CFPB would not have prevented the real estate bubble of 2007

Perhaps not. That said, it's not clear how the timing of its creation is useful to the debate over whether or not it should exist.

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.

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.

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 ?????

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.

>>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 )

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

They do.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/18y2hxa/lpt_if...

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

> 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.

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

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.

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.

it is terrifying you think it is OK to employ thousands of expensive bureacrats only to manually forward customer complaints to [email protected], in a nation with 330+ mln people

That is of course not all that they do, but you know that.

DOGE has been around for two weeks.

and seems to have saved a lot of money for US taxpayers, judging by the headlines

You should try to use your own brain more, read whole articles (plural, nkt just one) rather than just some headline. I know it's hard in this tik tok low attention span world.

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.

>>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

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.