He was happy to talk about asset valuations and the impact on deposit taking institutions. And he was only too pleased to wax lyrical on low interest rates causing serious issues for pensions. But discuss the ails of his former employer he did not. Whether by remiss or by Jain’s request, his questioner chose to steer clear of a subject the man who spent 20 years of his career rising up the corporate ladder of Germany’s largest bank would surely have had lots to say on.

For the question of whether or not Deutsche Bank can survive without a bail-out by the German government is the only topic most other European bankers want to converse upon. The thorny issue of whether the mooted $14 billion (£10.7 billion) fine from American regulators for miss-selling US mortgages will bring the German lender to its knees is, unsurprisingly, a hot topic right now.

Not only does it not make any sense for a bank executive to admit that it is in negotiations with its government to bail it out – for fear of a run on deposits and its shares – it also is an admission of failure, and as such, not going to happen until it happens. It may be that Deutsche can limp through this particular crisis, but this is a bank that is deeply troubled, and the words of its executives, as so many before them, belie its balance sheet.

He gave a scathing prediction for the future of the EU in an interview with The Spectator magazine, saying its “architecture is beginning to peel away”. He blasted: “The EU is going to sacrifice at least one generation of young Europeans on the altar of the single currency, and you can only rip out the social fabric from so much of Europe before it starts imploding.”

Dr Fox said Brexit has severely weakened the Union’s economic stability and Germany should be quaking in its boots at the prospect of being the concrete that attempts to glue to the EU’s crumbling foundations together. He said: “With Britain out of it, they’re still going to have to confront exactly the same problems. I guess Germany worries, because we were their main allies in bringing some economic rigour to the system. If I were a German politician I would be worried that, without Britain, Germany has the potential to become the greatest ATM in global history.”

It was a Faustian bargain — and it certainly made editors at National Public Radio (NPR), squirm. The deal was this: NPR, along with a select group of media outlets, would get a briefing about an upcoming announcement by the US Food and Drug Administration a day before anyone else. But in exchange for the scoop, NPR would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate whom NPR’s reporter could and couldn’t interview.

“My editors are uncomfortable with the condition that we cannot seek reaction,” NPR reporter Rob Stein wrote back to the government officials offering the deal. Stein asked for a little bit of leeway to do some independent reporting but was turned down flat. Take the deal or leave it. NPR took the deal. “I’ll be at the briefing,” Stein wrote.

Later that day in April 2014, Stein — along with reporters from more than a dozen other top-tier media organizations, including CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times — showed up at a federal building to get his reward. Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the September 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

The new law, enacted over the fierce objections of the White House, immediately alters the legal landscape. American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the September 11 families, while Saudi officials have warned they might need to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in holdings in the United States to avoid such an outcome.

The override comes at an already freighted moment in America’s relations with the kingdom. The Saudi government has vigorously denied that it had any part in the September 11 attacks, and the commission investigating the plot found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda, the terror group that carried out the attacks. But the commission left open the possibility that some Saudi officials may have played roles.

Mr Obama angrily denounced the outcome, saying lawmakers had been swayed to cast a political vote for legislation that set a “dangerous precedent” with implications they did not understand and never debated.

There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”

It is unclear whether the Saudis will make good on warnings that the kingdom could unload hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets inside the United States, and some economists have said that such a sell-off would do far more damage to Saudi Arabia’s economy than America’s. But legal experts say there is cause for concern in Riyadh.

The White House claims that the bill was vetoed because it would open the floodgates for other nations and organizations to sue the US, which is exactly what the Iraqi group wants to do. They cited US bombings of civilians and the well-documented torture that took place in Abu Ghraib.

“These US operations included bombings of civilians, arrests, torture [like in Abu Ghraib prison], and in numerous camps set up by the US forces across Iraq,” the letter continues. “There are also tens of thousands of maimed and handicapped Iraqis as a result of this injustice.” The group also asserts that all of those horrors were based on faulty US intelligence.

“The majority of the injustices were based on very sketchy information and very discriminatory methods with numerous omissions from US officials and ex-officials,” the letter reads. “Once the 9/11 bill becomes law, we will endeavour and assist on a strong effort towards the formation of special committees seated by top Iraqi lawyers and judges along with numerous international legal advisers.”

Unbeknownst to all but a few witnesses, as Rosh Hashana ended eleven months ago, the nascent Sanhedrin concluded months of deliberation by ruling that certain conditions had been met requiring the Nation of Israel to begin counting the Jubilee cycle. Rabbi Avraham Dov Ben Shor recited the blessing and the 49-year cycle began again.

When Rosh Hashana – the Jewish New Year – ends next Tuesday evening, it will be time for Jews to count the second year of the Jubilee cycle. To begin counting the Jubilee last year, the Sanhedrin, as a bet din (rabbinic court), ruled that the Jews have returned to inherit the land as a nation, and not just as individuals. This requires at least 600,000 Jews, equal to the number of Israelites that returned to Israel from Egypt under Joshua.

Rabbi Hillel Weiss, spokesman for the Sanhedrin, explained to Breaking Israel News, “The Sanhedrin ruled that we are now clearly in the prophesied third inheritance of the land, the first being by Joshua, the second after the Babylonian exile.”

The gathering saw a heated exchange between the Russian and American ambassadors to the UN. The US envoy, Samantha Power, also took time to criticize RT during the Security Council meeting. RT asked former US diplomat Jim Jatras if it’s surprising a leading American diplomat would be concerned about the channel’s coverage.

“I think she doesn’t like RT because they report the news that the so-called mainstream media in the US - which are essentially stenographers for the White House and the State Department - don’t cover. As far as her accusing the Russians and saying ‘you can’t be for peace as long as you support…’ What? The government that is defending its own territory? How much can you be for peace, human rights, and democracy if you’re supporting jihadist terrorists who cut people’s heads off?” he said.

Daniel Patrick Welch, writer and political analyst, commenting on Power’s rhetoric, said the US is scared. “They are scared because they don’t want RT - which has a sizable readership and viewership - to get the truth across to as many people as possible. They rely on planted stories; they rely on this one man operation, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights – just some guy living in an apartment in London. They are spreading the same clips that they have used, that they have discredited. This thing about the airstrike on a convoy, which the UN itself backed down and said it probably wasn’t an airstrike. Yet, the New York Times, which is in their corner, goes on to continue to blame the Russians,” Welch said.

Retired US Army Major General Paul E Vallely said he regularly watches RT and the channel provides a “balanced coverage” of events in Syria. “I think you give a very balanced approach. [On] American TV for the most part you don’t see any correspondents inside Syria, as you do of the RT correspondents. Americans are primarily focused … on the elections and what’s going on,” he said.

The American envoy to the UN, Samantha Power, blasted Russia on Sunday at a Security Council meeting, accusing Moscow of civilian deaths in Aleppo in the wake of the collapse of the ceasefire negotiated by the US and Russia. "What Russia is sponsoring and doing is not counter-terrorism, it is barbarism," the US diplomat said in reference to the renewed hostilities in Syria.

She delivered an emotional speech, accusing Russia and Syria of attacks on aid workers, civilian infrastructure and residential areas, while omitting the fact that armed groups – including Al-Qaeda offshoot Al-Nusra Front – are in control of large parts of Aleppo and are using its population as human shields.

The use of the term 'barbarism' by the American envoy drew sarcastic remarks from Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova.

“Historically speaking... a barbarian is someone not belonging to an empire, and we have only one of those today,” she noted on her Facebook page. “As for the imagery... the world has seen nothing more barbaric in modern history than Iraq and Libya done the Washington way.”

Angela Merkel has stated that Deutsche Bank will not be getting a bailout from the European Central Bank – the lender of last resort for European banks. Could Germany be considering a bail-in instead of a bail out? Is this why Germans have been told to stockpile food and cash in case of a disaster hitting the country?

According to Investopedia:

A bail-in is rescuing a financial institution on the brink of failure by making its creditors and depositors take a loss on their holdings. A bail-in is the opposite of a bail-out, which involves the rescue of a financial institution by external parties, typically governments using taxpayers’ money.

Typically, bail-outs have been far more common than bail-ins, but in recent years after massive bail-outs some governments now require the investors and depositors in the bank to take a loss before taxpayers. Are millions of Germans about to see their cash stolen by the government to prop up Deutsche bank?

It’s happened before. The Bank of Cyprus took almost 40% of depositors’ cash to keep the bank afloat and there was nothing they could do about it. Assets were frozen and ATM machines were not refilled. Is this what’s ahead for the people of Germany? It happened in Greece and Venezuela both, and it’s highly possible that we’re about to watch history repeat itself. Will Germany become the next falling domino in the collapse of the Western world?

The lesson that we can take from this is that being prepared far in advance of a collapse is the wisest course of action. If you stock up on emergency food, water, and other vital supplies before the crowd, you’ll do so at better prices with better options. Last summer, our own government issued two warnings to the American people to get prepared, but very few people took it seriously. Don’t wait until it’s too late.

Many Americans probably hope to see some personal fireworks between the two nominees, but the two candidates have both expressed a desire to focus on substantive issues. There will likely be quite a few questions about the economy, and without a doubt this is an area where Trump and Clinton have some very sharp differences. The mainstream media would have us believe that the US economy is in pretty good shape, and if that was true that would seem to favor Clinton. But is it actually true?

By recklessly creating money out of thin air and pumping it into the financial markets, the Federal Reserve has greatly enriched the elite, but they have also dramatically increased the gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us. Since he has been in the White House during this time, Barack Obama has gotten the credit for this temporary stock market bubble, and most of the elite love Obama anyway.

But in the process the stage has been set for the greatest economic and financial implosion in US history, and the pain that is coming is going to affect every man, woman and child in this country.