Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: To all the 'honest' bankers out there: what would it take to start an (the?) OWS Bank?

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 4, 2011, 12:13 p.m. EST by qazxsw123 (238)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I would be happy to participate, especially if we were to run it by the ex FDIC's Elizabeth Warren.

I mean, how many million of OWS people money would it take to build the People's Bank? Sorry credit unions, but hello real life experiment of walking the talk?



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

An OWS bank would be great. Any time someone borrows money and then doesn't want to pay it back, it could be the bank's fault. You could send in a video clip of yourself whining and crying instead of cash and they'd still count it as repayment. Thing is, the OWS bank wouldn't last too long.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

People are so afraid of failure, trial and error, abuse, etc., wasting so much time finding problems with any type of action. This country is resembling more and more Old Europe (as Rumsfelt used to call it).

[-] 1 points by Censored (138) 12 years ago

Poetic justice would be OWSers capitalizing a bank, with their own money, and then running it in accordance with the idiotic posts on this site.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

Plenty of smart, able (and formally educated) people among the OWS. How about running it just better? Ethically? Transparently. Maybe like a credit union that keeps the benefits to accomplish specific purposes--like re-enacting the Glass-Steagall Act (see Wikipedia definition below--please note the big D and the big R next to those responsible for acting and repealing the Act--Oh! What a coincidence!)

The Banking Act of 1933, Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933, was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and introduced banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. It is most commonly known as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its legislative sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3).

Some provisions of the Act, such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 12 years ago

It takes money - which seems to be taboo to the occupiers. You are against money. You are for a "resource based economy" whatever that is. No need for money - everyone just works on the honor system & sings Kumbaya. No-one shirks their responsibilities because they are of the highest virtue & only think of their fellow man.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

yes, money is always dirty, but in the meanwhile you need it to gather your resources, force, energy. Just like the oxygen mask you put on a crashing airplane. If you're lucky, you'll see the moment when you don't need it anymore--finding yourself alive and well. And, yes, breathing even better!

[-] 0 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

why not credit unions? They are owned by the people who make the deposits. They are non profit. They are established. You can use them with atms and use your debit card at the grocery store.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

I don't have a problem with credit unions. I use them and find them most honorable. But OWS will eventually need some leverage, and in this country, the best one, to my knowledge, is $$$.

Just a thought.

[-] 1 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 12 years ago

Well then, take your money out and put it into the credit unions.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

Go ask JFK what would happen.

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 12 years ago

Excuse me ?

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

to hchc: Please elaborate.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

Go ask JFK when you try to do something outside the monetary policy of the USA. I dont think this needs further explanation.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

I don't believe this effort--opening another bank--can be considered doing something outside the monetary policy of the USA.

How about the famous: the "Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself" and this concerns "only material things."

FDR’s First Inaugural Address


I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States—a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good.

I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

Ok, nice copy and past job. So if its not outside the US monetary policy, then what are the differences that are going to make it better?

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

For one, we could try to find a would-be Prez able and willing to read and emulate FDR's first inaugural address. Similar situation, come to think of it. That person might be hiding among the OWS crowd for example, and that person (or a third party candidate) might need lots of cash to make it past the two pillars of (lack of) democracy in this country.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

Please elaborate.


[-] 0 points by joe100 (306) 12 years ago

This is exactly the kind of thing that can happen if OWS had decent leadership. Even pigeons have better leadership than OWS. OWS is wasting its power and unification for now. Hopefully that will change.

[-] 2 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

@joe. OWS is leaderless. That is what makes the Movement so powerful. @qazxsw123. Great points. It is happening. :)

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 12 years ago

The leaderless part, in my opinion, has almost NOTHING do with the power of the movement. Leadership can only help the power of OWS, it won't hinder the power of OWS. The power is is Unity. Lack of leadership does not create power. Everyone can be included with leadership. Consensus can work with leadership.

Consensus is what is powerful and that can be done with leadership. What is making the movement not actually doing things that will bring in REAL MONEY to the 99%, is that everyone is going off in different directions, without leadership.

If I were leader, I would suggest we all work on Internet wealth distribution right away, and I would look for consensus, and then, if that happened, already, we would have money for some of the 99%.

What makes the Occupy powerful is unity. Leadership does not dissolve unity - it enables us to fly together, like a flock of birds, all of us going in one positive direction.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

You don't have to be 'the leader" to do that. Just go ahead and do it. That is what the movement is about. As for consensus, that is also there for sure. People are branching out, doing their own thing. Quickly a consensus forms around the new idea. I agree with your idea about internet wealth distribution. You can "just do it". You don't need me to tell you to do it or any other leader. If you do it, you can be sure the Movement will back you. That doesn't make you a leader. It means that your idea could make the Movement better. That is the beauty of the Movement. It is lead by ideas.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 12 years ago

No I can't just do it. It's too much work for one person.

And why do it, if Occupy is not willing to use it?

Need commitment from people first.

and I am not sure the movement will back me, and if I did form a team, and attracted members, we might not be inspired enough to work so hard, without support from OWS first.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

You can do it. If you are commited, you will get the support. These are quite new ways of thinking for many people. We are used to having leadership structures. That is why the banks will fail. We do not have a leadership structure and they do. They have to have decisions approved all the way up the line. It means that by the time they make one move, we can make 10 or 20. We WILL whoop them.

[-] 0 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

It takes a while to build a village. Their time will come. The most valuable resources are people, because of their ideas, motivations, aspirations.... Now is the time to gather the building materials, survey the land, organize the division of labor, and then it will be time to build.

[-] -1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

Warren is not available.

She's running for Senate in Massachusetts.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

I sent her campaign this post, in case she finds herself addressing OWS.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

I think she's the only voice we can all get behind. At least 90% of us can. The other 10% is insistent that the rest of us settle for Ron Lawl.(far from what we need)

[-] -1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

"Honest bankers"? What the hell is that. There is no such thing as a "banker" these days. Bankers were men who risked their capital, put up money as the bank's capital. The criminals now put up no money. They are bank executives who just thieve from the 99%. Don't dare ever call them "bankers". Bankers were honorable men who tried to help the fellow citizens. These modern day bank criminals only want to ruin people and grab the money.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

I stand corrected: To all the old-fashioned bankers out there!

banker (plural bankers)

1.One who conducts the business of banking; one who, individually, or as a member of a company, keeps an establishment for the deposit or loan of money, or for traffic in money, bills of exchange, etc. 2.A money changer. 3.The dealer, or one who keeps the bank in a gambling house. 4.The stone bench on which a mason cuts or squares his work.


[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

That may be the modern perversion of the word "banker". It used to be the bank owner who put his capital up as the bank's capital. It is like the word "gay" no longer means to be happy.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

Very true. But I thought definition no. 3 above (The dealer, or one who keeps the bank in a gambling house) seems most appropriate for our times.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

Exactly. My great-grandfather was a banker. If someone defaulted on a debt, he had to personally pay up. He sent my grandfather (his son) to deliver gold in a shipment. The ship was sunk. It was a straight loss for my great-grandfather. These modern day crooks and scoudrels are gamblers and cheats. The old guys had honour. They helped build businesses, not look for weakness and short sell them down the river, while fobbing off dodgy paper to pension funds. Lost your pension, or some of it? The bank executives have robbed you blind.

[-] 1 points by qazxsw123 (238) 12 years ago

Am glad you explained the 'personally' part. I had no idea that this was a 'recent' phenomenon. To be sure, people have always borrowed and lended (traded/exchanged, etc.) various resources, but I didn't know that 'bankers' were permitted to lend their own $$.

[-] 1 points by OccupyCentre (263) 12 years ago

That was the idea of a banker. He had to place a guarantee for the capital of the bank. Here is an example of the way people had to set up bank capital:

http://books.google.co.uk/books? id=RAM0CcNv8xkC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=bank+capital+1890&source=bl&ots=PQbEGZHLSf&sig=SKv0loyKc32vg63nd4yJtA7_KTU&hl=en&ei=ztzbTqzNMoOM-waEpa3gDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bank%20capital%201890&f=false

They had to put their own money on the line. These modern day shysters only steal money.