| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 689.1 | FREEDOM OF CHOICE STILL EXISTS | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Thu Jul 06 1989 13:21 | 28 |
| Many Americans are afraid that the Bush/Reagan administration
is a threat to the Contstitution of America.
Many Americans believe that their right to own guns is under attack.
Many Americans are terribly upset that their freedom of choice is being
restricted or taken away.
Many Americans have come to see the Savings and Loan scandal and the
HUD scandal as a symptom of the extent of government corruption
and influence selling, ... the time has come to act.
The only language these people speak is the language of money.
Some of us who have lost faith in the system believe we must make a
dramatic gesture to show our government how we feel.
I and many of my friends, have decided to withdraw all of our money
from the bank as a gesture of protest, I will keep no savings in the bank.
We feel that if the system is going to disregard our rights and
ignore our needs, then lets see how well it gets along without us.
I want to make it clear that I do not in any way advocate a "boycott
of banks". We will continue to keep enough cash to cover checks, pay
loans and mortgages and use other banking services. Withdrawing
our savings is a gesture of protest, not a boycott.
Mary
|
| 689.2 | | RAINBO::RU | | Thu Jul 06 1989 14:24 | 15 |
|
Are you insane? You want the return of 1930's economic debacle?
I don't fear anything under President Bush.
At least the military is cutting back. And they are negotiating
the withdraw of troop from Europe. So everything looks good.
I can assure you under President Bush you can sit tight and count your
money in the bank and see it grow.
Right to own guns? I don't want to see a gun in my home.
Abortion? The poll says majority of American are pro-choice.
Does the US government do things according to public opinion?
I have a feeling you are just anti-Republican!
|
| 689.3 | Wake and discover that you are the song that the morning brings. | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Thu Jul 06 1989 15:01 | 62 |
| Note 689.2
RAINBO::RU
> Are you insane? You want the return of 1930's economic debacle?
Thats where we are heading right now. We are in terrible economic
trouble. When Regean deregulated the Savings and Loans he set us
up for a major rip off, HUD has been pouring our tax money into the
pockets of well-connected republicans while neglecting their major
responsibility... housing for the poor. The deficit is totally
out of sight. The stock market lost nearly a hundred points last
week. The CPI last month was the highest its been in months, an
indicator of continued inflation. We are in serious economic trouble
right now.
> I don't fear anything under President Bush.
Well I certainly do.
>At least the military is cutting back. And they are negotiating
>the withdraw of troop from Europe. So everything looks good.
Looks good to you maybe but not to me. Its too little too late.
> I can assure you under President Bush you can sit tight and count your
>money in the bank and see it grow.
I doubt you can assure me of that. Real income has dropped in the
past 10 years. The Savings and Loans are insolvent now, there isn't
enough money to cover the losses as it is. The economy is on very
shakey ground already. The Japanese people have begun to realize
that their own politicians are so corrupt they can't be trusted, there
is massive insider cheating in their stock market just like the
insider trading we have. If they pull their money out of their
stock market our will fall right behind it anyway. At least if
your money is at home you can get to it and you won't be paying
all of those services charges and taxes on it as well.
>Right to own guns? I don't want to see a gun in my home.
Fine... there are many of us who do though.
>Abortion? The poll says majority of American are pro-choice.
>Does the US government do things according to public opinion?
It depends on how much money a special interest PAC pays them.
It seems as though government will vote for the highest bidder.
>I have a feeling you are just anti-Republican!
Once again you are wrong... but then empathy is not a Republican
strong point so perhaps you shouldn't trust your feelings._:-)
I'm not anti-republican nor anti-democrate, nor an I pro-republican
nor pro-democrate.
I'm anti-corruption, I'm anti-influence peddling, I'm anti-those
who wish to restrict our freedom of choice or to change our
constitution to pass into law their own opinions and prejudices.
I'm pro-American, I'm pro-justice, I'm pro-freedom and pro-democracy.
Mary
|
| 689.4 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Jul 07 1989 15:24 | 19 |
| Re: .0
>I want to make it clear that I am not advocating a "boycott" of banks
>and banking services
If you advocate that people withdraw their savings, you're advocating
that they boycott a service which most banks supply: savings. Kind of
like advocating that people not buy fish sandwiches at fast-food
chains; you're not asking them to stay away from the restaurant, but
you're still doing damage to their business.
I don't think I want to mess around the economy to this extent. If
people withdraw their savings, how will anyone get loans? There's no
money to loan out. Interest rates go up, which makes major purchases
harder. The housing industry will have trouble, probably the car
industry as well. The economy will probably go into a massive slump.
Sure, it'll get the government's attention -- by causing a lot of
problems for ordinary people. No thanks.
|
| 689.5 | How about a non-establishment bank or savings? | WEA::PURMAL | Meter reading, facts a feeding | Fri Jul 07 1989 16:55 | 12 |
| re: .0
Have you considered keeping your money in an institution that you
can respect, and seems to be concerned with the same issues that you
are?
I seem to remember stories about "women's" banks and "gay" banks,
but I haven't heard about them in a long time. I'd be willing to bet
that there are such institutions still in buisness, but I wouldn't know
how to find them.
ASP
|
| 689.6 | Don't head us into a Depression | DELREY::WEYER_JI | | Fri Jul 07 1989 17:25 | 9 |
| It is quite possible we're heading into another resession period,
but let's not make it a full scale depression. Withdrawing monies
from any banking institution does represent a great risk - risk
of driving interest rates higher, inaccurate calculations of the
basic money supply, price of gold would go higher as the dollar
drops. We need to wait out these resession periods as they happen,
not over-react and force the hand (into a downward spiral, that
is).
|
| 689.7 | | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Jul 07 1989 17:33 | 10 |
| RE: .5
My SO uses a VISA that we call his "politically correct credit
card" because with every purchase he makes, it donates money to
environmental, human rights, and other similar causes.
If we could get a list of banking institutions that follow
similar guidelines, that sounds like it would be a good alternative
for those who wish to make a statement with their savings.
|
| 689.8 | Woman's World Bank - NY, NY | WEA::PURMAL | Meter reading, facts a feeding | Fri Jul 07 1989 18:23 | 6 |
| I found that the Woman's World Bank is located in NY, NY and their
telephone number is (212) 953-2390. If they are a bank run by and/or
concerned with women's issues they may be able to tell you about other
women's banking institutions.
ASP
|
| 689.9 | Information from Woman's World Bank... | CSC32::CONLON | | Fri Jul 07 1989 18:40 | 17 |
| RE: .8
Just finished speaking to the Woman's World Bank at the number
you provided, and found out that they are not a commercial bank
(with the usual deposit-type banking services.) They are closely
involved with the women's movement, and provide loans for women,
and operate in a number of countries around the world. They are
a non-profit institution (and like I mentioned earlier, they do
not take deposits.)
The woman with whom I spoke suggested that we check with the
bank that used to be called "First Women's Bank" (also in
New York.) It's now called something like "First Bank of
Business," I think she said.
Also, there is a bank in Vermont, she seemed to recall, that
works on a socially conscious basis.
|
| 689.10 | For a gesture of protest to have effect, it must have impact. | DICKNS::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Wed Jul 12 1989 14:00 | 109 |
|
Note 689.4
ACESMK::CHELSEA
> If you advocate that people withdraw their savings, you're advocating
> that they boycott a service which most banks supply: savings. Kind of
> like advocating that people not buy fish sandwiches at fast-food
> chains; you're not asking them to stay away from the restaurant, but
> you're still doing damage to their business.
Chelsea, when the FDA told us that grapes from Chile might be poisoned and
not to buy them, it was not taken as an attempt by our government to
boycott Chile's economy. It was an attempt to insure the safety of
the American consumer.
Well the taxpayer has a right to use a similar tool to insure the safety
of our freedom and democratic system.
> I don't think I want to mess around the economy to this extent. If
> people withdraw their savings, how will anyone get loans? There's no
> money to loan out. Interest rates go up, which makes major purchases
> harder. The housing industry will have trouble, probably the car
> industry as well. The economy will probably go into a massive slump.
You may (of course) make your own decisions. But please remember that
many influential Republicans have gotten loans through HUD only because they
were well-connected (banks were involved in that). The Savings and
Loan scandals have and will cost every citizen in this country almost
$2,000 dollars, banks are certainly involved in that. As a matter of
fact, banks and politicians seem to be involved in almost all of our
political scandals, and if the banks are not involved then it is the
stock market traders.
Most banks (except for Chase Manhatten) have not lowered their interest
rates yet, even though the FED lowered the prime recently, the only reason
appears to be greed... they get a much higher profit margin the longer
they wait.
> Sure, it'll get the government's attention -- by causing a lot of
> problems for ordinary people. No thanks.
Well, ordinary people already have a lot of problems and the government
doesn't appear to care very much about them, nor is it doing anything
about them. The politicians talk about raising taxes but its to solve
old problems that never would have developed if they had been doing
their jobs in the first place. This country's financial problems will
be dumped in the laps of us "ordinary people" Chelsea,... believe it.
The rich and the politicians and the judges won't carry the burden,
we will. At least this way, we won't be carrying it alone.
Note 689.5
WEA::PURMAL
> Have you considered keeping your money in an institution that you
> can respect, and seems to be concerned with the same issues that you
> are?
>
> I seem to remember stories about "women's" banks and "gay" banks,
> but I haven't heard about them in a long time. I'd be willing to bet
> that there are such institutions still in buisness, but I wouldn't know
> how to find them.
With all of the leverage buyouts lately, there aren't too many independents
anymore. Besides, it's a gesture of protest, not a reflection upon the
respectability of the banking system. A gesture of protest must have
impact if it is to have an effect.
Note 689.6
DELREY::WEYER_JI
> It is quite possible we're heading into another resession period,
> but let's not make it a full scale depression. Withdrawing monies
> from any banking institution does represent a great risk - risk
> of driving interest rates higher, inaccurate calculations of the
> basic money supply, price of gold would go higher as the dollar
> drops. We need to wait out these resession periods as they happen,
> not over-react and force the hand (into a downward spiral, that
> is).
Interest rates and money supply are all controled by the Federal Reserve
(a private bank) and are regulated by the FED. A recession is the very
best time to use money as a weapon to make our views heard by the
government.
Please remember that President Bush is trying to get raises from 8 to 25%
for government managers, employees, judges and politicians. President Bush
issn't worried about inflation in pursuing these raises like he was in using
inflation as justification in keeping minimum wage down. The recession
isn't supposed to hurt them, just us. At least if we do something like
this, then everyone gets hurt... not just us. And maybe we can use the
opportunity to turn things around in this country so that it is once more
a government of the people instead of an opportunity to rip the people off.
Note 689.7
CSC32::CONLON
> If we could get a list of banking institutions that follow
> similar guidelines, that sounds like it would be a good alternative
> for those who wish to make a statement with their savings.
Good idea Suzanne. World banks have given loans to third world projects
that distroy rain forests and threaten the very future of the planet. Its
time for the banks to think about something besides their own personal gain.
Mary
|
| 689.11 | Turn that energy to something effective | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Wed Jul 12 1989 23:39 | 37 |
| Re: .10
>> I seem to remember stories about "women's" banks and "gay" banks,
>> but I haven't heard about them in a long time. I'd be willing to bet
>> that there are such institutions still in buisness, but I wouldn't know
>> how to find them.
>
>With all of the leverage buyouts lately, there aren't too many independents
>anymore. Besides, it's a gesture of protest, not a reflection upon the
>respectability of the banking system. A gesture of protest must have
>impact if it is to have an effect.
I read VERY recently (but am unable to find my reference) that the
New York Women's Bank recently changed its name to the New York Bank
for Business. I'm not sure what meaning to ascribe to this.
Personally, I view boycotts as an extremely weak approach towards
change, and the more dispersed the action, the weaker the effect.
It's even worse when the entity being boycotted is not a single
company, but rather an entire industry, doubly worse when the
entity being boycotted has no direct control over whatever it is
you're protesting, triply worse when the issue is one that few
"average" people get upset about, and quadruply worse when there
is no plausible alternative "product" to purchase.
Mary, I'm afraid your proposal gets hit by all of these and more.
I'd say that a letter-writing campaign would have far more impact.
It would not surprise me to find that the most significant involvement
you could stir up would me unmeasurable, even at the level of
individual banks.
I'm all for protest, and I support your goals, but if you're going
to protest, at least try to find something effective.
Steve
|
| 689.12 | Money certainly appears to influence politicians. | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Thu Jul 13 1989 14:16 | 53 |
| Note 689.11
QUARK::LIONEL
> I read VERY recently (but am unable to find my reference) that the
> New York Women's Bank recently changed its name to the New York Bank
> for Business. I'm not sure what meaning to ascribe to this.
I read in Mother Jones (I think thats where I read it), that the reason
the name of the bank has been changed is because most of the banking
executives and officers are now men.
> Personally, I view boycotts as an extremely weak approach towards
> change, and the more dispersed the action, the weaker the effect.
> It's even worse when the entity being boycotted is not a single
> company, but rather an entire industry, doubly worse when the
> entity being boycotted has no direct control over whatever it is
> you're protesting, triply worse when the issue is one that few
> "average" people get upset about, and quadruply worse when there
> is no plausible alternative "product" to purchase.
Withdrawing savings isn't a boycott Steve. One can withdraw savings
and still use banking services. And I don't believe that only a few
average people are upset about the direction in which the Supreme Court
and the government is moving. I think that many, many people are upset
about it these days. Also, the banks were involved in many of the
recent political scandals (for example the Savings & Loans).
And it is not a question of "purchasing an alternative product" when one
is talking about withdrawing savings. We pay so much in service charges
and taxes on our savings that it probably about equals whatever interest
we acrue... hence we have nothing much to lose.
> Mary, I'm afraid your proposal gets hit by all of these and more.
> I'd say that a letter-writing campaign would have far more impact.
> It would not surprise me to find that the most significant involvement
> you could stir up would me unmeasurable, even at the level of
> individual banks.
Quite possibly. It was a meaningful gesture for the people of Hong Kong
however, when they wished to protest the massacre of Tiananmen Square.
Whether it works or not, it should attract political attention, and thats
what a gesture of protest is supposed to do. We are all engaged in a
letter writing campaign as well.
> I'm all for protest, and I support your goals, but if you're going
> to protest, at least try to find something effective.
Steve, in my opinion, nothing is more effective in this country than money.
Money appears to be the basis of every political scandal and disaster we've
had lately. PACs have used money to buy special interest legislation for a
long time, why can't we use the same tool to better get our interest focused
upon?
Mary
|
| 689.13 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Jul 13 1989 23:35 | 19 |
| Re: .12
Mary, I would be the first to agree that money is effective. But
withdrawing savings from banks as a protest, unless you can manage
to get a few million people to agree with you, is unlikely to even
get noticed statistically. Besides, anyone who has any significant
liquid funds in savings accounts would be well off to go hire a
tax accountant to set them straight...
And where is all this money going to go? Mattresses?
I do believe that what you're suggesting is equivalent to a boycott.
If you choose not to call it that, fine. But I'm unaware of any
generic "consumer action" in the past of having any measurable
effect - even to the point of being noticed, much less causing
some benefit to occur. Who knows, you could be the first.
Good luck.
Steve
|
| 689.14 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Jul 17 1989 18:35 | 43 |
| Re: .10
>when the FDA told us that grapes from Chile might be poisoned and not
>to buy them, it was not taken as an attempt by our government to
>boycott Chile's economy
This is where we get into semantics. To some, a boycott is any call to
refuse to use a service or business. To others, a boycott is a refusal
to use a service or business with the intent of using economic pressure
to instigate a specific action toward a specific goal. And to others,
it's not a boycott unless it has a tightly focused target.
>Well the taxpayer has a right to use a similar tool to insure the
>safety of our freedom and democratic system.
You have the right to boycott. No guarantee that it will accomplish
what you want.
>As a matter of fact, banks and politicians seem to be involved in
>almost all of our political scandals, and if the banks are not
>involved then it is the stock market traders.
I don't see how this addresses my point that withdrawing savings will
seriously damage the economy.
>Well, ordinary people already have a lot of problems and the
>government doesn't appear to care very much about them, nor is it
>doing anything
Since the government is so unresponsive to ordinary people, making
their situation even worse sounds pretty risky to me. It's just that
much more that the government will have to fix up. Since you've
decided that they're not responsive to the needs of ordinary people,
how can you be sure that their response will put ordinary people in a
position that's better than before your savings boycott? How do you
know that this action won't make it impossible for them to put ordinary
people in a better position? How do you know that this extra damage
won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back?
Frankly, I haven't seen a convincingly thorough analysis of the
consequences. I see a pipe-dream, not a sound economic and political
proposal. Inventive, yes. Feasible -- I'm not convinced.
about them.
|
| 689.15 | | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Tue Jul 18 1989 15:43 | 34 |
| Note 689.13
QUARK::LIONEL
> Mary, I would be the first to agree that money is effective. But
> withdrawing savings from banks as a protest, unless you can manage
> to get a few million people to agree with you, is unlikely to even
> get noticed statistically. Besides, anyone who has any significant
> liquid funds in savings accounts would be well off to go hire a
> tax accountant to set them straight...
Well Steve, if NOW advocated the concept as a gesture of protest, I'll
bet it would get noticed statistically. There were about 600,000 people
at the last demonstration and I'll bet there will be a million at the
next one.
> And where is all this money going to go? Mattresses?
Sure_:-)
> I do believe that what you're suggesting is equivalent to a boycott.
No, its not. A boycott would mean canceling mortgages and loans and not
using any banking services such as checking accounts and direct deposits.
> If you choose not to call it that, fine. But I'm unaware of any
> generic "consumer action" in the past of having any measurable
> effect - even to the point of being noticed, much less causing
> some benefit to occur. Who knows, you could be the first.
> Good luck.
Thanks Steve, we can use all the luck we can get_:-).
|
| 689.16 | I'm afraid the camel died long ago. | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Tue Jul 18 1989 16:02 | 76 |
| Note 689.14
ACESMK::CHELSEA
> This is where we get into semantics. To some, a boycott is any call to
> refuse to use a service or business. To others, a boycott is a refusal
> to use a service or business with the intent of using economic pressure
> to instigate a specific action toward a specific goal. And to others,
> it's not a boycott unless it has a tightly focused target.
Well Chelsea, it isn't strictly semantics as one particular definition
is against guidelines while another is not. It is the tightly focused
target (specifying a company or product by name) that is questionable.
> You have the right to boycott. No guarantee that it will accomplish
> what you want.
No guarantees in life at all.
> I don't see how this addresses my point that withdrawing savings will
> seriously damage the economy.
There is no proof that it would seriously damage the economy, at least no more
than it has been damaged by HUD, the S&Ls and numerous other subsidies to the
rich.
Only a consistent and sustained action could seriously damage the economy
anyway and no one has set a time limit on such a gesture of protest.
> Since the government is so unresponsive to ordinary people, making
> their situation even worse sounds pretty risky to me.
It hasn't been determined that the situation of ordinary people would become
worse, only that of government and world banks. And we are always at risk
when dealing with those of power.
> It's just that
> much more that the government will have to fix up. Since you've
> decided that they're not responsive to the needs of ordinary people,
> how can you be sure that their response will put ordinary people in a
> position that's better than before your savings boycott? How do you
> know that this action won't make it impossible for them to put ordinary
> people in a better position? How do you know that this extra damage
> won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back?
Well Chelsea, I haven't seen the government make any real attempt to put
ordinary people in a better position as it is, or to actually "fix up"
anything. Rather they seem to go for the quick fix and expedient solution.
They take care of their friends and special interest groups.
And I don't think that there will even be an attempt to do so until they are
personally effected and forced to do so by economic conditions.
Bush is putting pay raises in place for government bureaucrats, members of
Congress and the Senate and all other government employees... they will be
sheltered from what is happening.
The Savings and Loan bailout will protect that part of the banking industry
by transferring wealth from the private sector to the banks.
No one appears to be looking out for the interests of the taxpayer.
> Frankly, I haven't seen a convincingly thorough analysis of the
> consequences. I see a pipe-dream, not a sound economic and political
> proposal. Inventive, yes. Feasible -- I'm not convinced.
> about them.
One cannot but guess that the government would respond in the face of some
very real threat to their base of power. Taking money out of the bank is
easily altered by putting money back into the bank. Its not intended to
be a political proposal as I believe that the individual has lost his
voice in the political system, he/she cannot be heard above the rustling
of PAC money and the obligations of politicians one to another.
It isn't an economic proposal but rather a reminder that the people are
not powerless. They still are able to impact the system and they must
not be taken for granted.
Mary
|
| 689.17 | Compounding the problem? | HANDY::MALLETT | Barking Spider Industries | Tue Jul 18 1989 17:12 | 19 |
| re: .16 (Mary)
� There is no proof that it would seriously damage the economy, at
� least no more than it has been damaged by HUD, the S&Ls and numerous
� other subsidies to the rich.
I'm troubled because the reasoning here seems to be that this form
of protest would be o.k. because it will do *less* damage to the
economy than other events have done. If there is ". . .no proof
that it would seriously damage the economy. . ." I find even less
proof that it would help the economy.
I don't see how further damage to the economy of any sort will help
the "average" person. And in putting one's money in a mattress,
that person is further hurt - (s)he's losing any possible income
made by investing it.
Steve
|
| 689.18 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Jul 18 1989 18:23 | 29 |
| Re: .15
>Well Steve, if NOW advocated the concept as a gesture of protest, I'll
>bet it would get noticed statistically. There were about 600,000
>people at the last demonstration and I'll bet there will be a million
>at the next one.
Noticed? Yes. Statistically? Doubtful. There are over 200 million
people in the US. Let's assume that half of them have savings
accounts. Even if a million people withdraw their savings, that's only
1% of the population. I don't know what the percentage of total
savings would be, but I'm sure it's less than 1%. Since we're arguing
hypothetical situations, I've been arguing from the assumption of
significant buy-in to the plan; in other words, I've been assuming your
best possible case.
>No, its not. A boycott would mean canceling mortgages and loans and
>not using any banking services such as checking accounts and direct
>deposits.
What you've just described is a boycott of banks. What you've called
for is a boycott of savings account services provided by banks. One
need not boycott a company's entire product line in order to have a
boycott. (I had hoped to make that point with my analogy of boycotting
fish sandwiches at fast-food places.) Of course, it's debatable
whether you can boycott something as general as savings or whether a
call to act against an entire industry is specific enough to be a
boycott. But, while it might not fit the strict constructionist
interpretation, I'd say they're philosophically aligned.
|
| 689.19 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Wed Jul 19 1989 00:12 | 17 |
| I'd like to further address the notion of an action taken against
an industry in general, when only a small part of that industry is
causing problems. The particular savings bank I do business with,
NFS Savings Bank in Nashua, is rated as one of the most financially
stable savings banks in the country (I saw the list in Business Week,
I think). Why should I penalize THEM for what some bank in Texas
does?
If I were to withdraw my savings from NFS, I cannot see any direct
or even indirect manner in which my action would affect the way that
the S+L industry or the government does its business. But I CAN see
that I'm harming the local economy by making less money available
to New Hampshire individuals and businesses for loans that they'd
want to procure from NFS. Given the choice, I'd rather keep my
money in.
Steve
|
| 689.20 | | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Wed Jul 19 1989 13:58 | 92 |
| Note 689.17
HANDY::MALLETT
> I'm troubled because the reasoning here seems to be that this form
> of protest would be o.k. because it will do *less* damage to the
> economy than other events have done. If there is ". . .no proof
> that it would seriously damage the economy. . ." I find even less
> proof that it would help the economy.
Its not being done to help the economy Steve. Thats neither the point
nor the purpose.
> I don't see how further damage to the economy of any sort will help
> the "average" person. And in putting one's money in a mattress,
> that person is further hurt - (s)he's losing any possible income
> made by investing it.
Well Steve, the person also pays heavy taxes on that money, stock broker
fees if he/she is investing it, bank service fees if it is in savings,
and with all of the insider trading going on, the small investor is
in some peril anyway. I believe that the hypothetical person in question
stands to lose very little compared to the personal satisfaction that
comes from making one's voice heard in a country where the individual
is lost in political posturing and government lack of concern.
Certainly a slowing economy could possibly bring the cost of housing
back down into the reach of the ordinary person once again. The house
that I paid 35K for in 1978 costs 135K today. That kind of inflation
means that my sons will never have the means to own a home of their own.
Lower costs mean an improved quality of life for our children.
In a day and age when the government is looking to spend $70 billion
dollars (not including operation costs) for 132 planes (Stealths), while
domestic concerns (health, education) are in such a sadly neglected state,
it appears that our priorities could use some adjustment. This is a way
to focus attention onto those priorities and perhaps encourage our
government to consider domestic concerns.
Note 689.18
ACESMK::CHELSEA
> Noticed? Yes. Statistically? Doubtful. There are over 200 million
> people in the US. Let's assume that half of them have savings
> accounts. Even if a million people withdraw their savings, that's only
> 1% of the population. I don't know what the percentage of total
> savings would be, but I'm sure it's less than 1%. Since we're arguing
> hypothetical situations, I've been arguing from the assumption of
> significant buy-in to the plan; in other words, I've been assuming your
> best possible case.
Then add to that a Grass Roots movement of all of those many factions in
this country whoes problems can be traced to increased government interference
in our lives; such as the NRA, the Citizens Against Increased Taxation, the
farmers whoes farms were foreclosed upon the week after Bush was elected,
Miners, Pilots and other unions who feel victimized by government's bias
towards big business and others. Who knows, perhaps there are enough of us
to make a difference.
Note 689.19
QUARK::LIONEL
> I'd like to further address the notion of an action taken against
> an industry in general, when only a small part of that industry is
> causing problems. The particular savings bank I do business with,
> NFS Savings Bank in Nashua, is rated as one of the most financially
> stable savings banks in the country (I saw the list in Business Week,
> I think). Why should I penalize THEM for what some bank in Texas
> does?
The point isn't to penalize them.
> If I were to withdraw my savings from NFS, I cannot see any direct
> or even indirect manner in which my action would affect the way that
> the S+L industry or the government does its business. But I CAN see
> that I'm harming the local economy by making less money available
> to New Hampshire individuals and businesses for loans that they'd
> want to procure from NFS. Given the choice, I'd rather keep my
> money in.
I'm not sure that local money is used to finance loans locally Steve, but
that is irrelevant anyway. Regardless, no one is holding a gun to your
head_:-) Do what you think is best for you. Thats what we all must do
in the final analysis.
Perhaps others though, who don't feel as you do, who feel powerless and
somewhat victimized by the magnitude and insensitivity of the system, who
see their individual rights being taken away from them at an alarming rate,
will join together to take back America from the bureaucrats, politicians,
and bankers.
Mary
|
| 689.21 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed Jul 19 1989 19:32 | 33 |
| Re: .20
>Who knows, perhaps there are enough of us to make a difference.
You have yet to demonstrate satisfactorily that the difference will be
positive.
I'm assuming that this is a policy that you genuinely believe people
should get behind. In other words, this is a program that you're
trying to implement. I see a lot of dissatisfaction with the way
things are and I see a reaction. I do not see any research or in-depth
analysis to indicate that this plan will do what it is supposed to do.
I see assumptions that the government will respond the way you want
them to, but I don't see any substantiation for that point of view
other than a clich�: "Money talks."
Suppose you wanted to sell an organization on this. You walk into the
meeting and you say, "Here's the plan. We withdraw our money from
savings accounts. The banks will pressure the government and the
government will finally notice us." And they say, "And? What does
this do for us?" What can you tell them? They say, "How many people
do we need to get them to notice us?" What can you tell them? They
ask, "How long do we need to do this?" What can you tell them? They
ask, "What's to stop the government from ignoring us once we put our
money back again?" What do you tell them? They ask, "How can I get a
loan to buy a car or expand a business?" What do you tell them? They
ask, "What will this do to prices?" What do you tell them?
The point is, all you have is a brainstorm. Maybe it will work. Maybe
it won't. In fact, I'm not sure you've even defined how to tell if it
works. What are the goals? How do you know you've succeeded? I haven't
seen any solid statement on that basic issue. All I've seen is a lot
of supposition and wishing. Attractive, but not convincing.
|
| 689.22 | | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Thu Jul 20 1989 17:05 | 66 |
| Note 689.21
ACESMK::CHELSEA
> I'm assuming that this is a policy that you genuinely believe people
> should get behind. In other words, this is a program that you're
> trying to implement.
No, this is neither a program nor a policy.
> I do not see any research or in-depth
> analysis to indicate that this plan will do what it is supposed to do.
A gesture of protest has no true purpose other than to be what it is...
a gesture of protest.
> Suppose you wanted to sell an organization on this. You walk into the
> meeting and you say, "Here's the plan. We withdraw our money from
> savings accounts. The banks will pressure the government and the
> government will finally notice us." And they say, "And? What does
> this do for us?" What can you tell them?
:-) How about if I say this, "Here's the plan. We withdraw our money
from savings accounts, the banks will pressure the government and the
government will consider us as a political force."
> They say, "How many people
> do we need to get them to notice us?" What can you tell them?
Oh lets see, ... I'll tell them, lets contact the NRA, the unions, the
farmers and other groups upset by government intrusion into individual
rights or similar concerns and see how many people we can get together.
> They ask, "How long do we need to do this?" What can you tell them?
As long as it takes.
> They ask, "What's to stop the government from ignoring us once we put our
> money back again?" What do you tell them?
We don't put it back till we get some concessions.
> They ask, "How can I get a loan to buy a car or expand a business?"
> What do you tell them? They ask, "What will this do to prices?"
> What do you tell them?
I'm not planning to present the concept to the Better Business Bureau, the
Federal Reserve, nor to an organization whoes purpose and objective is to
buy a car or expand a business.
> The point is, all you have is a brainstorm. Maybe it will work. Maybe
> it won't. In fact, I'm not sure you've even defined how to tell if it
> works. What are the goals? How do you know you've succeeded? I haven't
> seen any solid statement on that basic issue. All I've seen is a lot
> of supposition and wishing. Attractive, but not convincing.
Boy Chelsea... I'm glad I'm not trying to convince you_:-). But then I
probably wouldn't try to convince Alan Greenspan or George Bush either.
I'll tell you what,... why don't I go ahead and try to sell the idea. I'll
put together a proposal and send it to Molly Yard (I think thats the right
name). I'll cover as many of the issues that you've brought up as I can
(thank you for the suggestions by the way). Who knows, if it works perhaps
all of your questions will be answered.
Mary
|
| 689.23 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Jul 21 1989 21:27 | 70 |
| Re: .22
>How about if I say this, "Here's the plan. We withdraw our money from
>savings accounts, the banks will pressure the government and the
>government will consider us as a political force."
That's no different than explaining the plan.
>I'll tell them, lets contact the NRA, the unions, the farmers and
>other groups upset by government intrusion into individual rights or
>similar concerns and see how many people we can get together.
That doesn't answer the question of "How many people do we need?"
>We don't put it back till we get some concessions.
What concessions? Or will just any concessions do? Are we asking for
concessions? Those haven't been mentioned. What are we asking for?
>to an organization whoes purpose and objective is to buy a car or
>expand a business.
Plenty of individuals plan to buy cars or expand the businesses they
own; what do you tell them?
>(thank you for the suggestions by the way)
Glad to be of use.
>I'll cover as many of the issues that you've brought up as I can
From my group's goal-setting exercise yesterday:
Good goals are SMART:
Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Timely
Is your goal specific? What is your goal? You want to implement a
gesture of protest to get the government to consider us a political
force. That gesture of protest is withdrawing funds from savings
accounts. From what you've said, that seems to be the general plan.
Okay, that's specific.
Is it measurable? I don't think so. How do we know when the
government has recognized the participants as a political force? What
exactly is meant by government? Are all branches included? Are the
various departments and bureaucracies included? What kind of
statements or actions will suffice to demonstrate recognition? What is
meant by "a political force"? How can it be determined that the
government has the same definition?
Is it attainable? I don't think so. I can't be sure, though, because
I have no idea what actions are required to attain this goal. Neither
do you. You don't know how many people you need. You don't know how
much money you need. You don't know how long you will have to keep the
money out of banks.
Is it realistic? This usually means "Could *you* do it?" as opposed to
"Is it in the realm of possibility?" The latter question is covered by
"attainable." Since I don't know if it's attainable, I don't know if
it's realistic.
Is it timely? This means more than whether it's appropriate to the
current situation. More importantly, is there some time frame for this
goal? Open-ended goals are usually doomed to failure; a goal with
deadlines is far more likely to succeed. I haven't seen any deadlines.
|
| 689.24 | A time to put principle above self interest. | HKFINN::STANLEY | What a long, strange trip its been | Tue Jul 25 1989 14:17 | 39 |
| Note 689.23
ACESMK::CHELSEA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea, I tell them that there comes a time when one must put a matter of
principle above self-interest.
How does one measure ethical truth? Some things can only be measured by
the human heart.
Joseph Campbell has compared society to a tool that mankind invented in
our murky, distant past. We invented society and government to enhance and
improve the life of the individual; but today the individual has become a
disposable and meaningless part of the tool itself. It threatens to rob us
of our humanity.
The unfeeling, insensitive, unthinking 'machine' is the source of many of
our problems today. The problem cannot provide the answer.
Humanity has survived for many thousands of years by it's wits, it's brain,
it's instinct, and it's compassion. Mankind has been challenged in the past
and has... every time ... risen to the occasion. What we need now isn't
more analysis and detail. What we need now is courage and vision.
While those who live for the system grind away, accumulating numbers and
charts and percentages, those of us who feel there is a great wrong happening
amidst us must lift our eyes to the sky and trust in God and ourselves to
carry us through the difficulties that lie ahead for all of us.
What we do may not be perfect and it doesn't carry any guarantees but at
least we will try. At least we can say that we did all that we could.
That we put up a fight and took a chance.
There are no guarantees in life and we will all end up in the same place
eventually... the grave. But some of us will go to the grave knowing that
we lived according to our ideals and did the very best that we could.
That doesn't buy success, not in today's world. But it can earn satisfaction.
Mary
|
| 689.25 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Jul 25 1989 18:35 | 6 |
| Re: .24
>But it can earn satisfaction.
If you do it for the satisfaction of having taken a stand, then you
have a measurable goal.
|