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

The banks control the "elected" officials. The elected officials aren't going to listen to you.

I am confused. You have been in this thread arguing strenuously against a Government agency regulating the banks. Now you are saying the regulatory agency is actually controlled by the banks, and they wont listen to us. All this time I though you were opposed to the OCC putting firm rules in place. Apparently what you are really saying is it does not matter as the banks rule us, and will decide our fates. High minded idealism be damned.

Never took you for a nihilist.
 
I am confused. You have been in this thread arguing strenuously against a Government agency regulating the banks. Now you are saying the regulatory agency is actually controlled by the banks, and they wont listen to us. All this time I though you were opposed to the OCC putting firm rules in place. Apparently what you are really saying is it does not matter as the banks rule us, and will decide our fates. High minded idealism be damned.

Never took you for a nihilist.
Banks be damned. They're just corporations, and follow the bottom dollar. They don't even have to become unprofitable to be influenced. People forget about the McDonalds boycott in the early 90's over Styrofoam food packaging. McDonald's didn't lose enough money to face any financial hardship, but they lost enough to know they needed to change course.

If more people turned to the extant credit unions or simply stopped using their credit cards for six months, the banks would listen.

Corporations are trash, but expanding government bureaucracy won't improve anything. Even if banking practices are changed, in order to finance the enforcement you'll be forced to surrender more wealth to the state, so sure, you haven't been stopped from shopping online, but what difference does it make when what little disposable income you had previously has now been consumed by the state? You still didn't get the thing you wanted, and you've got less money in your pocket.

The situation we're in today is just the end result of the uniparty slowly boiling the frog. It has been a slow, gradual march into oblivion since the late 1950's. And the people have been left with nowhere to turn. Labor has been exported, and China has opened their economy to accepting transactions from the west. We cannot strike nor boycott any sort of corporate exploitation of society, and the establishment has been bought out from under us, leaving us with no legislative mechanism for change.

The only viable solution is simply "walking away" and gathering enough like-minded individuals to set up your own institutions. But that only works until the government regulates and taxes you out of business.
 
Banks be damned. They're just corporations, and follow the bottom dollar. They don't even have to become unprofitable to be influenced. People forget about the McDonalds boycott in the early 90's over Styrofoam food packaging. McDonald's didn't lose enough money to face any financial hardship, but they lost enough to know they needed to change course.

If more people turned to the extant credit unions or simply stopped using their credit cards for six months, the banks would listen.

Corporations are trash, but expanding government bureaucracy won't improve anything. Even if banking practices are changed, in order to finance the enforcement you'll be forced to surrender more wealth to the state, so sure, you haven't been stopped from shopping online, but what difference does it make when what little disposable income you had previously has now been consumed by the state? You still didn't get the thing you wanted, and you've got less money in your pocket.

The situation we're in today is just the end result of the uniparty slowly boiling the frog. It has been a slow, gradual march into oblivion since the late 1950's. And the people have been left with nowhere to turn. Labor has been exported, and China has opened their economy to accepting transactions from the west. We cannot strike nor boycott any sort of corporate exploitation of society, and the establishment has been bought out from under us, leaving us with no legislative mechanism for change.

The only viable solution is simply "walking away" and gathering enough like-minded individuals to set up your own institutions. But that only works until the government regulates and taxes you out of business.

If only we could form a third party and convince enough people to vote for it, that would show the powers that be!

Meanwhile, here in reality I will trust in a government Beaurocracy looking to stay relevant out of it's own "self interests" to stop aggressive Banking practices done for "their self interests" i find problematic.
 
If only we could form a third party and convince enough people to vote for it, that would show the powers that be!

Meanwhile, here in reality I will trust in a government Beaurocracy looking to stay relevant out of it's own "self interests" to stop aggressive Banking practices done for "their self interests" i find problematic.
My point ITT has never been "banks good". Just that begging daddy government to save the day is a pointless endeavor. No matter how that coin falls, you lose. In the best case scenario, you actually get back from government what you pay into it via taxation, but typically you get less out than what you put in, and to "make up the shortfall" the government just raises taxes further while also increasing spending. The people never win.

And realistically, again consider who runs the banks. Even if government enacts some legislative change, the ADL will get involved and an exception will be added into the Bill allowing banks to deny service to people "engaged in hateful behavior" or some such other nonsense. And then the banks will lobby government to broaden the definitions of "hateful behavior" and we're right back where we are now, but with more taxes extracted from the public to pay for the new government bodies that have been established.
 
My point ITT has never been "banks good". Just that begging daddy government to save the day is a pointless endeavor. No matter how that coin falls, you lose. In the best case scenario, you actually get back from government what you pay into it via taxation, but typically you get less out than what you put in, and to "make up the shortfall" the government just raises taxes further while also increasing spending. The people never win.

And realistically, again consider who runs the banks. Even if government enacts some legislative change, the ADL will get involved and an exception will be added into the Bill allowing banks to deny service to people "engaged in hateful behavior" or some such other nonsense. And then the banks will lobby government to broaden the definitions of "hateful behavior" and we're right back where we are now, but with more taxes extracted from the public to pay for the new government bodies that have been established.

Which is a very doom pilled take. And take it from someone who has overdosed on doom pills these last few months you really dont want to be arguing from that position. On its merits, what the OCC is arguing for is reasonable. They want to make a hard rule that banks can only deny service for recognizable financial reasons, not political reasons which are the purview of the Government. Even if we assume the worst intentions, we can stille trust that government officials will protect their own petty powers and if that works in our favour, great.

The big highlight of the OCCs big dick move here is not at the banks, it's at other government agencies under the Obama era "operation chokepoint". Choke Point was a push by the big, sexy Department of Justice agencies to go after the firearms industry. In doing so they deputized the banks to do the dirty work they could not get the legislative approval for doing so. Setting aside the legal issues around this, the heavy handed actions of Obama's DoJ intruded hard into the beaurocratic domain of the Treasury Department, and of a little known but very powerful government official. The Comptroller of the United States.

Now the Comptroller is an uninteresting Job. Its job is literally to watch what banks do with the US dollar and make sure it's being used in a legal manner. That's pretty much it. But when the Justice Department decided to make it's own rules on how Banks should use the dollar, they really took a piss in the Treasury Departments cheerios. And I bet they didnt even send the Comptroller a thank you note afterwords.

So this is not really about "expanding government power". Government power was already expanded under Choke Point. What this is is beaurocratic dick waving, and if the Treasury Department wins, the pre obama status quo gets restored and petty beuarocrats no longer can use the banks to ram through policy agendas they cannot get through Congress.
 
Which is a very doom pilled take. And take it from someone who has overdosed on doom pills these last few months you really dont want to be arguing from that position. On its merits, what the OCC is arguing for is reasonable. They want to make a hard rule that banks can only deny service for recognizable financial reasons, not political reasons which are the purview of the Government. Even if we assume the worst intentions, we can stille trust that government officials will protect their own petty powers and if that works in our favour, great.

The big highlight of the OCCs big dick move here is not at the banks, it's at other government agencies under the Obama era "operation chokepoint". Choke Point was a push by the big, sexy Department of Justice agencies to go after the firearms industry. In doing so they deputized the banks to do the dirty work they could not get the legislative approval for doing so. Setting aside the legal issues around this, the heavy handed actions of Obama's DoJ intruded hard into the beaurocratic domain of the Treasury Department, and of a little known but very powerful government official. The Comptroller of the United States.

Now the Comptroller is an uninteresting Job. Its job is literally to watch what banks do with the US dollar and make sure it's being used in a legal manner. That's pretty much it. But when the Justice Department decided to make it's own rules on how Banks should use the dollar, they really took a piss in the Treasury Departments cheerios. And I bet they didnt even send the Comptroller a thank you note afterwords.

So this is not really about "expanding government power". Government power was already expanded under Choke Point. What this is is beaurocratic dick waving, and if the Treasury Department wins, the pre obama status quo gets restored and petty beuarocrats no longer can use the banks to ram through policy agendas they cannot get through Congress.
Maybe in any previous year I'd simply be "preparing for the worst" while hoping things might work out, but this year? After the government has been allowed to trample over everything people hold dear? No, government just gonna fuck around and siphon off as much tax money as it can while shitting on the public.
 
@muh_moobs You are the dumbest person on the site.

They're just corporations, and follow the bottom dollar.
Multinational banking apparatuses do not follow the bottom dollar. As much as you sputter out the word kike when trying to undermine the use of government to improve one's life, you have no fucking clue. The fact you've wasted so much of better people's time arguing with them here is genuinely despicable. Stupid fucking cunt.
 
I have not once advocated for abolishing government, that is an absolutely retarded position to take. However, government is never a net gain for the citizens who fund it, you only ever break even at best.
You're right, it is absolutely retarded, and yet these two sentences exactly contradict. "Government is never a net gain, you only ever break even at best" logically has to mean that no government is at least as good as, if not better than, any amount of government. You might be able to add some government to "no government" and break even, but if it's "never" a net gain then why create any government in the first place? No government literally is the position you're advocating for.
 
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 you look at those comments you will see that they are the exact same comment which the Office specifically stated they are not looking for. Most of the more detailed comments are in support of the regulation and are coming from people involved in the affected industries, which the Office is looking for.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
If you look at those comments you will see that they are the exact same comment which the Office specifically stated they are not looking for. Most of the more detailed comments are in support of the regulation and are coming from people involved in the affected industries, which the Office is looking for.
A whole bunch also have near-identical wording about "interfering" in "internal business decisions". I bet at least one of the affected processors has sent their HR department on an astroturf mission. Not like they've got anything better to do, after all.
 
What specific regulations would you want repealed?
  • The licensing requirement to run a financial institution
  • The minimum capital requirements to run a bank (the rules should be the same as for other corporations, i.e. $1)
  • The prohibition against offering correspondent accounts to shell banks
  • KYC regulations (banks should be allowed to keep anonymous accounts)
  • CFT regulations (customers should be able to send money anywhere, including to terrorists)
  • Reserve ratio requirements (Basel 2 is too complicated)
  • Volcker rule
These are the primary regulations that cause problems, as far as I know.
Both of your suggestions are examples of regulations . . .
Putting up a sign has a substantially smaller impact on the way you run your business than capital reserve requirements. Having the FDIC implement minimum standards for insurance is not a regulation; banks do not need to be insured.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin and polonium
I don't expect much, but I sent a professional comment with examples - if only for the sake of fulfilling a birthday wish. Let's see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin and Letora
Back