4 ms·

Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm a market constructivist, and I'd prefer the simplest possible solution which regulates Equifa

Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm a market constructivist, and I'd prefer the simplest possible solution which regulates Equifax and its immense externalities out of existence. But isn't there also a libertarian case to be made that the credit authorities are a cartel and should be deregulated out of existence? And if that's the case, can't at least some of us find common ground?

maxxxxx 9y ago
The libertarians I know would probably say that it's the government's fault that this situation arose. I don't think they would have an answer how to deal with the current situation.
- rectang 9y ago
  If they think it's the government's fault, that's not necessarily a barrier to agreement on a course of action. If there's a law that can pass that libertarians can call "deregulation" I could potentially get behind it so long as it has the desired effect. For instance, it's my understanding that laws exist which protect the big three credit authorities. What are those laws, and what the prospects for changing them?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Don't expect anything. Libertarians have no real answer for health care and they have no real answer for dealing with the credit agencies.
    - ikiris 9y ago
      Yes they do, you just don't like that the answer is let them die.
      - rectang 9y ago
        I love the answer of letting them die. The negative externalities of the big three CRAs exceed value they provide and if the market could respond to those externalities, they would go under. However, would whatever replaces the big three exhibit the same negative externalities and recreate the same situation of market failure?
        8note 9y ago
        I think the more apt comparison to letting people die if they can afford healthcare is for Equifax to make all their data public, and you can pay Equifax a couple thousand a month to make data about you private.
        rectang 9y ago
        Meh, I misunderstood who "let them die" refer to -- I thought it was the CRAs, not people. :\ I still feel like your analogy doesn't adequately capture the negative externality in the identity theft that the CRAs enable. In a healthy marketplace, the cost of that identity theft would be borne by the people who profit from it, not innocent third parties. How do we get to a marketplace where that crushing cost falls upon the deserving party, dissuading them from their destructive course? We need to acknowledge that the quantitative change in the accessibility of personal credit information amounts to a qualitative change, justifying a rethink about who owns it.
        ams6110 9y ago
        > Meh, I misunderstood who "let them die" refer to -- I thought it was the CRAs not people. No, you understood correctly the first time.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        It seems like they don’t like that answer very much either. In my experience, it’s really hard to get that out of most libertarians.
sp332 9y ago
No, the Equifax breach hurt tons of constituents on both sides of the aisle. The parties had every reason to come together on this. Especially the Republicans, because the lack of trust will be bad for business. But it seems the ones elected at the moment are beholden to specific donors and not accountable to the people they're supposed to represent. I'm not clear on how deregulation would hurt Equifax and the other reporting agencies? It seems that enforcing regulations would hurt them in this case.
- rectang 9y ago
  I realize this isn't immediately realistic, but please brainstorm with me: 1. Change privacy laws so that consumers own their own data. (Something like Germany's BDSG?) 2. Repeal the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The idea is that once consumers have the weapons and wherewithal to sue irresponsible credit rating authorities out of existence, perhaps fewer "regulations" will be needed.
  - sp332 9y ago
    Equifax already has 23 class-action lawsuits pending. But it would be better for consumers if a breach of this type were a crime investigated by the government, so individuals don't have to proactively go to court themselves. By default, incumbents and big players have the advantage in the market, so without regulation I doubt anyone could unseat the Big Three agencies. They can afford to have a some inaccuracies and even a breach here and there and still be hard to beat. Remember the people whose data they lost are not their customers. Using the government to force companies to protect that data could level the playing field and increase competition. As for 1. that is of course regulation.
- mulmen 9y ago
  You seem to have conflated the concepts of representation and protection. Congress represents constituents, it does not protect them. If constituents do not demand action here congress will not pursue further action. The CFPB is supposed to be protecting consumers, not congress.
  - 9y ago
guelo 9y ago
I feel like it is inevitable because the current crop of right wing politicians are hard core ideologues. Pragmatism is not in their vocabulary.
- cat199 9y ago
  absolutely, uuuge contrast to the fair, non-partisan and balanced pragmatism of say, HRC, Feinstein, etc.
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    People just need to realize the corruption is bipartisan. This tribalism bullshit is going to eat us from the inside out. I swore an oath to the constitution, not to a fucking party, so stop trying to tell me your tribe is better, it isn't, and fuck off with the bullshit claims of "but false equivalence"! The people downvoting you just don't that like you flipped the exact statement of the gp. You are both right.
djrogers 9y ago
> Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm not so sure it's the Equifax situation here, but rather the CFPB that's the target of partisan lashings. The CFPB has been criticized by both the left and right at various times for overspending, lack of oversight, lack of results, and especially it's fundamental structure - in fact it was even ruled unconstitutional by a DC circuit court. The ruling has since been upheld in an en-banc hearing. Some of the comments from the judge in the initial ruling are rather surprising: "The Director enjoys significantly more unilateral power than any single member of any other independent agency. By “unilateral power,” we mean power that is not checked by the President or by other colleagues. Indeed, other than the President, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire United States Government, at least when measured in terms of unilateral power." [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/court-rules-consumer-financial-protection-bureaus-structure-is-unconstitutional/503660/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/court-r... [2]https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651686D60D585258226005405AC/$file/15-1177.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651...
- creeble 9y ago
  Someone needs to pull rank and take over or start an investigation outside of the CFPB. They clearly aren’t doing their job, and now it has become stupid to simply ask them to start doing it.
  - tonyztan 9y ago
    The CFPB was doing its job until Director Cordray resigned and Trump appointed Mulvaney to be Acting Director. There is even a pending lawsuit about it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judge-rules-mick-mulvaney-remain-interim-headin-leadership-fight-consumer-financial-protection-burea/902173001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judg...

maxxxxx 9y ago

The libertarians I know would probably say that it's the government's fault that this situation arose. I don't think they would have an answer how to deal with the current situation.

rectang 9y ago
If they think it's the government's fault, that's not necessarily a barrier to agreement on a course of action. If there's a law that can pass that libertarians can call "deregulation" I could potentially get behind it so long as it has the desired effect. For instance, it's my understanding that laws exist which protect the big three credit authorities. What are those laws, and what the prospects for changing them?
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Don't expect anything. Libertarians have no real answer for health care and they have no real answer for dealing with the credit agencies.
  - ikiris 9y ago
    Yes they do, you just don't like that the answer is let them die.
    - rectang 9y ago
      I love the answer of letting them die. The negative externalities of the big three CRAs exceed value they provide and if the market could respond to those externalities, they would go under. However, would whatever replaces the big three exhibit the same negative externalities and recreate the same situation of market failure?
      - 8note 9y ago
        I think the more apt comparison to letting people die if they can afford healthcare is for Equifax to make all their data public, and you can pay Equifax a couple thousand a month to make data about you private.
        rectang 9y ago
        Meh, I misunderstood who "let them die" refer to -- I thought it was the CRAs, not people. :\ I still feel like your analogy doesn't adequately capture the negative externality in the identity theft that the CRAs enable. In a healthy marketplace, the cost of that identity theft would be borne by the people who profit from it, not innocent third parties. How do we get to a marketplace where that crushing cost falls upon the deserving party, dissuading them from their destructive course? We need to acknowledge that the quantitative change in the accessibility of personal credit information amounts to a qualitative change, justifying a rethink about who owns it.
        ams6110 9y ago
        > Meh, I misunderstood who "let them die" refer to -- I thought it was the CRAs not people. No, you understood correctly the first time.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      It seems like they don’t like that answer very much either. In my experience, it’s really hard to get that out of most libertarians.

sp332 9y ago

No, the Equifax breach hurt tons of constituents on both sides of the aisle. The parties had every reason to come together on this. Especially the Republicans, because the lack of trust will be bad for business. But it seems the ones elected at the moment are beholden to specific donors and not accountable to the people they're supposed to represent. I'm not clear on how deregulation would hurt Equifax and the other reporting agencies? It seems that enforcing regulations would hurt them in this case.

rectang 9y ago
I realize this isn't immediately realistic, but please brainstorm with me: 1. Change privacy laws so that consumers own their own data. (Something like Germany's BDSG?) 2. Repeal the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The idea is that once consumers have the weapons and wherewithal to sue irresponsible credit rating authorities out of existence, perhaps fewer "regulations" will be needed.
- sp332 9y ago
  Equifax already has 23 class-action lawsuits pending. But it would be better for consumers if a breach of this type were a crime investigated by the government, so individuals don't have to proactively go to court themselves. By default, incumbents and big players have the advantage in the market, so without regulation I doubt anyone could unseat the Big Three agencies. They can afford to have a some inaccuracies and even a breach here and there and still be hard to beat. Remember the people whose data they lost are not their customers. Using the government to force companies to protect that data could level the playing field and increase competition. As for 1. that is of course regulation.
mulmen 9y ago
You seem to have conflated the concepts of representation and protection. Congress represents constituents, it does not protect them. If constituents do not demand action here congress will not pursue further action. The CFPB is supposed to be protecting consumers, not congress.
- 9y ago

guelo 9y ago

I feel like it is inevitable because the current crop of right wing politicians are hard core ideologues. Pragmatism is not in their vocabulary.

cat199 9y ago
absolutely, uuuge contrast to the fair, non-partisan and balanced pragmatism of say, HRC, Feinstein, etc.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  People just need to realize the corruption is bipartisan. This tribalism bullshit is going to eat us from the inside out. I swore an oath to the constitution, not to a fucking party, so stop trying to tell me your tribe is better, it isn't, and fuck off with the bullshit claims of "but false equivalence"! The people downvoting you just don't that like you flipped the exact statement of the gp. You are both right.

djrogers 9y ago

> Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm not so sure it's the Equifax situation here, but rather the CFPB that's the target of partisan lashings. The CFPB has been criticized by both the left and right at various times for overspending, lack of oversight, lack of results, and especially it's fundamental structure - in fact it was even ruled unconstitutional by a DC circuit court. The ruling has since been upheld in an en-banc hearing. Some of the comments from the judge in the initial ruling are rather surprising: "The Director enjoys significantly more unilateral power than any single member of any other independent agency. By “unilateral power,” we mean power that is not checked by the President or by other colleagues. Indeed, other than the President, the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire United States Government, at least when measured in terms of unilateral power." [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/court-rules-consumer-financial-protection-bureaus-structure-is-unconstitutional/503660/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/court-r... [2]https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651686D60D585258226005405AC/$file/15-1177.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651...

creeble 9y ago
Someone needs to pull rank and take over or start an investigation outside of the CFPB. They clearly aren’t doing their job, and now it has become stupid to simply ask them to start doing it.
- tonyztan 9y ago
  The CFPB was doing its job until Director Cordray resigned and Trump appointed Mulvaney to be Acting Director. There is even a pending lawsuit about it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judge-rules-mick-mulvaney-remain-interim-headin-leadership-fight-consumer-financial-protection-burea/902173001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judg...