I assume like all things this administration this is really just pressure to favor their friends and causes. Time and again this administration's claims are "stop this bad thing other people do" and the result is just "do it for me ... but more".
I have never been asked by a bank, credit union, or investment broker if I am conservative. Can a conservative explain to me What the hell is the issue?
The President would seem to be saying that conservatives have historically been discriminated against, not treated equally, and excluded by banks, and banks that continue to do this should be punished. As a DEI executive order it should serve as an example for punishing any corporation that discriminates, excludes and is unequal in it's policies, and sets a great legal precedent for all DEI policies and a reversal of all administration anti-DEI policies. The executive order would also seem to be "woke" in that it supports underprivileged conservatives who are being discriminated against.
A government regulated quasi monopoly national conglomerate providing an off the shelf product and a small business providing custom work to-spec aren't the same thing.
Anything they don't like or anything governed by any regulation whatsoever is, to some people, a "monopoly".
Practically any person anywhere in the US can start a bank, provided they possess the capital needed and the ability to fill out forms, although it is somewhat easier to start a credit union.
It's so easy that small hospitals and large churches and school district teachers' unions have done it.
I deposit my paycheck in a tiny credit union that is so small that we had a member's meeting one year where practically every single member showed up and fit inside a large ballroom. And we have an app, digital wallets, everything.
The only thing stopping people from starting banks is the fact that you need a shit-ton of cash on hand.
It's the same with ISPs. For over 30 years, in the US, any person any where has been able to get a franchise agreement with the same exact terms as incumbents. With no exceptions. There is not a linear millimeter of public right-of-way that you can't get permission to install fiber in. Downtown Manhattan, suburban Houston, middle-of-nowhere barren Alaska, doesn't matter. You can run NG-PON2 to every house in the country and have your net-neutral capless fantasyland. You just need a shit-ton of cash and you need to demonstrate to the jurisdictions that you won't dig a bunch of trenches and abandon the effort and leave the trenches open when you run out of money. But that's still a "monopoly" to many people.
Give me $50 million and I'll start filling out the forms to start a bank the day after the cash is in my hands.
I'd advise you that there are better ways of spending that money and that a small credit union would probably fit your needs better, but I'd do it.
Your view on the viability of it is grossly underestimating the hurdles you face, but lets run with it for the purpose of this discussion.
Our comparison point is a cake decorating business which refused to create custom cake decorations for a gay couple and a state law that would have forced them to do so was found unlawful.
To this, this HN replies is evidence that banks should be able to discriminate capriciously, and that anyone with a mere 50 million dollars can start up their own if they don't like being cut off by the incumbents (or don't like that their preferred choice was intentionally destroyed like SVB).
>To this, this HN replies is evidence that banks should be able to discriminate capriciously,
No. Stop. Fuck off. Get fucked.
I didn't say, mean, imply, or insinuate that.
Someone said/meant/implied that banks were a monopoly, probably because they're a piece of shit libertarian or they heard the phrase "ReGuLaToRy CaPtUrE" on a shitty podcast somewhere, and that it is impossible to start one.
And I replied that it isn't, well, it is, but no more than any other capital-intensive project.
You're right that debanking shouldn't be allowed; but the solution should be legislation that bans or heavily regulates debanking across the board, not executive fiat that specifically protects the president's friends and allies.
The executive order is not expected to be specific to the “the president's friends and allies”, but just politically motivated bank actions in general. But I agree, legislation is preferable. And I wouldn’t support such an executive action if it were one sided.
What about customers that slide into unsavory activity, or customers who you think are doing illegal things, but don't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Are citizens not allowed to decide not to associate with someone?
I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.
Citizens as individuals, sure. But banks that are massively concentrated are more like public utilities not individual citizens, in terms of their criticality to a functioning society. They need to be regulated like that.
Both US banks and utilities are considered critical infrastructure under Executive Order 13636 of 2013. The government is charged with ensuring their resilience and availability to maintain a stable society (in the face of cyber threats).
If politics is a risk to stability (I know at least one fortune 100 finance company that does have it in their risk register) then this Trump executive order against de-banking is aligns with the former one from the Obama administration.
A defense against de-banking is a bi-partisan win.
It's really disheartening when people completely miss the underlying issue, whether in good faith or bad. This is another cut to you democracy to its death by a thousand cuts. This should be obvious to everyone by now.
Yep. Next in line is going to be debanking political opponents and opposition PACs, preventing them from campaigning effectively. And from the news yesterday, Texas has already taken a step ahead and has begun trying to arrest Democrats who are out-of-state.
William Dudley Pelley and George Rockwell would be so proud of the Republican party today.
Don't we allow pretty much everybody to discriminate based on viewpoint? Except the government, and common carriers. Nobody is going to force me to do business with Nazis, for instance, regardless of any executive order.
Unless the employee is in a union, unless you're a landlord in a state that protects political ideology in housing, unless you're an employer in a state that protects political ideology, unless you're a hospital that takes Medicare.
Lots of government rules that force you to do business with nazis
Im a little concerned by the combo “and crypto companies” in fact I don’t think this is for ideological reasons I think this is for risk reasons. All sides should be against this.
Also, isn’t this coming at the same time as laws that say doctors can refuse patients for ideological reasons?
Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?
> Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?
The EO isn't out yet-- it might. Might not.
Right now the incentives are such that banks are likely to crap on anything they think the federal government may not like, because there are infinity penalties available for displeasing the government and nothing but losing a customer on the other side.
So anything that shifts the balance at all may have a fairly broad effect at improving access to banking.
And we think the administration that had used all its weight to get educational institutions to do its bidding is going to apply this fairly? If so why is this an EO and not an act of Congress? (And the answer to c the marijuana question is no, not as long as marijuana is still illegal
Why would I feel conflicted? One is about cakes from a small business with lots of alternatives for customers to choose from. The other is about large banks which are few in number, have privileged access, immense power, and provide a public utility.
There are over 4000 FDIC insured banks in the US, and another almost 3000 FDIC supervised banks, along with over 4000 credit unions. This is nowhere near a monopoly situation.
In what world view does it make sense that banks provide a public utility? They're profit seeking, risk averse, Con men run businesses that work to extract as much "value" (money) as they can, from you, to give to others.
I assume like all things this administration this is really just pressure to favor their friends and causes. Time and again this administration's claims are "stop this bad thing other people do" and the result is just "do it for me ... but more".
It’s so they can launder bribes through crypto back into legitimate banking.
I have never been asked by a bank, credit union, or investment broker if I am conservative. Can a conservative explain to me What the hell is the issue?
https://archive.ph/XujI9
Isn't this order an example of DEI?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity%2C_equity%2C_and_inc...
The President would seem to be saying that conservatives have historically been discriminated against, not treated equally, and excluded by banks, and banks that continue to do this should be punished. As a DEI executive order it should serve as an example for punishing any corporation that discriminates, excludes and is unequal in it's policies, and sets a great legal precedent for all DEI policies and a reversal of all administration anti-DEI policies. The executive order would also seem to be "woke" in that it supports underprivileged conservatives who are being discriminated against.
Supreme court said people could deny business to anyone for any reason during the gay couple cake fiasco, no?
If dude wasn't fed from a silver spoon, he'd know better and watch his lying mouth.
A government regulated quasi monopoly national conglomerate providing an off the shelf product and a small business providing custom work to-spec aren't the same thing.
> quasi monopoly
lol what? What amazingly convoluted definition of "monopoly" do you get to describe the banks?
Anything they don't like or anything governed by any regulation whatsoever is, to some people, a "monopoly".
Practically any person anywhere in the US can start a bank, provided they possess the capital needed and the ability to fill out forms, although it is somewhat easier to start a credit union.
There's even an online form to start the process of founding a credit union: https://ncua.gov/support-services/credit-union-resources-exp...
It's so easy that small hospitals and large churches and school district teachers' unions have done it.
I deposit my paycheck in a tiny credit union that is so small that we had a member's meeting one year where practically every single member showed up and fit inside a large ballroom. And we have an app, digital wallets, everything.
The only thing stopping people from starting banks is the fact that you need a shit-ton of cash on hand.
It's the same with ISPs. For over 30 years, in the US, any person any where has been able to get a franchise agreement with the same exact terms as incumbents. With no exceptions. There is not a linear millimeter of public right-of-way that you can't get permission to install fiber in. Downtown Manhattan, suburban Houston, middle-of-nowhere barren Alaska, doesn't matter. You can run NG-PON2 to every house in the country and have your net-neutral capless fantasyland. You just need a shit-ton of cash and you need to demonstrate to the jurisdictions that you won't dig a bunch of trenches and abandon the effort and leave the trenches open when you run out of money. But that's still a "monopoly" to many people.
Give me $50 million and I'll start filling out the forms to start a bank the day after the cash is in my hands.
I'd advise you that there are better ways of spending that money and that a small credit union would probably fit your needs better, but I'd do it.
> Give me $50 million
Your view on the viability of it is grossly underestimating the hurdles you face, but lets run with it for the purpose of this discussion.
Our comparison point is a cake decorating business which refused to create custom cake decorations for a gay couple and a state law that would have forced them to do so was found unlawful.
To this, this HN replies is evidence that banks should be able to discriminate capriciously, and that anyone with a mere 50 million dollars can start up their own if they don't like being cut off by the incumbents (or don't like that their preferred choice was intentionally destroyed like SVB).
>To this, this HN replies is evidence that banks should be able to discriminate capriciously,
No. Stop. Fuck off. Get fucked.
I didn't say, mean, imply, or insinuate that.
Someone said/meant/implied that banks were a monopoly, probably because they're a piece of shit libertarian or they heard the phrase "ReGuLaToRy CaPtUrE" on a shitty podcast somewhere, and that it is impossible to start one.
And I replied that it isn't, well, it is, but no more than any other capital-intensive project.
And credit unions are easier than banks.
Goooooooooooooooooo fuckyerself.
Go ahead and open one, lemme know how that goes.
lol, go ahead and open a distillery.
It seems like there are 4471 banks regulated by the FDIC [1]. That's not the definition of a monopoly just a regulated industry.
[1]: https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/financialreportin...
[dead]
Good. Debanking and censorship through blocking payments or withdrawals or storage is bad for free societies. All sides should be against this.
You're right that debanking shouldn't be allowed; but the solution should be legislation that bans or heavily regulates debanking across the board, not executive fiat that specifically protects the president's friends and allies.
The executive order is not expected to be specific to the “the president's friends and allies”, but just politically motivated bank actions in general. But I agree, legislation is preferable. And I wouldn’t support such an executive action if it were one sided.
What about customers that slide into unsavory activity, or customers who you think are doing illegal things, but don't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Are citizens not allowed to decide not to associate with someone?
I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.
Citizens as individuals, sure. But banks that are massively concentrated are more like public utilities not individual citizens, in terms of their criticality to a functioning society. They need to be regulated like that.
Both US banks and utilities are considered critical infrastructure under Executive Order 13636 of 2013. The government is charged with ensuring their resilience and availability to maintain a stable society (in the face of cyber threats).
If politics is a risk to stability (I know at least one fortune 100 finance company that does have it in their risk register) then this Trump executive order against de-banking is aligns with the former one from the Obama administration.
A defense against de-banking is a bi-partisan win.
How often do cellphone companies ban drug dealers?
It's really disheartening when people completely miss the underlying issue, whether in good faith or bad. This is another cut to you democracy to its death by a thousand cuts. This should be obvious to everyone by now.
Yep. Next in line is going to be debanking political opponents and opposition PACs, preventing them from campaigning effectively. And from the news yesterday, Texas has already taken a step ahead and has begun trying to arrest Democrats who are out-of-state.
William Dudley Pelley and George Rockwell would be so proud of the Republican party today.
Don't we allow pretty much everybody to discriminate based on viewpoint? Except the government, and common carriers. Nobody is going to force me to do business with Nazis, for instance, regardless of any executive order.
Unless the employee is in a union, unless you're a landlord in a state that protects political ideology in housing, unless you're an employer in a state that protects political ideology, unless you're a hospital that takes Medicare.
Lots of government rules that force you to do business with nazis
Im a little concerned by the combo “and crypto companies” in fact I don’t think this is for ideological reasons I think this is for risk reasons. All sides should be against this.
Also, isn’t this coming at the same time as laws that say doctors can refuse patients for ideological reasons?
Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?
> Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?
The EO isn't out yet-- it might. Might not.
Right now the incentives are such that banks are likely to crap on anything they think the federal government may not like, because there are infinity penalties available for displeasing the government and nothing but losing a customer on the other side.
So anything that shifts the balance at all may have a fairly broad effect at improving access to banking.
And we think the administration that had used all its weight to get educational institutions to do its bidding is going to apply this fairly? If so why is this an EO and not an act of Congress? (And the answer to c the marijuana question is no, not as long as marijuana is still illegal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
Thoughts? You must feel conflicted. Since Trump's actions are in violation of this logic.
Why would I feel conflicted? One is about cakes from a small business with lots of alternatives for customers to choose from. The other is about large banks which are few in number, have privileged access, immense power, and provide a public utility.
There are over 4000 FDIC insured banks in the US, and another almost 3000 FDIC supervised banks, along with over 4000 credit unions. This is nowhere near a monopoly situation.
In what world view does it make sense that banks provide a public utility? They're profit seeking, risk averse, Con men run businesses that work to extract as much "value" (money) as they can, from you, to give to others.
In one brilliant sentence, you've described both Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) and Wells Fargo.
Banks also create currency and manage all transactions in the economy. How is that not a public utility?