On Nov 8, 2011, at 1:30 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> 1) If the problem is political, there is some political consciousness changing as a result of people deciding to move the money to a place where they imagine there's more local control.
But one of my points is exactly the opposite: the small banks and credit unions already have more money than they know what to do with, and will put thee new influx into Treasuries and GNMAs.
> That local control might be an illusion, but the fact of (sor far) 4.5 billion dollars being moved around is not an illusion,
$4.5 billion is trivial. I'm looking forward to seeing some real numbers, and not just the claims of advocates, though it's going to take another 6 or 8 months before we know.
> and it's just the beginning. If it proves not to be a game changer, it might be the first step of the many steps involved in people realizing that they can actually play more of a role in the allocation of resources. Like OWS, it moves the center of gravity from "them" to "us." A good thing.
Individual decisions can't cut it. Finance needs to be politically regulated.
> 2) Money might be money, but it still makes a difference in whose pockets it is. If I understanding accounting, the amount of leverage a bank can have depends upon deposits. The smaller the deposits, the smaller the leverage. There is then the possibility that decreasing that leverage will decrease the amount of speculation that goes on and also the amount of credibility/legitimacy capitalist banking enjoys.
Do you think that if small institutions get big they will still act like they did before?
Doug