Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Soviet Computocracy]

It's the fundamental failure of justifying emotional responses after the fact.

I am extremely authoritarian on completely logic grounds.

[Estanglia]

It's the fundamental failure of justifying emotional responses after the fact.

I am extremely authoritarian on completely logic grounds.

I'm fairly certain Telconi wasn't referring to you.

[Galloism]

It's the fundamental failure of justifying emotional responses after the fact.

It would be worth note we do force businesses to serve underserved areas and lose money on it in some cases.

The telephone system comes to mind.

[Telconi]

It's the fundamental failure of justifying emotional responses after the fact.

I am extremely authoritarian on completely logic grounds.

(X)

[Telconi]

It's the fundamental failure of justifying emotional responses after the fact.

It would be worth note we do force businesses to serve underserved areas and lose money on it in some cases.

The telephone system comes to mind.

You're telling me this.

Of course we do. And while I find the practice to be shit, at least it's consistently shit.

[Galloism]

It would be worth note we do force businesses to serve underserved areas and lose money on it in some cases.

The telephone system comes to mind.

You're telling me this.

Of course we do. And while I find the practice to be shit, at least it's consistently shit.

I think it's worth it of course, but as you pointed out - it's consistent. It doesn't matter if you're city or country, black or white, universal service applies to you.

[Telconi]

You're telling me this.

Of course we do. And while I find the practice to be shit, at least it's consistently shit.

I think it's worth it of course, but as you pointed out - it's consistent. It doesn't matter if you're city or country, black or white, universal service applies to you.

Although, to be fair, telephone companies don't lose money on that.

[Galloism]

I think it's worth it of course, but as you pointed out - it's consistent. It doesn't matter if you're city or country, black or white, universal service applies to you.

Although, to be fair, telephone companies don't lose money on that.

Well, they do on some users. But the universal service fee helps defray it.

[Telconi]

Although, to be fair, telephone companies don't lose money on that.

Well, they do on some users. But the universal service fee helps defray it.

Government subsidies are also adjusted to offset that. Basically the feds eat the losses of mandatory connections lose the company money.

[Galloism]

Well, they do on some users. But the universal service fee helps defray it.

Government subsidies are also adjusted to offset that. Basically the feds eat the losses of mandatory connections lose the company money.

Again, not entirely. They help defray it, but there's not enough money in the subsidy to truly make it a net zero.

[Telconi]

Government subsidies are also adjusted to offset that. Basically the feds eat the losses of mandatory connections lose the company money.

Again, not entirely. They help defray it, but there's not enough money in the subsidy to truly make it a net zero.

No but the rest gets pushed on customers.

Basically.

Telecom company is mandated to pay USF contributions.

Telco charges customers to meet USF mandates.

Telco pays USF mandates without actually losing a dime, because customers paid for it.

Telco gets money from USF when it builds out rural infrastructure.

???

Profit.

[Galloism]

Again, not entirely. They help defray it, but there's not enough money in the subsidy to truly make it a net zero.

No but the rest gets pushed on customers.

Basically.

Telecom company is mandated to pay USF contributions.

Telco charges customers to meet USF mandates.

Telco pays USF mandates without actually losing a dime, because customers paid for it.

Telco gets money from USF when it builds out rural infrastructure.

???

Profit.

True, but just like the bank forced to open in an unprofitable area, they essentially make the city customers subsidize the country customers.

I'm not saying they lose money from an overall accounting perspective, because they've built in the loss customers losses into the gain customers bills, but on a per customer basis they are essentially forced to lose money on certain customers.

[Telconi]

No but the rest gets pushed on customers.

Basically.

Telecom company is mandated to pay USF contributions.

Telco charges customers to meet USF mandates.

Telco pays USF mandates without actually losing a dime, because customers paid for it.

Telco gets money from USF when it builds out rural infrastructure.

???

Profit.

True, but just like the bank forced to open in an unprofitable area, they essentially make the city customers subsidize the country customers.

I'm not saying they lose money from an overall accounting perspective, because they've built in the loss customers losses into the gain customers bills, but on a per customer basis they are essentially forced to lose money on certain customers.

Sure, but the point is there's no reason such a scheme can't be applied to banks.

[Galloism]

True, but just like the bank forced to open in an unprofitable area, they essentially make the city customers subsidize the country customers.

I'm not saying they lose money from an overall accounting perspective, because they've built in the loss customers losses into the gain customers bills, but on a per customer basis they are essentially forced to lose money on certain customers.

Sure, but the point is there's no reason such a scheme can't be applied to banks.

In fact, arguably it already has been - just in very limited circumstances.

[San Lumen]

The lawsuit you spoke about involved a much larger community. Chicago right? I doubt a branch of the bank in a town of a few hundred is going to be profitable. Jefferson City is the hub of the community. Two of the seven communities not including Jefferson city have a community bank another has a regional bank. This is according to Google Earth.

I dont see how you would have a compelling case in that county or many rural counties for discrimination.

And the bank argued that the branches in the black neighborhoods wouldn't be profitable because of the higher risk and greater expenses associated with those neighborhoods, along with lower account ownership and higher risk of default for loans.

Which leads us back to the same problem. Either we can point a gun at a business and say "you must open an unprofitable location for antidiscrimination reasons" or we can't. And, besides that fact, there were already other banks in the immediate area that the people could use. They don't even have to go to another community. There was one in their community.

Your excuses, consistently applied, would say the settlement between Associated Bank and HUD was wrong. But you don't consistently apply your excuses.

Have the courage of your convictions, San Lumen.

How in this case dont I have the courage of my convictions?

[Galloism]

And the bank argued that the branches in the black neighborhoods wouldn't be profitable because of the higher risk and greater expenses associated with those neighborhoods, along with lower account ownership and higher risk of default for loans.

Which leads us back to the same problem. Either we can point a gun at a business and say "you must open an unprofitable location for antidiscrimination reasons" or we can't. And, besides that fact, there were already other banks in the immediate area that the people could use. They don't even have to go to another community. There was one in their community.

Your excuses, consistently applied, would say the settlement between Associated Bank and HUD was wrong. But you don't consistently apply your excuses.

Have the courage of your convictions, San Lumen.

How in this case dont I have the courage of my convictions?

Because if it's not the pet group(s) you love, you make every excuse under the sun (all the same ones that the people you are arguing AGAINST use, for the record) for why we can't utilize your alleged principles consistently. Apply your principles consistently or not at all.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The lawsuit you spoke about involved a much larger community. Chicago right? I doubt a branch of the bank in a town of a few hundred is going to be profitable. Jefferson City is the hub of the community. Two of the seven communities not including Jefferson city have a community bank another has a regional bank. This is according to Google Earth.

I dont see how you would have a compelling case in that county or many rural counties for discrimination.

And the bank argued that the branches in the black neighborhoods wouldn't be profitable because of the higher risk and greater expenses associated with those neighborhoods, along with lower account ownership and higher risk of default for loans.

Which leads us back to the same problem. Either we can point a gun at a business and say "you must open an unprofitable location for antidiscrimination reasons" or we can't. And, besides that fact, there were already other banks in the immediate area that the people could use. They don't even have to go to another community. There was one in their community.

Your excuses, consistently applied, would say the settlement between Associated Bank and HUD was wrong. But you don't consistently apply your excuses.

Have the courage of your convictions, San Lumen.

Ban banks.

[Soviet Computocracy]

Well, they do on some users. But the universal service fee helps defray it.

You pay that shit?

[Telconi]

Well, they do on some users. But the universal service fee helps defray it.

You pay that shit?

People pay bills, who knew?

[Soviet Computocracy]

People pay bills, who knew?

I get unlimited from Sprint for 30$, did AT&T try and sell you their access fee?

[Galloism]

People pay bills, who knew?

I get unlimited from Sprint for 30$, did AT&T try and sell you their access fee?

That means you're paying the fee, separately stated or not.

[Soviet Computocracy]

That means you're paying the fee, separately stated or not.

Yeah but I got a “free” iPhone 6s

[Galloism]

That means you're paying the fee, separately stated or not.

Yeah but I got a “free” iPhone 6s

Ok.

[Telconi]

People pay bills, who knew?

I get unlimited from Sprint for 30$, did AT&T try and sell you their access fee?

No, it's separately stated on my bill tho.

[Soviet Computocracy]

Damn, it’s actually 38. Lying son of bitches. Still more honest than AT&T though.