Deep Politics Forum

Magda Hassan Wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaoP-4wYl...r_embedded

Great idea! - may it spread to all 'developed' countries! :marchmellow:

The problem being, however, is that a bank run very quickly results in a bank being closed before the creditors can get all their money out. And those who don't get heir money out lose it all because banks always leverage their assets.

It's a great idea but it wouldn't work in principle.

However, by withdrawing your spending power on other big corporations would not only hurt them, but would also hurt the banks, who would be net lenders to big companies.

Start with the airlines I say. Stop using them as a protest, and the fascist "security" nonsense at airports would soon stop. And then move on picking targets intelligently causing a severe squeeze in business but not a complete cessation.

But it is such fun to fuck with them, rattle their cage and poke a stick at them for a bit.

Aren't the deposits supposed to be covered by the government? Some sort of insurance?

Magda Hassan Wrote:But it is such fun to fuck with them, rattle their cage and poke a stick at them for a bit.

Aren't the deposits supposed to be covered by the government? Some sort of insurance?

In the US most banks are covered by the FDIC--Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. I think we need all the good ideas we can get and the French may have a good one. They are not as much under the corporate thumb as the US.

Yep, but if all the banks go belly up then the governments go belly up too as everything is so glued together.

By all means fuck with them, but to do it effectively, aim to hurt them slowly - grind them down, but don't kill them in one go.

David Guyatt Wrote:Yep, but if all the banks go belly up then the governments go belly up too as everything is so glued together.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Argentina and Iceland come to mind.

Possibly.

But I'm more inclined to think of the void caused by the Weimer Republic going belly up and how that was filled. Then fast forward that by 80 years, a far greater and far more integrated world population; food, medicines, fuel and other vital consumables controlled by just a few major corporations wholly dependent for their delivery upon stability etc.

Anyone who has seen a large supermarket undergo a frenzy of panic shopping - people snatching goods out of other people's hands, and off shelves, elbowing other less fortunate shoppers out of the way - may have an insight of what might happen if real panic sets in.

Just my perspective of course. On the other hand I've seen something like this coming for well over 10 years now - which is why I prefer to see the tyre slowly deflate rather than suffer a sudden puncture. :fisheye:

David Guyatt Wrote:The problem being, however, is that a bank run very quickly results in a bank being closed before the creditors can get all their money out. And those who don't get heir money out lose it all because banks always leverage their assets.

It's a great idea but it wouldn't work in principle.

However, by withdrawing your spending power on other big corporations would not only hurt them, but would also hurt the banks, who would be net lenders to big companies.

Start with the airlines I say. Stop using them as a protest, and the fascist "security" nonsense at airports would soon stop. And then move on picking targets intelligently causing a severe squeeze in business but not a complete cessation.

David, I understand you point, but if that were to happen and the government did not 'bail out' the savers, as they did the banksters there would be guillotines again in France and blood in other countries too....... Your idea has merit, but takes a level of coordination I think the propaganda apparat and disrupters can thwart...IMO> There are no good solutions and shortly there will none without a lot of people getting hurt.....i.e. a revolution of one kind or another. What most of us long feared has come to pass....it ain't a comin' - its HERE NOW!

I completely understand where you're both coming from, honest.

But for me personally, the potential suffering and bloodshed of the innocent that would result is too terrible to contemplate to warrant assisting chaos along its shadow Via Reggia.

I always prefer to suggest more moderate and progressive ways forward and I don't think these are impossible either - but yes, they are more fraught with difficulties.

But the base point has to be that no one wants to suffer another Hitler, Stalin or Robespierre and, in the final analysis, we should be smart enough to have learned from history rather than simply repeat it.