if banks are responsible, why support their crimes with our money?

@stk40m (1119)
Koeln, Germany
November 25, 2011 12:52am CST
http://www.france24.com/en/20101207-cantona-call-empty-bank-accounts-france-banking-failure-cash Considering the recent Occupy Wall Street protests such an idea may be more successful in the US than in France and it might spread like wildfire. If they don't have the money because people have withdrawn it from their bank accounts banks become powerless. What do you think?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@laglen (19782)
• United States
25 Nov 11
I wondered why if they are so against big banks why they hold their money there. I for one, use a local credit union.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
25 Nov 11
I think it can be summed up in one simple word "lazy". Personally, I laughed my a$s off when they did their little bank transfer day. Not only did it make no impact on banks at all, but the morons at Occupy scheduled it on a SATURDAY, when most banks are closed.
1 person likes this
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
25 Nov 11
well, I always only leave a few bucks on my bank account as I don't trust them anyway. @ Taskr36, you mean this case http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/21/41621.htm that's what actually reminded me of the Cantona story. If the Occupy movement is able to organize those many demonstrations and protests nationwide they may be able to organize a coordinated withdrawel of cash as well.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19782)
• United States
26 Nov 11
if they were so against the big banks, why would they have their money in there anyway?
@RawBill1 (8542)
• Gold Coast, Australia
17 Dec 11
It is impossible for the banks to hand out all of the money that people have in their accounts. If everyone tried to take their money out, only the first lot would actually succeed as the money would run dry. It simply does not exist in real hard currency as most money these days is just a figure. Just a number that is written down on a piece of paper (bank statement) or on our computer screens. That actual money does not exist in real terms as most of the "money" that is created is created through debt. If the banks need more income, then they just give out more loans in which people have to service. That is how most money is created. Not in printing presses!
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
18 Dec 11
Hi Bill, long time no see - glad to see you :-) ''If everyone tried to take their money out, only the first lot would actually succeed as the money would run dry.'' if that's true then this would mean that the money that people have earned does not belong to them anymore, IOW the banks would have stolen it from them. I can very well imagine this to be true, so... the ''only'' thing we could do to change the money system would be to not accept money as a currency anymore. Who needs money anyway, only those who are too lazy to do work and want to live life to the full. Intellectual people for example (like scientists, politicians, philosophers etc) ''need'' others to do the (dirty) work - whether they are aware of it or not - so that the former can better deal with their intellectual ''work''. The only way they can make others work for them is to create a currency (money) which needs to be accepted by all (especially the working population) AND of course make sure that most of the money gets into their hands (what better way to achieve that than creating ''electronic'' cash, like you indicate). That's why scientists, politicians and all the other ''intelligent'' chaps earn much more money than the usual worker which has a very stressful life due to his/ her life as he or she has to DO much more in order to maintain their standard of living. And don't forget about taxes and other money tools to ''keep people working'' :D Of course, anyone - even a worker - (who is ignorant enough of social problems like poverty and exploitation of people) can accumulate almost as much money as he wants to if only he's criminal enough. That's why we have so much corruption and many other severe probs in our world today. Yeah, I know. ''Everyone'' wants to lead a ''rich'' life and will find reasons why he / she is privileged to get more money than others but if we're honest ... if you want to be (financially) better off than others you'll - in the end - have to exploit/ cheat on them to a more or less high degree depending on ''how much'' you want to be better off, be it that you exploit/ cheat on them yourself or via tools provided by legislation. And btw, you don't need to even know/ see those who you ''use'' - how convenient! Nowadays we have entire governments who do the job for us via trade agreements with ''poor'' countries or - if those countries don't ''obey'' - via fighting wars with them. Of course they don't ''fight'' themselves. They simply send SOLDiers there to fight and die ''for us''. Environmental issues would be another related topic. Hell, it's all related to money, sigh...
@RawBill1 (8542)
• Gold Coast, Australia
20 Dec 11
Yes, it has been a while. Good to see you too. I have not been here much of late as I have been really busy with work and during the month of November I did not come here at all as I was participating in a challenge over at Squidoo where I built 30 web pages in 30 days. You can check out what I did here: http://www.squidoo.com/30-pages You have some good points there. You are right, the wealth creation game is easy to play and anyone can do it as long as they are willing to forsake at least some of their ethics along the way. Even the most ethical of the financially successful people out there have had to be at least a little bit ruthless and possibly selfish along the way. Either that or they have worked their whole lives, enjoying absolutely no recreation time. Have you seen the documentary "Money as debt"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU It sums up the money system and how money is created fairly well. There is also a follow up "Money as debt 2" which I have not seen yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCu3fpg83TY As for the wars, yes it is very sad that many people lose their lives over greed and the lust for money. It is sad that they are hailed as heroes for fighting these unnecessary wars too.
@coffeebreak (17820)
• United States
25 Nov 11
I read it was a week long thing they did with the change banks thing. But whatever..it did work some. Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citibank all recalled their monthly charge to use the debit card. I have an account with a small bank and a credit union and so far, neither have plans to make a charge. But I was with a medium size bank and just got notice 2 weeks ago that by Jan 1, they will start charging $10 a month for a checking account unless you have a direct deposit or daily balance of at $1500 or more. Who the heck has $1500 to lay in the bank all the time! I had two accounts there... one with a direct deposit and automatic payments each month and the other one for paying bills. Neither have$1500 in them at any time for more than a few days! Once rent hits it's gone! But I had to close the one and transfer my direct deposit to the other one. Now, down to one, I most likely won't be shopping on line much anymore as I don't like giving out my checking account number to stores and hope that it doesn't get hacked, stolen or used by someone else. So their $10 a month fee cost them money...I won't be depositing any money for online shopping and might deposit it there and then transfer it to PayPal and use PP debit card but either way...the bank lost out of their own greed. They just don't think past their noses..to much greed and plain stupidity! I mean, make debit cards to much work and trouble.... and people can just go back to paying with a check or cash and the banks will really be in a mess then!
@stk40m (1119)
• Koeln, Germany
26 Nov 11
yes, if there's one thing I've learned about banks (and big companies) then it's that they closely observe their clients and try to avoid any negative ''developments''. After all it's their customers' money they exist from. So I agree, the banks would be in a real mess.
@Furyoku (26)
25 Nov 11
Actually they don't have money because they corruption, or maybe because not enough time to circulate, or maybe not both?