This feels like another case where there should be legislation, but would never get done. It would also require admitting that auditing requirements are so burdensome that they are used to arbitrarily enforce policies, which no one wants to do.
Honestly, the root of most of our current problems can be traced to Congress not being able to effectively pass legislation and ceding ever more power to the Executive and Judiciary as workarounds.
Both this and the other Trump EO that came out today (requiring colleges to report detailed race data to ensure they’re complying with SFFA) are good ideas and democrats should steal them. Don’t let Trump bait you into supporting Wall Street debanking people for their political views. That’s a total loser issue.
Of everything he's done with EOs, this might actually be the most legal one.
the President has authority to allocate enforcement resources. "We are going to make sure the law was followed" is that authority. He can dress it up with all the flowery "no political debanking" rhetoric he wants, but if there's no actual law against refusing to hold accounts for the KKK, there's nothing for enforcement to do, and that's that.
(Apart from that, increased scrutiny could of course uncover other kinds of lawbreaking. When we're talking banks? Not against that.)
This was actually a significant problem during the Biden administration.
The rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient. Apparently many companies were pushed offshore as a result.
> rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient
But the courts were a check. The precedent the current administration has set is for summary debarking in the future in exchange for e.g. not being investigated for securities fraud.
That's the same a16z that had one of its owners publish a manifesto that would have made Mussolini's supporters feel shame, right? Just so we're on the same page?
The essay that lists among other enemies "sustainability", "social responsibility", "tech ethics", and "risk management."
Their position on arbitrary use of legal power may not be wrong, but we must consider the source: this is a firm that has a compelling interest in the government having less effective authority to check the actions of banks.
(And if nothing else, their position is inconsistent given what we now know: if their concern is the way an Executive can wield authority like a cudgel in the context of vague laws, have they updated their thoughts in light of a President who has issued 181 executive orders since he began the 47th Presidential administration?
I'd say a large part of the country had the same sentiment about George W Bush. I'm not sure whether that was true or just an act, though. In politics, I think the opposite of Hanlon's razor has often been applicable. It's easy to feign ignorance to avoid responsibility.
That being said, I believe there has been an increase in genuinely dumb people in American politics in the past ~15 years.
George W. Bush scored well above average on standardized tests. People who worked with him and have no reason to lie report that he was deeply engaged on policy issues and had a good command of the facts. And yet despite all that he still managed to make some truly terrible decisions that still negatively impact the country today.
It was really the mainstream media who falsely labeled him as an idiot. The "chattering class" who make their living by speaking and writing tend to denigrate others who aren't particularly good at those things, regardless of their other abilities or achievements.
History suggests that a divided America tends to elect less effective leadership. The goal of the electorate becomes less about electing someone who will support your causes and more about electing someone who won't screw you over.
We saw this in the so-called "bumbling generation" that led up to the Civil War, and when a President widely regarded as more charismatic and competent President was elected, several states panicked and seceded.
This feels like another case where there should be legislation, but would never get done. It would also require admitting that auditing requirements are so burdensome that they are used to arbitrarily enforce policies, which no one wants to do.
Honestly, the root of most of our current problems can be traced to Congress not being able to effectively pass legislation and ceding ever more power to the Executive and Judiciary as workarounds.
Strongly agree. I also think this has been going on for the last 20 years.
The root issue has always been Congress.
Both this and the other Trump EO that came out today (requiring colleges to report detailed race data to ensure they’re complying with SFFA) are good ideas and democrats should steal them. Don’t let Trump bait you into supporting Wall Street debanking people for their political views. That’s a total loser issue.
As usual this seems like it is "corruption! .... FOR me and my friends ..."
Of everything he's done with EOs, this might actually be the most legal one.
the President has authority to allocate enforcement resources. "We are going to make sure the law was followed" is that authority. He can dress it up with all the flowery "no political debanking" rhetoric he wants, but if there's no actual law against refusing to hold accounts for the KKK, there's nothing for enforcement to do, and that's that.
(Apart from that, increased scrutiny could of course uncover other kinds of lawbreaking. When we're talking banks? Not against that.)
> "They did discriminate," Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan after his first term in office.
Well, don’t call Insurrection then!!
On it goes…
This was actually a significant problem during the Biden administration. The rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient. Apparently many companies were pushed offshore as a result.
Andreessen/Horowitz talk about it here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ
> rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient
But the courts were a check. The precedent the current administration has set is for summary debarking in the future in exchange for e.g. not being investigated for securities fraud.
That's the same a16z that had one of its owners publish a manifesto that would have made Mussolini's supporters feel shame, right? Just so we're on the same page?
https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/
"Our enemy is the ivory tower"
The essay that lists among other enemies "sustainability", "social responsibility", "tech ethics", and "risk management."
Their position on arbitrary use of legal power may not be wrong, but we must consider the source: this is a firm that has a compelling interest in the government having less effective authority to check the actions of banks.
(And if nothing else, their position is inconsistent given what we now know: if their concern is the way an Executive can wield authority like a cudgel in the context of vague laws, have they updated their thoughts in light of a President who has issued 181 executive orders since he began the 47th Presidential administration?
Groan...can you please leave me alone. Go outside, touch some grass.
[dupe]
Earlier:
White House Preps Order to Punish Banks That Discriminate Against Conservatives
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44793168
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'm curious, how often throughout history has a statement like "that guy is an idiot" had an unnamed person been so easily and widely recognized.
We all know who you are talking about, just like everyone know what "guy" I'm talking about.
I'd say a large part of the country had the same sentiment about George W Bush. I'm not sure whether that was true or just an act, though. In politics, I think the opposite of Hanlon's razor has often been applicable. It's easy to feign ignorance to avoid responsibility.
That being said, I believe there has been an increase in genuinely dumb people in American politics in the past ~15 years.
George W. Bush scored well above average on standardized tests. People who worked with him and have no reason to lie report that he was deeply engaged on policy issues and had a good command of the facts. And yet despite all that he still managed to make some truly terrible decisions that still negatively impact the country today.
It was really the mainstream media who falsely labeled him as an idiot. The "chattering class" who make their living by speaking and writing tend to denigrate others who aren't particularly good at those things, regardless of their other abilities or achievements.
I always felt there were dim/smart, benign/malicious axes in politics.
Nixon for example: malicious but very very smart (eg wrt China).
Reagan: not a razor, but fundamentally good-willed (see for example his interactions with Tip O'Neill from the other party)
Dim and malicious is of course the worst of all. Not least because such people will attract the smart and malicious like flies.
History suggests that a divided America tends to elect less effective leadership. The goal of the electorate becomes less about electing someone who will support your causes and more about electing someone who won't screw you over.
We saw this in the so-called "bumbling generation" that led up to the Civil War, and when a President widely regarded as more charismatic and competent President was elected, several states panicked and seceded.
worse more is the manipulation by actors with malevolent interests such as a16z, crypto guys - bad hombres in general who have the idiots ear.
it's another case of 'white genocide' in south africa.
He is preparing the USA for a dictartorship.