5 ms·

White House Preps Order to Punish Banks That Discriminate Against Conservatives

57 points by jaredwiener 1y ago

SilverElfin 1y ago
Good. Debanking and censorship through blocking payments or withdrawals or storage is bad for free societies. All sides should be against this.
- techpineapple 1y ago
  Im a little concerned by the combo “and crypto companies” in fact I don’t think this is for ideological reasons I think this is for risk reasons. All sides should be against this. Also, isn’t this coming at the same time as laws that say doctors can refuse patients for ideological reasons? Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?
  - nullc 1y ago
    > Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies? The EO isn't out yet-- it might. Might not. Right now the incentives are such that banks are likely to crap on anything they think the federal government may not like, because there are infinity penalties available for displeasing the government and nothing but losing a customer on the other side. So anything that shifts the balance at all may have a fairly broad effect at improving access to banking.
    - techpineapple 1y ago
      And we think the administration that had used all its weight to get educational institutions to do its bidding is going to apply this fairly? If so why is this an EO and not an act of Congress? (And the answer to c the marijuana question is no, not as long as marijuana is still illegal
- clipsy 1y ago
  You're right that debanking shouldn't be allowed; but the solution should be legislation that bans or heavily regulates debanking across the board, not executive fiat that specifically protects the president's friends and allies.
  - bediger4000 1y ago
    What about customers that slide into unsavory activity, or customers who you think are doing illegal things, but don't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Are citizens not allowed to decide not to associate with someone? I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      Citizens as individuals, sure. But banks that are massively concentrated are more like public utilities not individual citizens, in terms of their criticality to a functioning society. They need to be regulated like that.
      - evanjrowley 1y ago
        Both US banks and utilities are considered critical infrastructure under Executive Order 13636 of 2013. The government is charged with ensuring their resilience and availability to maintain a stable society (in the face of cyber threats). If politics is a risk to stability (I know at least one fortune 100 finance company that does have it in their risk register) then this Trump executive order against de-banking is aligns with the former one from the Obama administration. A defense against de-banking is a bi-partisan win.
    - switknee 1y ago
      How often do cellphone companies ban drug dealers?
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    The executive order is not expected to be specific to the “the president's friends and allies”, but just politically motivated bank actions in general. But I agree, legislation is preferable. And I wouldn’t support such an executive action if it were one sided.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- fracus 1y ago
  It's really disheartening when people completely miss the underlying issue, whether in good faith or bad. This is another cut to you democracy to its death by a thousand cuts. This should be obvious to everyone by now.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    Yep. Next in line is going to be debanking political opponents and opposition PACs, preventing them from campaigning effectively. And from the news yesterday, Texas has already taken a step ahead and has begun trying to arrest Democrats who are out-of-state. William Dudley Pelley and George Rockwell would be so proud of the Republican party today.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Don't we allow pretty much everybody to discriminate based on viewpoint? Except the government, and common carriers. Nobody is going to force me to do business with Nazis, for instance, regardless of any executive order.
  - polski-g 1y ago
    Unless the employee is in a union, unless you're a landlord in a state that protects political ideology in housing, unless you're an employer in a state that protects political ideology, unless you're a hospital that takes Medicare. Lots of government rules that force you to do business with nazis
- footlose_3815 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... Thoughts? You must feel conflicted. Since Trump's actions are in violation of this logic.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    Why would I feel conflicted? One is about cakes from a small business with lots of alternatives for customers to choose from. The other is about large banks which are few in number, have privileged access, immense power, and provide a public utility.
    - PenguinCoder 1y ago
      In what world view does it make sense that banks provide a public utility? They're profit seeking, risk averse, Con men run businesses that work to extract as much "value" (money) as they can, from you, to give to others.
      - evanjrowley 1y ago
        In one brilliant sentence, you've described both Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) and Wells Fargo.
      - user____name 1y ago
        Banks also create currency and manage all transactions in the economy. How is that not a public utility?
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      There are over 4000 FDIC insured banks in the US, and another almost 3000 FDIC supervised banks, along with over 4000 credit unions. This is nowhere near a monopoly situation.
duxup 1y ago
I assume like all things this administration this is really just pressure to favor their friends and causes. Time and again this administration's claims are "stop this bad thing other people do" and the result is just "do it for me ... but more".
- bilbo-b-baggins 1y ago
  It’s so they can launder bribes through crypto back into legitimate banking.
footlose_3815 1y ago
Supreme court said people could deny business to anyone for any reason during the gay couple cake fiasco, no? If dude wasn't fed from a silver spoon, he'd know better and watch his lying mouth.
- nullc 1y ago
  A government regulated quasi monopoly national conglomerate providing an off the shelf product and a small business providing custom work to-spec aren't the same thing.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    > quasi monopoly lol what? What amazingly convoluted definition of "monopoly" do you get to describe the banks?
    - nullc 1y ago
      Go ahead and open one, lemme know how that goes.
      - lesuorac 1y ago
        lol, go ahead and open a distillery. It seems like there are 4471 banks regulated by the FDIC [1]. That's not the definition of a monopoly just a regulated industry. [1]: https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/financialreporting/report https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/financialreportin...
    - os2warpman 1y ago
      Anything they don't like or anything governed by any regulation whatsoever is, to some people, a "monopoly". Practically any person anywhere in the US can start a bank, provided they possess the capital needed and the ability to fill out forms, although it is somewhat easier to start a credit union. There's even an online form to start the process of founding a credit union: https://ncua.gov/support-services/credit-union-resources-expansion/starting-new-federal-credit-union/federal-credit-union-proof-concept-form https://ncua.gov/support-services/credit-union-resources-exp... It's so easy that small hospitals and large churches and school district teachers' unions have done it. I deposit my paycheck in a tiny credit union that is so small that we had a member's meeting one year where practically every single member showed up and fit inside a large ballroom. And we have an app, digital wallets, everything. The only thing stopping people from starting banks is the fact that you need a shit-ton of cash on hand. It's the same with ISPs. For over 30 years, in the US, any person any where has been able to get a franchise agreement with the same exact terms as incumbents. With no exceptions. There is not a linear millimeter of public right-of-way that you can't get permission to install fiber in. Downtown Manhattan, suburban Houston, middle-of-nowhere barren Alaska, doesn't matter. You can run NG-PON2 to every house in the country and have your net-neutral capless fantasyland. You just need a shit-ton of cash and you need to demonstrate to the jurisdictions that you won't dig a bunch of trenches and abandon the effort and leave the trenches open when you run out of money. But that's still a "monopoly" to many people. Give me $50 million and I'll start filling out the forms to start a bank the day after the cash is in my hands. I'd advise you that there are better ways of spending that money and that a small credit union would probably fit your needs better, but I'd do it.
mitchbob 1y ago
https://archive.ph/XujI9 https://archive.ph/XujI9
minelbu 1y ago
[dead]
rapjr9 1y ago
Isn't this order an example of DEI? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity%2C_equity%2C_and_inclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity%2C_equity%2C_and_inc... The President would seem to be saying that conservatives have historically been discriminated against, not treated equally, and excluded by banks, and banks that continue to do this should be punished. As a DEI executive order it should serve as an example for punishing any corporation that discriminates, excludes and is unequal in it's policies, and sets a great legal precedent for all DEI policies and a reversal of all administration anti-DEI policies. The executive order would also seem to be "woke" in that it supports underprivileged conservatives who are being discriminated against.
millzlane 1y ago
I have never been asked by a bank, credit union, or investment broker if I am conservative. Can a conservative explain to me What the hell is the issue?

57 points by jaredwiener 1y ago

Good. Debanking and censorship through blocking payments or withdrawals or storage is bad for free societies. All sides should be against this.

techpineapple 1y ago
Im a little concerned by the combo “and crypto companies” in fact I don’t think this is for ideological reasons I think this is for risk reasons. All sides should be against this. Also, isn’t this coming at the same time as laws that say doctors can refuse patients for ideological reasons? Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies?
- nullc 1y ago
  > Would this prevent banks from targeting marijuana companies? The EO isn't out yet-- it might. Might not. Right now the incentives are such that banks are likely to crap on anything they think the federal government may not like, because there are infinity penalties available for displeasing the government and nothing but losing a customer on the other side. So anything that shifts the balance at all may have a fairly broad effect at improving access to banking.
  - techpineapple 1y ago
    And we think the administration that had used all its weight to get educational institutions to do its bidding is going to apply this fairly? If so why is this an EO and not an act of Congress? (And the answer to c the marijuana question is no, not as long as marijuana is still illegal
clipsy 1y ago
You're right that debanking shouldn't be allowed; but the solution should be legislation that bans or heavily regulates debanking across the board, not executive fiat that specifically protects the president's friends and allies.
- bediger4000 1y ago
  What about customers that slide into unsavory activity, or customers who you think are doing illegal things, but don't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Are citizens not allowed to decide not to associate with someone? I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    Citizens as individuals, sure. But banks that are massively concentrated are more like public utilities not individual citizens, in terms of their criticality to a functioning society. They need to be regulated like that.
    - evanjrowley 1y ago
      Both US banks and utilities are considered critical infrastructure under Executive Order 13636 of 2013. The government is charged with ensuring their resilience and availability to maintain a stable society (in the face of cyber threats). If politics is a risk to stability (I know at least one fortune 100 finance company that does have it in their risk register) then this Trump executive order against de-banking is aligns with the former one from the Obama administration. A defense against de-banking is a bi-partisan win.
  - switknee 1y ago
    How often do cellphone companies ban drug dealers?
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  The executive order is not expected to be specific to the “the president's friends and allies”, but just politically motivated bank actions in general. But I agree, legislation is preferable. And I wouldn’t support such an executive action if it were one sided.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
fracus 1y ago
It's really disheartening when people completely miss the underlying issue, whether in good faith or bad. This is another cut to you democracy to its death by a thousand cuts. This should be obvious to everyone by now.
- fakedang 1y ago
  Yep. Next in line is going to be debanking political opponents and opposition PACs, preventing them from campaigning effectively. And from the news yesterday, Texas has already taken a step ahead and has begun trying to arrest Democrats who are out-of-state. William Dudley Pelley and George Rockwell would be so proud of the Republican party today.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Don't we allow pretty much everybody to discriminate based on viewpoint? Except the government, and common carriers. Nobody is going to force me to do business with Nazis, for instance, regardless of any executive order.
- polski-g 1y ago
  Unless the employee is in a union, unless you're a landlord in a state that protects political ideology in housing, unless you're an employer in a state that protects political ideology, unless you're a hospital that takes Medicare. Lots of government rules that force you to do business with nazis
footlose_3815 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora... Thoughts? You must feel conflicted. Since Trump's actions are in violation of this logic.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Why would I feel conflicted? One is about cakes from a small business with lots of alternatives for customers to choose from. The other is about large banks which are few in number, have privileged access, immense power, and provide a public utility.
  - PenguinCoder 1y ago
    In what world view does it make sense that banks provide a public utility? They're profit seeking, risk averse, Con men run businesses that work to extract as much "value" (money) as they can, from you, to give to others.
    - evanjrowley 1y ago
      In one brilliant sentence, you've described both Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) and Wells Fargo.
    - user____name 1y ago
      Banks also create currency and manage all transactions in the economy. How is that not a public utility?
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    There are over 4000 FDIC insured banks in the US, and another almost 3000 FDIC supervised banks, along with over 4000 credit unions. This is nowhere near a monopoly situation.

duxup 1y ago

I assume like all things this administration this is really just pressure to favor their friends and causes. Time and again this administration's claims are "stop this bad thing other people do" and the result is just "do it for me ... but more".

bilbo-b-baggins 1y ago
It’s so they can launder bribes through crypto back into legitimate banking.

footlose_3815 1y ago

Supreme court said people could deny business to anyone for any reason during the gay couple cake fiasco, no? If dude wasn't fed from a silver spoon, he'd know better and watch his lying mouth.

nullc 1y ago
A government regulated quasi monopoly national conglomerate providing an off the shelf product and a small business providing custom work to-spec aren't the same thing.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  > quasi monopoly lol what? What amazingly convoluted definition of "monopoly" do you get to describe the banks?
  - nullc 1y ago
    Go ahead and open one, lemme know how that goes.
    - lesuorac 1y ago
      lol, go ahead and open a distillery. It seems like there are 4471 banks regulated by the FDIC [1]. That's not the definition of a monopoly just a regulated industry. [1]: https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/financialreporting/report https://banks.data.fdic.gov/bankfind-suite/financialreportin...
  - os2warpman 1y ago
    Anything they don't like or anything governed by any regulation whatsoever is, to some people, a "monopoly". Practically any person anywhere in the US can start a bank, provided they possess the capital needed and the ability to fill out forms, although it is somewhat easier to start a credit union. There's even an online form to start the process of founding a credit union: https://ncua.gov/support-services/credit-union-resources-expansion/starting-new-federal-credit-union/federal-credit-union-proof-concept-form https://ncua.gov/support-services/credit-union-resources-exp... It's so easy that small hospitals and large churches and school district teachers' unions have done it. I deposit my paycheck in a tiny credit union that is so small that we had a member's meeting one year where practically every single member showed up and fit inside a large ballroom. And we have an app, digital wallets, everything. The only thing stopping people from starting banks is the fact that you need a shit-ton of cash on hand. It's the same with ISPs. For over 30 years, in the US, any person any where has been able to get a franchise agreement with the same exact terms as incumbents. With no exceptions. There is not a linear millimeter of public right-of-way that you can't get permission to install fiber in. Downtown Manhattan, suburban Houston, middle-of-nowhere barren Alaska, doesn't matter. You can run NG-PON2 to every house in the country and have your net-neutral capless fantasyland. You just need a shit-ton of cash and you need to demonstrate to the jurisdictions that you won't dig a bunch of trenches and abandon the effort and leave the trenches open when you run out of money. But that's still a "monopoly" to many people. Give me $50 million and I'll start filling out the forms to start a bank the day after the cash is in my hands. I'd advise you that there are better ways of spending that money and that a small credit union would probably fit your needs better, but I'd do it.

mitchbob 1y ago

https://archive.ph/XujI9 https://archive.ph/XujI9

minelbu 1y ago

[dead]

rapjr9 1y ago

Isn't this order an example of DEI? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity%2C_equity%2C_and_inclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity%2C_equity%2C_and_inc... The President would seem to be saying that conservatives have historically been discriminated against, not treated equally, and excluded by banks, and banks that continue to do this should be punished. As a DEI executive order it should serve as an example for punishing any corporation that discriminates, excludes and is unequal in it's policies, and sets a great legal precedent for all DEI policies and a reversal of all administration anti-DEI policies. The executive order would also seem to be "woke" in that it supports underprivileged conservatives who are being discriminated against.

millzlane 1y ago

I have never been asked by a bank, credit union, or investment broker if I am conservative. Can a conservative explain to me What the hell is the issue?