5 ms·

What's the point of this windy article? An allusion to "debanking people is OK actually!" Allowing the bank remove your financial lifeline via some opaque and

What's the point of this windy article? An allusion to "debanking people is OK actually!" Allowing the bank remove your financial lifeline via some opaque and kafkaesque process where you have zero recourse is not OK and we should not tolerate it.

wbl 2y ago
There are many banks out there that aggressively complete.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  This is a valid point. Banks should compete for customers by providing value. They should also be free to decline customers to ensure quality. However, debanking due to perceived or real regulatory risk is ultimately a political act. The banks may not be exclusively political actors, but they are incentivized to act outside of market concerns by state pressure. Similarly, one of the alleged intentions of the cryptocurrency movement was to decouple the state from monetary control.
  - wbl 2y ago
    No it isn't political it's a "you guys are expensive and flighty and killed two banks that served you" decision. VCs pull money out of banks having a hard time while JP Morgan put money in.
- stainablesteel 2y ago
  there's really only a small number of banks in the US after the 2008 crash, they were all consolidated. what used to be thousands became like 3
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    At the end of 2023, there were still over 4000 commercial banks in the US. https://banks.data.fdic.gov/explore/historical/?displayFields=STNAME%2CTOTAL%2CBRANCHES%2CNew_Char&selectedEndDate=2023&selectedReport=CBS&selectedStartDate=1934&selectedStates=0&sortField=YEAR&sortOrder=desc https://banks.data.fdic.gov/explore/historical/?displayField...
erwin-co 2y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > any form of "political debanking" — where financial services are withdrawn or denied based on political beliefs or expression is completely unacceptable RTFA. He goes into great detail around how someone naive can conclude they were disconnected based on political beliefs when in reality it's something mundane or stupid. Misdiagnosing the problem as political debanking entrenches the problem. We have a problem with access to financial services, particularly for small businesses. But it won't be solved (except for crypto) if it's branded as political debanking.
  - lmm 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > not a coincidence that the mundane or stupid reasons happen overwhelmingly more often to people with the wrong political beliefs RTFA. It doesn't. The author opens with examples where it happened to him. He shows that debanking is disturbingly common in America, with the communication and knowledge around it badly distributed. Mischaracterising it as an attack on political beliefs plays into the ignorance that gave rise to the problem in the first place.
      - lmm 2y ago
        > The author opens with examples where it happened to him. He shows that debanking is disturbingly common in America As another post said, it's interesting how he's able to have that experience and simultaneously believe that "This will affect the typical user of the financial system precisely zero times during their lives." (But I don't think he does have the "right" political beliefs, not all of them).
- deleted 2y ago
tadfisher 2y ago
This is specifically a response to Andreessen conflating crypto offboarding with "debanking" on Rogan. The goal is to inform you about the regulatory and political environment around banking and crypto in general, and to warn you to be wary when a crypto investor uses terms like "debanking" to rally favor for their cause, which is to integrate crypto into the banking sector.
empath75 2y ago
> An allusion to "debanking people is OK actually!" Literally the opposite of what he says. He says it happens too often to too many people, and that mostly it happens to people who are immigrants or don't speak english well or are financially illiterate, or just generally people at the margins, and not to privileged crypto bros.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >>> An allusion to "debanking people is OK actually!" >Literally the opposite of what he says. In that case the message is lost in the wall of text.
timerol 2y ago
The point is that reality is more complicated than short statements (which often embed political assumptions) can express, and understanding the reality of the situation is useful, especially to people who want to change the system.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
> What's the point of this windy article? Ah, I had the same reaction (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387392). Seems like an article meant to distract, or a someone nerding off on the nuances with no solutions offered.

wbl 2y ago

There are many banks out there that aggressively complete.

palmfacehn 2y ago
This is a valid point. Banks should compete for customers by providing value. They should also be free to decline customers to ensure quality. However, debanking due to perceived or real regulatory risk is ultimately a political act. The banks may not be exclusively political actors, but they are incentivized to act outside of market concerns by state pressure. Similarly, one of the alleged intentions of the cryptocurrency movement was to decouple the state from monetary control.
- wbl 2y ago
  No it isn't political it's a "you guys are expensive and flighty and killed two banks that served you" decision. VCs pull money out of banks having a hard time while JP Morgan put money in.
stainablesteel 2y ago
there's really only a small number of banks in the US after the 2008 crash, they were all consolidated. what used to be thousands became like 3
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  At the end of 2023, there were still over 4000 commercial banks in the US. https://banks.data.fdic.gov/explore/historical/?displayFields=STNAME%2CTOTAL%2CBRANCHES%2CNew_Char&selectedEndDate=2023&selectedReport=CBS&selectedStartDate=1934&selectedStates=0&sortField=YEAR&sortOrder=desc https://banks.data.fdic.gov/explore/historical/?displayField...

erwin-co 2y ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> any form of "political debanking" — where financial services are withdrawn or denied based on political beliefs or expression is completely unacceptable RTFA. He goes into great detail around how someone naive can conclude they were disconnected based on political beliefs when in reality it's something mundane or stupid. Misdiagnosing the problem as political debanking entrenches the problem. We have a problem with access to financial services, particularly for small businesses. But it won't be solved (except for crypto) if it's branded as political debanking.
- lmm 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > not a coincidence that the mundane or stupid reasons happen overwhelmingly more often to people with the wrong political beliefs RTFA. It doesn't. The author opens with examples where it happened to him. He shows that debanking is disturbingly common in America, with the communication and knowledge around it badly distributed. Mischaracterising it as an attack on political beliefs plays into the ignorance that gave rise to the problem in the first place.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > The author opens with examples where it happened to him. He shows that debanking is disturbingly common in America As another post said, it's interesting how he's able to have that experience and simultaneously believe that "This will affect the typical user of the financial system precisely zero times during their lives." (But I don't think he does have the "right" political beliefs, not all of them).
deleted 2y ago

tadfisher 2y ago

This is specifically a response to Andreessen conflating crypto offboarding with "debanking" on Rogan. The goal is to inform you about the regulatory and political environment around banking and crypto in general, and to warn you to be wary when a crypto investor uses terms like "debanking" to rally favor for their cause, which is to integrate crypto into the banking sector.

empath75 2y ago

> An allusion to "debanking people is OK actually!" Literally the opposite of what he says. He says it happens too often to too many people, and that mostly it happens to people who are immigrants or don't speak english well or are financially illiterate, or just generally people at the margins, and not to privileged crypto bros.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>>> An allusion to "debanking people is OK actually!" >Literally the opposite of what he says. In that case the message is lost in the wall of text.

timerol 2y ago

The point is that reality is more complicated than short statements (which often embed political assumptions) can express, and understanding the reality of the situation is useful, especially to people who want to change the system.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

> What's the point of this windy article? Ah, I had the same reaction (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387392). Seems like an article meant to distract, or a someone nerding off on the nuances with no solutions offered.