Forum Post: Occupy Banks a bad idea?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 7:59 a.m. EST by DArmstrong
(4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Can someone explain why OccupyBanks is a good idea. The way I see things is that if we withdraw cash, the bank fails. FDIC steps in and sells the bank to a larger bank for pennies on the dollar and the larger bank makes millions. If a larger bank doesn't buy the closed bank, the FDIC borrows money (because they have little reserves right now) to pay all of the insured. That money is borrowed from the larger banks at interest in which case the larger banks make millions. My assessment is OccupyBanks is good for banks, not for our movement. All intelligent discussion welcomed, please include references.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJXx-d1KkWA
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/94223
Enjoy the Revolution <3
The banks being targeted (Bank of America, Citibank, Chase, Wells Fargo) have already failed and are only allowed to pretend to exist (i.e. be solvent) with the end of mark-to-market accounting rules - changes instituted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board in early 2009. The FDIC should have taken them into receivership in 2008. Allowing this and other fraud perpetrated by these banks (>100,000 counts of felonious behavior - the 150,000 admitted false affidavits!) to continue is a drag on the economy and a farce of justice. Close the banks down. Seize their assets. Make whole the depositors. Jail the bank CEOs. Seize the bank CEOs' assets and recapitalize FDIC and the taxpayers. Wash, rinse, repeat.
References: 1) Mark to market rules changes: see for example http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=90449
2) Felonious behavior: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2448379
3) The Risks Facing America Today: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195841