Our organizational consultants, Doug Hammond and Kirsten Bonanza of Alive Communities, recommend that we take the following immediate steps, in order to move the Common Good Bank project from a great idea to a FUNDED (and soon to be realized) idea. I am also listing here the concrete steps that I propose to take, in order to fulfill each recommendation (partially or completely).
Together these recommendations and steps represent a major shift from our current strategy*. Comments are invited.
Separate Common Good Bank (CGB) from Society to Benefit Everyone (S2BE), CGB's nonprofit sponsor. Move all philosophical discussions (including this Forum) to the S2BE website and eliminate any mention of S2BE from CGB materials except where necessary.
Drop unnecessary business services. Actually nothing in the plan is unnecessary. However, some components are far from central: the Common Good™ Card, local rebates, creating local money, member participation in loans, and affordable stock. Push them out of view everywhere except in the business plan. (They must remain in the business plan because we may not be able to do them without regulatory approval.) Remove all references to creating local money (which will be handled by the Depositors Association rather than the bank), even in the business plan.
Simplify the presentation. Focus entirely on democratic control, common good mission, and community-level benefits to depositor/owners. Avoid any discussion of problems with other banks or our current economic system. Revise the website, the video, and all printed materials.
Formalize the presentation. Remove all informality from public CGB materials (such as referring to each other by first name). Create a members-only section for meeting minutes, discussions such as this one, etc.
Relocalize. Choose a single geographical community (probably a county or two in Western Massachusetts) and start there. Make it clear to other communities that they cannot participate as Community Divisions until the bank gets going in the first community. Stop recruiting and hiring Community Division Organizers until after the bank opens. Continue to support and train only the currently active Division Organizers.
Refocus and restrategize. Scrap S2BE's current multi-pronged strategy. Gather a small group of 6-8 key stakeholders from S2BE and the community to develop a new Strategic Plan for Common Good Bank (as opposed to the Strategic Plan for S2BE), aimed at getting the bank open by October, 2011.
* (Some of these recommendations echo earlier comments on S2BE's proposed Strategic Plan.)
#1. S2BE & CGB Separation- Yes, I see this might
be less confusing to people and add a little more credibility to the
bank, with less skepticism from the business world.
#2. Business Services- A full service bank with
different services to enhance our common good is what we are about… take
those away, and where is our social agenda? Democracy in our economic
system will be great, but in my opinion it is not enough. CGB needs to
continue being about sustainability in today's world also.
#3 & #4. Simplify/Formalize Presentation- Absolutely!
We do not need to cut the CGB services and aspects to clarify and make
our marketing materials concise.
#5. Relocalize- Would like more information or
evidence that CDOs are preventing CGF from getting our project funded.
Is it because they are not trained to seek investors? Do we spend too
much money in sending them samples of promotional materials? Is there a
problem with educating the entire country about Common Good Banks?
(please see additional thoughts below)
#6. Reofcus and Restrategize- How about we begin
with focusing and strategizing our current plan?
Lift the limitations of our current system…. Remember that anything
is possible.
My first concern as a relatively
new CDO trying to get my footing is, Oh no, how am I going to sell this
as a LOCAL bank and explain that we're waiting for a Massachusetts bank
charter hopefully by Oct, 2011? How can I create enthusiasm about that
when it seems too far removed for me?
I like the idea of getting some
sort of local initiative (local currency, time bank, etc) to have
something to show progress between now the the charter, otherwise I
think whatever interest a CDO can generate locally will wane, and CGB
can lose credibility as time passes.
I may be in the minority but I am not impressed with the proposal. The main problem Common Good Bank faces is funding. As far as I can see nothing in the proposal addresses this issue. If I remember correctly, the "expansion" that now is being rolled back happened because the bank could not find enough investors in Massachusetts. I do not see which resources are being spread thin since the flow of funds from "headquarters" towards divisions happens only when is fully funded by the funds collected by each division. It is hard for me to see the harm a quasi-established division, which collects funds, has on our goal to get funding for the bank charter.
Somebody in the forum came up with the idea of rescuing the Community Bank of Brockton instead of struggling to obtain a new charter. I think this idea has a lot of merit.
There were very few comments about online banking, which I think in the 21st century is a must. Today "Local" does not mean the same thing as it meant 20 years ago.
Action is good; I support whatever moves the concept forward, though I'd like to mention a political joke from a different time and place:
Goofy is walking down the street with a bag in his hand. Every few steps he stops and shakes the bag well. A curious passerby asks "Goofy, why are you shaking the bag?", "I have mice in the bag, I need to re-organize them otherwise they start working and chew my bag."
I had maxim in business: ”The
name of the game is to get the job done”
If the job was to climb the
mountain, a ravine was just an obstacle to be overcome. To stop and
rest in order to continue was no sin, but to carry on to exhaustion
and jeapordize the mission was.
Somebody mentioned “Starting
a bank is what we need to do, so that is our focus” This
is the name of the game, and obtaining a charter seems
to be the first step.
A lot of the things I wanted to
point out have already been said.
John Root had a thought: The
S2BE could launch a fund drive to find 10,000 people in the Pioneer
Valley who will donate $200 each ($150 for the charter and $50 to
fund the drive) and commit to doing all of their banking with the CGB
when it opens. When it opens they commit to buying 80 (?) $10 shares
and participate in the democratic process. The CGB will replace
their mortgage, home equity, car and other loans, and will be a full
service bank from day one! …The bank then starts with a 10,000
member depositors association run democratically with the banking
assets of that sizable depositors association.
He
went on: We are not targeting low income people.
We are targeting professionals and business owners and their
employees who want to do something concrete to stick it to Wall
Street. The materials we present are pitched to professionals. We
start with Amherst and the 5 Colleges. We get the colleges to commit
and we then actually have a basis for the depositors association
money creation.
William responded: To get a
bank charter, all we need is a viable plan. That plan must include a
plausible way to raise about $10 million less than one year: $1.5
million from donations or from accredited investors (people who have
a net worth of a million or more) only. The other $8 million+ can
come from anyone. The 1.5 will be spent on pre-opening costs and is
lost if the bank never opens. The other 8 will be held in escrow (at
no risk) until the bank opens.
We have chosen to minimize the
risk to accredited investors by raising the whole $10 million BEFORE
applying for a charter. John's
proposal would let us raise the 1.5, the 8+, and current
organizational expenses all at the same time from each participant.
The entire 1.5 would be raised as donations, so that the bank will
open free and clear, with the value of its stock totally backed by an
equivalent net worth.
Further,from John: My
understanding is that as soon as we have a Common Good Bank in
Massachusetts, we can have divisions all across the country and soon
the world.
My understanding, too, and the
final goal of The Game, or,
in John's words:
What
concentrating on opening a relatively conventional member owned bank
would accomplish is get us the bank charter we need.
With this in our pocket, we have
to evolve into the type of institution we really want, offering an
alternative to the establishment and solving the “Problem” as
defined By Rick DeVoe:
PROBLEM: Debt based monetary
system controlled by economic elite appropriates the nation's wealth,
money to service the common good is scarce.
SOLUTION: New debt free
monetary system controlled democratically distributes the nation's
wealth, money to service the common good is plentiful.
But what do we do in the
meanwhile? Again, It seems Rick has an answer:
What we should do is go ahead
and establish community divisions with their own mutual credit
systems, functioning as much like we intend them to after the bank is
chartered as possible. This could be done most readily utilizing a
software platform like "XO Barter Systems," which would
perform the dual function of facilitating trade between community
divisions from the outset. We could employ the "democracy
software" without delay. Participating in a mutual credit system
would teach people about money through their actual experience of it
(as an accounting system). To make this "local money"
system attractive, we would probably want to devise and promote them
as being an immediate way of supplementing one's income while
advancing the project. This would truly be a way for people to become
invested and to create and sustain the needed momemtum to actually
become a "movement," and not just charter a bank.
This
should not have the look and feel of just another green investment
opportunity. It can be so much more.
Rick had a lot of other ideas
worth considering as well, which I won't review here.
CCMeyer
had smething to say which I think bears repeating:
I think the recommended steps
to move Common Good Bank forward with funding generally make sense.
The sooner we can get CGB up and running, the better. Maybe that
means we need to concentrate efforts in a more
narrow geographic area and
simplify communication of the CGB model.
That said, I don’t think we
should abandon the communities where we have already built support.
In the community where I’ve been organizing, there are
over 100 enthusiastic
individuals signed up to be future members, and half a dozen
businesses. I’ve spoken to a number of these folks at length and
most
of them understand and
appreciate the many unique features that CGB will offer. And they’re
eager for the bank to start.
I think it’s important to
stay true to our word about what we’ve communicated with CGB
supporters. By this I mean remaining committed to CGB branches in
non-Massachusetts locations where CGB has high existing support,
maintaining existing relationships, and not pulling the plug on the
bank features supporters are already familiar with.
I'd like to add that of the 50
states, there may be some with banking rules more friendly to our
goals than Mass. I have no specific knowledge, but North Dakota has
been suggested. They have a STATE OWNED “wholesale” bank which
operates somewhat like a “mini FED” in cooperation with the local
private ”retail” banks. Here in rural Vermont, such a
combination, with a network of CGBs as the retail component could
succeed quite well. I think of it as two wheels of a bicycle.
(I don't know where all these damn lines came from)
Rick — I appreciate your response to my relay. I sincerely value your comments, but I respectfully disagree (at least for the foreseeable future — grin). You remark:
Consistent with the mentality to which I've alluded, you suggest that it is necessary to "trick" people. What people are anxious for is authenticity from anyone who purports to offer change. They have common sense and are increasingly aware, despite the contrivances of the corporate media, that systemic change may be necessary for their own economic security – but who can they trust
I don't mean trick them in the sense that they don't know what they are buying into — I mean: look a lot like what they've bought into before, but better. "Trick" them into thinking they are doing the status quo, but with a twist. If you want to convince, challenge, or motivate: sign on for the military or join an organized religion. Challenging someone while you're talking about their savings, CDs, or mortgage loans — and CGF will loose many potential depositors. Early adoptors are easy, but also the minority. Its the rest of the folks that give a darn, but won't even take the time to sign an on-line petition that's close to their hearts. Do you know how many colleagues/dear friends I have that won't even take the time to switch to a local credit union?? (And that's after I spent hours trying to 'convince' them to do so…).
So you speak for others in the sense that you know what they want: authenticity and I counter with my own soapbox to say that no matter how much common sense and awareness someone might have, he or she will typically (if not always) repeat past behavior unless given a very logical, concise, and user-friendly reason to change.
And who will they trust in this time of insecurity — whatever increaseses their feelings of security. That is obviously a wide continum. However, I bet ya most want to know about bank security, first, and economic security, second. In fact, when tabled at a Bank Local event in Portland, I didn't receive a single question about how much money the community would receive as a result of this endevour. Nor was I asked about the democratic system that decides the flow of dollars. Nope. From these concerned, liberal community members I was asked, over and over again, the APR on the bank's credit card, the interest for CDs and checking accounts, the feasiability of transfering or obtaining a loan…. you get the idea…
Sad, I agree. But true.
I see the recommendations from Alive Communities focused around two areas: strategic planning and branding. I believe that much of this conversation is around branding. Thus, very important. I encourage continued dialogue and am in no way, shape, or form, attempting to shut it down. Relay back! What we develop through this dialogue will most undoubtedly fuel CGF's forward momentum.
Well darn it, I just wrote a lot of thoughtful things and my computer crashed. Let me slim it down on round two.
Agreed all around. Keep it simple, you don't need to introduce CGB then CGF then S2BE only to bring the person back to CGB.
No more CDO's, good. Wait until you can drop $50,000 on a CDO for a year-long contract to start a branch office in a specifically targeted area.
And make it positive. I feel rallied by the nasty nature of our economy, but I also know that the only way to bring people together is by positivity. You can be naive and enlightened, or at least appear that way.
I think the recommended steps to move Common Good Bank
forward with funding generally make sense. The sooner we can get CGB up and
running, the better. Maybe that means we need to concentrate efforts in a more
narrow geographic area and simplify communication of the CGB model.
That said, I don’t think we should abandon the communities where
we have already built support. In the community where I’ve been organizing,
there are over 100 enthusiastic individuals signed up to be future members, and
half a dozen businesses. I’ve spoken to a number of these folks at length and most
of them understand and appreciate the many unique features that CGB will offer.
And they’re eager for the bank to start.
I think it’s important to stay true to our word about what
we’ve communicated with CGB supporters. By this I mean remaining committed to
CGB branches in non-Massachusetts locations where CGB has high existing
support, maintaining existing relationships, and not pulling the plug on the
bank features supporters are already familiar with.
I think it’s logical to refrain from pouring more
time/money/energy into potential new communities while we focus on getting
funded. But I think it also makes sense to maintain and perhaps strengthen our
support in established CGB communities. At least in my community, it won’t take
much time/money to simply maintain the support for CGB until the bank gets
funding. And since our communicated strategy until this point has been to open
the main bank and branches simultaneously, I surely hope that little time
passes between the opening of the first bank and the opening of branches.
The way forward… It seems we are getting a little too stuck on the formalizing and simplifying the presentation… Most of us have agreed that these are necessary, but at this stage, it seems your considerations here, for the purpose of this forum, are making it more complicated.
This forum is about whether we want to move forward with the recommendations from Alive Communities.
#1. S2BE & CGB Separation- Yes, I see this might be less confusing to people and add a little more credibility to the bank, with less skepticism from the business world.
#2. Business Services- A full service bank with different services to enhance our common good is what we are about… take those away, and where is our social agenda? Democracy in our economic system will be great, but in my opinion it is not enough. CGB needs to continue being about sustainability in today's world also.
#3 & #4. Simplify/Formalize Presentation- Absolutely! We do not need to cut the CGB services and aspects to clarify and make our marketing materials concise.
#5. Relocalize- Would like more information or evidence that CDOs are preventing CGF from getting our project funded. Is it because they are not trained to seek investors? Do we spend too much money in sending them samples of promotional materials? Is there a problem with educating the entire country about Common Good Banks? (please see additional thoughts below)
#6. Reofcus and Restrategize- How about we begin with focusing and strategizing our current plan?
Lift the limitations of our current system…. Remember that anything is possible.
I am in agreement with continuing to address "The Problem" as rickdevoe says. I am new to this project so I am not fully familiar with it so I would like some clarification.
…my understanding is that we would be "creating money" which would still be in the form of debt via fractional reserve banking?
Right. All money is both credit and debt, by its very nature. Since money represents a right to a certain amount of goods and services, the community (or some individual member of the community) owes that much to the holder of the money.
Mostly, Common Good Bank communities will create money the same way all community banks create money: buy making loans. The amount of money that Common Good Bank itself can create will be limited by the fractional reserve formula (again, just the same as other banks).
What is most unique about the Common Good Bank plan is that it's OUR community and OUR bank, so WE get to create the money. WE decide together what to invest in and what to fund with the profits.
Sure we can squeeze out some additional cool features and benefits to the community. But it all boils down to a single very simple principle for any Common Good Bank community:
Together we control the money, so together we have the power to do what needs to be done.
Troubled Community Bank of Brockton is searching for a new leader after
chief executive David W. Curtis stepped down last week, a bank official
said. Board chairwoman Jane Callahan is temporarily acting as CEO…. the bank has been struggling with a surge of delinquent residential
real estate loans. Regulators slapped the bank with a cease-and-desist
order last summer, ordering it to set aside more capital and make other
changes…. unsuccessfully tried to raise $15 million in an initial public offering
in 2008 and has since tried to improve finances by reducing its loan
portfolio and spending…. lost $1.8 million last year and reported a slim $76,000 profit in the
first quarter of this year. It had a half-dozen branches, about $350
million in deposits, and about 90 full-time employees, as of last year.
Comment: rather than start a bank from scratch, which has many pitfalls and can take a long time, it may take less time & money to simply "buy" a seat at the board of another bank. It would be a partnership. We raise the $10 million and negotiate a seat at the Community Bank of Brockton, asking for everything we want in the process. Would strengthen their position, as well as ours. Worth consideration. Richard.
I am in agreement with continuing to address "The Problem" as rickdevoe says. I am new to this project so I am not fully familiar with it so I would like some clarification.
Rick said:
PROBLEM: Debt based monetary system controlled by economic elite appropriates the nation's wealth, money to servicethe common good is scarce.
SOLUTION: New debt free monetary system controlled democratically distributes the nation's wealth, money to servicethe common good is plentiful.
As for the SOLUTION, my understanding is that we would be "creating money" which would still be in the form of debt via fractional reserve banking?
Also I would like to offer a suggestion to the SOLUTION. Any talk of "distribution of wealth" would potentially cause a knee jerk reaction in many. Maybe something like "control of newly created wealth" or "manages newly created wealth".
So, first and foremost, it seems to me, is to establish clarity as to the essence of what we're offering. Then, be true to it. To me, we have developed the means to effect systemic change in the political and economic system. For any progressive minded person who's been looking for the "how to," this is it. The "means" are provided by two ideas: (1) the knowledge that money, by it's very nature (being only an accounting system) need not be scarce (2) software that enables automatic, seamless exchange of money we create with federal reserve notes, on demand.
So what do we need to do to accelerate the realization of our vision? Put the "mission" before the "bank" (after all, this is a mission with a bank, not the other way around) and activate the existing sign-ups and those who join from here on out, right away. There is no sense of urgency in the notion of being a "future depositor" and little sense of ownership. What we should do is go ahead and establish community divisions with their own mutual credit systems, functioning as much like we intend them to after the bank is chartered as possible. This could be done most readily utilizing a software platform like "XO Barter Systems," which would perform the dual function of facilitating trade between community divisions from the outset. We could employ the "democracy software" without delay. Participating in a mutual credit system would teach people about money through their actual experience of it (as an accounting system).
To re-emphasize the thrust of my recommendation for a change in course: Find a way to involve people right away when they agree to support, bring what we're doing into the present and provide supporters with meaningful activities now. I believe, as I outlined, that the best option would be to organize the facilitation of trading in some user-friendly mutual credit system that can be readily implemented. This may be much less daunting than one might suppose and the dividends greater than imagined. This would enhance every aspect of the endeavor, especially bringing the project to a "funded reality". We could develop a replicable model wherein Community Division Organizers could actually be self-funded, in the same way as brokers in a business-to-business barter exchange are (except we will have the decided advantage of understanding money well enough that the CDO could eventually be dependent solely on the local economy she's creating and managing for her income).
arkmundi says, in response:
I have 30+ years of experience as a College administrator handling their business systems – human resource, payroll, general ledger, and development. I know accounting and IT systems, from the inside. I have offered my services to William to advance the CGB concept to the point of first incarnation. In addition I have thoroughly researched money and local currency systems, so am quite familiar with how various systems function. I'm highly supportive of the consideration made above "to involve people right away." Here I am.
Banks are fundamentally accounting systems, so a sine-qua-non is that CGB implement a versatile accounting system, whose services are online, based on web application server technology. I strongly support William's set of recommendations, in the business plan, to develop these services in-house using acceptable open standards and open source software. I believe we can accomplish the vision with an adopt & reuse approach, rather than a buy & use approach. It would also mean we own it, so control it and how it works, customizing it to suite our specific needs.
I value the suggestion to look at XO Barter Systems (http://www.xolimited.com), or any other serious recommendation regarding the IT architecture and accounting application. In that vein, I have suggested the formation of an IT team, that would first advise and recommend, and then implement. That can and should happen now.
I believe there should be multiple teams, one of which would take on the marketing and presentation, as suggested in the original post, by William. That should not, however, preclude making critical advances towards realizing the CGB mission, based on the contributions of other teams, notably IT.
I agree with your sentiment, Rick, but I believe that in order to
move from one system to another we have to bridge between the two. And
to highlight one of your examples to express my point, I wonder had Al
Gore expoused his enviornmental agenda during his campaign if anyone
would have really heard it. But when he found a better way to bridge as
a consultant, folks seemed more likely to hear his agenda for what it
was — a call to action.
Perhaps I'm not expressing myself exactly the way I'd like, but I
think you get my point.
Basically, if we put our emotions (mission) before our goal (the
bank) I fear we may not reach the desired outcome. I think that its a
good idea to mix just a bit more with the mainstream way of things (a
bit more professional, a little less touchy-feely). You see, you don't
talk most folks into doing a single thing. You trick 'em by looking so
much like something they've always known, but pulling off the
chameleon-like robes at just the right moment.
And remember — this is just the marketing and promotional materials
we're talking about. How each of us chooses to organize based on our
strengths and constituents' interests is not only up to us, but is good
business sense. So I'll talk 'mission' with my neighbors, friends,
interested organizers, and co-workers. I talk goal, value adds, and
affiliate marketing with basically everyone else.
I don't dispute the need for a "bridge," you'd need to get specific as to why you interpret my commentary as suggesting otherwise, however, for me to constructively reply. Regarding your "Al Gore" rebuttal: Perhaps it would have been best if he had availed himself of the the world's biggest stage – a year long campaign for leader of the "free world" – to rivet attention to the single greatest threat to humankind, andthen became a "consultant" on the issue if not elected. The fact of the matter is that his political handlers thought it an "inconvenient truth" – something that would have cost him votes had he made it a (the) focal issue. What if it takes 3 or 4 more years to get a charter? What will we be accomplishing with all our efforts in the meantime? Will we have raised the awareness of the problem and the solution? Will we have managed to enable anyone effectively? Will we have demonstrated the value of our ideas, or just talked about them?
Your response only underscores my concerns without addressing the substance of my arguments. Consistent with the mentality to which I've alluded, you suggest that it is necessary to "trick" people. What people are anxious for is authenticity from anyone who purports to offer change. They have common sense and are increasingly aware, despite the contrivances of the corporate media, that systemic change may be necessary for their own economic security – but who can they trust? Certainly, if we are sincere in our advocacy of "democracy" we'll treat people like they can be trusted with power, capable of ascertaining the facts and acting concertedly and decisively, without having to be manipulated. If we approach this with the attitude that we're "marketing" and not organizing, we'll too often be talking to the wrong people in the wrong way. The right people are the ones most motivated, people who the economy is failing, and those already dedicated to systemic change who know we're headed off a cliff. The best investors will be the truly motivated – or refered by them.
If we try to "mainstream" (read, make more conservative) a radical concept we may wind up with only a bank when we're on a mission. My sense is that, if we want to improve recruitment and increase support, we don'tdomore of the same. I submit that what is being perceived as a change in approach may actually be an intensification of the old approach, which is not working as well as hoped to begin with. Have we yet put forward a strong, undiluted case clearly identifying the problem and explaining our solution?
To suggest that it is only our "marketing materials" that will reflect a new (not reallynew) facade and that organizers can "choose to organize based on our strengths and our constituents' interests" is misguided on several levels. First of all, consistency is important and a lack thereof is something that needs to be corrected, not encouraged. What we really need is a specific outreach and activation strategy (not just a change of venue) with a powerful presentation developed that can get everyone on the same page. We can't cater to "our constituents interests" when we're offering such a powerful idea in its own right – one that can change their lives and society. They have to know what we're doing and be challenged to get on board.
To re-emphasize the thrust of my recommendation for a change in course: Find a way to involve people right away when they agree to support, bring what we're doing into the present and provide supporters with meaningful activities now. I believe, as I outlined, that the best option would be to organize the facilitation of trading in some user-friendly mutual credit system that can be readily implemented. This may be much less daunting than one might suppose and the dividends greater than imagined. This would enhance every aspect of the endeavor, especially bringing the project to a "funded reality". We could develop a replicable model wherein Community Division Organizers could actually be self-funded, in the same way as brokers in a business-to-business barter exchange are (except we will have the decided advantage of understanding money well enough that the CDO could eventually be dependent solely on the local economy she's creating and managing for her income).
I look forward to a serious critique of my assessments and a response to my proposed tack.
William, here's what you said about restrategizing:
Refocus and restrategize. Scrap S2BE's current
multi-pronged strategy. Gather a small group of 6-8 key stakeholders
from S2BE and the community to develop a new Strategic Plan for Common
Good Bank (as opposed to the Strategic Plan for S2BE), aimed at getting
the bank open by October, 2011.
My post regarding Kuali was for the "Strategic Plan <of > Common
Good Bank" and assuredly for "getting
the bank open" as soon as reasonably possible.
If I hear what you're saying, you've established a group of key
stakeholders to undertake drafting a new strategy, and apparently independent of this forum. If I were a key
decision maker, I'd put together a team of implementers, a team of
doers with experience, that would include some with open source IT
experience, all of whom would be committed to eventually becoming employees and
directors of the S2BE and/or the CGB, and the success of the venture. Focus must necessarily be granted to what is "mission critical". The success/failure of any financial
venture, however, is first built on people, their relationships, mutual trust, and hard work.
What's "right" is what gets you there – since you're not there yet, how can you possibly make judgements as to what will be important or not. I'll reiterate that the Strategic Plan for CGB IT is mission critical. Its not the only thing that is critical, but ignore it at the peril of your venture. And experience matters, a lot. I suggest that I and others who are posters on this forum are your consultancy group. Will Doug and Kirsten be responding to this forum? Please bring the entire dialog into the open, and on this forum. And please, do not devalue some at the expense of others. Thanks.
I agree with simplifying the plan/presentation where possible and with the logic of a targeted organizing effort in a given locale. These are secondary considerations, however, when contemplating the proposed exclusions of any critique of the existing banking and economic systems, coupled with the muting of the most central and dynamic element of the plan – creating local money! Why talk about anything if you don't want to talk about the problem andthe solution?
Why are we sanitizing the message? Is it to appeal to a particular "demographic?" This reminds me of recommendations a political consultant would make to a candidate in order to appeal to "swing voters." The problem with that approach is, even if elected, the candidate will not have secured a mandate for fundamental change because the decision was made not to talk about the critical issues. Apparently, Al Gore believes Global Warming is a big problem – if he had made it a cental issue of his campaign 10 yrs ago, win or lose, perhaps we would by now have a strong popular consensus to address it, which we do not.
In fairness to the consultants, who no doubt generally share the vision of all involved, the importance of the "creating local money" aspect of the project may not have been impressed upon them. In fact, in my experience with others involved, this seems to be the norm. The obstacle here is that an understanding of the true nature of money is very difficult for any of us to get a handle on. The great thing, though, is that the Common Good Bank model does incorporate this knowledge – it is the very fuel that will power this extrordinary vehicle for change!
PROBLEM: Debt based monetary system controlled by economic elite appropriates the nation's wealth, money to servicethe common good is scarce.
SOLUTION: New debt free monetary system controlled democratically distributes the nation's wealth, money to servicethe common good is plentiful.
Part of the misunderstanding is likely do to the use of the word "local," which is an inapt term for what it is and what it does. In practice, the money we create will be the functional equivalent of a "national " currency for each community division and, if we are to maximize its potential , also the national currency of what could be considered a confederation of community divisions, who would trade first between themselves before exchanging with the "foreign" currency of the regular economy. I think it is most helpfull to look at things from this perspective in order to comprehend the power of the tool we hold in our hands. Our objective will be to build self-reliant community division economies that seek to facilitate ever greater local import replacement and thus gain independence from the general economy, which is dependent on scarce federal reserve notes. At the same time, by giving community divisions elsewhere a "most favored nation" trading status, we'll truly be building a national movement.
This is the thing that I think gets missed that is so critical: we can create and control perhaps 10 times the amount in new (local) money for every dollar we have on deposit. People don't realize this because they don't understand how banks create money in the first place. This is something we have to strive to overcome and, of course, the effort needs to begin with those of us who are promoting the project.
So, first and foremost, it seems to me, is to establish clarity as to the essence of what we're offering. Then, be true to it. To me, we have developed the means to effect systemic change in the political and economic system. For any progressive minded person who's been looking for the "how to," this is it. The "means" are provided by two ideas: (1) the knowledge that money, by it's very nature (being only an accounting system) need not be scarce (2) software that enables automatic, seemless exchange of money we create with federal reserve notes, on demand.
So what do we need to do to accelerate the realization of our vision? Put the "mission" before the "bank" (after all, this is a mission with a bank, not the other way around) and activate the existing sign-ups and those who join from here on out, right away. There is no sense of urgency in the notion of being a "future depositor" and little sense of ownership. What we should do is go ahead and establish community divisions with their own mutual credit systems, functioning as much like we intend them to after the bank is chartered as possible. This could be done most readily utilizing a software platform like "XO Barter Systems," which would perform the dual function of facilitating trade between community divisions from the outset. We could employ the "democracy software" without delay. Participating in a mutual credit system would teach people about money through their actual experience of it (as an accounting system). To make this "local money" system attractive, we would probably want to devise and promote them as being an immediate way of supplementing one's income while advancing the project. This would truly be a way for people to become invested and to create and sustain the needed momemtum to actually become a "movement," and not just charter a bank.
This should not have the look and feel of just another green investment opportunity. It can be so much more.
I have the utmost respect for everyone, especially William, who's helped bring Common Good Bank into being and who have been working hard on it. One way or another, we'll get this done. I say "we" self-consciously because I have not contributed much yet personally, although I intend to. This is obviously a pivotal juncture, so I've been impelled to state my critique of "the way forward" as plainly and forcefully as I'm able. I'm confident that it will be taken in the right spirit and that forthcoming decisions will be sound, regardless of whether my conceptions, criticisms or recommendations are deemed efficacious.
Sarah Noyes here.
I agree with your sentiment, Rick, but I believe that in order to move from one system to another we have to bridge between the two. And to highlight one of your examples to express my point, I wonder had Al Gore expoused his enviornmental agenda during his campaign if anyone would have really heard it. But when he found a better way to bridge as a consultant, folks seemed more likely to hear his agenda for what it was — a call to action.
Perhaps I'm not expressing myself exactly the way I'd like, but I think you get my point.
Basically, if we put our emotions (mission) before our goal (the bank) I fear we may not reach the desired outcome. I think that its a good idea to mix just a bit more with the mainstream way of things (a bit more professional, a little less touchy-feely). You see, you don't talk most folks into doing a single thing. You trick 'em by looking so much like something they've always known, but pulling off the chameleon-like robes at just the right moment.
And remember — this is just the marketing and promotional materials we're talking about. How each of us chooses to organize based on our strengths and constituents' interests is not only up to us, but is good business sense. So I'll talk 'mission' with my neighbors, friends, interested organizers, and co-workers. I talk goal, value adds, and affiliate marketing with basically everyone else.
Andy Laties says (by email): In order to pursue this kind of positioning the first branches of the bank cannot be in a relatively stagnant business environment like the part of Western Mass that William (and I) now live in. There aren't enough hungry borrowers around here, unfortunately.
I would say that Boston is probably the market CGB will have to launch in, if the Mass charter is our chosen avenue.
print page
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
