Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    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 
                                                       

    
    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!
    

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

    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.

    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

    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).
    

    	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.
    

    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

    	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.  

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
                                       

    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

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

    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

    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.

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_:-).

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

    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.

    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

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

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

    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.

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

    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.