Fair Access to Financial Services (OCC-2020-0042-0001)

[hundredpercent]

To be fair that's happening right now.

 

[muh_moobs]

if the government threw you and your retard friend into a hole it'd help me out because I wouldn't have two retards advocating against the interests of this community on this community

I'm not advocating anything.

I'm just pointing out that groveling before a bunch of faggots controlled by kikes and chinks isn't going to get you what you want. The foreign interests and bankers have already bought your government and your country out from under you. It's foolish to think that a bunch of sellouts and traitors are going to ride in and save the day.

The government doesn't want your life better. It has to be worse so that you in turn ask for more government.

 

[Dread First]

Why is it only an issue when private organizations do these things? The government already does all of that, and as you say, government makes everything better!

This is how you sound right now, just FYI.

 

[Bob Barker]

Banking works like this:
1) I give the bank $X
2) The bank lends out $X-(reserve req.) to some other guy
3) That guy pays them Y% interest
4) The bank takes a cut and pay me Y-n% interest

If I give them $100, it's in my best interest that as much of this is lent out. Why do I, as a customer, want excessive reserve requirements?

Because you want the bank to be able to pay you back. If they don't have to keep a reserve ratio, they will lend out more than they should and you will have banks failing. You don't want the people who manage your money to be able to do so however they please.

 

[Thomas Paine]

View attachment 1822034

This is how you sound right now, just FYI.

I think he's trying to say that the foot is both corpos and governments. Since now governments and corpos only serve each other's interests

 

[muh_moobs]

View attachment 1822034

This is how you sound right now, just FYI.

Both are bad. Corporatism is just as shitty as large bureaucracy

 

[Cardboard Box Mountain]

Done. I explained to them that since our economy is in the shitter, this would be the best solution currently available, or at least part of one.

 

[Bob Barker]

Why is it only an issue when private organizations do these things? The government already does all of that

Because the government's explicit purpose is to help the people. Because the government was designed from the ground up to help the people. Because the government was built to have checks and balances within it to accomplish the goal of helping people. Private corporations? They have none of these things inherent to them. They seek profit and profit only.

And yes, the government does a *horrible* job of actually accomplishing its purpose of helping people. Its still fucking better than letting everyone fuck over eachother please.

and as you say, government makes everything better!

Saying the government isn't satan doesn't mean I think they are jesus either. Only an autist deals in absolutes.

 

[hundredpercent]

Because you want the bank to be able to pay you back. If they don't have to keep a reserve ratio, they will lend out more than they should and you will have banks failing. You don't want the people who manage your money to be able to do so however they please.

There's much simpler ways to go at this than government regulation. For example, banks, by law, could just have to publicly display a sign with the reserve ratio they keep, but they can choose what this is. Or the FDIC could refuse to insure banks with a reserve ratio below X%.

This is how it works with interest rates and everything else. Why should reserve rates be any different? The free market really could handle this.

 

[muh_moobs]

Because the government's explicit purpose is to help the people. Because the government was designed from the ground up to help the people. Because the government was built to have checks and balances within it to accomplish the goal of helping people. Private corporations? They have none of these things inherent to them. They seek profit and profit only.

And yes, the government does a *horrible* job of actually accomplishing its purpose of helping people. Its still fucking better than letting everyone fuck over eachother please.


Saying the government isn't satan doesn't mean I think they are jesus either. Only an autist deals in absolutes.

Government doesn't exist to help people. It never has. Government exists solely to maintain order. Most modern day corporations have all of the same mechanisms of government because they all model themselves after the government. Where do you think the phrase "corporate governance" comes from?

If you think Government Inc. is any better or any more concerned about your comfort than McDonalds or Wal-Mart, think again. To the corporation, all you are is an employee number representing dollars out. And to the government, all you are is a tax number representing dollars in. Neither cares about you, and when you are removed from the picture another cog is dropped into the machine in your place.

 

[Bob Barker]

There's much simpler ways to go at this than government regulation. For example, banks, by law, could just have to publicly display a sign with the reserve ratio they keep, but they can choose what this is. Or the FDIC could refuse to insure banks with a reserve ratio below X%.

This is how it works with interest rates and everything else. Why should reserve rates be any different? The free market really could handle this.

What specific regulations would you want repealed?

Government doesn't exist to help people. It never has. Government exists solely to maintain order. Most modern day corporations have all of the same mechanisms of government because they all model themselves after the government. Where do you think the phrase "corporate governance" comes from?

If you think Government Inc. is any better or any more concerned about your comfort than McDonalds or Wal-Mart, think again. To the corporation, all you are is an employee number representing dollars out. And to the government, all you are is a tax number representing dollars in. Neither cares about you, and when you are removed from the picture another cog is dropped into the machine in your place.

Its literally, explicitly, intentionally, designed to protect our rights. It fails spectacularly most of the time and has a million flaws and has been subverted to do the opposite in a lot of places.

But conceptually, that is its purpose. If you don't do everything possible to take advantage of that purpose, you are bending over to let anyone with power fuck you in the ass. Your rights, happiness, and freedom would be steamrolled over by those more powerful than you if you take this principle of "more government = bad" to its logical fucking conclusion.

Its fucking insane to be categorically anti-government. It exists, it will never not exist, and the only way for things to not suck is if we use it for our benefit instead of being fucking scared of ever expanding its power.

Genuine question, if murder was legal and someone was advocating for anti-murder legislation, would you come in and bitch about how giving the government more power is always bad? How the fuck can you have this retarded fucking universal principle of "more government always is bad" and not be a fucking anarchist? How little have you thought through this shit?

 

[muh_moobs]

There's much simpler ways to go at this than government regulation. For example, banks, by law, could just have to publicly display a sign with the reserve ratio they keep, but they can choose what this is. Or the FDIC could refuse to insure banks with a reserve ratio below X%.

This is how it works with interest rates and everything else. Why should reserve rates be any different? The free market really could handle this.

Both of your suggestions are examples of regulations . . .

 

[Thomas Paine]

DEREGULATE: GUNS
REGULATE: BANKS

 

[HumanHive]

Because the government's explicit purpose is to help the people. Because the government was designed from the ground up to help the people. Because the government was built to have checks and balances within it to accomplish the goal of helping people. Private corporations? They have none of these things inherent to them. They seek profit and profit only.

And yes, the government does a *horrible* job of actually accomplishing its purpose of helping people. Its still fucking better than letting everyone fuck over eachother please.


Saying the government isn't satan doesn't mean I think they are jesus either. Only an autist deals in absolutes.

The purpose of government was never to help anyone. Government is a compromise over the monopolization and usage of force. All of this “HEY REMEMBER YOU WORK FOR THE PEOPLE” retardation is half of why the pot is allowed to be slowly boiled. All of humanity is in some way hostile to every other part, no exceptions. We resolve this in a vast number of ways - by regulating and ritualizing our selfishness and sociopathy until it resembles cooperation - and in the case of the government it is basically a protection racket that has been bullied by the populace into accepting things like “we’ll let you shittalk us” and “we’ll get a warrant first”. But never forget the government would gladly remove any and all rights of the people if they got in their way, and that’s why you can’t be lulled into a false sense of benevolent authoritarianism. Or full lolbertarianism, for that matter.

 

[muh_moobs]

if we use it for our benefit

People don't make use of the government. The government makes use of people. You're a child looking for a surrogate parent to solve your problems for you.

The government doesn't ensure your rights. They already exist. The Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. It's up to you to protect yourself from other citizens. The SCOTUS has stated this explicitly, several times. Nothing about the state is there to protect you as an individual.

You seem to forget that people are perfectly capable of dealing with each other without a parental figure standing above them with a big stick.

As for your question, if murder were legal that would already be a failure of government, and asking the government to correct course voluntarily wouldn't solve anything. Now you're back to looking out for yourself. Government is something necessary and which must be tolerated, but never celebrated or praised. Anything the government does for you you could accomplish yourself, probably better.

The presence of government at best breaks even, giving you back as much as you invest into it, but often it is a net negative for the people, extracting more from the people than it ever provides to them as it's default state.

Consider the case for welfare. You're broke, and I have an extra $5. I can either give you the money, or buy you whatever you need it for. Or the government can get involved. Someone will come to take the $5 from me and keep one dollar before giving it to someone else for safe keeping who will take a dollar before handing it over to the welfare worker who will take a dollar before giving it to the deliver man who will take a dollar, leaving you with one dollar. And then the government will call that dollar income and take 15%, leaving you with $0.85.

Sure glad government helps, eh?

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

Because the government's explicit purpose is to help the people. Because the government was designed from the ground up to help the people. Because the government was built to have checks and balances within it to accomplish the goal of helping people. Private corporations? They have none of these things inherent to them. They seek profit and profit only.

And yes, the government does a *horrible* job of actually accomplishing its purpose of helping people. Its still fucking better than letting everyone fuck over eachother please.

Cute.

If you even have a government who really upholds your superhuman standards and really wants to selflessly help citizens and isn't threatened by a less altruistic government's better-funded army on the border, you still have the problem of having millions of people, all bound by the same law and all having their own wants, ideas and goals which conflict with each other. How do you solve the problem of law that inevitably fucks over a lot of people while giving unfair advantage to the rest (and vice-versa with other laws)? Laws can't have exception clauses subject to interpretation to iron out this problem, because you end up with ambiguous law that has to be untangled in court - at the taxpayer and litigants' expense and time, of course. You end up with things like hate speech laws which are abused by the rich to keep the plebeans in place.

Government/no government problem is a symptom, not a disease. The disease are people who are too easily manipulated and too poor/stupid to resist manipulation. Those people will always be the majority no matter what. Fiddling with laws will solve nothing, I'm afraid.

 

[AnimeGirlConnoisseur]

I'm not optimistic about this. I left a comment and 90% of the other comments there were about how this change is bad, because it wouldn't allow banks to discriminate against gun companies and that would somehow lead to more deaths.

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

I'm not optimistic about this. I left a comment and 90% of the other comments there were about how this change is bad, because it wouldn't allow banks to discriminate against gun companies and that would somehow lead to more deaths.

If government does what the majority wants, then what happens when the majority are absolute retards who don't even know what they don't know? Gubmint is as good as the people it rules over, and from my experience most smart people despise regulations of any kind.
Because if the government is supposed to be doing the "right" thing despite what the voters want then you have textbook tyranny.

 

[Bob Barker]

You seem to forget that people are perfectly capable of dealing with each other without a parental figure standing above them with a big stick.

Incorrect, see the entirety of human history.

I don't want to enter long form debate about libertarianism. The truth of the matter is that the government exists. The Pandora's Box of organized force was opened millennium ago and it will never be closed. We are stuck with the government, bad people will use the government to do bad things, but those same bad people will try to stop good people from using the government to stop bad things.

Seeing instances of corruption and failure of the government and concluding that you need to fight the government every time it tries to do something is an immature and childish attitude.

I'll finish with this. None of you bothered to answer this question because none of you have a fucking answer to this. You want to be able to say that all government increase makes things worse because its an easy platitude to repeat when you have no other argument, but if you take it to its logical conclusion anarchy is the ideal form of government.

Genuine question, if murder was legal and someone was advocating for anti-murder legislation, would you come in and bitch about how giving the government more power is always bad? How the fuck can you have this retarded fucking universal principle of "more government always is bad" and not be a fucking anarchist? How little have you thought through this shit?

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

Incorrect, see the entirety of human history.

I don't want to enter long form debate about libertarianism. The truth of the matter is that the government exists. The Pandora's Box of organized force was opened millennium ago and it will never be closed. We are stuck with the government, bad people will use the government to do bad things, but those same bad people will try to stop good people from using the government to stop bad things.

Seeing instances of corruption and failure of the government and concluding that you need to fight the government every time it tries to do something is an immature and childish attitude.

I'll finish with this. None of you bothered to answer this question because none of you have a fucking answer to this. You want to be able to say that all government increase makes things worse because its an easy platitude to repeat when you have no other argument, but if you take it to its logical conclusion anarchy is the ideal form of government.

If someone was advocating for anti-murder legislation, I would do nothing because nobody gives a shit what some drone has to say about anything. What can I do when they laugh me away? Burn down the courtroom? Shoot the advocate in the face? When there are armed guards and I can't legally buy even airsoft guns in my country?

'How the fuck can you have this retarded fucking universal principle of "more government always is bad" and not be a fucking anarchist?' - false dilemma, just because I don't agree with communism doesn't imply I'm a capitalist.

"Thou shalt not kill" - which government proposed this legislation?