH/NSF/DOE/DOD/EPA/FDA/USDA/etc. releases grant money that stipulates the terms of what research gets accepted and what doesn't, and researchers willing to investigate the right questions get the rewards (and the heads of those agencies are appointed, so the funding is ultimately decided by who happens to be the favorite in Washington). This is also doubly true when researchers use part of the money for "broader impacts" aka "education outreach programs." The researchers who then deliver the most under this paradigm are then invited to sit on the advisory boards, where they then perpetuate the same perspective that got them there.

    While conspiracy theory is possible under this model, note that it is not required. The real danger in my opinion is that academia is ultimately beholden to political fashion, aka the whims of the political class. But I also think that is the point: the political class controls the academic class through agency funding, so that they are subject to their whims. But since profs get to have a small piece of the action by getting to be a part if they are good little professors, they all gladly go along with it.

    On global warming specfically, I had to rage over a recent edition of the American Chemical Society's main trade magazine, in which a professor described the release of emails from East Anglia as "an attack on the entire profession," saying that the entire scientific community must rally behind the global warming cause and ideologically crush every blogger and global warming skeptic. Come on. Science and espcially university science should be a hall of debate, not an echo chamber, and certainly not an ideological hammer to smash opponents with. It's an abuse of credentials and shameful to the profession of science in my opinion. I am actually open to the global warming hypothesis and would like to see some debate, but there's too many fanatics in official positions for me to take it seriously.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Good stuff Mike. I did about 18 months of blogging work on Watts Up With That and other blogs to smash their machine during the climategate email days. I'm not paid, just enjoy the challenge and victory.

S5936's picture

Great stuff. Anybody with half a functioning brain knew it was bullshit. Now we know why. Thx.

TheGardener's picture

I felt great relieve when the climate hoax got exposed.

MSM and .gov keep churning out the the same propaganda
as before, as if nothing happened. Like posting some obviously faked birth certificate , they probably just make fun of us : those funny little truthers can`t defy our grand
lies !

They carry on regardless.

The truth can be let out in controlled dissent, because
no-one will believe it anyway.

If all else fails, make statements about hoaxes illegal.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

The mainstream media is stuck on stupid and most everybody knows it. That's why hardly anybody watches them anymore.

Tango in the Blight's picture

Bitcoin isn't controlled by any company or government.

That's the main attraction of it. It's true peer to peer money.

Ahmeexnal's picture

Do you accept my own printed monopoly money?  It's not government controlled. It's peer to peer.

GFKjunior's picture

I would; if it was created in a limited amounts, could not be faked, was easy to transfer globally, and had millions of active users. 


Bitcoin exchange wins right to operate as bank.


A small list of indpendent sites that accept bitcoin, other massive sites like wordpress and reddit do as well.


Bitcoin is right up ZH's alley. I love gold and as much as the next guy on here but being able to have a secret, untracable, medium of exchange that can be sent anywhere in the world instantly is essential to liberty. A little geeky but I reccomend reading the technical details behind it.

Drunken Monkey's picture

"being able to have a secret, untracable, medium of exchange that can be sent anywhere in the world instantly is essential to liberty."

Bitcoin is not that. A full history of all the transactions that a coin has taken part in is always available on the 'net, and must be because it's the heart of the protocol that prevents someone from spending the same coin twice. If "They" get their hands on your bitcoin user id (not password) "they" know exactly what you have earned and spent.


TWSceptic's picture

That's why I said before that bitcoin is a totalitarian government's wet dream. Digital money may be exactly what the NWO would prefer to replace the USD and other fiat currencies.

Harbanger's picture

I agree, eliminating all physical cash transanctions is the goal of the NWO.  Very much like bitcoin, global credits and all.  Using cash is the last bastion of anonymity, of course there will always some form of underground market.

Non Passaran's picture

The uninformed skeptic, huh?

Bitcoin isn't suitable for their purpose:

a) All transactions are public and transparent

b) It doesn't "support" franctional reserve banking

c) It can't be created at will 

d) Its quantity cannot be manipulated (different from c))

e) They democratize banking - anyone can be a DIY bitcoin bank

f) etc. - I don't want to waste my time on you because you already know all this and more...


I'd love the government to replace all USD with BTC. The price of BTC would skyrocket.

Harbanger's picture

"I'd love the government to replace all USD with BTC. The price of BTC would skyrocket."

You obviously have a vested interest in bitcoins.  I don't know anyone who would sell you their gold for bitcoins.

New World Chaos's picture

I have 20 grams of gold for sale.  Bidding starts at 100 bitcoins.  Any takers?  This is a real offer.  Valid for a couple days.  Shipping will be from New Zealand (after I get the BTC).  Please consider this in terms of customs, concealment, etc.  Shipping from APMEX could perhaps be arranged if you are paranoid about G-men stealing it, though you may have to deal with the G-men after they follow APMEX's paper trail.

aphlaque_duck's picture

I don't know anyone who would sell you their gold for bitcoins.

Lolwut? Lots of people trade gold for bitcoin. I sold gold last year to buy bitcoin.

Here's a dealer who trades directly: 

Vlad Tepid's picture

That enthusiasm of your last statement is somewhat indicitave of a pyramid scheme...

laboratorymike's picture

In that case, one would have to think ahead about how to keep their username encrypted and or separate from any other form of identification. I haven't gotten into bitcoin yet because these are all legitimate questions that need to be worked out.

Half_A_Billion_Hollow_Points's picture

there is no userid in bitcoin, there are only giant addresses, like this one:  1J4yuJFqozxLWTvnExR4Xxe9W4B89kaukY

GFKjunior's picture

Please find out how many bitcoins I sent yesterday and to how.


I'll wait here.

Non Passaran's picture

Of course he can't because he doesn't give a damn. But a determined group aka the thug government could trace you just like they can find who's behind the nick GFKjunior.

Specifically, they need to enter a trade with you, to buy from or sell to you. Then they get your IP address and from the ISP or telco find who you are. While you may use some measures to evade this, sooner or later they'd bust you.

Bitcoin is anonymous enough. It may be a year or more until they start watching the big fish. The small fish won't be interesting to them unless Bitcoin becomes very popular. Then they could ban the exchanges.

thisandthat's picture

Bitcoin exchange wins right to operate as bank.


Hum... not quite true:

seek's picture

While I certainly wouldn't convert a fortune into bitcoin, it's a plausible currency for a short-term survival stash, especially if you think you'll be leaving a country that's subject to capital controls.

Covering all the details of bitcoin in a simple forum message can't be done, but in a nutshell it's not "some unknown company." It's a known algorithm. It's also what I'd call an anti-sovereign currency (or perhaps an atomically soverign currency, like gold.) Like any currency it depends on others recognizing it's value, and exchange is dependent on some level of communication existing. It's not quite fiat, as there are significant computational burdens (which require energy and time investment) and like natural resources there's a built-in limit to how many bitcoins can be "mined."

The key benefits are that it's as anonymous as cash, without requiring you to carry cash. You could in theory hide the appropriate bitcoin information on a web-accessible computer anywhere on the planet, or even print it out and hide it in a book or whatever, and then leave the country "penniless" and recover your bitcoins outside the country.

I would suggest if nothing else it would make sense to set aside a few hours and do some serious reading on bitcoin. It's not a replacement for gold, but could potentially be a replacement exchange currency.