5 ms·

My tinfoil hat view of this is that it's part of a creeping state takeover of banking in everything but name. 1. assume the liabilities of the banking system (

My tinfoil hat view of this is that it's part of a creeping state takeover of banking in everything but name. 1. assume the liabilities of the banking system (complete in 2008) 2. induce consolidation of the industry into a few megabanks with the "systemically important" designation making small banks dangerous (in progress) 3. use the government protection as leverage to make these few remaining banks obey government priorities without ever having to pass a law. e.g. effective censorship of entities the government doesn't like by cutting off from the banking system entirely (the goal)

ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago
More like the other way around
ThunderSizzle 4y ago
> use the government protection as leverage to make these few remaining banks obey government priorities without ever having to pass a law Ala fascism. Government control of private business without government actually owning those businesses.
- CPLX 4y ago
  You sure it’s not the other way around? As far as I can tell what’s actually happening is business has taken over government.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    It's effectively the same. Monarchy isn't a king ruling over lords, it's a king balancing the interests of the lords so that they continue to grant him his kingship. A king who fails to balance this properly can easily lose his head. Monarchies are just disguised oligarchies, and e.g. Fascist Germany was no different - Hitler had to balance the interests of the various groups against each other enough so as not to lose his head, which in the end completely failed at the toll of millions dead. A government "controlling" megacorps also need to balance these megacorps & other mega-influencers so that no one group becomes too powerful and too dissatisfied enough to overturn the current ruling system. Megacorps like Google obviously have plenty of tools at their disposal even in a democracy with "fair & free & secure elections" via shadow-banning, increasing prices/costs, curtailing suggestions, labeling disinformation, decreasing visibility, etc., to attempt to sway public opinion sufficiently to cause a desirable election outcome. This is before even attempting to actually sway elections via election rigging, ballot stuffing, etc., or bypass elections entirely through some sort of pseudo-paramilitary action (e.g. coup). Of course, the more blatant these actions become, the more the interests of the other important influences can come into play (e.g. if Google ever did attempt a paramilitary coup, they would need heavy support elsewhere to ensure the military or the States didn't stop it), whereas Google shadow-banning certain political views can go largely ignored if it's not perceived by the public to matter much.
HWR_14 4y ago
Step 3 doesn't make sense. All banks have government protections (eg FDIC). The government already has KYC and AML laws that apply to all banks. Consolidation doesn't make the banks more susceptible to government influence. Big banks can afford to outspend the government on lawyers pushing back, it's small banks that just agree to do what the government says.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  The idea that you can outspend someone on lawyers and beat them in court is nonsense that only works on the scale of <$1 million. And, yes, of course the government can make banks crack down on people who are breaking the law, but I'm talking about people who aren't.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Money is an excellent proxy for legal muscle. the argument was that bigger banks are more susceptible to informal extra legal influence, but expensive lawyers make enforcing your rights easier to do. See also SEC enforcements and IRS actions, both of which are harsher on smaller actors. Heck, look at the Disney vs DeSantis history.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      The only way you can beat someone in a lawsuit with money alone (jurisdictions where you can bribe judges excepted), is by preventing the case from ever getting in front of a judge. It costs a certain amount of money to take a case to trial, and that can be a lot depending on the complexity of the case. But that's a lot to an individual, not to a corporation. Once you can spend that much, you actually have to go in front of a judge and win on merit. The reason that IRS and SEC enforcement actions are harsher on small actors is because they break the law in much more obvious and stupid ways. e.g. not declaring taxable income and writing off obviously personal expenses. Large companies do not do this because the IRS splits penalties with whistleblowers, and any major company hiding income this way would be snitched out in a millisecond by their employees looking for the multi million dollar payout. Large companies do things that exploit loopholes and gray areas in the law, and the IRS is much more inclined to settle when their is a chance they may lose in court if they take it all the way.
loeg 4y ago
This is dumb because step (3) is already the state of the world. Banks are essentially extensions of the government. It's a public-private partnership. Yes, the government absolutely wants to cut off some entities from the banking system (terrorists, criminal cartels, etc). This is "censorship" only in some extremely naive and reductive sense.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  Not all entities the government sanctions through extralegal pressure campaigns are actually illegal (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point) Now perhaps you don’t care if a gun dealer can’t get a bank account but every 4 years there’s a presidential election and maybe the next person wants to cut off abortion clinics from the banking system.
  - loeg 4y ago
    Again, to the extent this is a concern, that is already the state of the world. You don’t need a conspiracy theory where it is the last step.
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      When there are thousands of banks, it's a near certainty that at least one will decide to bank the unpopular but perfectly legal industry, and say "come at me bro, we'll win in court" to the government. With 4 megabanks, not so much.
lamontcg 4y ago
Dunno how you can see the problem of massive corporate consolidation and yet miss the entire mark so badly. The regulatory toothlessness of the government means that the businesses can de facto write their own laws. Same thing is happening in healthcare with the takeover there by a few religiously affiliated corporations, which will affect everyone's choices about their own healthcare. We've been screaming about how the government is horrible since Reagan in the 1980s and we're on the cusp of really bearing the fruits of that decades long shift of power to completely unaccountable corporations. But yeah, its the government which is still obviously the problem.

ikekkdcjkfke 4y ago

More like the other way around

ThunderSizzle 4y ago

> use the government protection as leverage to make these few remaining banks obey government priorities without ever having to pass a law Ala fascism. Government control of private business without government actually owning those businesses.

CPLX 4y ago
You sure it’s not the other way around? As far as I can tell what’s actually happening is business has taken over government.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  It's effectively the same. Monarchy isn't a king ruling over lords, it's a king balancing the interests of the lords so that they continue to grant him his kingship. A king who fails to balance this properly can easily lose his head. Monarchies are just disguised oligarchies, and e.g. Fascist Germany was no different - Hitler had to balance the interests of the various groups against each other enough so as not to lose his head, which in the end completely failed at the toll of millions dead. A government "controlling" megacorps also need to balance these megacorps & other mega-influencers so that no one group becomes too powerful and too dissatisfied enough to overturn the current ruling system. Megacorps like Google obviously have plenty of tools at their disposal even in a democracy with "fair & free & secure elections" via shadow-banning, increasing prices/costs, curtailing suggestions, labeling disinformation, decreasing visibility, etc., to attempt to sway public opinion sufficiently to cause a desirable election outcome. This is before even attempting to actually sway elections via election rigging, ballot stuffing, etc., or bypass elections entirely through some sort of pseudo-paramilitary action (e.g. coup). Of course, the more blatant these actions become, the more the interests of the other important influences can come into play (e.g. if Google ever did attempt a paramilitary coup, they would need heavy support elsewhere to ensure the military or the States didn't stop it), whereas Google shadow-banning certain political views can go largely ignored if it's not perceived by the public to matter much.

HWR_14 4y ago

Step 3 doesn't make sense. All banks have government protections (eg FDIC). The government already has KYC and AML laws that apply to all banks. Consolidation doesn't make the banks more susceptible to government influence. Big banks can afford to outspend the government on lawyers pushing back, it's small banks that just agree to do what the government says.

fallingknife 4y ago
The idea that you can outspend someone on lawyers and beat them in court is nonsense that only works on the scale of <$1 million. And, yes, of course the government can make banks crack down on people who are breaking the law, but I'm talking about people who aren't.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Money is an excellent proxy for legal muscle. the argument was that bigger banks are more susceptible to informal extra legal influence, but expensive lawyers make enforcing your rights easier to do. See also SEC enforcements and IRS actions, both of which are harsher on smaller actors. Heck, look at the Disney vs DeSantis history.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    The only way you can beat someone in a lawsuit with money alone (jurisdictions where you can bribe judges excepted), is by preventing the case from ever getting in front of a judge. It costs a certain amount of money to take a case to trial, and that can be a lot depending on the complexity of the case. But that's a lot to an individual, not to a corporation. Once you can spend that much, you actually have to go in front of a judge and win on merit. The reason that IRS and SEC enforcement actions are harsher on small actors is because they break the law in much more obvious and stupid ways. e.g. not declaring taxable income and writing off obviously personal expenses. Large companies do not do this because the IRS splits penalties with whistleblowers, and any major company hiding income this way would be snitched out in a millisecond by their employees looking for the multi million dollar payout. Large companies do things that exploit loopholes and gray areas in the law, and the IRS is much more inclined to settle when their is a chance they may lose in court if they take it all the way.

loeg 4y ago

This is dumb because step (3) is already the state of the world. Banks are essentially extensions of the government. It's a public-private partnership. Yes, the government absolutely wants to cut off some entities from the banking system (terrorists, criminal cartels, etc). This is "censorship" only in some extremely naive and reductive sense.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
Not all entities the government sanctions through extralegal pressure campaigns are actually illegal (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point) Now perhaps you don’t care if a gun dealer can’t get a bank account but every 4 years there’s a presidential election and maybe the next person wants to cut off abortion clinics from the banking system.
- loeg 4y ago
  Again, to the extent this is a concern, that is already the state of the world. You don’t need a conspiracy theory where it is the last step.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    When there are thousands of banks, it's a near certainty that at least one will decide to bank the unpopular but perfectly legal industry, and say "come at me bro, we'll win in court" to the government. With 4 megabanks, not so much.

lamontcg 4y ago

Dunno how you can see the problem of massive corporate consolidation and yet miss the entire mark so badly. The regulatory toothlessness of the government means that the businesses can de facto write their own laws. Same thing is happening in healthcare with the takeover there by a few religiously affiliated corporations, which will affect everyone's choices about their own healthcare. We've been screaming about how the government is horrible since Reagan in the 1980s and we're on the cusp of really bearing the fruits of that decades long shift of power to completely unaccountable corporations. But yeah, its the government which is still obviously the problem.