The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: 6 months! Are you kidding?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Great Points! (see in situ)

6 months! Are you kidding?

It wouldn't take 6 weeks. But I would recommend a couple changes. Instead of targeting taxes, politics and companies that participated in them, why not target those that are manipulating those corrupted systems. We here all know that the banks are behind this so let's target them instead. They've flown under the radar for long enough.

When BoA got hit with a boycott, their stock dropped about 2% in under a week. This is huge, considering their position being so leveraged. Panic ensued and a fix was put in place. This all occurred from less than one million people acting in concert. Just think if the people coordinated to boycott first and then debated to find which target to boycott afterward. The competition alone would scare BoA to death. But just imagine if then 10-20 million people actually did boycott them and made it last for 2 or 5 or 10 weeks. They would be gone. I'm not talking scared, I'm talking history.

Then we begin the debate for the next target with a sense of accomplishment. Even making the top 3 on this new list would scare most companies.

However, aside from the perceived gain we have and the power we feel we have, we have also done something big. By eliminating one of the, say 10, top banks, we have increase the power of all the small banks directly by 11%. Also, the federal reserve now has less power. What happens to both of these factors when we've taken down #2 or #3 or even #5. Would the people stop? Would the small banks take it as an opportunity to provide accountable services in the manner that people wanted? Would this trend not end the fed without any legislative shots fired?