"Drain the Banks."
 

I keep seeing ads for something called Breathe Bank. Originally they just showed a young black woman smiling really big while it advertised at you. Now I see broken ads, just a bit of text, like it is supposed to scroll or change, but it did catch my attention:

Stop helping Big Banks get rich from charging you outrageous fees!

Join The Movement
Here is what we offer:

So, they just ignore thirsty Arab farmers?! Forget these guys!

The print is not just fine, but it is grey! You only receive 1% interest on balances of $2,500 and over! https://www.aspiration.com/tyt?utm_source=tyt

Weird, but okay. The thing is that at the top of the page is:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1518751565

I do not know much about The Young Turks, but when people have shared videos, it showed people from this organization ranting about politics, but not providing sources.

They do not fund political campaigns or lobby industry, but they collaborate with political groups?

I am waiting to be impressed.

Young turks is very political.

When companies advertise giving to charity, I immediately take a step back. I don't want them to give to charity, I want them to give me the lowest price they can (or best interest rates) and offer the best products. If I want to give to charity, then I will do so as I see fit (currently 16% of my $66k gross).

Those interest rates don't impress me compared to my local credit union, which also reimburses ATM fees and has free online bill pay and no fees.

Although I don't know much about TYT, from what I've seen they aren't so much political as loud and obnoxious; especially some old guy (why is it called young Turks?) named Jenk that cuts people off when they are talking and then proceeds to yell at them.

I agree that big banks are horrible without exception, but the solution is credit unions, not hippies.

I believe they are supposed to be "edgy."

I kept trying to find information on the charities they chose.

Why not both? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Cenk Yugur is obnoxious, but Ana "I'm better than you" Kasparian is stupendously infuriating.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...etter+than+you

At least hippies are harmless, and I suppose the antithesis of capitalist bankers.

This topic reminds me of Redneck Bank, which at one point in time offered the highest interest rewards checking.

http://www.bankaholic.com/wp-content...03/redneck.jpg

If a bank makes so much profit and pays you so little interest on their savings account, then you should buy their stock instead of keeping your money in the account.

OUR was both. I stuck with OUR Credit Union from [pretty much] it's inception in 1969 until it was shut down by goober-mint regulators. Oregon Urban & Rural — their requirement for membership was that you had to have had contact with a government agency within the last six months.

Early on they didn't report to the credit agencies and I liked that, but members started wanting to saddle themselves with mortgage debt, so they started in the 80s or 90s. I could walk in and borrow $2K on my signature. The Credit Union that inherited me* won't do that.

*Undisclosed of course, it's Internet after all.

I moved to a credit union long ago. I'll never do business with a bank.

TYT, annoying as they are, do some good work, especially with their advocacy of getting money out of politics.

...and, the BIBLE isn't very keen on "...money lenders..." too.

Neither a Borrower Nor a Lender Be | Bible or Not Bible Quotes & Famous Sayings

Shakespeare was even more hardcore.
The Biblical injunction was against usury
Islam is holding that line, sorta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking

I'm conflicted on this one. There should be as few restrictions on how one spends the money they have legally obtained, as possible. It's related to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

At the same time, politics is mostly an advertising campaign, which by definition is designed to manipulate decision by appealing to emotion rather than reason. Advertising is a waste of money in that it doesn't produce anything of value.

We would be better off wasting less money on campaigns, and it would help to level the playing field if each candidate were given equal campaign funds and airtime, but how would this process work? We can't just give anyone who wants to run for office public funds and private airtime because there would be millions of "applicants". We would need to hold an election to nominate a party representative to limit the number of people running, at which point the same problem exists where people contribute "pre-campaign" funds to nominate their person.

The problem is unsolvable because there is no way to limit campaign contributions even if you wanted to. Any attempt to do so is arbitrary, such as the arrest of Dinesh D'Souza exceeding contribution limits. Not only that, but the government has no right to say how money can be spent.

The only solution is for people to evolve beyond being sheeple. That is a slow process, so I'm not holding my breath.

I disagree the problem is unsolvable. There is a direct correlation between money spent and candidates elected, and because of the Citizen's United decision now that money is coming from special interests that do not represent the electorate, and those interests are now being obscured. And now there is a correspondingly higher discrepancy between the public interest and legislation passed.

Notice how issue after issue polls one way with the public, and laws are passed in direct opposition. Does anyone here want to cut funding for the ADA? Guess what just happened yesterday?

Out of millions of people, we pin the big decision between Clinton and Trump, as if those were the best options. We (citizens) deserve the outcome of whatever we allow.

There is absolutely no way to regulate campaign contributions. What if Dinesh had opened an account, listed his friend as a joint custodian, and simply told her "I'm putting $20k into this joint account". That breaks no laws, yet accomplishes exactly the same thing as using shills to transfer funds.

If we don't have the right to spend money as we see fit, we have no freedom at all.

I hate the absurdity of campaign contributions (and most all advertising) as much as anyone, but that is part of humanity; to be swayed by emotion and to surrender critical thought. As much as I hate it, I'm not willing to trade my freedom to ineffectively fight the problem.

I'd like to cut funding for the ADA. I didn't even know it had funding and instead thought it was just a series of laws saying every hot tub and pool accessible to the public must have a lift (despite the thousands of other health issues not addressed that would make pools or hot tubs inaccessible).

Maybe the ADA can take up my cause and lower all basketball hoops 6" because I can't quite dunk due to physical limitations that disable me from dunking at 10 feet.

I realize there is a place for laws that accomodate people with various limitations, but they go too far. I say defund ADA, twice.

It's in how you frame the question. What money, what politics rests atop what is money, what is politics.

I see a concatenation of two sketchy principles. 'Money is speech.' 'Corporations are people'. Dylan covered the first one:
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobd...ybleeding.html

Have you seen a corporation serving on a jury?

Campaigns and money can be separated, not perfectly, but better. Just because something can not be perfect does not mean it's not worth doing. Improvement is possible.

I was careful to say that money is related to speech (and not identical to speech). It's related in that it makes a statement in a very tangible way as to what someone values. In some ways, it's even greater than speech, which is evident by the phrase "put your money where your mouth is". In other words, we prove what is most important to us when we sacrifice something very valuable to us (money).

I'm open to the idea of sacrificing my freedom to spend my money how I see fit if there is some way to ensure there are no loopholes in campaign finance reform that can be exploited. Lets start there first; tell me how we can ensure that finance reform is possible in specific detail. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom to spend money for the illusion of fairness. Freedom is next to impossible to gain back once lost, but loopholes are nearly unavoidable.

Corporations are like people, but have important differences. As I've said, businesses don't make decisions; people do. For this reason, the people who make decisions need to be held legally accountable. This is an area the US is sorely lacking, not just at the top (but especially at the top). The Enron peons who purposely scheduled maintenance at power plants at the detriment of the public and profit of the company should be thrown in jail for a good long time. The excuse that company culture persuaded them to act that way is not sufficient to absolve responsibility to either say no, whistle blow, or find a different job.

The government has very little legitimate authority, but among the greatest it does have is to create and enforce laws that create a fair and honest marketplace. The economy depends on trust, and that means not tolerating unscrupulous or willfully negligent business decisions.

How? I'm desperately listening for a good solution to this problem.

You can start by returning to pre-Citizen's United. That is quite possibly the worst SC decision in recent history. In fact seeing what it has done to our political system, I bet Justice Kennedy would rule differently in that case now.

We can probably make a huge improvement in politics by taking the politicians out of it. By that, I mean political office should be a temporary position held by a citizen, not a career path. We should assign each political position a flat $40,000/yr salary, an amount that encourages the elected to serve their constituents rather than be served by them. Set term limits so that everybody must return to their primary civilian occupations. Reduce the financial and ego motivations out of political office, and you attract people passionate about serving, rather than fame and fortune.

We're not serious about political reform because we think money is the root of all evil instead of seeing that human self-interest is the root of all evil.

Yeah, I'm still conflicted there. I'd really rather corporations not get financially involved in politics. However, a corporation must serve it's own interest, just as an individual serves their own interest. To that end, political contributions are an investment into the interest of the business. Business then needs to weigh the predicted benefit of political contributions to the risk of alienating their customers.

People generally just don't care what a business does as long as they get their products as easily and cheaply as possible. In that sense, the public interest is served in that they are disinterested. In other words, we deserve the outcomes that we allow to happen.

If business contributions are made illegal, than personal contributions must also be made illegal. Then there is a muddy area where people can promote the candidates they like most in a way that isn't considered a financial contribution at all.

The Obama painting comes to mind. It was very cool, and I'm sure very profitable.

https://cdn.shoppersshop.com/pics/ob...e_painting.jpg

Is that a financial contribution? If a corporation had commissioned the painting would that have been a financial contribution from a corporation?

Bad ideas must be fought with better ideas, not with censorship.

False equivalence. Corporations are enslaved to profit, sovereign citizens are free to to against their own best interests on principle.

Double dipping — the corporate employees and shareholders are already voting as citizens.

"Drain the Banks" — Audit the Fed

I can't really argue with any of that.

I have acted/spoken against my personal best interests before. I'm sure as a sole proprietor I could also act against the profit motive and accomodate the public interest. Then again, a CEO could also act that way, at the risk of angering their shareholders/directors.

I'm not following the double-dip idea though. Corporations and individuals will bazillion-dip if they get the opportunity. I can vote as a citizen and double-dip by making a campaign contribution to influence others. I see no distinction in this regard.

Explain audit the Fed? Once we confirm our suspicion of how corrupt it is, what will we do with the info?

http://economixcomix.com/wp-content/...l-debt-GDP.png

Perhaps we should tax political contributions?

If you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue the law, argue the grammar:

:)

I made double-dipping up.

Audit the Fed is for transparency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ansparency_Act. We all know the story, from the Titanic forward.

The audit of the Pentagon is turning up 100s of 1,000,000s of dollars. Taxing stock market transactions a fraction of a percent would slow the high-velocity trading.

edit:
Congress authorizes the minting of 20 Trillion dollar platinum coins (as big as a hubcap!), hands them to the Fed and thanks them for all their good work (the dollar being worth 4.7¢ today)

OTOH, it's against ham & eggs, kung pao shrimp, and a number of other things I'm rather fond of :-) Bacon cheeseburgers, too...

Why platinum?

I think audit the Fed is one of those topics I'd need to read the Wiki on a dozen other things before I had a vague understanding of what it aims to accomplish. From what I've read, the Fed is audited, but certain aspects aren't part of the audit criteria, and that's where the intrigue lies.

I'm only interested if there is good reason to believe reform can be brought about, and corrupt people held accountable for their actions. An audit ultimately needs to at least break even with the cost of administering it, either in direct capture of funds, or in dissuading further fraudulent action from others.

Totally on board with a small tax on transactions to discourage the worthless practice of high velocity trading. There is no public good created by high velocity trading. It reminds me of the premise of Office Space, where small sums of money are stolen on high volumes of transactions. It also reminds me of that time I had 20 phones playing internet advertisements 24/7 earning me $1/day/phone.

Mostly indifferent to modest inflation. It's essentially a tax on anyone holding US debt or low-interest savings. I'm on board with much of what the Pauls advocate regarding monetary policy, but much less so with fiscal policy. We don't need a warehouse of gold backing our paper money and digital bits.

For one very good reason — denomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_dollar_coin

I was unaware that platinum was eximp from the precious metals minting laws.

If you cannot criticize someone's grammar, criticize their grandma.

What do the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition say about lending?

Company culture is a great excuse. It's an excuse for us to ask why, say, Wells Fargo isn't a RICO case.

Corporate fines that pass the punishment on to the shareholders aren't enough discouragement because the executives and directors already got paid and the fines, while costly, aren't costly enough to make illegal acts unprofitable.