Hacker News Reader

Comment by clipsy | Hacker News Reader

You're right that debanking shouldn't be allowed; but the solution should be legislation that bans or heavily regulates debanking across the board, not executive fiat that specifically protects the president's friends and allies.

View on HN

The executive order is not expected to be specific to the “the president's friends and allies”, but just politically motivated bank actions in general. But I agree, legislation is preferable. And I wouldn’t support such an executive action if it were one sided.

What about customers that slide into unsavory activity, or customers who you think are doing illegal things, but don't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Are citizens not allowed to decide not to associate with someone?

I otherwise applaud your commitment to the rule of law.

Citizens as individuals, sure. But banks that are massively concentrated are more like public utilities not individual citizens, in terms of their criticality to a functioning society. They need to be regulated like that.

Both US banks and utilities are considered critical infrastructure under Executive Order 13636 of 2013. The government is charged with ensuring their resilience and availability to maintain a stable society (in the face of cyber threats).

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.

How often do cellphone companies ban drug dealers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com