If dude wasn't fed from a silver spoon, he'd know better and watch his lying mouth.
lol what? What amazingly convoluted definition of "monopoly" do you get to describe the banks?
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/financialreportin...
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-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.
Your view on the viability of it is grossly underestimating the hurdles you face, but lets run with it for the purpose of this discussion.
Our comparison point is a cake decorating business which refused to create custom cake decorations for a gay couple and a state law that would have forced them to do so was found unlawful.
To this, this HN replies is evidence that banks should be able to discriminate capriciously, and that anyone with a mere 50 million dollars can start up their own if they don't like being cut off by the incumbents (or don't like that their preferred choice was intentionally destroyed like SVB).
No. Stop. Fuck off. Get fucked.
I didn't say, mean, imply, or insinuate that.
Someone said/meant/implied that banks were a monopoly, probably because they're a piece of shit libertarian or they heard the phrase "ReGuLaToRy CaPtUrE" on a shitty podcast somewhere, and that it is impossible to start one.
And I replied that it isn't, well, it is, but no more than any other capital-intensive project.
And credit unions are easier than banks.
Goooooooooooooooooo fuckyerself.
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.
SilverElfin•6mo ago
techpineapple•6mo ago
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•6mo ago
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•6mo ago
clipsy•6mo ago
bediger4000•6mo ago
I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.
SilverElfin•6mo ago
evanjrowley•6mo ago
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•6mo ago
SilverElfin•6mo ago
fracus•6mo ago
fakedang•6mo ago
William Dudley Pelley and George Rockwell would be so proud of the Republican party today.
amanaplanacanal•6mo ago
polski-g•6mo ago
Lots of government rules that force you to do business with nazis
footlose_3815•6mo ago
Thoughts? You must feel conflicted. Since Trump's actions are in violation of this logic.
SilverElfin•6mo ago
PenguinCoder•6mo ago
evanjrowley•6mo ago
user____name•6mo ago
amanaplanacanal•6mo ago