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

[Liber Pater]

I can't lay out in specifics what I said in my public comment because it would be a powerlevel, but I was able to point to specific businesses I have dealt with personally that have been fucked over by Operation Choke Point and the current banking regulatory status quo. I am also contacting some business owners with a personal stake in this issue directly to inform them of this proposed rule change.
I would encourage anyone submitting a public comment to consider doing the same. I think detailed comments from (optical) business owners or employees (especially in politically influential industries like oil and natural gas) detailing how this would affect them are more useful than comments from opinionated randos.

ah comrade, here's a few problems:

(happy birthday btw)

if KF starts a mutual support fund and we all pay in say $10 and whenever someone needs money they can borrow say $100 and pay back $104 in a year should our original $10 be nationalised?

Non-insured "shadow banks" exist even in Communist countries where banks are nationalized (in fact, they are actually a pretty ubiquitous feature of countries with strict state control of finance. Just look at China). It is nearly impossible to stop the sort of small-scale, unregistered, uninsured lending you just mentioned. Of course, it is also difficult for shadow banks to enforce contractual obligations (such as repayment, repossession of collateral, etc) if only state banks have access to the court system for contract enforcement.
However, courts are only one of many methods for enforcing contractual obligations in this context. The use of blockchain-based smart contracts is one. Breaking kneecaps is another.
Personally, I think our hypothetical Kiwi Bank would be better served by the former, but perhaps Josh could find someone in Eastern Europe to help him with the latter lol.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

I can't lay out in specifics what I said in my public comment because it would be a powerlevel, but I was able to point to specific businesses I have dealt with personally that have been fucked over by Operation Choke Point and the current banking regulatory status quo. I am also contacting some business owners with a personal stake in this issue directly to inform them of this proposed rule change.
I would encourage anyone submitting a public comment to consider doing the same. I think detailed comments from (optical) business owners or employees (especially in politically influential industries like oil and natural gas) detailing how this would affect them are more useful than comments from opinionated randos.

That's exactly the kind of thing that concerns me. Choke Point was the feds leaning on banks, payment processors, and whatnot to discourage business with 'unacceptable' outlets. It was blatantly unfair influence, and I'm concerned this bill's going to put us into it again.

 

[6thRanger]

Happy Birthday when it arrives Null! I have fulfilled your wish and sent them a polite letter.

Enjoy tomorrow.

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

Would you suggest using legitimate contact information? If you mail you pretty much have to.

Happy 13th birthday Null. I hope you get a Nintendo DS with Mario Kart DS.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Would you suggest using legitimate contact information?

Only if you want it to be public record.

Any information (e.g., personal or contact) you provide on this comment form or in an attachment may be publicly disclosed and searchable on the Internet and in a paper docket and will be provided to the Department or Agency issuing the notice.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

If you promise not to drag Visa & Mastercard dropping Pornhub into this. Gab getting burned for mean words on their site is insane, but every bank should block Rapehub from profitting off of videos that underage victims were begging them to take down.

A study showed 118 instances of child abuse on PornHub and tens of millions on Facebook. It has nothing to do with saving children and everything to do with the fact that PornHub has been planning on pivoting to being a general video sharing site in direct competition with Google.

 

[DamageJoy]

Boy Sminem and Null teams up to fight the Bogs. Hope for the best, and enjoy your B-day!

 

[Drowningman]

Happy Birthday Dear Leader.I will send one as requested.

 

[Sperghetti]

Thanks for the heads up on this! It's a damned shame that things like this that actually effect people's lives and livelihoods just fly under the radar. I was hoping the whole PornHub debacle would at least show some people that payment processors can and will turn people into a financial pariahs whenever they feel like it, but I fear that the point will be missed since it involves CP, which is the ultimate thought-terminating cliche.

And of course, Happy Birthday!

I would be fine with banks being treated like a power or water company instead of wholly nationalized.

Personally, I can't see any reason why this would be a bad thing. I have a hard time thinking of payment networks in the same terms as other private businesses as they're pretty much an oligopoly and it's damn near impossible to avoid dealing with them.

 

[Sriracha]

Happy Birthday, Null

Is there anything that people outside the US can do in terms of a global perspective?

 

[jspit2.0]

Every single person has to bail out the fucking banks every time they shit the bed and wreck the economy, yet again. This is why they gamble with other people's money so much. Why do they need to care? If they fuck up, even if they're outright breaking the law, and go broke, every taxpayer has to bail them the fuck out. So every taxpayer should have the right to use them, without any right by these fucks to say no or turn away anyone, outside of a very limited set of circumstances, i.e. outright money laundering, funding terrorism, and overtly criminal acts of the sort USA PATRIOT covered.

I agree, that's regulation. Nationalization means the government would run them....

Happy birthday, Null. I sent in my comment.

One thing I think people should mention is that the $100 billion asset threshold is too high as a general rule. Every bank should be covered by this regulation, at least for basic services like retail banking. The regulation seems to largely be written with an eye toward the problem of "debanking" entire industries by denying investments to things like guns or oil refineries, so direct their attention toward the problems of small businesses and individuals too.
Your local credit union shouldn't be required to get in on financing some refinery when they know nothing about oil, but they should be required to keep your bank account open unless you actually engage in financial wrongdoing with it.

Screw even that. Unless your using it to commit an actual crime (Murder, drug laundering, what have you), they shouldn't be able to turn anyone away. There should even be a nexus requirement that forces the bank to show that there is a direct cause between your banking and the illegal, criminal activity.

 

[AnOminous]

Screw even that. Unless your using it to commit an actual crime (Murder, drug laundering, what have you), they shouldn't be able to turn anyone away. There should even be a nexus requirement that forces the bank to show that there is a direct cause between your banking and the illegal, criminal activity.

And an appeals process to something that isn't a bank. Otherwise they'll just switch to claiming "terrorism" or some nonsense when they're really just continuing to push wokeshit.

 

[Arm Pit Cream]

Every single person has to bail out the fucking banks every time they shit the bed and wreck the economy, yet again. This is why they gamble with other people's money so much. Why do they need to care? If they fuck up, even if they're outright breaking the law, and go broke, every taxpayer has to bail them the fuck out. So every taxpayer should have the right to use them, without any right by these fucks to say no or turn away anyone, outside of a very limited set of circumstances, i.e. outright money laundering, funding terrorism, and overtly criminal acts of the sort USA PATRIOT covered.

This applies to literally every big business, particularly after the CARES act. However, I fully agree, in Europe when companies get bailed out usually the local governments bailing them out at least take a stake in them.

It makes no sense to me that the taxpayer is the saving grace for the companies, but at the same time they get no say and often their interests are secondary to the company's.

 

[hairazor]

Happy Birthday Joshua.

 

[AnOminous]

It makes no sense to me that the taxpayer is the saving grace for the companies, but at the same time they get no say and often their interests are secondary to the company's.

That's because the companies then turn around and spend a good chunk of the stolen taxpayer money to bribe politicians to ensure that the next bailout happens too. I mean "campaign contributions."

 

[Aum]

It has nothing to do with saving children and everything to do with the fact that PornHub has been planning on pivoting to being a general video sharing site in direct competition with Google.

I think it probably has more to do with the flood of DMCAs they get every day from whores with onlyfans accounts

 

[A Cardboard Box]

I think it probably has more to do with the flood of DMCAs they get every day from whores with onlyfans accounts

Payment processors have nothing to do with PH getting DMCAs

 

[Jan Ciągwa]

Spoiler: ALL STAND UP TO KIWIFARMS' NATIONAL ANTHEM

 

[Not Really Here]

That's exactly the kind of thing that concerns me. Choke Point was the feds leaning on banks, payment processors, and whatnot to discourage business with 'unacceptable' outlets. It was blatantly unfair influence, and I'm concerned this bill's going to put us into it again.

1. This isn't a Bill, this is a Federal rule to be added to the CFR and as such doesn't need a Congressional vote or signature from the president.
2. Operation Choke Point could only exist because there wasn't a Federal law/rule/regulation stopping it, and this rule would stop it.
2b. Operation Choke Point didn't really ever stop, it just became a thing the banks started running themselves without Federal pressure.

Attached is a PDF of the Federal rulemaking process.

 

[cactus]

Every single person has to bail out the fucking banks every time they shit the bed and wreck the economy, yet again. This is why they gamble with other people's money so much. Why do they need to care? If they fuck up, even if they're outright breaking the law, and go broke, every taxpayer has to bail them the fuck out. So every taxpayer should have the right to use them, without any right by these fucks to say no or turn away anyone, outside of a very limited set of circumstances, i.e. outright money laundering, funding terrorism, and overtly criminal acts of the sort USA PATRIOT covered.

If the Glass Steagall Act was restored in its entirety too, that would be the cherry on top.