Wikinvest Wire

HuffPost says, "Move your money"

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The folks at The Huffington Post have come up with a simple, novel idea that might help right some of the wrongs of the last year, a year that has seen Wall Street faring much better than Main Street since the economy hit bottom over the summer - move your money from a big bank to a small community bank. The video below was produced to help make their point.


Having just watched It's a Wonderful Life again last week, this message rings true - today, the big banks are a big part of our nation's problems and you can't count on Congress to fix this on their own. Go to www.moveyourmoney.info to learn more.

Bookmark and Share

14 comments:

Ted S. said...

People should move their money out of big banks if for no other reason than listening to Geithner resist calling them "too big to fail" about half-way through the video. That was just disgusting.

Dan said...

Bailey was practicing fractional reserve lending, not unlike Potter's big bank, which is why the Bailey S&L couldn't satisfy receipts during the bank run. Yes he was of better character and greater moral fortitude than the Potter's of this world, but he was still running a Ponzi scheme and obviously less successfully than Ol' Mr Potter.

Pulling your money out of a big bank to put in a small bank en masse is a kind of bank run which would likely collapse the small banks alongside the big banks. A return to sound money and sound banking directed by the free market is the only real solution.

Tim said...

Yes, this falls well short of a return to sound money, but I'd much rather see local bankers prosper in a fractional reserve system than the big ones. If you read The Creature from Jekyll Island, that's exactly what prompted the creation of the Fed as we know it - the small banks were taking business away from the big ones and the moneyed interests wanted to put a stop to it.

Interestingly, if you look back a hundred years you'll see that fractional reserve lending is much different today than it was then. I recall reading that reserve requirements were something like 40 percent in the 1920s versus today anywhere between zero and ten percent.

getyourselfconnected said...

Thanks for the tip Tim. I was amazed how many small banks where here in my state. My wife has always banked at one of the A graded small banks and I think I am going to make the swith.

Anonymous said...

Sorry folks, the intentions are good, but the results won't be meaningful. Even if there is tangible impact to the capital base of the big four, the GOV has shown they will provide them capital injections courtesy of the same people taking money out.

Anonymous said...

Fractional reserve banking is nothing short of thieving. It empowers the banker to select who will get the power to succeed since it inflates the money supply of all those with deposits and virtually creates tyrants over the community. This is obviously more discretionary than fair and practical, and in a corrupt system totally criminal.

Dan said...

@Anon 11:24
"and in a corrupt system totally criminal"

but in a non-corrupt system, totally awesome?

Bill said...

"The folks at The Huffington Post have come up with a simple, novel idea "

What Bollocks.

Should be:
"The folks at The Huffington Post have copied a simple, novel idea "

zon said...

Problem is that I doubt there are any small banks left unless you count the credit unions.

Anonymous said...

I've never seen a President — I don't care who he is — stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."

Thomas H. Moorer
(1912 - 2004)
Admiral,
US Navy & Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff during interview on
24 August 1983.

Tom Hagan said...

I watched "It's a Wonderful Life" a year ago specifically to see if fractional reserve banking was mentioned or needed for what happened. It wasn't. Contrarty to the implication of Dan's comment, Stewart's problem bank run was not necessarily the result of fractional reserve banking. S&Ls like his experienced bank runs because they "lent long and borrowed short" - i.e., they made long term mortgage loans with money received from short term deposits. So the movie did not necessarily need to be using fractional reserve banking to be subjected to the bank run on which the plot hinged. And if it did use FRB, it would not have made any difference - loans would have been balanced by deposits in either case.

The real question is: why was Stewart's bank making deposits in Potter's bank? And why with cash? It must have been that there were no viable mortgages they could issue, and so they were seeking interest on cash they could deposit. Suspicion they were out of cash waa all it took to trigger the run. And if they had been part of the Federal Reserve System, they could simply have borrowed what was needed to cover withdrawal demands. So, contrary to my first impression, maybe the Uncle's stupid loss of the cash really was needed - both to trigger the run, and to prevent Stewart from invoking the Fed for help while it was missing, for fear of discovery.

In any case, alas, the video is not in iteslf an argument against fractional reserve banking, which is inherently unsustainable and very likely the ultimate real cause of the current crash. But it sure does make the case for local banking.

Tom Hagan said...

I watched "It's a Wonderful Life" a year ago specifically to see if fractional reserve banking was mentioned or needed for what happened. It wasn't. Contrary to the implication of Dan's comment, Stewart's problem bank run was not necessarily the result of fractional reserve banking. S&L's like his experienced bank runs because they "lent long and borrowed short" - i.e., they made long term mortgage loans with money received from short term deposits. So the movie did not necessarily need to be using fractional reserve banking to be subjected to the bank run on which the plot hinged. And if it did use FRB, it would not have made any difference - loans would have been balanced by deposits in either case.

The real question is: why was Stewart's bank making deposits in Potter's bank? And why with cash? It must have been that there were no viable mortgages they could issue, and so they were seeking interest on their excess cash. Suspicion they were out of cash waa all it took to trigger the run. And if they had been part of the Federal Reserve System, they could simply have borrowed what was needed to cover withdrawal demands. So, contrary to my first impression, maybe the Uncle's stupid loss of the cash really was needed for the plot - both to trigger the run, and to prevent Stewart from invoking the Fed for help while it was missing, for fear of discovery.

In any case, alas, the video is not in iteslf an argument against fractional reserve banking, which is inherently unsustainable and very likely the ultimate real cause of the current crash. But it sure does make the case for local banking.

Creighton said...

This is great idea that my wife and I have been trying to implement for few months now. What we have realized is that all banks are not the same. I don't know the difference between bancshares and the fdic but i see a significant difference in the way they do business. With one bank here in Houston (IBC) It took 10 days for a electronic bill-pay to go through for us(with out our knowledge). When we inquired as to why it took so long we found out that the a check was mailed on our behalf. My Wife and I were like wait a minute we could have done that ourselves. That jacked our account balance for one month and we are still trying to get the bank to admit to there fault in this issue. In doing so we asked for half of the overdraft charges to be refunded. They have yet to admit there fault and we requested a meeting with the bank manager and they haven't called us back. When I visited the bank, the Assistant Manager who helped us open the account stated that in this economy he doubted if we would get any refund and later on that day he called me all excited like he had good new to tell me. He told me that he got his manage to refund 58 dollars. We were expecting like 300 dollars. So Now we are paying for it. Despite my experience with IBC I still feel this is a great idea. This is great idea that my wife and I have been trying to implement for few months now. What we have realized is that all banks are not the same. I don't know the difference between bancshares and the fdic but i see a significant difference in the way they do business. With one bank here in Houston (IBC) It took 10 days for a electronic bill-pay to go through for us(with out our knowledge). When we inquired as to why it took so long we found out that the a check was mailed on our behalf. My Wife and I were like wait a minute we could have done that ourselves. That jacked our account balance for one month and we are still trying to get the bank to admit to there fault in this issue. In doing so we asked for half of the overdraft charges to be refunded. They have yet to admit there fault and we requested a meeting with the bank manager and they haven't called us back. When I visited the bank, the Assistant Manager who helped us open the account stated that in this economy he doubted if we would get any refund. We were expecting like 300 dollars(offered 58 dollars). So Now we are paying for it. Despite my experience with IBC I still feel this is a great idea. Just go in and ask questions about how they do business.

King of the Paupers said...

Jct: Plagued by not enough money to do trade, the solution is to move the insufficient money around. Not. Fix the money shortage by abolishing the interest demand for 110 when the only printed and loaned out 100.

  © Blogger template Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP