The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau isn't just protecting consumers, it may also be protecting conservatives. And conservatives need to wake up to that reality.
This is a relatively simple question. Do conservatives actually care about this censorship or is it just a culture war mirage?
I'm willing to bet the leadership of the GOP definitely doesn't care. It's just a convenient way to signal their supporters without having to actually do anything.
If they actually do care that's great, and a lot of Americans can unite under a pro-competition, anti-corporatist banner.
Fantastic article. As someone who leans slightly conservative and has long considered himself a classical liberal within limits, this is absolutely a reality that more on the Right need to see for what it is. I don't see how letting massive, hulking conglomerates and PE firms dictate the terms of discourse is friendly to the fair operation of markets. The CFPB is doing good work; just because I disagree with Sen. Warren on some matters does not mean that I can't find common ground with her on this vital set of issues.
I suppose my question to people "on my side" would be this: Do you really want the "values" of Big Tech and private equity giants to be your values? I sure as hell don't.
Note to libertarians: "There is always government. Government is about who does what to whom."
The bigger the society, and/or the more complexity in it, the bigger government WILL be -- one way or another. This is unavoidable. Not to say there is no room for intelligent restraint. In fact, vigilance on the part of the populace is always essential -- I'm probably libertarian at heart. But if you think Grover Norquist's "drown in the bathtub" wet dream is even *remotely* possible, you are hoping to find Peter Pan's Neverland. Matt's piece illustrates why.
We can only hope to somewhat control the form that government takes: Will it be responsive to the needs of the *productive* citizenry, or to the small class of people who thrive by looting them?
A couple things. First, where was the CFPB when GoFundMe proposed using donations for the Canadian trucker strike for other purposes? I actually think it was Elon Musk who did their work on that one.
Second, under the Obama administration, banking regulators implemented Operation Choke Point. Operation Choke Point weaponized the US banking system against dozens of legally sanctioned business types operating in the US (third-party payment processors, pawn shops, payday lenders, etc.). By denying banking access to these business types they hoped to put them out of business. If you ever saw a list of accounts to be closed, they were mom and pop businesses, with a disproportinate number of minority owners. The unprotected. While President Trump thought he ended the practice, he did not know that Choke Point had been made part of the banking platform through policy and procedure.
So tell me again which regulator is going to protect each one of us? My experience is when they do regulate to protect - 43% debt to income in Dodd Frank - the unintended consequences ensure the exact opposite result. In the case of DTI, more protected classes of customers will end up with debt they can never possibly repay.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we have negotiations for IPEF - our new supercharged trade deal, being negotiated in super secret ... could render all or most or all of this piece moot
You mentioned my home-state of Texas, and Republican leaders here are doing the exact same type of discrimination. In this case, they are going after ESG fund companies that exclude oil and gas companies. Leaders here see Wall Street companies like BlackRock, discriminating against the Texas energy industry, so they boycott them:
This is a relatively simple question. Do conservatives actually care about this censorship or is it just a culture war mirage?
I'm willing to bet the leadership of the GOP definitely doesn't care. It's just a convenient way to signal their supporters without having to actually do anything.
If they actually do care that's great, and a lot of Americans can unite under a pro-competition, anti-corporatist banner.
Matt,
Fantastic article. As someone who leans slightly conservative and has long considered himself a classical liberal within limits, this is absolutely a reality that more on the Right need to see for what it is. I don't see how letting massive, hulking conglomerates and PE firms dictate the terms of discourse is friendly to the fair operation of markets. The CFPB is doing good work; just because I disagree with Sen. Warren on some matters does not mean that I can't find common ground with her on this vital set of issues.
I suppose my question to people "on my side" would be this: Do you really want the "values" of Big Tech and private equity giants to be your values? I sure as hell don't.
Note to libertarians: "There is always government. Government is about who does what to whom."
The bigger the society, and/or the more complexity in it, the bigger government WILL be -- one way or another. This is unavoidable. Not to say there is no room for intelligent restraint. In fact, vigilance on the part of the populace is always essential -- I'm probably libertarian at heart. But if you think Grover Norquist's "drown in the bathtub" wet dream is even *remotely* possible, you are hoping to find Peter Pan's Neverland. Matt's piece illustrates why.
We can only hope to somewhat control the form that government takes: Will it be responsive to the needs of the *productive* citizenry, or to the small class of people who thrive by looting them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y
"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist..." - Eisenhower
"As simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein
Anyone else get auto-renewed without authorization? Substack should be investigated by the Consumer Protection Bureau!
A couple things. First, where was the CFPB when GoFundMe proposed using donations for the Canadian trucker strike for other purposes? I actually think it was Elon Musk who did their work on that one.
Second, under the Obama administration, banking regulators implemented Operation Choke Point. Operation Choke Point weaponized the US banking system against dozens of legally sanctioned business types operating in the US (third-party payment processors, pawn shops, payday lenders, etc.). By denying banking access to these business types they hoped to put them out of business. If you ever saw a list of accounts to be closed, they were mom and pop businesses, with a disproportinate number of minority owners. The unprotected. While President Trump thought he ended the practice, he did not know that Choke Point had been made part of the banking platform through policy and procedure.
So tell me again which regulator is going to protect each one of us? My experience is when they do regulate to protect - 43% debt to income in Dodd Frank - the unintended consequences ensure the exact opposite result. In the case of DTI, more protected classes of customers will end up with debt they can never possibly repay.
Great piece! Unravels a lot ...
Meanwhile back at the ranch we have negotiations for IPEF - our new supercharged trade deal, being negotiated in super secret ... could render all or most or all of this piece moot
https://rethinktrade.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/AELP_100422_PDF_RethinkTradeDigitalSeries_R4.pdf
Read the introduction at least
Green privilege is a bit of problem and bankers have a bad case of it. I’d be happy to ally with bankers so they can unload some of it.
You mentioned my home-state of Texas, and Republican leaders here are doing the exact same type of discrimination. In this case, they are going after ESG fund companies that exclude oil and gas companies. Leaders here see Wall Street companies like BlackRock, discriminating against the Texas energy industry, so they boycott them:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/08/24/texas-boycott-companies-fossil-fuels/