This feels like another case where there should be legislation, but would never get done. It would also require admitting that auditing requirements are so burdensome that they are used to arbitrarily enforce policies, which no one wants to do.
scottLobster · 2h ago
Honestly, the root of most of our current problems can be traced to Congress not being able to effectively pass legislation and ceding ever more power to the Executive and Judiciary as workarounds.
kilroy123 · 40m ago
Strongly agree. I also think this has been going on for the last 20 years.
The root issue has always been Congress.
duxup · 4h ago
As usual this seems like it is "corruption! .... FOR me and my friends ..."
darkhorn · 46m ago
He is preparing the USA for a dictartorship.
mandeepj · 59m ago
> "They did discriminate," Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan after his first term in office.
Well, don’t call Insurrection then!!
shadowgovt · 1h ago
Of everything he's done with EOs, this might actually be the most legal one.
the President has authority to allocate enforcement resources. "We are going to make sure the law was followed" is that authority. He can dress it up with all the flowery "no political debanking" rhetoric he wants, but if there's no actual law against refusing to hold accounts for the KKK, there's nothing for enforcement to do, and that's that.
(Apart from that, increased scrutiny could of course uncover other kinds of lawbreaking. When we're talking banks? Not against that.)
bamboozled · 3h ago
On it goes…
ChrisArchitect · 2h ago
[dupe]
Earlier:
White House Preps Order to Punish Banks That Discriminate Against Conservatives
This was actually a significant problem during the Biden administration.
The rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient. Apparently many companies were pushed offshore as a result.
> rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient
But the courts were a check. The precedent the current administration has set is for summary debarking in the future in exchange for e.g. not being investigated for securities fraud.
shadowgovt · 1h ago
That's the same a16z that had one of its owners publish a manifesto that would have made Mussolini's supporters feel shame, right? Just so we're on the same page?
The essay that lists among other enemies "sustainability", "social responsibility", "tech ethics", and "risk management."
Their position on arbitrary use of legal power may not be wrong, but we must consider the source: this is a firm that has a compelling interest in the government having less effective authority to check the actions of banks.
(And if nothing else, their position is inconsistent given what we now know: if their concern is the way an Executive can wield authority like a cudgel in the context of vague laws, have they updated their thoughts in light of a President who has issued 181 executive orders since he began the 47th Presidential administration?
The root issue has always been Congress.
Well, don’t call Insurrection then!!
the President has authority to allocate enforcement resources. "We are going to make sure the law was followed" is that authority. He can dress it up with all the flowery "no political debanking" rhetoric he wants, but if there's no actual law against refusing to hold accounts for the KKK, there's nothing for enforcement to do, and that's that.
(Apart from that, increased scrutiny could of course uncover other kinds of lawbreaking. When we're talking banks? Not against that.)
Earlier:
White House Preps Order to Punish Banks That Discriminate Against Conservatives
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44793168
Andreessen/Horowitz talk about it here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ
But the courts were a check. The precedent the current administration has set is for summary debarking in the future in exchange for e.g. not being investigated for securities fraud.
https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/
"Our enemy is the ivory tower"
The essay that lists among other enemies "sustainability", "social responsibility", "tech ethics", and "risk management."
Their position on arbitrary use of legal power may not be wrong, but we must consider the source: this is a firm that has a compelling interest in the government having less effective authority to check the actions of banks.
(And if nothing else, their position is inconsistent given what we now know: if their concern is the way an Executive can wield authority like a cudgel in the context of vague laws, have they updated their thoughts in light of a President who has issued 181 executive orders since he began the 47th Presidential administration?