3 ms·

...at first blush, I like this line of thinking, but I wonder what the side effects would be. If banks make it much harder to open accounts, that might hurt poo

...at first blush, I like this line of thinking, but I wonder what the side effects would be. If banks make it much harder to open accounts, that might hurt poorer folks the most, and perpetuate inequality.

andy-x 5y ago
This is very odd argument, in the name "equality" anyone should be able to open account in your name?
- macintux 5y ago
  Not the person you’re replying to, but every well-intentioned regulation has a negative impact on someone. It’s always worth asking who, and whether there’s some way to mitigate the impact on people who are already struggling to make ends meet. Being poor is incredibly expensive and exhausting.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    It seems a bit weird to try to fight inequality by reducing regulations on banks and make it easier for them to blame consumers for the banks mistakes. That argument would only make sense in the U.S.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      I consider myself a liberal, I'm broadly in favor of more regulation, and I might even be in favor of this regulation given something to assuage my initial concerns (because as I said, I like the idea). But I believe there are also lots of well-intentioned but bad regulations, and so they need to be considered carefully!
maxerickson 5y ago
Is making it 'hard' to open an account the only way to prevent fraudulent accounts from being opened? I don't think I accept that premise. My argument is that the party that can actually do something about the fraud is the one that should feel the pain of dealing with it.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Well, if you were a bank, and you knew you would be on the hook for a zillion dollars per fraudulent account, wouldn’t you respond by being way mire rigorous about who can open accounts? The potential profit no longer outweighs the potential liability, so you’d certainly want more forms of ID—you might even want to start fingerprinting customers or some such.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    They are on the hook for the credit they extend to the fraudulent account, not a 'zillion dollars'. It's likely possible to quantify the effects, regulators could do that and strike a sensible balance between security requirements and so on.
    - pc86 5y ago
      Even well-intentioned regulators are pretty incompetent given the fact they work for the government and all the nonsense that entails. Add in the fact that most regulators are just shills for whatever companies they're supposed to be regulating and "striking a sensible balance" between any two ideals seems pretty unlikely.
tass 5y ago
Why would adding an identity check or additional process harm poor people the most? It may harm the rich the most, in my opinion, since retailers wouldn’t as easily be able to trick you into a new credit card as part of the checkout process.
- KeepFlying 5y ago
  People with stable living situations can more easily keep track of all their official paperwork and spend the time needed to understand the application process. They also have more access to the internet to do things remotely. Poor people are more often in less stable living situations and it's easier to lose track of documentation. Not to mention unhoused people who don't have a safe place to keep track of things either and often don't have up to date identification in the first place. Also, with less access to the internet to do things remotely it's more common to need to take time off work to go to a physical branch which may be very far away, requiring taking multiple busses just to prove their identity. Of course adding more security is important, but it has tradeoffs like this that harm the poor that need to be considered.
- kalleboo 5y ago
  I believe the arguments are the same as the ones against Voter ID, which you can see here https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
throwaway98797 5y ago
Maybe we should basic accounts as a public utility. Maybe even funded by the banks. These accounts always bounce checks and payments.

andy-x 5y ago

This is very odd argument, in the name "equality" anyone should be able to open account in your name?

macintux 5y ago
Not the person you’re replying to, but every well-intentioned regulation has a negative impact on someone. It’s always worth asking who, and whether there’s some way to mitigate the impact on people who are already struggling to make ends meet. Being poor is incredibly expensive and exhausting.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  It seems a bit weird to try to fight inequality by reducing regulations on banks and make it easier for them to blame consumers for the banks mistakes. That argument would only make sense in the U.S.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    I consider myself a liberal, I'm broadly in favor of more regulation, and I might even be in favor of this regulation given something to assuage my initial concerns (because as I said, I like the idea). But I believe there are also lots of well-intentioned but bad regulations, and so they need to be considered carefully!

maxerickson 5y ago

Is making it 'hard' to open an account the only way to prevent fraudulent accounts from being opened? I don't think I accept that premise. My argument is that the party that can actually do something about the fraud is the one that should feel the pain of dealing with it.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Well, if you were a bank, and you knew you would be on the hook for a zillion dollars per fraudulent account, wouldn’t you respond by being way mire rigorous about who can open accounts? The potential profit no longer outweighs the potential liability, so you’d certainly want more forms of ID—you might even want to start fingerprinting customers or some such.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  They are on the hook for the credit they extend to the fraudulent account, not a 'zillion dollars'. It's likely possible to quantify the effects, regulators could do that and strike a sensible balance between security requirements and so on.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Even well-intentioned regulators are pretty incompetent given the fact they work for the government and all the nonsense that entails. Add in the fact that most regulators are just shills for whatever companies they're supposed to be regulating and "striking a sensible balance" between any two ideals seems pretty unlikely.

tass 5y ago

Why would adding an identity check or additional process harm poor people the most? It may harm the rich the most, in my opinion, since retailers wouldn’t as easily be able to trick you into a new credit card as part of the checkout process.

KeepFlying 5y ago
People with stable living situations can more easily keep track of all their official paperwork and spend the time needed to understand the application process. They also have more access to the internet to do things remotely. Poor people are more often in less stable living situations and it's easier to lose track of documentation. Not to mention unhoused people who don't have a safe place to keep track of things either and often don't have up to date identification in the first place. Also, with less access to the internet to do things remotely it's more common to need to take time off work to go to a physical branch which may be very far away, requiring taking multiple busses just to prove their identity. Of course adding more security is important, but it has tradeoffs like this that harm the poor that need to be considered.
kalleboo 5y ago
I believe the arguments are the same as the ones against Voter ID, which you can see here https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...

throwaway98797 5y ago

Maybe we should basic accounts as a public utility. Maybe even funded by the banks. These accounts always bounce checks and payments.