What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

With Politicized Lending, Biden Aims to Revive 'Operation Choke Point

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
9,378
Reaction score
17,216
Points
2,290
Ah, yes, fascistic behavior from the Øbama era returns under Biden.



In one of the last executive actions of the Trump administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published an important final “Fair Access to Financial Services” rule requiring that large banks and federal savings associations make lending decisions based upon “individualized, quantitative risk-based analysis and management of customer risk.” Translation: The lenders are not to make such decisions on the basis of the political unpopularity (among leftists) of certain businesses, obvious examples of which are producers of fossil fuels or firearms, operators of for-profit colleges or private prisons, and payday lenders, and perhaps others engaged in entirely legal business activities.

Under that finalized rule, such politicized lending criteria as “reputational risk”---a wholly circular construct devoid of analytic content---were to be excluded as determinants of the allocation of capital. This constraint would enhance the productivity of financial capital by both lenders and borrowers, by making economic value the central driver of lending decisions and the use of borrowed funds. The strengthened role of economic value would help to preserve the soundness of the banking/financial system, and more generally would engender a number of aggregate economic benefits flowing from the strengthening of economic factors and the weakening of political factors in the capital market.

As discussed below, the rule---ostensibly aimed at the lending decisions of the financial institutions---in reality is designed to constrain the behavior of bureaucrats and politicians pursuing politicized agendas. That is why no one can be surprised that the Biden administration has announcedthat “it has paused publication of its rule to ensure large banks provide all customers fair access to their services.” (The rule was to have taken effect on April 1.) Here is the explanation for the pause:

Pausing publication of the rule in the Federal Register will allow the next confirmed Comptroller of the Currency to review the final rule and the public comments the OCC received, as part of an orderly transition.

That is an explanation that explains little even as it is highly revealing, as the “orderly transition” rationale could be applied to any rule promulgated during the Trump administration but not yet published in final form. It is not difficult to conclude that many high-level members of the Biden administration prefer politicized lending, as a short journey down memory lane illustrates. Remember Operation Choke Point? That was the blatant effort by the Obama administration to exclude several legal industries from the banking system. This clearly was illegal and unconstitutional, having been based upon no law or any other kind of legal authority; it simply reflected the political biases of the senior Obama decisionmakers.

There is no evidence that then-Vice President Biden opposed it, and such arbitrary exercises of power are constrained by no obvious limiting principle. Any industry can become a target, and it is obvious that the discriminatory practices inexorably will expand over time as new bureaucrats and politicians come to occupy the various desks and offices, imposing their own views of what is good. The efficient allocation of capital? Who in the Beltway has an incentive to care about that?

The central value of the Trump rule was straightforward: Far from constraining the lenders, it imposed a short leash on the bureaucrats and politicians, in that new efforts to politicize lending could be challenged in court by the prospective borrowers disfavored by government officials. With or without a rule, the reality is that the banks and savings associations as a practical matter cannot take the public officials to court, as doing so would expose them to a vast array of punitive retaliations from the regulators. The lenders have to deal with the regulators on a daily basis on a vast array of their operations. It is no trick at all for the regulators to cause a given lender no end of legal and operational problems. Can anyone seriously deny this reality?

Accordingly, litigating politicized lending standards is vastly more problematic without the new rule than with it because such lending constraints inevitably are predominantly an informal system based upon letters and phone calls and hints and winks and sighs and frowns. Without the rule, the borrowers against whom the discrimination is directed would not have standing to sue, and the lenders would not do so for the reasons just delineated.

That is why Choke Point and similar gameplaying in the capital market is ideal for the political left: No formal rule is being violated, the banks are in no position to resist, and the borrowers have no recourse. Equality under the law is thrown out the window because the left fundamentally believes in nothing as much as its own political power, while the bureaucracy---much ignored in the reality that it is an important interest group---is left to enhance its own powers at the expense of market forces.

...


 

struth

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
23,151
Reaction score
14,113
Points
1,288
Essentially lend who we want or we will unleash our brownshirts on you

This is what fascism looks like
 

donttread

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
396
Reaction score
252
Points
193
Ah, yes, fascistic behavior from the Øbama era returns under Biden.


In one of the last executive actions of the Trump administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published an important final “Fair Access to Financial Services” rule requiring that large banks and federal savings associations make lending decisions based upon “individualized, quantitative risk-based analysis and management of customer risk.” Translation: The lenders are not to make such decisions on the basis of the political unpopularity (among leftists) of certain businesses, obvious examples of which are producers of fossil fuels or firearms, operators of for-profit colleges or private prisons, and payday lenders, and perhaps others engaged in entirely legal business activities.
Under that finalized rule, such politicized lending criteria as “reputational risk”---a wholly circular construct devoid of analytic content---were to be excluded as determinants of the allocation of capital. This constraint would enhance the productivity of financial capital by both lenders and borrowers, by making economic value the central driver of lending decisions and the use of borrowed funds. The strengthened role of economic value would help to preserve the soundness of the banking/financial system, and more generally would engender a number of aggregate economic benefits flowing from the strengthening of economic factors and the weakening of political factors in the capital market.
As discussed below, the rule---ostensibly aimed at the lending decisions of the financial institutions---in reality is designed to constrain the behavior of bureaucrats and politicians pursuing politicized agendas. That is why no one can be surprised that the Biden administration has announcedthat “it has paused publication of its rule to ensure large banks provide all customers fair access to their services.” (The rule was to have taken effect on April 1.) Here is the explanation for the pause:
Pausing publication of the rule in the Federal Register will allow the next confirmed Comptroller of the Currency to review the final rule and the public comments the OCC received, as part of an orderly transition.
That is an explanation that explains little even as it is highly revealing, as the “orderly transition” rationale could be applied to any rule promulgated during the Trump administration but not yet published in final form. It is not difficult to conclude that many high-level members of the Biden administration prefer politicized lending, as a short journey down memory lane illustrates. Remember Operation Choke Point? That was the blatant effort by the Obama administration to exclude several legal industries from the banking system. This clearly was illegal and unconstitutional, having been based upon no law or any other kind of legal authority; it simply reflected the political biases of the senior Obama decisionmakers.
There is no evidence that then-Vice President Biden opposed it, and such arbitrary exercises of power are constrained by no obvious limiting principle. Any industry can become a target, and it is obvious that the discriminatory practices inexorably will expand over time as new bureaucrats and politicians come to occupy the various desks and offices, imposing their own views of what is good. The efficient allocation of capital? Who in the Beltway has an incentive to care about that?
The central value of the Trump rule was straightforward: Far from constraining the lenders, it imposed a short leash on the bureaucrats and politicians, in that new efforts to politicize lending could be challenged in court by the prospective borrowers disfavored by government officials. With or without a rule, the reality is that the banks and savings associations as a practical matter cannot take the public officials to court, as doing so would expose them to a vast array of punitive retaliations from the regulators. The lenders have to deal with the regulators on a daily basis on a vast array of their operations. It is no trick at all for the regulators to cause a given lender no end of legal and operational problems. Can anyone seriously deny this reality?
Accordingly, litigating politicized lending standards is vastly more problematic without the new rule than with it because such lending constraints inevitably are predominantly an informal system based upon letters and phone calls and hints and winks and sighs and frowns. Without the rule, the borrowers against whom the discrimination is directed would not have standing to sue, and the lenders would not do so for the reasons just delineated.
That is why Choke Point and similar gameplaying in the capital market is ideal for the political left: No formal rule is being violated, the banks are in no position to resist, and the borrowers have no recourse. Equality under the law is thrown out the window because the left fundamentally believes in nothing as much as its own political power, while the bureaucracy---much ignored in the reality that it is an important interest group---is left to enhance its own powers at the expense of market forces.
...


And here I always thought they lended based upon ability to re pay! Silly me.
 

Esdraelon

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
6,237
Reaction score
9,842
Points
2,138
The lenders are not to make such decisions on the basis of the political unpopularity (among leftists) of certain businesses, obvious examples of which are producers of fossil fuels or firearms,
I recently stopped using PayPal because they decided it was their business to decide what I could buy with their service. I liked the extra security of not having to use my credit card online but now that they've decided they can dictate this to me I've begun using Privacy.com. You open an account and associate a credit card with it then you have the same or better security without some Leftist asshole making decisions for you. It's also handy for stopping recurring charges from some vendor who didn't honor the commitments made when the contract was agreed on.

THAT part is way cool. You just close that card use off your account and they can't keep taking the money :)
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top