company reform: the stronger citizens than banks?

[bernardd]

Cantona explained the strategy a few weeks ago, but I hadn't heard of it in the commercial media. Surprising, isn't it?

But I came to the same conclusion:
http://www.bankrun2010.com/

We feed ourselves the system which steals the fruit of our work and our life. It's up to us to stop it, just by stopping feeding it.

It's non-violent, secular and more than legal: it's our fundamental freedom, and this is actually the only effective voting right that we have.

I am not asking anyone to do anything: I am not asking a political human to act for me. Anyway, he only does what his sectarian party says.

I think for myself and I do it with the only formal representation of my power in this society: my money.

And I take it out of the system that steals me elsewhere.

http://stopbanque.blogspot.com/p/news-i ... lites.html

http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/jean- ... assif-darg

http://www.alterinfo.net/Stop-Banque-RE ... 51256.html

The first date is Tuesday, December 7, 2010!

[bernardd]

To think before you act:

When we love freedom, we don't like centralization

[sen-no-sen]

The problem bernardd is that this kind of initiative has almost no chance of working in the absence of a real social consensus.
The failure of the last strikes (and the one to come) is a component of the absence of an ideology of change: people demonstrate to be able to access the system, not to transform it.

[bernardd]

Certainly, but awareness is advancing: the interview with Cantona marks a real awareness, by an emblematic person.

http://www.bu2z.com/video/revolution-selon-cantona.html

And precisely, with the failure of the last strikes, many have realized that shouting is useless, we must act.

And act without violence.

But withdrawing HIS money is a basic right, guaranteed by the constitution, by the article on property.

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/conna ... tution.asp

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND OF THE CITIZEN OF 1789
Section II
The aim of any political association is the conservation of natural and imprescriptible human rights. These rights are freedom, property, security and resistance to oppression.

What could be less violent than asking to dispose of one's property?

Especially compared to states which call themselves "liberal"?

Note that this will not change daily life, everyone can pay for their baguette and their rent.

Just that the banks having abused our confidence, will no longer be able to lend by creating money on our back, that is to say by removing the value of our currency.

But anyway, they don't lend us anymore ...

If this is so scary, would there be hidden mechanisms that this action would reveal?

[I Citro]

The problem bernardd is that this kind of initiative has almost no chance of working in the absence of a real social consensus.

You're wrong, Mathematical projections have shown that the system works with only 7% of the money deposited ...

If all the dissatisfied with the system took action, everything would collapse ...
As it is impossible to do in 24 hours, the banks do not have enough staff to welcome their customers ...
The bankers and the government would have time to react ...
So there is a way to make them fold and sit at the negotiating tables ...

[sen-no-sen]

If all the dissatisfied with the system took action, everything would collapse ...

So you need a consensus ...
Because sinking the banks is good, but replacing that with what?
Question that most people ask, it is also this question (which is a fear) that keeps power in place.

[bernardd]

So you need a consensus ...

No, no need for consensus to exercise a right of withdrawal. And no need for consensus to access his property, it would be a shame ...

Because sinking the banks is good, but replacing that with what?

But how would that sink a bank?

The bank can always do its job: that is to say manage safes, or pay someone at the other end of France or Europe, when I give him the corresponding currency.

A bank is supposed to keep my money, not create new money by losing the value of the money I entrust to it. This is the problem.

That she lends the money that she has, it's also very good.

But that she lends money that she creates out of thin air and steals the value of my deposits, no.

And that, yes, she should no longer be able to do it.

If I go on strike, I lose my salary, and I reduce the common GDP.


If I withdraw my own currency from the bank, there is normally no negative effect and it is my right and my freedom.

Unless the bank does hidden things with it ... and that's THE problem.

[sen-no-sen]

the economy is not my cup of tea, nevertheless it seems to me that withdrawing money from banks was one of the basic elements of the crisis of 1929?

[bernardd]

but replace that with what?

Well a stable solution is presented here: http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2010/ ... ie-10.html

It is a question of sharing the monetary creation between all the cooperators of the monetary cooperative. And we can even calculate the order of magnitude of monetary creation bringing equity and stability: around 5%.

[bernardd]

the economy is not my cup of tea, nevertheless it seems to me that withdrawing money from banks was one of the basic elements of the crisis of 1929?

The monetary system has changed slightly since, we even changed century :-)

At the time, paper was the currency. This is no longer the case.