Occupy Santa Cruz--Bank of America refuses to let woman close her account

[Puregonzo1188]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtI85Zc6Oik&feature=player_embedded

The individual in this video went to Bank of America, and was told she was a protestor and couldn't close her account. She offered to have someone take her sign outside and she was told no--that if she had a sign or had been to a protest earlier she was a protestor and one could not be a protestor and a customer at the same time. She was told to leave and come back the next day.

[EdMaven]

1. wonder if this kind of action could provoke bank runs?

[Aerows]

18. It's a bank run if you think they have no money

This is deciding to take your business elsewhere if you don't like the service you are getting. Two entirely different things. This is the second post I've seen today of someone insinuating that moving your money is a "bank run". It's not a bank run, it's normal people that are fed up with the fees, horrible service and draconian policies. Under those circumstances, you are absolutely right to move your money somewhere else that will service your needs better.

If the banks fall apart because they are treating their customers poorly, then they deserve to fall apart. They are the first ones to scream "free market", well, if they become a victim of it because they aren't providing the service they should, that's hardly a bank run.

[EdMaven]

19. i understand that. that's why i said "I wonder if this could *provoke*"

and we already know that in one sense "they have no money".

that's what the banking crisis & bailout was about.

[Aerows]

20. It still won't be a "bank run"

in the classical sense. It's people moving their money to other institutions. If you have no confidence in a certain institution, stop doing business with them and take your business elsewhere. This isn't yelling "fire" in a theater by discussing it - it's saying "this theater sucks, and if there was a fire in here, we'd all roast. I think I'll go to the theater down the street instead of this one."

[EdMaven]

23. You're still missing my meaning, but never mind.

[Aerows]

31. A "bank run"

Is when people drain ALL banks. It's not a "bank run" when you decide you have no confidence in a financial institution and are unhappy with their service and move your money elsewhere. That's free market capitalism. It would be a "bank run" if everyone pulled all of their money out of financial institutions everywhere. That's not what is happening here.

The only reason I'm being explicit in stating this is that there has been language thrown around that discussing a "bank run" is tantamount to inciting one, and that people can get arrested for that. This isn't a bank run - this is customers deciding to take their business elsewhere, not taking their money out of the economy altogether which IS a bank run.

[EdMaven]

32. I didn't say what you are so determinedly trying to say I did. I tried to clarify the point

& you ignored it & continued talking about your mistaken interpretation.

So never mind.

[Aerows]

33. Then please clarify

If I missed your point, my apologies. Sometimes that happens on the internet - hard to convey meaning sometimes via mere text.

[EdMaven]

37. I said: "I wonder if this kind of action could PROVOKE bank runs?"

pro·voke/prəˈvōk/
Verb:
1. Stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.
2. Stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, esp. by arousing anger in them: "a teacher can provoke you into working harder".


My meaning was 1); that the action of many OWS-influenced people pulling money out of a bank could lead to the feeling that the bank was not safe, provoking other, non-OWS people to also pull out their money.

I did not say the OWS action itself *WAS* a bank run.
I did not accuse the OWS people of *trying to start* a bank run.
I simply asked if the action *might* provoke, lead to, give rise to -- bank runs.

FYI, a bank run is a run on a single bank. Bank *runs* are runs on multiple banks. Neither means a run on *all* banks, nor does either necessarily drain the bank or the banking system of *all* assets.

A run on a bank occurs when a large number of depositors, fearing that their bank will be unable to repay their deposits in full and on time, simultaneously try to withdraw their funds immediately. This may create a problem because banks keep only a small fraction of deposits on hand in cash; they lend out the majority of deposits to borrowers or use the funds to purchase other interest-bearing assets such as government securities. When a run comes, a bank must quickly increase its cash to meet depositors’ demands. It does so primarily by selling assets, often hastily and at fire-sale prices. As banks hold little capital and are highly leveraged, losses on these sales can drive a bank into insolvency.

The danger of bank runs has been frequently overstated. For one thing, a bank run is unlikely to cause insolvency. Suppose that depositors, worried about their bank’s solvency, start a run and switch their deposits to other banks. If their concerns about the bank’s solvency are unjustified, other banks in the same market area will generally gain from recycling funds they receive back to the bank experiencing the run. They would do this by making loans to the bank or by purchasing the bank’s assets at non-fire-sale prices. Thus, a run is highly unlikely to make a solvent bank insolvent.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BankRuns.html

Thank you for listening.

[Aerows]

38. Thank you for clarifying

And you know, I think it probably won't provoke a run on BoA or Citibank. What it may do, IMHO, is weaken them so that they are no longer the too big to fail big babies screaming for tax dollars that they have been in the recent past. JP Morgan Chase is also a big baby, as is Wells Fargo. All of them either need to broken up or significantly weakened so that they are not as in control of the markets as they currently are. The consumer market may do that without the legislature even needing to be involved. That would certainly be the kind of retribution against their actions that I would love to see.

[BeHereNow]

34. I think I get your point-

I think you are asking, "Will this encourage a significant movement of
personal assets out of the Too Big To Fail Fuckers?" Yes?
I surely hope so...
BHN

[Aerows]

36. And it really should

If they are too big to fail, then they are too big to exist.

[peacebird]

2. They are scared aren't they? Good! Almost wish I had an account there so I could close it!

[uppityperson]

10. This is St Louis, a man, and in Aug.

Not that it makes a lot of difference, but OP is falsely representing this video.

[Puregonzo1188]

27. It's the wrong link, here is the video from Santa Cruz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tK0O30aFT7g

Which is what I meant to post, my apologizes I never meant to deceive anyone.

[cui bono]

3. Discrimination. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

4. I used to live in Santa Cruz and didn't recognize the terrain -- This video is from St. Louis.

[barbtries]

7. in August.

[MindandSoul]

11. Santa Cruz infrastructure has changed a lot since the Loma Prieta earthquake

and more rapidly in the last 10 years. But the wonderful spirit is still there, being kept alive by people refusing to leave that wonderful but super expensive town, and by all the Cabrillo College and UCSC students who bring in new blood every year, but also take this wonderful spirit of liberal freedom, social consciousness, and respect for diversity with them to every corner of the US and cross polinate to cross polinate with more conservative populations.

I believe (but I may be wrong, as I haven't lived there for a few years) that this branch of BofA is on River Street.

[abelenkpe]

5. K&R nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. This same video shows up in another thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2127937&mesg_id=2127937

[provis99]

8. as far as I'm concerned, the bank is stealing from her.

[uppityperson]

9. NOT Santa Cruz and it is a MAN, don't see "she". Please delete as false info given here.

St Louis in August. ARGH

[MindandSoul]

12. There seem to be a mistake in the video vs the OP BUT

here is the link to the video from Santa Cruz:

http://youtu.be/tK0O30aFT7g

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. Did she go back later without the sign? Or was the protest more important than the account closure?

That's what I want to know. My guess is if she walked in and didn't sit in the lobby area holding a protest sign, she would have had her account closed in a matter of minutes. Had she gone straight to a window, or an account manager's desk, she would have had no problem.

I bet she still has her BoA account and has never tried again to close it.

[uppityperson]

17. "you can't be a protester and a customer" is fine with you? I don't see why they

wouldn't simply close her account. The police officer told them the manager said "well if they came in with the signs and they were part of the protest earlier, then they are protesters and cannot be customers at the same time."

Seriously, you are ok with this? They were protesting earlier, and now cannot come in and "be customers"? The bank thinks they can hold on to their money now, not let them take is, because they were protesting earlier? And this is ok with you?

You make a lot of assumptions, a lot of guesses.

[MindandSoul]

21. I don't know the answwer. But she made NO secret that her intent

was to make a statement, not "just" to change bank!

What is your point. . . that everyone should be "nice and mild and obey the BANKS rules of "good citizens behavior?"

Sorry, but you may be in the wrong thread. . .this is ABOUT protesting the overreach, the power, and the greed of the banks. . .not about "Miss Manners" column!

[uppityperson]

15. thank you, thinking OP linked wrong youtube vid,thanks for the right one.

[MindandSoul]

22. You're very welcome!

[Puregonzo1188]

29. Yes, I did. I feel very stupid now and its too late to edit it.

The video in the link is from St. Louis in August and is in no way the events I described in the OP. This video is however http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tK0O30aFT7g

[Puregonzo1188]

25. Shit, you are right--I posted the wrong link.

[Puregonzo1188]

28. Sorry--you are right I cut and pasted the wrong link, my apologies.

Here is the video of Santa Cruz and it is not a man, but a woman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tK0O30aFT7g

I can't edit it, but I will message the moderator maybe and see what can be tone.

My mistake. It was not my intention to put false info in.

[uppityperson]

30. thanks, thought it was an odd combo. thanks for posting this as I hadn't seen it before.

[Ezlivin]

13. I bet they would have allowed her to deposit money, though

I'm confident that she'd been treated differently in that case.

Bastards.

[Odin2005]

16. How dare they deny people THEIR OWN MONEY! Bastards!

[WinkyDink]

24. Well, she was trying to become an EX-customer! Jeepers!

[Puregonzo1188]

26. The link in the video is wrong, and I can't edit it now, but here is the right one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tK0O30aFT7g


Sorry, as many of you have noted that video is not of Santa Cruz, but of St. Louis and is not the event being described. I apologize that was not intentional.

[0rganism]

35. i wonder if this new criteria is supposed to apply generally?

"she was a protestor and one could not be a protestor and a customer at the same time"

Does it apply in fast food restaurants? grocery stores? parking? or ONLY IN THE GODDAM MEGABANKS DURING CERTAIN UNDESIRABLE TRANSACTIONS?

i.e., I bet your average protestor can still get a big mac, buy a sack of bagels, put a dime in a parking meter, and deposit money into their Citibank accounts if they so wished. But don't you dare try to engage in other ordinary banking customer activities!

Ratfuckers gonna ratfuck, I guess.