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.

 

Bank Protest Sparks Online Campaign for Mass Cash Withdrawal Globally

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
That dude was an amazing soccer player.




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LOLZebra
 



If everyone stopped using money and found another system.... then the banks' worthless pieces of paper wouldn't hold as much power over us.


YES! YES! YES! Buy gold and silver and start our own silver/gold per gram credit system as well as physical ownership. Obviously the gold/silver credit system would have to be more regulated system than the current banking system with their soon to be worthless fiat currencies.
edit on 22-11-2010 by john124 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
As much as I support the idea, I don't think it would be as effective as some might think. I believe they can counter a bank run by temporarily closing the banks, just like they did before. Then, bank bailouts at taxpayer expense would just inflate the currencey. The money you eventually withdraw would be worthless.

Instead, I would suggest more of a targeted approach. Just pick a large bank, like Citibank or Bank of America, and boycott them. Instead of withdrawing cash, just transfer it to another bank. Any debt you have with them, refinance to another bank. They couldn't stop that by closing the doors.

Once that bank is gone, start on another.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
As much as I support the idea, I don't think it would be as effective as some might think. I believe they can counter a bank run by temporarily closing the banks, just like they did before. Then, bank bailouts at taxpayer expense would just inflate the currencey. The money you eventually withdraw would be worthless.

Instead, I would suggest more of a targeted approach. Just pick a large bank, like Citibank or Bank of America, and boycott them. Instead of withdrawing cash, just transfer it to another bank. Any debt you have with them, refinance to another bank. They couldn't stop that by closing the doors.

Once that bank is gone, start on another.


I can even picture Sun Tzu giggling and clapping with delight like a little schoolgirl at your strategy.

If people wanted to kill the banks ... that'd be the way. And it would strengthen many small community banks while taking down the "too big to fail" behemoths one by one.

Other than the organizing of it - it's almost scary how well that would probably work.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
The thing is, that while everyone thinks it's a good idea to kill their bank by taking out all their money, with the banking system gone or decimated, what will they use for every day transactions.

As the banks collapse, they will start to call in loans (like they did in the 1920s), credit card loans will be payable immediately and limits drastically reduced, property values will decrease significantly as banks become a lot more agressive with foreclosures, and anyone with any sort of debt will find themselves scrambling to pay back the banks at a time that they can least afford it.

The banks have a lot more power than you do. Still think this is a good idea.

Personally, I've hedged my bets by investing heavily in the silver market, in small denomination coins that will hold their value and will be easy to trade if the economy goes to pot. 1 oz of silver will sure be a lot easier to trade with than 1 oz or even 1/2 oz of gold once the US dollar follows its ineveitable decline.



The thing is, most people now understand that we have nothing left to loose really. We know the system is entirely broken and no amount of propping up or bailing out will fix it. It has to collapse and we have to return to a more stable and nationally limited system. Globalization has failed miserably and we all know it.

People are all scared of the word "protectionism", but under the mandate of national security this is exactly what we need to happen. Each nation has to maintain its own financial stability, to allow any other nation to have such power over your financial system is a security risk far greater than the terrorism we currently face.

A terrorist might harm a few thousand people at most. But a complete financial collapse instigated by another nation could seriously harm millions of people directly.

Yet people are not considering the power China now has over America. We don't question the control the IMF now has over Greece and Ireland specifically. We don't openly discuss the dominance a few select banking groups have over our government.

If we did all take our money out of the banks on the 7th, there would be a system in place to halt it. I have no bout about that. The fact that such an idea has been reported on the BBC assures me that TPTB will know about it and will have a plan in place to deal with it.
However, it will show the complete lack of confidence the public has in their banking system. It could force governments to take further action against the elites, or force them into offering an alternative option. Neither of which will they do on their own because they have too much to risk themselves professionally.

Ultimately I think it comes down to two options;

1. We allow it to completely collapse, or sabotage it ourselves as customers; displaying no confidence in our banking systems. We suffer a couple of years of hardship and actively go after the elites who have created and control this flawed system. In the mean time we see renewed growth of industry. Just look at what happened during the second world war, Britain (and Germany) became powerhouses of industry and scientific development. People learned to mend and make-do, grew their own food, controlled their consumption, prioritized their needs. This is why war pays IMO. It's not the war itself, it's the mindset of the people and the determination to be self-sufficient. If we have a national focus on agriculture and industry we reap the benefits directly. That is what builds a strong nation.

2. We keep bailing out the banks and other nations. We have a prolonged collapse and suffer decades of hardship. We watch the bankers raking in their bonuses and watch our financial sovereignty and national security being chipped away over time. And nothing changes. We'll end up in the same mess only deeper, because no politician is really ever going to be the one to do what desperately has to be done. It would be professional suicide to do that.

Personally, out of the two options, I would choose the first one.
I would be happy to have a couple of years of austerity as long as the system is ripped apart and rebuilt to benefit the people. It needs an overhaul. We have to press the reset button and start again without the influence of already wealthy groups.

I am NOT happy to see a decade of austerity only to see a select few gain more power and influence over our financial systems. I am certainly not happy to see minor changes which still don't improve the system or make it any more stable. I am definitely not happy to see our hopes pinned on an already flawed system, especially when these decisions are being made by people who never saw any of this coming to begin with.

One question I have; why are we placing so much trust and faith in the IMF and World Bank when NEITHER OF THEM saw any of this coming? They are supposed to be the world leaders in the financial world, with the greatest minds able to suggest best practice and correct policy. So where the hell were they when this all started?
And why the hell do we assume that they somehow know the solution?

Read into that last statement what you will. But the same applies to governments, bankers, financial institutions and the IMF and World Bank; either they are completely corrupt and wholly untrustworthy, or they are completely incapable of doing the job that they are charged with.

However you break it down, they have all failed miserably. Conspiracy theorists will say it's planned and they have a direct and clear mandate to destroy national financial systems, but I see more evidence to suggest that they are simply not up to the job. Either way, none of the should ever be listened to again.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
The thing is, that while everyone thinks it's a good idea to kill their bank by taking out all their money, with the banking system gone or decimated, what will they use for every day transactions.

As the banks collapse, they will start to call in loans (like they did in the 1920s), credit card loans will be payable immediately and limits drastically reduced, property values will decrease significantly as banks become a lot more agressive with foreclosures, and anyone with any sort of debt will find themselves scrambling to pay back the banks at a time that they can least afford it.

The banks have a lot more power than you do. Still think this is a good idea.

Personally, I've hedged my bets by investing heavily in the silver market, in small denomination coins that will hold their value and will be easy to trade if the economy goes to pot. 1 oz of silver will sure be a lot easier to trade with than 1 oz or even 1/2 oz of gold once the US dollar follows its ineveitable decline.


In the twenties they called in margin loans. People borrowed to play the market. They were allowed to keep playing unless the value of the stock they held fell below a certain percentage of there loan. If it fell below that amount the margin loans where called in. People lost there homes as that is what was used as collateral. you can't call in a credit card debt or other loan.



new topics

top topics
 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join