Check out the divestment movement in regards to climate change / the environment, as it is a very similar rationale. The basic argument is that for myriad reasons we have had zero luck even getting democratic governments to be serious about climate change. One of the things regular people can do is to use pressure as a consumer or stockholder for a lender not to lend for fossil fuel projects. Less banks are willing to invest in coal, and then lending costs increases for new projects (if the debt is available at all) and so less of them happen. In Australia, at least, it has actually been pretty effective. It’s not the most economically efficient way to abate emissions, but hey second best optimums.
Oh, I’m fully aware of that. But it’s different from trying to hold a lender accountable for anything done by people they lend to… Even ignoring the essential impossibility of actually figuring how much actual money that would equate to.
I understand what you mean, but I am just trying to communicate what AOC is trying to get across here (not very successfully). In Australia there is also a number of refugee advocacy groups who call on anyone with big investment funds (e.g. superannuation funds, universities) to divest from construction/detention companies that are involved in the construction or management of Australian offshore immigration detention facilities (we’ve been putting brown kids in cages much longer than you n00bs!). They’ve had less success than the climate change divestment movement, but as I said it’s a similar rationale. E.g. http://riserefugee.org/divestment-call/
I don’t think AOC is suggesting they can/should be legally accountable for the actions of their borrowers (who are doing legal things directed by the government anyway), but that they are partially ethically accountable for the things done by their borrowers. However, for this to have validity the bank must continue supporting such actions after the company takes the contract. If Wells Fargo stopped lending to them after the kid caging, not sure what AOC is doing here either.
Once she heard that she probably should have thought on her feet and just stopped.
Also, this is Well’s Fargo, the home of the fake accounts, home mortgage scandals, impossible sales quotas, knew about the problems did nothing… maybe start with a bank that at least appears to care about ethics to begin with.
This is acceptable. Banks are federally regulated and federally this is still illegal. The fix is not at the banks but making that business legal at the federal level.
This is not acceptable because this equates sexual preferences with porn, but also the attempts to get this group as a protected class would also help.
I think it’s stupid porn still has this weirdo rejection too but hey they made a movie that touched on that to no real end.
Banks are run by people, after all, and they seem often to be bad people. As a general rule, if a bank does a thing, it’s because that’s what the people who run the bank want to do. That includes selling investors shit sandwiches, or creating accounts for millions of people who didn’t ask for them, or blacklisting LGBT businesses. It isn’t all perfectly rational markets.
… other people seem happy about that exchange.
Do these comics of his actually get published anywhere, or is it just stuff found in his website?
So Trump is the bad guy. Right? :)
How are we supposed to know that’s Trump? Unlike every other person in that picture, his identity isn’t spelled out.
Which part of that comic is “debt”?
There are a great many things Ben Garrison doesn’t understand.
Like subtle use of imagery without just writing words onto objects.
In his defense lots of political cartoonists do that.
Jeez did I just defend that douche
He’s explicitly stating that women of color demanding ‘equality’ are the enemy, so I’d say he understands his audience.
Equality is gay.
I think we’re mocking the word ‘Free.’ Here in the Land of the… uh…
The ‘skipper’ is certainly not DJT. Add a couple hundred pounds of lard, and I may see some resemblance.