31–40 of 41 posts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2017/01/24/the-cf...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they think it's the government's fault, that's not necessarily a barrier to agreement on a course of action. If there's a law that can pass that libertarians can call "deregulation" I could potentially get behind it so long as it has the desired effect. For instance, it's my understanding that laws exist which protect the big three credit authorities. What are those laws, and what the prospects for changing them?
Don't expect anything. Libertarians have no real answer for health care and they have no real answer for dealing with the credit agencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't expect anything. Libertarians have no real answer for health care and they have no real answer for dealing with the credit agencies.
Yes they do, you just don't like that the answer is let them die.
However, would whatever replaces the big three exhibit the same negative externalities and recreate the same situation of market failure?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't expect anything. Libertarians have no real answer for health care and they have no real answer for dealing with the credit agencies.
Yes they do, you just don't like that the answer is let them die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was it inevitable that the Equifax situation became partisan? I'm not so sure it's the Equifax situation here, but rather the CFPB that's the target of partisan lashings. The CFPB has been criticized by both the left and right at various times for overspending, lack of oversight, lack of results, and especially it's fundamental structure - in fact it was even ruled unconstitutional by a DC circuit court. The ruling…
Someone needs to pull rank and take over or start an investigation outside of the CFPB. They clearly aren’t doing their job, and now it has become stupid to simply ask them to start doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes they do, you just don't like that the answer is let them die.
I love the answer of letting them die. The negative externalities of the big three CRAs exceed value they provide and if the market could respond to those externalities, they would go under. However, would whatever replaces the big three exhibit the same negative externalities and recreate the same situation of market failure?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the answer of letting them die. The negative externalities of the big three CRAs exceed value they provide and if the market could respond to those externalities, they would go under. However, would whatever replaces the big three exhibit the same negative externalities and recreate the same situation of market failure?
I think the more apt comparison to letting people die if they can afford healthcare is for Equifax to make all their data public, and you can pay Equifax a couple thousand a month to make data about you private.
I still feel like your analogy doesn't adequately capture the negative externality in the identity theft that the CRAs enable. In a healthy marketplace, the cost of that identity theft would be borne by the people who profit from it, not innocent third parties.
How do we get to a marketplace where that crushing cost falls upon the deserving party, dissuading them from their destructive course? We need to acknowledge that the quantitative change in the accessibility of personal credit information amounts to a qualitative change, justifying a rethink about who owns it.
A previous HN discussion, possibly on Equifax now that I think about it, had a comment recommending the book "The Chickenshit Club", about why the justice department doesn't prosecute. I just finished in it a discussion of Enron and their auditors, Arthur Andersen. The justice department prosecuted Andersen (one of the "big 5" accounting firms at the time), and there was a lot of backlash about the Justice Dept "kill…
Second the recommendation for Chickenshit Club (also helps interpret the speed and proceedings of other DOJ cases in play). Equifax is largely embedded in our business/credit infrastructure and there would be collateral consequences for all of the businesses who would have to change as a result of their punishment/demise. This in no way absolves them from responsibility but DOJ pragmatism towards corporations is they…
If the services in question are so essential that the government doesn't want it to shut down, then the government should take it over like they did with Freddie and Fannie
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the more apt comparison to letting people die if they can afford healthcare is for Equifax to make all their data public, and you can pay Equifax a couple thousand a month to make data about you private.
Meh, I misunderstood who "let them die" refer to -- I thought it was the CRAs, not people. :\ I still feel like your analogy doesn't adequately capture the negative externality in the identity theft that the CRAs enable. In a healthy marketplace, the cost of that identity theft would be borne by the people who profit from it, not innocent third parties. How do we get to a marketplace where that crushing cost falls up…
No, you understood correctly the first time.
A previous HN discussion, possibly on Equifax now that I think about it, had a comment recommending the book "The Chickenshit Club", about why the justice department doesn't prosecute. I just finished in it a discussion of Enron and their auditors, Arthur Andersen. The justice department prosecuted Andersen (one of the "big 5" accounting firms at the time), and there was a lot of backlash about the Justice Dept "kill…
Second the recommendation for Chickenshit Club (also helps interpret the speed and proceedings of other DOJ cases in play). Equifax is largely embedded in our business/credit infrastructure and there would be collateral consequences for all of the businesses who would have to change as a result of their punishment/demise. This in no way absolves them from responsibility but DOJ pragmatism towards corporations is they…