It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Major US city boycotts bank because of political differences

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I read this today in the Seattle times. They are boycotting Wells Fargo bank for two political issues- funding the Dakota pipeline, and because of their fake account scandal that misappropriated money from customers. Now in principle I support this, as I hate corporate corruption and the corporate system in general, but I worry that it could be opening Pandora's box.

We've been hearing a lot about the possibilities of secession or civil war breaking out in America. I think that this could be the kind of thing that could set it off. If this becomes a trend and cities start boycotting everything that doesn't fall in line with their political views, then it could spread to states and we could see an economic civil war break out that could lead to an actual war.

Even though most people in the blue states think we'd be better off without the red states, a lot of our food comes from states that are either conservative, like Idaho or Georgia (I need my peanut butter), or swing states like Florida, Iowa and Colorado. Blue states have agriculture too, but is it enough to sustain all of us? I don't know.

www.seattletimes.com...




posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

I don't care for their liberal leanings, but I agree they should not just boycott Well Fargo, but ALL banks. Every city should just build their own vaults, store their treasuries and maybe precious metals, and utilize local law enforcement to keep it safe.

We must remove ourselves from the banking system, and with a lack of deposits, they cannot just materialize ten times what they have on deposit and make money out of thin air.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Due respect your thread title is a bit misleading when compared to the article title. The city is choosing to bank with another entity because of wells fargos positions. In essence wells fargo is losing an account and nothing more. If the people of the city dont like the action then they can vote them out of office and put people in place who are more like minded.
edit on 8-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

This isn't much different from other divestment movements. Some have been divesting from things like fossil fuel related companies because of climate change and the desire to push green technologies. Others have refused to purchase from suppliers who help Israel build its settlements (like the BDS boycott against Caterpillar). There are even mutual funds for "socially responsible investors" which may have no stakes in the defense industry or other "controversial" investments.

So as long as the voters in Seattle are ok with it, there shouldn't be a problem, right? That's one of the less mentioned aspects of freedom and trade; people should be free to boycott businesses that they don't want to support.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
If you read my post then you should know what my problem is. If everyone starts doing this then we could see a giant trade war in this country which could lead to a civil war.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Wells Fargo gonna hire an army?

I think it's good they are losing business over their outrageous and fraudulent behavior.

Voting with consumer or tax dollars isn't a flaw...it's a feature of accountability.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

I just don't think it will lead to a trade war, much less a civil war. Even if every city started rejecting municipal contracts w/specific companies, those companies would still have other customers (even in those same cities). And if the MSM and politicians made a big deal about things like this, those companies would probably see increases in sales from customers from the other "side" of the political spectrum.

Just look at Milo's surge in book sales and the surge in sales for that performer who performed for Trump. Heck, I'm even thinking about trying Starbucks for the first time just because their CEO says they'll hire thousands of refugees. Of course, there's also a online boycott against Starbucks for that same refugee hiring pledge, which kind of proves my point.

Don't worry, the US won't launch another civil war unless our State, local, and federal govts collectively ban and confiscate all guns, alcohol, and pain pills. Anything less than that and people will get mad, act out, and then go back to work.



posted on Feb, 8 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
If you read my post then you should know what my problem is. If everyone starts doing this then we could see a giant trade war in this country which could lead to a civil war.

Anyone with a quota to fill supports this broken system.

I can't wait to watch it burn, and yet I'm here hoping it waits for me to escape.

The cities will burn, money doesn't matter. High population areas depend on farms, but farms are broken by regulation from high population areas.
When it burns down it will be a sight to see.

Money, peh!
Government, peh!


Most farmers won't eat the food they farm anymore.

Let that sink in.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
If you read my post then you should know what my problem is. If everyone starts doing this then we could see a giant trade war in this country which could lead to a civil war.


Oh no, not at all. If people start taking their money out of all the big banks, and putting their money in the smaller banks instead, that strengthens the economy, by diversifying banking and helping out small business. Also, since the small banks can't and aren't involved in all the derivatives that's weighing down the whole financial system, the money is safer in them than in the big banks which are all overloaded with risky high leveraged derivatives. So, this movement could stabilize the economy and prevent the coming crash.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
I read this today in the Seattle times. They are boycotting Wells Fargo bank for two political issues- funding the Dakota pipeline, and because of their fake account scandal that misappropriated money from customers. Now in principle I support this, as I hate corporate corruption and the corporate system in general, but I worry that it could be opening Pandora's box.

We've been hearing a lot about the possibilities of secession or civil war breaking out in America. I think that this could be the kind of thing that could set it off. If this becomes a trend and cities start boycotting everything that doesn't fall in line with their political views, then it could spread to states and we could see an economic civil war break out that could lead to an actual war.

Even though most people in the blue states think we'd be better off without the red states, a lot of our food comes from states that are either conservative, like Idaho or Georgia (I need my peanut butter), or swing states like Florida, Iowa and Colorado. Blue states have agriculture too, but is it enough to sustain all of us? I don't know.

www.seattletimes.com...


It started a long time ago whenwells Fargo was caught stealingoney from people by opening accounts without consent.

That's when we started the process of leaving Wf.

Wasn't just political.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join