Move Your Money

[Master Shake]

From HuffPo (via a ZeroHedge link) Excerpt.

We talked about the outrage of big, bailed-out banks turning around and spending millions of dollars on lobbying to gut or kill financial reform -- including "too big to fail" legislation and regulation of the derivatives that played such a huge part in the meltdown. And as we contrasted that with the efforts of local banks to show that you can both be profitable and have a positive impact on the community, an idea took hold: why don't we take our money out of these big banks and put them into community banks? And what, we asked ourselves, would happen if lots of people around America decided to do the same thing? Our money has been used to make the system worse -- what if we used it to make the system better?

Everyone around the table quickly got excited (granted we are an excitable group), and began tossing out suggestions for how to get this idea circulating.

Eugene, the filmmaker among us, remarked that the contrast between the big banks and the community banks we were talking about was very much like the story in the classic Frank Capra film It's a Wonderful Life, where community banker George Bailey helps the people of Bedford Falls escape the grip of the rapacious and predatory banker Mr. Potter.

It was a lightbulb moment. And, unlike the vast majority of dinner conversations, the excitement over this idea didn't end with dessert. It actually led to something -- thanks in great part to Eugene and his remarkable team, who got to work and, in record time, created a brilliant, powerful, and inspiring video playing off the It's a Wonderful Life concept. Watch it below.

Within a few days, the rest of the pieces fell into place, including an agreement with top financial analysts Chris Whalen and Dennis Santiago, who gave us access to their IRA (Institutional Risk Analytics) database.

Using this tool, everyone will be able to plug in their zip code and quickly get a list of the small, solvent Main Street banks operating in their community.

[snip]

So watch Eugene's amazing video, then go to www.moveyourmoney.info to learn more about how easy it is to move your money. And pass the idea on to your friends (help make this video -- and this idea -- go viral!).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariann..._b_406022.html

[Kadriana]

Re: Move Your Money

I was on a message board for mothers and the link was already posted there.

[raja]

Re: Move Your Money

So watch Eugene's amazing video, then go to www.moveyourmoney.info to learn more about how easy it is to move your money. And pass the idea on to your friends (help make this video -- and this idea -- go viral!).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariann..._b_406022.html

Yes . . . . . . . . . . .

And don't forget . . . Vote Out ALL Incumbents

[santafe2]

Re: Move Your Money

This is something we've done with our business and personal finance. We only work with two local banks. Both only raise local money and never sell loans. They are both good partners.

But the big banks will not go away until many more people quit taking on revolving debt and are much more solvent. The big banks have people right where they want them and I'm not sure what will trigger a massive change.

[TheServant]

Re: Move Your Money

Starve the Beast. I've seen the term crop up more and more lately. I think it's kinda catchy.

Even though it is tough to find many B rated local banks in Metro Detroit, I will be going in this direction as well.

[thousandmilemargin]

Re: Move Your Money

Does Citibank actually need deposits, or can they get all the funds they need from their friends at the Fed, for 0.25 %?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Move Your Money

Does Citibank actually need deposits, or can they get all the funds they need from their friends at the Fed, for 0.25 %?

LOL! I nearly spit out my coffee!

You make a great point. Those huge immortal national corporate banks have almost achieved financial perfection. They've nearly eliminated the need for real depositors with free fed funds flowing in. They seem to be working to arbitrage the free fed funds flowing in by sending them back out to buy US treasury bonds paying a couple points. Soon they can close all the branches, sell all the buildings, downsize all non-executive staff, and just have uncle Sam send a giant monthly check for the net difference to a Wall Street penthouse, where a few executives can spend an hour each morning splitting the pot into their own bonus and salary. Thermodynamically, it’s nearly 100% efficient!

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Move Your Money

And don't forget . . . Vote Out ALL Incumbents

Way too simplistic.

Seen it tried in schools and other instituions.....A purge.

Result: Chaos, incompetence, and corruption rein for the next decade

until the rookies become seasoned.

[ggirod]

Re: Move Your Money

Quote:

Originally Posted by raja And don't forget . . . Vote Out ALL Incumbents

Way too simplistic.

Seen it tried in schools and other instituions.....A purge.

Result: Chaos, incompetence, and corruption rein for the next decade

until the rookies become seasoned.

Oh, but if you add in term limits, you can keep chaos, incompetence, and corruption going with a fresh stream of rookies. I think everybody is frustrated with our leadership but we need to define the problem to be solved and then go about solving it. Promoting quick hit measures that absorb the energies of the people are likely to accomplish nothing good.

Moving your money, on the other hand, is a win/win - the local banks will appreciate their customers even more and, believe me, the TBTFs will end up with egg on their face. Moving your money is the last tiny bit of a free market anybody can exercise.

[raja]

Re: Move Your Money

Way too simplistic.

Seen it tried in schools and other instituions.....A purge.

Result: Chaos, incompetence, and corruption rein for the next decade

until the rookies become seasoned.

The elections for the Senate are staggered. "The Senate has 100 members, elected for a six year term in dual-seat constituencies (two from each state) with one-third being renewed every two years." (Wiki) So there will always be a 2/3rds "seasoned" Sentors in office.

Things might be more turbulent in the house. But I wouldn't see that as a bad thing considering that, "Due to gerrymandering, fewer than 10% of all House seats are contested in each election cycle. Over 90% of House members are reelected every two years, due to lack of electoral competition." (Wiki) In other words, the incumbents have rigged the system.

In both the Senate and House, there will be some incumbents who are doing a good job, and they will be reelected. So the House will have some experienced representatives. Also, I understand that much of knowledge of how things work is held by the semi-permanent staffs of the Congressional Offices.

But I would ask you . . . don't we already have "Chaos, incompetence, and corruption?" Oh . . . that's right, we don't have chaos. The Financial Elite is firmly in control :eek:.

With regard to chaos, if it comes to that, would you rather have chaos reign for a decade . . . or a lifetime of Debt Serfdom?

ggirod -- Oh, but if you add in term limits, you can keep chaos, incompetence, and corruption going with a fresh stream of rookies.

The Congressional Reform Act posits 12 years of total service (6 2-year House terms; 2 6-year Senate terms), so there wouldn't be "a fresh stream of rookies".

[raja]

Re: Move Your Money

Does Citibank actually need deposits, or can they get all the funds they need from their friends at the Fed, for 0.25 %?

When there is a massive customer withdrawal of funds from the Big Banks, the Political Enablers will realize that The People are really pissed. To continue supporting the Big Banks in face of this massive public boycott will not happen.

To save the Big Banks, the Politicians would have to "print" even more money to bail them out. This would enrage the taxpayers more, as they would see government as stealing even more of their money. It would also be less financially sustainable and justifiable than the ridiculousness that's already happening.

No, the Politicians would not bail out the Big Banks in response to a public boycott. They would realize that with a mobilization of this magnitude, The People finally know the score, and the days of the Financial Elite are numbered. The Politicians will wonder if they are going to end up in jail along with the Financial Elite.

So . . . while the Big Banks "can they get all the funds they need from their friends at the Fed," they won't . . . .

[pianodoctor]

Re: Move Your Money

I moved to a small local bank when the collapse first started and I saw how involved my previous bank (WaMu) was in causing our problems. I researched banks using bankrate.com (I believe EJ used to be involved with that) and a similar tool on thestreet.com (the only time I used them).

My little bank (2 branches) continues to be profitable every quarter and has been since the beginning. They were wary of the real estate bubble well before the collapse and even warned of it publicly. They carry no such assets, and have outstanding ratio numbers and are capitalized much better than industry standards.

[vinoveri]

Re: Move Your Money

Thanks for this wonderful video!

What occurred to me per chance after watching is that each and every one of my high limit credit cards is issued by one of the big banks: Citi, Chase, USBank, BofA, CapitalOne (and of course AMEX). I have a couple of cards sent to me by my local community banks, but those credit limits are much lower, e.g. 5k.

Not sure what this means, but now its got me thinking that the big banks are probably at much larger risks for CC defaults than are the smaller banks ... and tin foil hat aside, maybe this is how credit is supposed to flow to the masses ... via the big banks ... CC can be another form of liar loans (you know stated income on your credit card application). Local community banks know better as they can see your deposits.

[ggirod]

Re: Move Your Money

The elections for the Senate are staggered. "The Senate has 100 members, elected for a six year term in dual-seat constituencies (two from each state) with one-third being renewed every two years." (Wiki) So there will always be a 2/3rds "seasoned" Sentors in office.

By seasoned I guess you mean two years, barely past entry level in a telephone call center. Add in the fact that at any given time 50% are first term and scrambling for money and 50% are lame ducks waiting for their revolving door.

Things might be more turbulent in the house. But I wouldn't see that as a bad thing considering that, "Due to gerrymandering, fewer than 10% of all House seats are contested in each election cycle. Over 90% of House members are reelected every two years, due to lack of electoral competition." (Wiki) In other words, the incumbents have rigged the system.

At least in the House, there would be more experience since there are six terms involved. Keeping them closer to the election, too, makes them much more responsive to corporate influence.

In both the Senate and House, there will be some incumbents who are doing a good job, and they will be reelected.

I thought this was a "throw the scoundrels out", so if you have to vote opposite your philosophy, i.e. vote for a progressive if you are conservative, vote for a conservative if you are progressive, vote opposite your social issues postion, would "you" (where "you" is the general public) or is this just a way to overthrow the party in power?

But I would ask you . . . don't we already have "Chaos, incompetence, and corruption?" Oh . . . that's right, we don't have chaos. The Financial Elite is firmly in control :eek:.

and the elite will be the only continuity in govt. Hooray.

With regard to chaos, if it comes to that, would you rather have chaos reign for a decade . . . or a lifetime of Debt Serfdom?

IMHO I am afraid we could get the best of both worlds:eek:

[strittmatter]

Re: Move Your Money

I was reminded of a local news story that aired almost 2 years ago so I dug it up and thought I'd post it here. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmrxa-uDbF0

[media]


[/media]