| Person | Comment |
|
4:06 pm
August 17, 2010
|
Christine
| | The high desert, AZ | |
| Member | posts 10 |
|
|
Post edited 4:10 pm - August 17, 2010 by Christine
I don't think anybody is proposing a bank that is NOT profitable. The idea is to use the profits to benefit the people instead of the Rockefellers, Rothchilds and other elitists.
There would be nothing to laugh at if the CGB had started as a credit union, had a million members and was now ready to start the bank.
There's a lot to be said for having a track record and proven ability to run the business. I'd bet my life that there would be NO problem with raising the startup capital for the bank if we could PROVE how well the credit union works.
|
|
|
6:21 pm
August 16, 2010
|
Root
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Christina Baldwin said:
How long before this bank is up and running?
lol
|
|
|
6:18 pm
August 16, 2010
|
Root
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
John Smart said:
I love the concept here, but am worried about some of the ideas - I speak with some knowledge here - e launched host2help.com as a community company, and have vry strong goals for its community presence, That said, saying that the 27 cent fee will be carried by the bank, well, I love my bank, and when my account is in the black, they love me, but be it a bank or a CCU, their end goal is the bottom line. Why would a bank want to work at a loss? It may be 'only 27 cents' but if this takes off, and you are looking at tens of thousands of daily transactions, that soon adds up. he other side is cost usage. The 27 cent transaction fee in part pays for that security so if nasty person steals my credit card and spends say $500, I do not have to be $500 out of pocket. How will that be covered here?
I really do not want to sound like a naysayer. I think this is an awesome idea, and I would love to be involved, I just hope there are better fundemental ideas than letting the banks carry the cost - to put this in another light:
host2help.com (my company) is a web host. All web sites need to be 'stored' on a web host. We are different - we give 1/ of all our revenue to good causes chosen by our clients, and another 1/3 to our reseller (thus allowing anyone to earn a sustainable income). This seriously impedes our bottom line - we still have to offer the best available services. These costs all have to be carried in house. I do not think my competitors (locally or globally) would look at what I am doing and say "Awesome – that’s a great idea - here let me carry some of your costs” (Although, it would be nice if they did!)
Again, I truly do not want to be down playing thins - there is a great idea here, I just hope all the details are worked out.
Good luck!
"Why would a bank want to work at a loss?"
More importantly, what kind of fool would want to invest in such a bank?
|
|
|
6:12 pm
June 28, 2010
|
Christine
| | The high desert, AZ | |
| Member | posts 10 |
|
|
Since "empower" was discussed, I just have to add here that it is my most hated word.
When someone "empowers" me, they are giving me the opportunity to hand over my hard earned money to some scummy corporation. I don't care what the dictionary definition says, I'm speaking from EXPERIENCE. You could pick ANY corporate website targeting consumers and and read how they "empower" consumers with their crappy products and services.
Apparently the corporate marketing researchers found that people developed NEGATIVE associations with "empower" and I don't see it as often anymore.
|
|
|
2:57 pm
June 3, 2010
|
arkmundi
| | Worcester, MA | |
| Member | posts 23 |
|
|
William, thanks for all you do to make a reality of the CGB vision. As I understand from the Business Plan:
IV.D.2. Cooperative Sponsor (a 501(c)(3). The Society to Benefit Everyone (the Cooperative Sponsor) will promote the Bank indirectly by promoting the principles of democratic economics, especially in the common good bank model. The Cooperative Sponsor will provide training, technical assistance and oversight to communities in setting up and running a Community Division – operating democratically, distributing funds for public purposes. Any custom software required by the Bank, to conform to the common good bank model, will be supplied and maintained by the Cooperative Sponsor.
Hence your "Way Forward" suggests that all the technical details for implementing a CGB be undertaken by the S2BE. My dialog with you about Kuali and a worker coop (ESOP), adoption of web application framework, and so forth is, I guess, directed at S2BE. It speaks to the "how" rather than to the "why" and "who benefits" set of questions.
I believe a clear separation between S2BE and the ensuing CGB, as you've suggested would be prudent. Your discussion is mostly about how to best serve the various audiences involved, understanding that there is a different audience between those who want to "make it happen" (S2BE) and the broader community who would use and benefit from the services so provided (CGB). Most of the latter do not need, nor likely want to, know the technical details, of which there are plenty. Customizing the communication, and separating the communities, is just good business practice.
That said, however, I suggest there may be better timing for that separation, and its latter, rather than now. There are only a few full time committed individuals, and timing is all about keeping focus on next steps, with first next steps first. I'd argue that my dialog with you about Kuali be early - its mission critical. I'd beg your attention to that. Thanks.
|
|
|
5:38 am
May 29, 2010
|
Stephen Hinton
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Post edited 6:10 pm - July 10, 2010 by wspademan
Creating Money. All banks create money. Money is just an
accounting system, keeping track of who is entitled to how much goods
and services.
Mostly, in today's world, for-profit corporations create and control
our money, deciding what to invest in and what to fund. By law, their
top priority is profit. With the Common Good Bank, communities
can create and control money for the common good.
Creating local money to track credit that circulates within the
community will free up many thousands of dollars for local grants and
loans.
This statement needs discussing. Banks create debt, that is how they create money. Surely? They lend 20 times more than they have (Fractional banking.) The money system itself is mostly state owned unless you are in the US where the FED is provately owned.Corporations I would say are equally in the grasp of banks as they need to borrow money from them ( at interest) in order to function. Some of the profit they make has to go to pay interest. So the banks (the owners of the banks) are taking money for just offering the use of money which in reality is as you say " an accounting system". Were the accouinting system state-owned in the way roads and railways and electricity grid are, there would be a public outcry if a few individuals were making loads of money on letting the public use this resource.And restricting some individuals from using this public good.
By the way, there is nothing in Law that says that corporations top priority is profit. Corporations and the top executive are controlled by the articles of association. The law approves these and says these should be followed in order for the coproation to fulfill terms of its licence to operate. What drives profits is that investors want at least as much return as they woudl get if their money were in banks. And there you have it – tjhe right to charge interest and the right to give credit is a monopoly whoch when you stand back and look at it strikes many as being a ponzi scheme.
|
|
|
9:53 pm
May 17, 2010
|
wspademan
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 |
|
|
Carlo said:
Nice project! But why is there the number six (6) in the logo? That is the number of the imperfect. Three of those make the number of the beast.
That's actually the letter "G". It also represents a spiral, the symbol of life and nature, and is intended to suggest a view of Earth, with its ever-changing spiral cloud formations.
|
|
|
7:27 am
May 2, 2010
|
Carlo
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Nice project! But why is there the number six (6) in the logo? That is the number of the imperfect. Three of those make the number of the beast.
|
|
|
7:04 pm
April 28, 2010
|
wspademan
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 |
|
|
Post edited 8:17 am - April 29, 2010 by wspademan
Yvonne said: I agree with Liam. The term "to empower" implies that you own the power to begin with and it is yours to give. Change the language, please. I like the idea but this language just raises red flags–neocolonialism as well as paternalistic liberalism.
Yvonne, thanks for the comment. A google search for "define:empower" brings up the following definitions, among others. These definitions reflect the meaning that we intend when we use the word.
- Abstractly, to give the confidence to do something.
- The process of supporting another person or persons to discover and claim personal power.
- Empowerment refers to increasing the spiritual, political, social or economic strength of individuals and communities.
- Sociological empowerment often addresses members of groups that social discrimination processes have excluded from decision-making processes through – for example – discrimination based on disability, race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.
- Empowerment: The process of transferring decision-making power from influential sectors to poor communities and ndividuals who have traditionally been excluded from it.
We certainly do not intend to be paternalistic by suggesting that we have the power and that we are deigning to share a little of it with other, lesser people.
To the contrary, it is a simple matter to increase someone else's power without having it oneself and without giving anything up. Here are a couple everyday examples of this phenomenon:
If I say truthfully to my daughter "you can do it", that immediately increases her ability to do whatever it is. I sacrifice nothing of my own and I may well be unable to do the thing myself. Similarly, if I suggest to two neighbors that they collaborate on a project of mutual interest, I have increased their ability to succeed — again without having that power myself and without sacrificing anything.
Precisely in this way, in the Common Good Bank model, we suggest to our friends and neighbors, and to people in communities everywhere, that they can collaborate financially in specific ways that will give everyone greater power to prosper together.
On the flip side, offering criticism without a constructive suggestion is disempowering — it gives us a feeling of failure with no idea what to do about it. If you don't like the language, please suggest alternative language. In this paragraph, for example, I offer you both a criticism and a suggestion for alternative action. Likewise, the Common Good Bank model points out problems with our current economic system and suggests a wonderful alternative.
Thank you again for your comment. Please do follow up. Your thoughts are valuable. Together we can create a better presentation and move forward together toward a better world for everyone.
|
|
|
6:30 pm
April 28, 2010
|
achaudoir
| | Eugene, OR | |
| Moderator
| posts 6 |
|
|
Yvonne said:
wspademan said:
Liam Rattray said:
It is an impossible artifact of neocolonialism to "empower those in need." ...Consider rephrasing
Liam, Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure what the objection is to "empower" or to "those in need". The whole point of Common Good Banks is to empower all of us economically by giving ourselves the right (and responsibility) to decide what gets invested in. This will of course make the biggest difference to those of us who are currently the most disenfranchised, that is the most "in need" of empowerment. Suggest a rephrasing?
I agree with Liam. The term "to empower" implies that you own the power to begin with and it is yours to give. We already have the right and responsibility to decide what we invest in regardless of our level of need. Change the language, please. I like the idea but this language just raises red flags--neocolonialism as well as paternalistic liberalism.
Empowerment actually refers to increasing the spiritual, political, social or economic strength of individuals and communities. It often involves the empowered developing confidence in their own capacities. Common Good Banks provides a way for people to feel their own power by giving EVERYONE the opportunity and responsibility of making sure their money and investments work for the common good through the green papers' entire growth and life cycle. Empowerment is also, as a methodology, often associated with feminism.
As for Neocolonialism, please do elaborate. In my understanding, the result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world. Common Good Banks is a movement to localize capital, to help communities be sustainable, not dependent on foreign trade. This different type of banking is aimed toward sustained wealth and equality for the common good. Not sure how one can extract such negative connotations from this business model. Please do elaborate.
|
|
|
5:31 pm
April 28, 2010
|
Yvonne
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
wspademan said:
Liam Rattray said:
It is an impossible artifact of neocolonialism to "empower those in need." ...Consider rephrasing
Liam, Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure what the objection is to "empower" or to "those in need". The whole point of Common Good Banks is to empower all of us economically by giving ourselves the right (and responsibility) to decide what gets invested in. This will of course make the biggest difference to those of us who are currently the most disenfranchised, that is the most "in need" of empowerment. Suggest a rephrasing?
I agree with Liam. The term "to empower" implies that you own the power to begin with and it is yours to give. We already have the right and responsibility to decide what we invest in regardless of our level of need. Change the language, please. I like the idea but this language just raises red flags--neocolonialism as well as paternalistic liberalism.
|
|
|
9:28 pm
April 1, 2010
|
wspademan
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 |
|
|
Post edited 9:29 pm - April 1, 2010 by wspademan
sona noyes said:
do you have solar loans for hawaii
Sona, when Common Good Banks are up and running, depositors in each community will set the lending priorities for their community. So if people in your community want to have solar loans, then you'll probably have an easy time getting one.
|
|
|
6:26 pm
April 1, 2010
|
sona noyes
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
do you have solar loans for hawaii
|
|
|
6:42 pm
March 15, 2010
|
wspademan
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 |
|
|
Liam Rattray said:
It is an impossible artifact of neocolonialism to "empower those in need." ...Consider rephrasing
Liam, Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not sure what the objection is to "empower" or to "those in need". The whole point of Common Good Banks is to empower all of us economically by giving ourselves the right (and responsibility) to decide what gets invested in. This will of course make the biggest difference to those of us who are currently the most disenfranchised, that is the most "in need" of empowerment. Suggest a rephrasing?
|
|
|
2:20 pm
March 12, 2010
|
Liam Rattray
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Common good bank profits will go to a Community Fund to advance the common good -- half locally and half to empower those in need elsewhere.
It is an impossible artifact of neocolonialism to "empower those in need." All we can do as priviledged folk is to help provide access to resources to those in need and to stand in solidarity through their struggle; realizing that their liberation is intimately tied up in ours. Consider rephrasing the community profits section.
Good day,
Liam
|
|
|
4:11 pm
February 27, 2010
|
wspademan
| | |
| Admin
| posts 112 |
|
|
Rhonda said: If you want depositors, send them to a page that allows them to sign up and make a deposit!
Rhonda, good idea! Our "tell someone" email now sends people directly to the signup page. Sadly, though, we cannot accept deposits until the first common good bank actually opens. Help us get to that point by signing up HERE.
|
|
|
2:04 pm
February 27, 2010
|
Rhonda
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
I just clicked on the link in the email you sent me that says:
Be one of our 4,000 founding depositors
Sign up at http://www.commongoodbank.com
But what I got to was this page. If you want depositors, send them to a page that allows them to sign up and make a deposit!
|
|
|
5:19 pm
February 26, 2010
|
Jonathan P. Chance
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Why pay unlawful "taxes" to private central banks for their petro-banking warfare and other criminal activities?
End the Fed, and buy a usury-free Solar Bank. 
JPChance.wordpress.com
![Cool]( "Cool") ', '1');" src="http://commongoodbank.com/wp/wp-content/forum-smileys/sf-cool.gif" alt="Cool" />![Cool]( "Cool") ', '1');" src="http://commongoodbank.com/wp/wp-content/forum-smileys/sf-cool.gif" alt="Cool" />
|
|
|
12:08 pm
February 15, 2010
|
Michael Marantz
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Money (greed, wealth accumulation) is the root of all evil.
Property is theft.
Indigenous peoples around the world have been destroyed or put on reservations because they did not practice wealth accumulation or believe that what Spirit has created man can take away.
The corporations own the planet. Worse than that, they own the minds of most of humanity.
In the face of that ultimate corruption not about to go away, a Common Good Bank is the best we can do.
|
|
|
6:22 pm
January 14, 2010
|
Dock
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
print page
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Comment on this Subject 
Quote and Reply 
Print this Comment 
Topic RSS 
