5 ms·

Let me put it this way then: CFPB has been around for about 14 years out of the country's entire history of about 249 years. We will be fine without them.

quantified 2y ago
So the younger the effort, the less relevant/useful they are? That's an argument, but not compelling. Pretty much every startup is pointless according to that logic.
- slt2021 2y ago
  CFPB has no track record of materially improving people's lives Just ask yourself: How other countries manage to survive without the CFPB, and live just fine ?????
  - dqv 2y ago
    They do. https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/18y2hxa/lpt_if_bank_customer_service_is_giving_you_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/18y2hxa/lpt_if...
    - slt2021 2y ago
      that specific part, file a complaint and get escalated to company's management: 1. could be automated completely, removing the need for human cost in the process 2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
      - dqv 2y ago
        > 1. could be automated completely, removing the need for human cost in the process Automation fails. A lot. There will always be a need for humans to address at least some of these cases. > 2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers Adding to the list of things the government doesn't do (removal of the CFPB without an alternative) doesn't achieve this. The FTC still directs consumers to the CFPB. Might want to call Russ and let him know.
        slt2021 2y ago
        there is no reason to maintain expensive staff to manually review customer complaints in the age of AI and LLMs. Just fire 90% of these thousands of lawyers with 500k salaries and replace remaining 10% with engineers who will create a system on autopilot. There is really no valid argument against materially improving government efficiency
        Timon3 2y ago
        It's terrifying that people really think LLMs are ready for such important tasks, and even moreso that they're willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of others to do so.
        slt2021 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Timon3 2y ago
        That is of course not all that they do, but you know that.
        technol0gic 2y ago
        they aren't, this person just simply wants them to be. and if you say anything to the contrary about LLMs not being fully baked enough for this undertaking, they will immediately frame it like you're against the entire endeavor. they hate nuance.
  - quantified 2y ago
    Huh. Other countries survive just fine. I thought America was to be great, though. CFPB tends to go after those who rip off the less affluent. Not a HN constituency. We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first.
    - slt2021 2y ago
      >>We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first. it is a valid question how DEA was unable to prevent opioid epidemic by Sackler family, and the current fentanyl epidemic, and I'm sure the effectiveness question will be raised. while we are discussing DEA, I wanted to highlight CIA whistleblower Kiriakou's interview ( https://youtu.be/yaoTdbGbU1c?t=187 https://youtu.be/yaoTdbGbU1c?t=187 ) Afghanistan was net food exporter, but shortly after USA occupation, Afghanistan produces 93% of world's heroine, and DoD encouraged opium production because heroine was exported to geopolitical adversaries (Russia and Iran). and DEA even shut down investigation by the CIA. Very big questions are starting to arise
yongjik 2y ago
DOGE has been around for two weeks.
- slt2021 2y ago
  and seems to have saved a lot of money for US taxpayers, judging by the headlines
  - ulfw 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    Civics 101 teaches us that Congress in charge of the purse, not the executive branch. Given than any authority DOGE has was granted solely by the executive, any "cost-cutting" he has done is likely the beginning of a long, expensive, legal battle that DOGE will inevitably lose. Even if you agree with the goals, the methods are not just bad... they're illegal, ineffective, and likely to be very expensive in the long run. They should have just done it properly.
    - slt2021 2y ago
      >>Congress in charge of the purse Congress authorizes appropriations for new expenses (so that executive branch could not authorize their own expenses at taxpayer cost), but not cost cutting within executive branch
      - stevenAthompson 2y ago
        That's patently ridiculous to anyone who has read the constitution lately. It was even a ridiculous idea to Republicans a few months ago when they argued that forgiving student loan debt was outside of the presidents power, despite that money having already been approved by Congress and spent. They can not in good faith now argue that the executive gets final and unlimited authority over spending. Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending and article II Section 3 says that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That's all of the authority over the budget the president has: the ability to faithfully execute the spending Congress approved or to veto the bill when it's passed. Further, the matter has been to the supreme court TWICE already. First during Nixon's reign in the 70's (Nixon lost), then later under Clinton during the line-item veto mess. Clinton also lost, rightfully. The worst part of all of this is that I know these things and I'm NOT someone who swore to uphold the constitution.

quantified 2y ago

So the younger the effort, the less relevant/useful they are? That's an argument, but not compelling. Pretty much every startup is pointless according to that logic.

slt2021 2y ago
CFPB has no track record of materially improving people's lives Just ask yourself: How other countries manage to survive without the CFPB, and live just fine ?????
- dqv 2y ago
  They do. https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/18y2hxa/lpt_if_bank_customer_service_is_giving_you_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/18y2hxa/lpt_if...
  - slt2021 2y ago
    that specific part, file a complaint and get escalated to company's management: 1. could be automated completely, removing the need for human cost in the process 2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
    - dqv 2y ago
      > 1. could be automated completely, removing the need for human cost in the process Automation fails. A lot. There will always be a need for humans to address at least some of these cases. > 2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers Adding to the list of things the government doesn't do (removal of the CFPB without an alternative) doesn't achieve this. The FTC still directs consumers to the CFPB. Might want to call Russ and let him know.
      - slt2021 2y ago
        there is no reason to maintain expensive staff to manually review customer complaints in the age of AI and LLMs. Just fire 90% of these thousands of lawyers with 500k salaries and replace remaining 10% with engineers who will create a system on autopilot. There is really no valid argument against materially improving government efficiency
        Timon3 2y ago
        It's terrifying that people really think LLMs are ready for such important tasks, and even moreso that they're willing to sacrifice the livelihoods of others to do so.
        slt2021 2y ago
        [flagged]
        Timon3 2y ago
        That is of course not all that they do, but you know that.
        technol0gic 2y ago
        they aren't, this person just simply wants them to be. and if you say anything to the contrary about LLMs not being fully baked enough for this undertaking, they will immediately frame it like you're against the entire endeavor. they hate nuance.
- quantified 2y ago
  Huh. Other countries survive just fine. I thought America was to be great, though. CFPB tends to go after those who rip off the less affluent. Not a HN constituency. We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    >>We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first. it is a valid question how DEA was unable to prevent opioid epidemic by Sackler family, and the current fentanyl epidemic, and I'm sure the effectiveness question will be raised. while we are discussing DEA, I wanted to highlight CIA whistleblower Kiriakou's interview ( https://youtu.be/yaoTdbGbU1c?t=187 https://youtu.be/yaoTdbGbU1c?t=187 ) Afghanistan was net food exporter, but shortly after USA occupation, Afghanistan produces 93% of world's heroine, and DoD encouraged opium production because heroine was exported to geopolitical adversaries (Russia and Iran). and DEA even shut down investigation by the CIA. Very big questions are starting to arise

yongjik 2y ago

DOGE has been around for two weeks.

slt2021 2y ago
and seems to have saved a lot of money for US taxpayers, judging by the headlines
- ulfw 2y ago
  [flagged]
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  Civics 101 teaches us that Congress in charge of the purse, not the executive branch. Given than any authority DOGE has was granted solely by the executive, any "cost-cutting" he has done is likely the beginning of a long, expensive, legal battle that DOGE will inevitably lose. Even if you agree with the goals, the methods are not just bad... they're illegal, ineffective, and likely to be very expensive in the long run. They should have just done it properly.
  - slt2021 2y ago
    >>Congress in charge of the purse Congress authorizes appropriations for new expenses (so that executive branch could not authorize their own expenses at taxpayer cost), but not cost cutting within executive branch
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      That's patently ridiculous to anyone who has read the constitution lately. It was even a ridiculous idea to Republicans a few months ago when they argued that forgiving student loan debt was outside of the presidents power, despite that money having already been approved by Congress and spent. They can not in good faith now argue that the executive gets final and unlimited authority over spending. Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending and article II Section 3 says that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That's all of the authority over the budget the president has: the ability to faithfully execute the spending Congress approved or to veto the bill when it's passed. Further, the matter has been to the supreme court TWICE already. First during Nixon's reign in the 70's (Nixon lost), then later under Clinton during the line-item veto mess. Clinton also lost, rightfully. The worst part of all of this is that I know these things and I'm NOT someone who swore to uphold the constitution.