3 ms·

isn't this almost like a cartel move

ceejayoz 4y ago
Laws against cartels in the US say things like "in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce". Propping a competitor up in this nature is fairly hard to argue as "restraint of trade".
icegreentea2 4y ago
Yes-ish. Let's be real, banking is a public-private partnership. While it IS significant that the banks themselves are doing this, and not the Fed/FDIC, it would also seem quite possible (likely?) to be some nudging from the Fed/Treasury. Some form of "hey, we did our part (the new emergency backstop), you guys need to show you're worth this effort". While the top-tier of banking is obviously in competition with each other, they're also bound together by their shared interest in the status quo, and then doubling bound together by the Fed/USG also being very interested in the status quo. So it's cartel-like, but it would be a mistake to only include the banks as members of the cartel.
honeybadger1 4y ago
They are colluding to keep a repeatedly failing system alive.
- Lolaccount 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- pjc50 4y ago
  This is like saying a bunch of nodes behind a load balancer are "colluding to keep a failing system alive" when one of them fails over; it's technically correct but .. you don't actually want the system to fail? Because people are using it?
  - thewildginger 4y ago
    But a possibly better and more optimized implementation can't be put in place until the current one fails, that's the core issue here. Many people want reforms to the banking system, bit the system is defended fiercely until it's un-ignorable. This is a defense of god awful ways of doing things so the general public can ignore it. Banks directly acting to help their competition? Why? Isn't that how competition is supposed to work? What we're seeing is yet another version of capital and capitalism in decline, and rich financiers are still claiming the empire is wearing a wonderful robe. News flash! he's wearing nothing at all.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      > But a possibly better and more optimized implementation can't be put in place until the current one fails That's like saying we can't implement renewable energy until the grid goes dark, and the best way to get reform is to go round blowing up some power stations. People are depending on this infrastructure to work! Advocating for bank failures without regard to the consequences to the users is the sort of accelerationism that you normally only hear from revolutionary Communists. What is the acceptable level of collateral damage from bank failures to you?

Laws against cartels in the US say things like "in restraint of trade or commerce" and "monopolize any part of the trade or commerce". Propping a competitor up in this nature is fairly hard to argue as "restraint of trade".

icegreentea2 4y ago

Yes-ish. Let's be real, banking is a public-private partnership. While it IS significant that the banks themselves are doing this, and not the Fed/FDIC, it would also seem quite possible (likely?) to be some nudging from the Fed/Treasury. Some form of "hey, we did our part (the new emergency backstop), you guys need to show you're worth this effort". While the top-tier of banking is obviously in competition with each other, they're also bound together by their shared interest in the status quo, and then doubling bound together by the Fed/USG also being very interested in the status quo. So it's cartel-like, but it would be a mistake to only include the banks as members of the cartel.

honeybadger1 4y ago

They are colluding to keep a repeatedly failing system alive.

Lolaccount 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
pjc50 4y ago
This is like saying a bunch of nodes behind a load balancer are "colluding to keep a failing system alive" when one of them fails over; it's technically correct but .. you don't actually want the system to fail? Because people are using it?
- thewildginger 4y ago
  But a possibly better and more optimized implementation can't be put in place until the current one fails, that's the core issue here. Many people want reforms to the banking system, bit the system is defended fiercely until it's un-ignorable. This is a defense of god awful ways of doing things so the general public can ignore it. Banks directly acting to help their competition? Why? Isn't that how competition is supposed to work? What we're seeing is yet another version of capital and capitalism in decline, and rich financiers are still claiming the empire is wearing a wonderful robe. News flash! he's wearing nothing at all.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    > But a possibly better and more optimized implementation can't be put in place until the current one fails That's like saying we can't implement renewable energy until the grid goes dark, and the best way to get reform is to go round blowing up some power stations. People are depending on this infrastructure to work! Advocating for bank failures without regard to the consequences to the users is the sort of accelerationism that you normally only hear from revolutionary Communists. What is the acceptable level of collateral damage from bank failures to you?