Man, how things have changed.
Have you seen this story?
Wachovia apologizes for ties to slavery
At one time in my life, say age 17-25, I may have understood the laws that gave rise to this story: cities requiring banks who do business within their limits to disclose their involvement with, and profiting from, slavery. I would have been all, "Yeah, Man, slavery was so bad! We can't just sweep it under the rug and forget about it. Bring it out in the open, let the healing begin by shaming those capitalist pigs! We can't let them get away with it!"
But things have changed. I don't know if it's more of a focus on money in my life, or the fact that I understand a bit more about business and the world we live in. I'm still pretty liberal, but I'm inclined to call "Bullshit" on these laws. I'll refrain from an uncontrolled rant about their stupidity, and leave the floor open for others to explain it to me, from people who may have more insight or experience with the reasoning behind them. But here's my initial take on why I don't agree.
Why would cities want to hurt the business of its banks? Requiring them to disclose involvement in slavery, almost 150 years ago, will only provoke people to stop banking with them, which will cause the banks to suffer, possibly close down some branches and lay off employees. Now you (the City Council) have directly hurt your tax base, because you no longer collect property tax from the banks and income tax from the employees. You also cause reduced economic activity in the area where the bank used to be, further hurting economic well-being for your residents, and taking money out of the city's coffers. I know these effects are not necessary results, but they are a likely possibility and aren't countered by any advantage I can see. What could possibly be the source of these laws except some minority special interest members who were outraged to find out banks that still exist once took collateral in the form of slaves. They probably saw something on 60 Minutes and started a petition campaign. It's ridiculous.
Plus, where does it stop? Say I want to open a sub shop in Chicago. Say my great, great, great grandfather was a plantation owner, who was notorious for abusing his slaves and using them as bets in card games. What if I had an ancestor who was a slave-ship captain? Would I have to disclose those facts before I could apply for a business license? Before I could enter into contracts within the city? What's the difference for banks? What is the point of punishing anyone, companies or individuals, who have a tenuous connection to those in the distant past who took actions that were perfectly legal at the time, but which we find morally reprehensible now? What is to be gained from that? Awareness? How much awareness do we need? Why does awareness of how your bank's predecessor conducted business help you, unless it's information that helps you decide whether to bank with them or not? And we come again to how this can only be seen as an unnecessarily punitive measure against banks that hurts them, and therefore, the economy. Why else did Wachovia feel the need to publicly apologize?
Feel free to let me know your thoughts. I may have my opinion, but that can always be changed with more facts and arguments that make sense.
Reading this story, I'm reminded of the SNL commercial that spoofed the Charles Schwab commercials: Grayson Moorhead Securities. That one was hilarious.
iPod: "Froggie" by The Presidents of the U.S.A., "Meet James Ensor" by They Might Be Giants, "Breath" by Pearl Jam, "Butterflies" by Fo Fighters, "Election Day" by The Replacements, and "Now I'm Exhausted" by Braid.
Wachovia apologizes for ties to slavery
At one time in my life, say age 17-25, I may have understood the laws that gave rise to this story: cities requiring banks who do business within their limits to disclose their involvement with, and profiting from, slavery. I would have been all, "Yeah, Man, slavery was so bad! We can't just sweep it under the rug and forget about it. Bring it out in the open, let the healing begin by shaming those capitalist pigs! We can't let them get away with it!"
But things have changed. I don't know if it's more of a focus on money in my life, or the fact that I understand a bit more about business and the world we live in. I'm still pretty liberal, but I'm inclined to call "Bullshit" on these laws. I'll refrain from an uncontrolled rant about their stupidity, and leave the floor open for others to explain it to me, from people who may have more insight or experience with the reasoning behind them. But here's my initial take on why I don't agree.
Why would cities want to hurt the business of its banks? Requiring them to disclose involvement in slavery, almost 150 years ago, will only provoke people to stop banking with them, which will cause the banks to suffer, possibly close down some branches and lay off employees. Now you (the City Council) have directly hurt your tax base, because you no longer collect property tax from the banks and income tax from the employees. You also cause reduced economic activity in the area where the bank used to be, further hurting economic well-being for your residents, and taking money out of the city's coffers. I know these effects are not necessary results, but they are a likely possibility and aren't countered by any advantage I can see. What could possibly be the source of these laws except some minority special interest members who were outraged to find out banks that still exist once took collateral in the form of slaves. They probably saw something on 60 Minutes and started a petition campaign. It's ridiculous.
Plus, where does it stop? Say I want to open a sub shop in Chicago. Say my great, great, great grandfather was a plantation owner, who was notorious for abusing his slaves and using them as bets in card games. What if I had an ancestor who was a slave-ship captain? Would I have to disclose those facts before I could apply for a business license? Before I could enter into contracts within the city? What's the difference for banks? What is the point of punishing anyone, companies or individuals, who have a tenuous connection to those in the distant past who took actions that were perfectly legal at the time, but which we find morally reprehensible now? What is to be gained from that? Awareness? How much awareness do we need? Why does awareness of how your bank's predecessor conducted business help you, unless it's information that helps you decide whether to bank with them or not? And we come again to how this can only be seen as an unnecessarily punitive measure against banks that hurts them, and therefore, the economy. Why else did Wachovia feel the need to publicly apologize?
Feel free to let me know your thoughts. I may have my opinion, but that can always be changed with more facts and arguments that make sense.
Reading this story, I'm reminded of the SNL commercial that spoofed the Charles Schwab commercials: Grayson Moorhead Securities. That one was hilarious.
iPod: "Froggie" by The Presidents of the U.S.A., "Meet James Ensor" by They Might Be Giants, "Breath" by Pearl Jam, "Butterflies" by Fo Fighters, "Election Day" by The Replacements, and "Now I'm Exhausted" by Braid.
posted by CBK at
9:02 AM
