George Rebane
… it just keeps coming back to Nevada City. Last March I did a KVMR commentary on what obviously looks at best like the blind leading the blind, and at worst like a scam. (‘Community Partnership Banking – Worm Farm 2?’) Their nearby poster (click to enlarge) announces a “follow-up” to the “enthusiastic response” they got a few months ago. It is not clear when this next enthusiastic response occurred or is scheduled since there is no “Tuesday, June 23, 2011”, and the Sierra Commons does not answer its phone.
In any case, they’re baaaack!
I noted the same fact about the date, last night, on Pelline's blog.
Be the first to like this post.
One Response
on June 24, 2011 at 1:24 am | Reply Douglas Keachie
I suspect that Tuesday June TWENTIEIGHT is what they had in mind…Yesterday was the 23rd.
"TWENTY-EIGHTH"
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 24 June 2011 at 10:39 AM
I tried to alert UFB to the day/date error, but their "contact us" link on their web site does not work.
Posted by: Dave C | 24 June 2011 at 11:01 AM
I think the prince from Nigeria may need just a little sustainability seed money to get the whole thing going.
Posted by: D. King | 24 June 2011 at 11:13 AM
Over the decades I have put my money into local banks and credit unions, only to see them disappear. Since the eighties I've stayed with BofA (except when I lived in Seattle, where I deposited with Seafirst, who ended up being swallowed by BofA). Everybody dumps on the big guy, but I've never had trouble with them and they are still here. I think I'll pass on the Bank of Aquarius. It sounds as bad as say, buying stock in Emgold.
Posted by: RL Crabb | 24 June 2011 at 11:20 AM
Crabb
You can thank future generations for paying BofA $20b in direct US government aid and $118b worth of guarantees against bad assets to keep them afloat.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 24 June 2011 at 02:16 PM
Why not give this a chance? At least they're not getting a bailout and then giving their execs million dollar bonuses.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 24 June 2011 at 02:31 PM
Oh yes, documentation
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/123184/seiu_calls_on_bank_of_america_to_oust_ceo_over_executive_bonuses/
Posted by: Paul Emery | 24 June 2011 at 02:36 PM
You set a low bar PaulE. Please reread my commentary. This is at best an expensive fool's errand.
Posted by: George Rebane | 24 June 2011 at 03:23 PM
Again, if this is some kind of scam at least it's not on the taxpayers dime. Why bother? It's all fair game unregulated capitalism right?
Posted by: Paul Emery | 24 June 2011 at 04:11 PM
I would like to commend Nevada County progressives for welcoming this new, innovative bank. Now is not the time to shirk from your calling; invest all your money with them. The next generation is counting on you.
Posted by: Greg Goodknight | 24 June 2011 at 04:25 PM
Paul,
It may not be on the taxpayers dime, but it could defraud some of our local citizens of their retirement money. I was at the previous presentation and the prompters take half the money deposited to promote their bank concept, and only loan out the other half, and only to sustainability projects. These are not bankers, they are a PR firm. If it sounds to good to be true, it is a scam.
Posted by: Russ Steele | 24 June 2011 at 04:29 PM
Vs. what.. Citizen's Bank and the games they have been up to?
How many of our local citizen's have lost a large amount of money now that the Citizen's Bank stock is down to pennies a share?
Citizen's Bank also took a massive amount of taxpayer’s money via the TARP bailout and hasn't paid one penny back to the taxpayers, missing all 7 of their payments so far.
Citizen's Bank refuses to tell the public and the taxpayers the truth but it's now starting to get out about where the failed real estate development money/loans went. A whole lot went to the Citizen's Bank board members, their friends, and family members and to clients of some of the board members.
As I have been saying for a long time... I bet Citizen's Bank will be shut down and taken over by the Fed's.
And millions were "embezzled" from Citizen's Bank. Who was responsible for overseeing the loans and who failed to catch this before millions in deposits were "lost" to this bank loan officer? Who was responsible for the failed oversight that let this go on? Where's the accountability?
No need to look to "Nigeria" to find a money scam.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 24 June 2011 at 05:59 PM
I am with RL Crabb on this one. I love my bank. I was with BofA for thirty years with no problems. One day Wells Fargo swallowed up my little $20O.00 rainy day fund free saving account at Placer Savings, so I went down to Wells Fargo to see what was happening. The pretty girl there gave me free checking, free savings and free just about anything to transfer. I agreed and have had no problems with my new evil Big Bank WF. Heck, they, like BofA, have an ATM everywhere you go when you are traveling down the the long lonesome highway. Wonder if the new sustainable bank has anything down on paper yet? They did not last time they gave their pitch "Oh, we are new kind of bank with no assets and no banking experience, but we will tell you more about our delicious ideas if you cough up half a million, up front of course." Worm Farm 2 is an appropriate name. You don't get to buy worms at the worm farm, but at least you get the worm castings. Kinda of like Nevada City's future bank. Just hope folks will walk away with more than a handful of worm crap. Probably not.
Posted by: bill tozer | 24 June 2011 at 08:35 PM
Bill... it's the remaining stock holders of Citizen's Bank are the ones now left with a "handful of worm crap". Why fail to address this?
Russ posted this about the Unified Field Bank... "It may not be on the taxpayers dime, but it could defraud some of our local citizens of their retirement money".
So Russ, what about Citizen's Bank? They took and used the "taxpayers dime" and have missed all their repayments back to the taxpayers.
Many locals had a lot of their "retirement money" in Citizen's Bank stock becaused Citizen's greased them up to buy their stock... while at the same time knowning what was really going on inside the bank.
Why no response about this real issue?
Posted by: Steve Enos | 25 June 2011 at 11:52 AM
SteveE, you have been drizzling on about Citizens Bank for months now. And you have not received a satisfactory (to you) response from anyone about your allegations. Could you please draft for us a response that you would consider appropriate? Then maybe someone will sign on to it, and we could all rest easy.
Posted by: George Rebane | 25 June 2011 at 01:05 PM
I have no illusions about BofA being saints, or any of the other big financial institutions. But like I said, it gets tiresome having to change banks every three or four years when the little community banks go under. (And didn't BofA take the govt. money at gunpoint?) Wells Fargo seems to be one of the few that managed to stay solvent when the Big Scam finally fell apart, but I'm content to stay where I am at the moment.
The proposed Bank of Aquarius looks to me like everything you don't want in a lending institution; banking on the success of questionable politically driven investments so the depositors can feel good about where their money is going. As others have stated, Unified Field is probably looking to grab the deposits of the numerous NGO's and grant monies that flow through Nevada County. (Nevada City is the second most gifted municipality in the state, behind San Francisco.)
Posted by: RL Crabb | 26 June 2011 at 05:49 AM
What wondrous factoids have been caught in the sluices of an innocent looking cartoonist's mind. I might add, however, it has been no fun watching Great Western devolve to WashMut and finally to Chase which is still apparent controlled by JP Morgan from his grave in Hartford, CN. If I ever get back there, I plan on visit his grave to pay my respects with something golden, in addition to all the new ways they've found of modifying my old, "free for lfe" account.
Posted by: Douglas Keachie | 26 June 2011 at 07:54 AM
Nice to hear Paul denounce the useless bailouts. That's what TARP and the "stimulus" cons were all about. More to come. Meanwhile, many folks are resorting to the Bank of Mattress as Citizens and even CITI sink.
Posted by: Bob Hobert | 26 June 2011 at 07:57 AM
I never cease to be amazed at the inability of people to realize how close we came to a global financial catastrophe on 9-15, and for the 12 months thereafter, that would have plunged the world into a cycle of depression and all of its consequences; war, famine, and a fundamental threat to democracy.
We will pay for it for at least a generation to come, but the alternative may have been something we paid for forever. Both the Clinton and Bush II administrations bear a substantial part of the responsibility for this barely averted calamity, with lessor blame to Bush I and Reagan.
Economic historians will look back at this time in 30 years and recognize that the Bush II administrations and the Obama administrations collaborated on the only possible solution; a generation of pain at a cost of about $12 trillion, in exchange for peace.
I know it is hard to understand today, to favor intervention over collapse, and that it is almost impossible to measure an averted negative, the unintended consequences of collapse, but one day we will understand the bargain we made.
In short, intervention saved capitalism, a system that although imperfect, is still the best system yet devised for the allocation of resources while promoting the freedom of the individual.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 08:25 AM
Sorry Steven it's hard for me to accept your "too big to fail" scenario for justifying the billions paid out to sustain the very institutions that profiteered and gamed the system till it collapsed and then went back to the well one more time for bailout money to be paid by future generations. By sustaining the institutions that got us here without meaningful reform would only mean to me that this may happen again. As if the Savings and Loan debacle didn't teach us a lesson.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 26 June 2011 at 09:38 AM
Intervention created the crisis, intervention to curtail the crisis will invariably bring another crisis... and the central planning BS goes on and on...and capitalism will be blamed.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 26 June 2011 at 09:47 AM
Well Paul, of course I support reform as well, but I don;t think you, or anyone here, really realizes how close we came and what the consequences would have been. The folly of saying the intervention caused the crises thus we should have allowed it to fail, damn the consequences, is incredible. I think in retrospect posters here will discover in their dotage that Bush II and Obama saved capitalism, just as FDR did.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 10:12 AM
SteveF, I am very familiar with the Keynesian arguments both then and now for how governments should intervene to 'save' the economy. Nevertheless, I do agree with your assessment "that Bush2 and Obama saved capitalism, just as FDR did."
My only caveat is that I happen to agree with FDR's SecTreas Henry Morgenthau's 1939 testimony to Congress. He questioned the value of the deficit spending that had not reduced unemployment and only added debt:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Yes, all three Presidents have attempted to save capitalism the same way. The last two have not yet had the benefit of a global war and its post-war epiphany to conclude their planned salvation.
Posted by: George Rebane | 26 June 2011 at 10:56 AM
Less regulation, less government spending and freedom under our enumerated Constitution. The magic elixir. Liberals have no clue except handouts.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 June 2011 at 11:46 AM
To blame capitalism and not the central planning interventions (before, during and after said crisis) shows one's economic ineptitude.
None of the presidents listed "saved capitalism" anymore than each of them damned capitalism (via using central government planning manipulation/intervention/collusion). The world economy is built on the house of cards stacked by inept politicians whom idolize/pervert/abuse the power granted them by their god- Keynes. No one can debate the FACT that the 2008/2009/present financial crisis was fueled by the Federal Reserve and Keynesian central planners; and yet politicians look to their god Keynes for their self serving solution.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 26 June 2011 at 12:01 PM
Steven
I don't contend the intervention caused the crisis. I'm just not convinced that the bailouts were the best response. We have experienced a permanent financial gutting of working class and above Americans that the bailouts ignored completely, unless you consider the pathetic refinancing programs that were used as con games to increase defaults. It's amazing how quickly the institutions we bailed out ripped off the weakest and consumed them at the same time that the execs were paid million dollar bonuses while running this country into indefinite debt.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 26 June 2011 at 12:02 PM
"I contend the intervention caused the crisis"
-Mikey McD
The Federal Reserve is directly to blame for the 'financial gutting of working class' in America.
The crisis (as do most crisis) starts with the Federal Reserve and Washington DC.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 26 June 2011 at 12:11 PM
"Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws.” Baron M.A. Rothschild
Posted by: George Rebane | 26 June 2011 at 12:52 PM
We live in the system we have, not the one we wish to have. When facing a crises one uses the tools at hand.
The time to manage out of a crises, just as the time to fight a fire, is when the crises or the fire is at hand. One uses the fed or the Treasury or the garden hose when that is the tool at hand. The time to change a system is when you have the breathing room to make the changes necessary to reform a system.
Stability first, then reform.
What would we have done? Allow every major investment bank in the US (and the world) to fail? Then allow the more than 60% of mortgages held by the Fannie's fail, and allow every mortgage insured by AIG fail? Imagine the impact of 80% of all home mortgages in America being called simultaneously. Then allow every main line bank to fail because they could not insure their investments?
The downward spiral started by that set of circumstances could have easily led to the end of the financial system as we know it.
If you want a revolution boys that is the way to start it. It is indeed true that control of currency is more powerful than control of government. Losing control of currency would have been a sure way to create anarchy. In an anarchy the top 20% of the US population that controls 94% of the countries wealth would not have fared too well.
I really doubt, given the numbers, that the philosophy espoused by most on this site would have fared well if the solution was 'crowd-sourced'.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 03:02 PM
A little back up data:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 03:04 PM
In an ordered republic governed by laws, failure of structure does not necessarily lead to failure of function. When businesses fail, their assets and accounts go into receivership so as to maintain stability as seen by their suppliers and customers.
This argument of instant failure and chaos has not occurred in the post-war developed world - e.g. witness the savings & loan collapse. Government intervention in causing and 'solving' such crises come in many flavors. Bush2 and Obama chose a particularly bitter one.
We will never sort out the woulda/coulda/shouldas. The only lesson to take away is that we should not blindly follow the current path to disaster. von Mises' "Do nothing, sooner!" is definitely worth another look.
In the meantime the same voices are hollering that we need to increase the debt limit else the country will default on its debt service and chaos will ensue. Balderdash. I have treated this nonsense elsewhere in these pages, and firmly believe our lenders will take renewed interest in US Treasuries should we choose to live under and work off our current debt burden. More of the same is insane.
Posted by: George Rebane | 26 June 2011 at 03:29 PM
George, the scale of this market correction makes the S&L crises look like a gnat next to an elephant.
Don't you all get it, increasing the debt limit is to finance what we have already done. Of course if you would all like to pay more taxes to finance what we have already done I would be all for it. Lets do that!
But you won't.
Face it, Bush II and Obama passed bailouts, QE 1, QE 2, with the consent of the Congress, and many Republicans. The stimulus is a mere 800 billion of our debt, $350 billion of which went to TAX CUTS.
It was legal. You may not like it but it is our system. The debt limit is nothing more or less than us paying what we owe. You are welching on our debt.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 06:13 PM
According to the feds our annual income is over $2.2T and this year's debt service on $14+T of debt is a little over $600B. None of our creditors need to be stiffed. But we will have to make deep and painful cuts in our spending.
Right now the world's central banks are not repurchasing (relending) our Treasuries at their usual rates - they are backing off and forcing us to convert our debt to private hands with the inevitable rise in interest rates.
You and yours are suggesting that we borrow more so we can use that to pay an increased debt service and spend as usual. (That is a classical form of Ponzi and Democrats have no realistic spending cuts on the table, only job killing tax increases.) And the whole world knows this, and is looking at us as a spendthrift consumer with an enormous credit card debt who just doesn't get it.
It is indeed a perplexing situation. There is no welching on any debt outstanding. But there are obligations to our own that we will not be able to meet with the necessary spending cuts. Kicking the proverbial can puts us in league with countries like Greece et al.
Posted by: George Rebane | 26 June 2011 at 07:00 PM
Frisch, your ideology can only be peddled using fear and your use of propaganda and demagoguery are unparalleled. You give no credit (no pun) to governments role in CREATING the financial crisis, only the belief that only government can save us from said crisis. I can only imagine your explanation for the financial woes in Greece (etc)... I am sure by now you have found a way to pin it on capitalism or Bush. Progressives ignore history and logic while they focus on kicking the can down the road (here kids- F You!) KNOWING THAT THEY POMPOUSLY SHACKLE/ENSLAVE FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 26 June 2011 at 07:53 PM
Confidence in an economy is a funny thing. The run on the banks would have been insane. We stabilized the economy. End of story.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 07:55 PM
Frisch, everything Hitler did was 'legal.' [He with the tanks and guns makes the rules].
Bush II and Obama passed bailouts, QE 1, QE 2, with the consent of the Congress, and many Republicans. The stimulus is a mere 800 billion of our debt, $350 billion of which went to TAX CUTS.
It was legal...
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 06:13 PM
Posted by: Mikey McD | 26 June 2011 at 07:56 PM
Golly, I wonder what the condition of the economy would be had the government stayed out. My guess is it would be fixed way before now.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 26 June 2011 at 09:28 PM
God, McD you are frigging insane.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 26 June 2011 at 09:41 PM
And your ideology, sir, belongs in a trailer on a 10 acre lot in the Panhandle of Idaho.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 27 June 2011 at 06:53 AM
You know what the difference is this time?
People trying to undermine the system are exposed. Their plan (a huge stretch) has no goal except destruction; nothing after that. You suck in mindless minions with grandiose nothings. People are taught to hate their country and themselves….to what avail? We now have two/three generations of whiners. You point to Europe, the place where most here escaped from, as an example of what we should aspire to. Why? You don’t get America, and never will! You whine about everything…so tiresome!
Well, “Get Over It!”
http://www.totallyfuzzy.net/ourtube/eagles/get-over-it-live-video_0756746da.html
Posted by: D. King | 27 June 2011 at 07:54 AM
Another progressive resorting to name calling and belittling when facts and logic doesn't prove his worldview. It is not productive to have a debate with progressives on account of their disdain for private property and individual rights.
Posted by: Mikey McD | 27 June 2011 at 07:54 AM
McD, WTF do you call the following:
"your ideology can only be peddled using fear and your use of propaganda and demagoguery are unparalleled"
You guys are the masters of dissembling, name calling, and feelings driven ideology.
Or for that matter comparing American government action to Hitler.
Idaho is too close for my taste.
By the way, you still got that video of a 15 year old girls field stripping an AR-15 on your web site Mr. Rational?
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 27 June 2011 at 08:01 AM
"You guys are the masters of dissembling, name calling, and feelings driven ideology."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaYb389Y7OQ
Posted by: D. King | 27 June 2011 at 08:10 AM
Mikey, I am proud of you for not name calling Frisch and his ilk. He can't resist because he is a loser in the battle of ideas. The left are usually mind numbed robots mouthing some socialist dogma while collecting checks from people like you. The reasons are many why I could care less about people like Frisch's supposed intellect. You have now experienced the hopelessness of trying to reason with him and his ilk.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 June 2011 at 08:34 AM
Todd
Todd
Who are the winners in the battle of ideas? How about the Presidential actor and folk hero Ronald Reagan who tippled our national debt (with Bush 1), Newt with his one million dollar jewelry account, George "Mission Accomplished" Bush, Sarah "Get me off this Bus and out of the Governorship Palen, Mitt, "I didn't intend to be right on health care" Romney, Tim "I was just kidding Mitt" Pawleny, Tea Party, as long as it's a Republican sponsored brand , favorite Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, the guru that nobody has the guts to follow, Millionaire doper Rush Linbaugh, whack um on the head with a shovel Glen Beck. That's just a start. You've got a lot to choose from Todd.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 June 2011 at 12:19 PM
Well Paul, it looks like my side is the winner. For every hate filled diatribe you spew against conservatives, I could do ten of your guys, but I don't. The left is so hypocritical. Your people are the worst example for our children because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions. Don't you ever grow weary of your repeated attacks on conservatives like Rush and Bachman? No, we won the battle of good ideas because you and your ilk are in a time warp and stuck, unable to proceed without screaming RUSH! You did drugs and did rehab twenty years ago! Yippee! When you never mention your leftwing scofflaws in the same vein you lose all your credibility of a "indie".
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 June 2011 at 01:09 PM
Steven
I guess the bottom line reveals itself when I ask for examples of current economies run according to the principals spouted here and the best they can come up with is a couple of Asian city states and a nostalgia for pre 1920 USA.
My dislike of the "stimulus" plan offered by Bush and Obama is that it props up the very individuals and institutions that profited in the wild housing bubble then demanded to be paid off when it all collapsed by making a convincing argument that we would be better off paying them off rather than suffering the consequences of an even worse crisis. You seem to subscribe to that scenario and it's possible that the greater good was served in going in that direction but I'm not convinced. At least during FDR's depression recovery plan we got a few bridges and dams out of the deal. If we are still as dependent on the institutions (banks and insurance companies etc) that we bailed out then we are indeed in serious crap and haven't learned our lessons. I fail to see what's changed.
Todd,
Can you point me to one credible economic source that subscribes to your theory that all would be good now if we had done nothing? I would like to be better educated on that viewpoint.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 June 2011 at 01:10 PM
Todd
Let me get this straight. You are saying I did rehab 20 years ago? Yes or no. Don't push me, I'm half way out of my seat.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 June 2011 at 01:18 PM
No, Rush you ninny! LOL!
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 June 2011 at 02:34 PM
OKAY You need to write more clearly. I'm still interested in your resources that led to your belief that all would be good now if we'd done nothing to address the recession
Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 June 2011 at 03:02 PM
Ludwig von Mises, "Do nothing, sooner."
Friedrich von Hayek, "Let's do nothing ..."
Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron
http://hir.harvard.edu/rethinking-finance/path-to-recovery
Posted by: George Rebane | 27 June 2011 at 03:29 PM
If we had not joined WW2 would we have been better off. You can always do the wooda, shooda, coulda, on any issue and always be right. Thar is no way to run a country.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 June 2011 at 03:50 PM
Thanks for the link George. I'll check it out. Thanks for doing Todds homework.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 June 2011 at 07:01 PM
Paul... It wasn't 20 years Rush Limbaugh was caught doing his drugs, it wasn't even 10 years ago, it was 2006.
In 2006 Rush was arrested for prescription fraud. Rush's criminal record was expunged after he did 18 months of "rehabilitation" and paid court costs.
5 years ago, not 20 years ago as Todd is claiming.
Posted by: Steve Enos | 27 June 2011 at 08:07 PM
Yeah I know. Todd doesn't do his homework very well.
Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 June 2011 at 08:30 PM
But I am handsome and the girls like me.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 June 2011 at 09:00 PM
Well, you better get keep grades up or they won't let you play vollyball
Posted by: Paul Emery | 27 June 2011 at 09:37 PM
Dodgeball dude.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 27 June 2011 at 09:41 PM
Remedial Dodgeball.
Posted by: stevenfrisch | 28 June 2011 at 05:20 AM
You are a tiddly winks dude, but in need of instruction.
Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 28 June 2011 at 07:13 AM
Trying to find out how many people invested in UFB?? Wheres their going??Have they been scammed?? What broked promises have they received? Appreciate anyones feedback
Posted by: Rick | 19 July 2011 at 09:09 AM
For more information on community partnership banking, I recommend contacting Nevada City councilwoman Reinette Senum.
Posted by: George Rebane | 19 July 2011 at 09:50 AM