I linked to that very post in my own, but I still don’t see where he claimed to be doing anything except ceasing to engage you — he certainly wasn’t claiming to leave (and he even states that he wouldn’t take such a measure for other posters he doesn’t care for). He writes
Note the “you”; he goes on to ridicule you for a few lines, and finishes with
That’s correct he only claimed to be finished debating me, but later reneged.
He took issue with Shodan saying his exit was “big and dramatic,” and then edited his post to make it appear not so.
Dnfrtf.
Well, okay. I suppose it’s not a matter of great importance, but Shodan did write that RTFirefly
which doesn’t seem to be accurate.
Fair enough, I suppose. I kind of took it that he meant he was leaving me. No biggee.
With all this talk about leaving (wherever that came from), does anyone have Al Yankovic’s “One More Minute” going through their head?
I’ve had it with you, RTFirefly! I’m leaving! And I’ll see you in court!
Apocryphal or not, it’s pretty neat.
Yeah, I know - linking to Weird Al was a bit much. But won’t you give me one more chance? 
http://jimhightower.com/node/7585 here is Hightower explaining how B of A fucked up and how they want to use the taxpayers again to bail their sorry asses out. I just love bankers.
Back before the crisis Bac was around $50. Now it’s around $5. Ken Lewis, the CEO is gone. So is John Thain.
Assuming bank transfer day works, you keep it in the news and finally you manage to kill BAC, what happens?
It’s a big part of the economy, a huge US company which does business with companies all over the world.
But let’s say you keep making a run on the bank, and you kill it. What happens to the 200,000 people or so that it employs?
What happens to the US economy? The world?
You Need to understand that if you are sitting on a branch, it is generally a bad idea to saw at the part between you and the tree.
It is important for the tree to realize that its branches are filled with desperate people with saws.
Oddly, this is EXACTLY how I would characterize the actions of the banks in this situation.
“Hmm, the public is already angry at us and blames us, in aggregate, for the financial crisis that’s happening–so much so that legislation to curtail our activities is being passed, even in this climate! I know! Let’s charge more fees!”
Scylla, are you a supporter of the free market or not? Should we choose a bank because we’d feel bad for the employees if they lost their jobs? Or should we choose a bank based on the product we receive from it? Nevermind that if you pull all of your money out of one bank and put it in another, that new bank is going to have increased demand and need to hire more people. I see an opportunity for the poor, dejected Bank of America employee.
This kind of setting up of a deliberate inequality by the gov, is rarely a good idea. I’m surprised you would expect a company to provide a service at a loss.
Anyway, the point is moot. They are not charging that fee. Nobody is being charged that fee.
It seems to me that the way social protest should work is that if a company like Bac is going to charge a fee, but you protest and they decide not to because your voice was heard, than going ahead and punishing the bank anyway is counterproductive.
They listened, didn’t they? Why not reward them, or at least acknowledge a step in the right direction.
Anyway I’m not really asking about that. I’m just pointing out that the consequences of a BAC failure at this time and place are potentially catastrophic to this country and the world in general.
Like it or not, attacking Bac is sawing at the branch on which you sit.
Good news, everybody! Our beloved banks and financial investment firms are doing quite well, thank you very much.
Some of you may be famiiar with the book and movie, Too Big to Fail, by arch-Trotskyist Michael Lewis, one of the first in the new genre of money-porn. It outlines the desperate attempts to stave off disaster, catastrophe, and meltdown, in rapid succession.
The punch line comes at the end, when, in a unique effort in capitalistic socialism, the Gov forces a buttload of money onto the major banks. “Here, here’s a metric buttload of money, take it, virtually free money, all we want you to do is lend it out. That’s it. We won’t interfere, pay your geniuses all you want, no problem, just do what you do: lend this money”.
The principals of the story are relieved, disaster averted, civilization saved. And then the adorable little Mr. Bernanke asks the inconvenient question: they will, won’t they? They will lend the money out, if we just give it to them, they’ll do the right thing for the country, for the people? Well, no.
Their country called, and they answered! Of course, the answer was “Fuck you very much, suckers!”
And these guys that are gone, Scylla, are they the bad actors? Bad apples? So, they are gone, all is well now? Did they face a stern talking to? I’m just guessing here, my prejudice is such I don’t even bother to look it up, I’m guessing they were the happy patriots who’s patriotism is reflected not in taking a bullet, but in taking a buttload. Ah, the golden parachute!
One hungers to take them to ten thousand feet and shove them out the door with a genuiine golden parachute. To encourage the others, you understand…
How do you kill BAC by having small-to-medium depositors move their accounts out of BAC? What would be the upper bound on any realistic percentage of such depositors moving their accounts? Is that the backbone of BAC’s business - what percentage of BAC deposits are held by such depositors, and what percentage of BAC’s revenues do they generate?
In short, is there any substance behind the scare stuff about killing BAC by getting smallish account holders to move their money to credit unions, or is it just the usual armwaving?
Yeah, I know, it’s RTF the troll, trolling some more by asking for substance. 
I don’t take issue with anything in your quote.
What do you think it means?
Why didn’t the banks lend that cash to the consumer?
Why didn’t the government make them do so?
Should anybody have done anything different? What?
You are writing as if that quote is an indictment of banks, and officers.
What should they have done differently? Why do you think they didn’t?
I think you need to answer these questions before you have a thesis.
Dnfrtf
My suggestion (which hardly merits the high-falutin’ term “thesis”, haven’t had one of those in about forty years…) is that Mr Lewis *et. al. *are largely telling the truth. That, given the opportunity to do the right thing for their country and its people, they did the right thing for themselves. Do these guys still wear those American flag lapel pins to publicly display their, ah, patriotism?
They remind me of Bob Dylan’s song, Just Like Tom Thumb Blues, about being a broke gringo in a Mexican border town:
“And if you’re looking to get silly, you better go back to from where you came
Because the cops don’t need you and man, they expect the same.”
We hardly need a national anthem anymore. A single, melodious “Oink!” will suffice.