The Occupy Movement, 2011
(on violence and on banking practices)
(2011 Nov blog post)
I was recently sent a link titled 'Things Are Getting A Bit Wild At Occupy Oakland' at businessinsider.com. It showed pictures of broken windows at several bank branches.
I think it is disgusting when people do destructive things like that --- like when Greek rioters in 2011 were breaking off chunks of ancient buildings to get projectiles to throw --- and when the 'anti-social elements' in Vancouver rioted (in 2011) and burned vehicles and looted stores when their hockey team lost in the Stanley Cup finals. They are generally making matters worse in such situations.
What good comes from destroying cars, windows, buildings? If they were being replaced by greenery, there might be some good to come of it. Get angry and plant a tree, anti-civilization people! How about an aggressive act of kindness?
I do not think such 'destroyers' should be allowed to live in civilized society. Two strikes (maybe three, in extenuating/mild circumstances). After that, they should be deported --- say, parachuted onto one of the Aleutian Islands, if they were burning or looting or destroying in the U.S.A. (With a pledge of non-destructive behavior --- and 5 years on the island, they could return. Next offense --- life.)
On the other hand, at the same time that I am disgusted with the destruction, I know that in the case of 'Occupy Oakland' (since I know someone who lives in Oakland), the 'destroyers' are less than 1% of the people among the 'Occupy Oakland' demonstrators.
The 'liberal' media (That's a joke. Hardly exists in the U.S.A. in 2011.) are not showing the MANY-MANY-MORE peaceful people (the 99%) trading experiences with each other and showing placards that voice their concerns. Those major aspects of the 'occupy' demonstrations are scarcely shown because that is not newsy enough for the media --- and probably does not convey what the media owners and managers wish to convey.
The media are not showing that the 'occupiers' are trying to stop the destruction, whenever they have an opportunity to intervene.
Of Much More Concern :
ONE. I am much more concerned about what executives of the Bank of America are planning in the way of more fees to gouge us depositors --- we depositors who are providing them with the money to loan out while they reap the benefits and at the same time pay us about 0.1% interest on our deposits.
TWO. I am concerned about how executives of the Bank of America (BofA) can gamble now with our deposits. They can take huge risks with OUR money. Our deposits will be channeled into covering THEIR 'investments' (= riskier-than-usual-gambling) that can now be executed through the BofA Merrill Lynch subsidiary. No doubt about it --- our deposits will be used to 'cover' when those investments go bad (which is quite probable in the current world economic climate).
[NOTE that BofA would not have been allowed to acquire Merrill-Lynch, according to laws passed after the Great Depression --- laws to prevent the mixing of stock-gambling with bank-deposits. But the idiot Congress and Bush eliminated those protections about 8 years ago.]
THREE. I am concerned about how executives of Bank of America are continuing to foreclose on properties and be stuck with most of them for extended periods of time, rather than re-negotiating in good faith with families stuck with 'over-appraised' houses.
FOUR. Then there is the recent debit-card fee incident --- BofA planning to intitute a $5 fee per month on debit cards.
Say Bank of America has about 10 million debit-card holders (a rough estimate) on which BofA levies a $5 per month fee. That is over $500 million dollars per year from just those fees. Meanwhile, just one of their chief executives is making over $200 million per year while also getting all sorts of other perks and golden parachutes and various risk removers. How about they remove about $50 million from some (about 10) of their 100-plus million dollar executive salaries instead???
Those executives (CEO's, VP's, etc.) are not worth $200 - 50 = $150 million per year --- nor 50 million per year. Almost any college graduate in economics with a few years experience could do as good a job as they are doing --- especially with all the lawyers and board of director members and others that those execs have helping them --- for additional millions in expense, I must add --- more opportunities for cost-cutting.
I advise you to not deposit any money, that you do not want to lose, with Bank of America. (And Chase and Wells Fargo --- mentioned in the 'Occupy Oakland' link above --- are no better.)
See some of the mortgage-lending practices of Wells Fargo just before the 2007 'meltdown' --- at the bottom of this blog post on mortgage-lenders. Bad credit? bankruptcy? no problem! Wells Fargo was treading quite close to that line.
Bottom of Occupy Movement 2011 - Some Concerns page.
To return to a previously visited web page location, click on the
Or you can scroll up, to the top of this page.
Posted 2011 Nov 07. Changed page format slightly 2013 Apr 23.