Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.

Part of the reason the CFPB has been targeted is because you have big tech conglomerates that are looking to get into banking, lending and payments, and they don't even want a minor speed bump in that process. Mister musk Elon Musk he has stated they want twitter x to become a bank, the ability to move and track payments across its platforms, and I think that it's reasonable for Americans to wonder why is he targeting this little agency.

Part of the reason the CFPB has been targeted is because you have big tech conglomerates that are looking to get into banking, lending and payments, and they don't even want a minor speed bump in that process. Mister musk Elon Musk he has stated they want twitter x to become a bank, the ability to move and track payments across its platforms, and I think that it's reasonable for Americans to wonder why is he targeting this little agency.

Today's guest is from One Angle, a hero to millions of people for returning billions of dollars to consumers as the director former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. To Jamie Diamond, he's an arrogant, out of touch soob to billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Andresen.

Today's guest is from One Angle, a hero to millions of people for returning billions of dollars to consumers as the director former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. To Jamie Diamond, he's an arrogant, out of touch soob to billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Andresen.

He's a vile threat to the American Republic.

He's a vile threat to the American Republic.

He is Roehit Chopra, former head of the CFP, former FTC commissioner, pushed out recently by Donald Trump.

He is Roehit Chopra, former head of the CFP, former FTC commissioner, pushed out recently by Donald Trump.

Welcome rowhead, great to be with you. So let's start.

Welcome rowhead, great to be with you. So let's start.

We have a lot to get through, because there has been a lot thrown your way in at the way of the CFPB. But let's start with Jamie Diamond, who, as we just put up there during a town hall with his own banking employees, just utterly unleashed on you.

We have a lot to get through, because there has been a lot thrown your way in at the way of the CFPB. But let's start with Jamie Diamond, who, as we just put up there during a town hall with his own banking employees, just utterly unleashed on you.

Again, out of touch son of a gun.

Again, out of touch son of a gun.

Except he didn't say gun the family program, So we'll stick with gun. Why why is Jamie Diamond so angry at you?

Except he didn't say gun the family program, So we'll stick with gun. Why why is Jamie Diamond so angry at you?

Well, I don't know exactly. I probably have some Well I get it. This is an extremely emotional time for him and others. One of President Trump's first set of remarks at Davos, actually he called out Jamie Diamond and Brian moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America by name. The issue of de banking, deplatforming is one that has really cut across lines. And also there's some real questions about, you know, the lawsuit that we brought against JP, Morgan Chase and other banks for allowing fraud to fester on Zell. I think that lawsuit will We'll let it work through the courts. But there's some questions about whether the new CFPB will simply defund all of its investigations against big banks and big tech companies. And that's really an open one for all of us.

Well, I don't know exactly. I probably have some Well I get it. This is an extremely emotional time for him and others. One of President Trump's first set of remarks at Davos, actually he called out Jamie Diamond and Brian moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America by name. The issue of de banking, deplatforming is one that has really cut across lines. And also there's some real questions about, you know, the lawsuit that we brought against JP, Morgan Chase and other banks for allowing fraud to fester on Zell. I think that lawsuit will We'll let it work through the courts. But there's some questions about whether the new CFPB will simply defund all of its investigations against big banks and big tech companies. And that's really an open one for all of us.

There was also something about Jamie Diamond didn't like something you guys were pushing about letting people move their money from one bank to another.

There was also something about Jamie Diamond didn't like something you guys were pushing about letting people move their money from one bank to another.

What was that one?

What was that one?

Yes, some of the largest banks, and I know he was personally very upset the idea of giving consumers the ability to switch their accounts more seamlessly. You might remember Ryan.

Yes, some of the largest banks, and I know he was personally very upset the idea of giving consumers the ability to switch their accounts more seamlessly. You might remember Ryan.

To move your money movement.

To move your money movement.

Well, remember when you actually couldn't change your phone carrier's right unless you switched to your phone number. And the FCC issued an order saying, no, let's give consumers a little bit more power to vote with their feet. That's exactly one of the laws that had been on the books. It sat dormant, but during my time there, we wanted to make that a reality because we saw the billions of dollars that large banks credit card companies were able to harvest because they create an obstacle course to switching accounts.

Well, remember when you actually couldn't change your phone carrier's right unless you switched to your phone number. And the FCC issued an order saying, no, let's give consumers a little bit more power to vote with their feet. That's exactly one of the laws that had been on the books. It sat dormant, but during my time there, we wanted to make that a reality because we saw the billions of dollars that large banks credit card companies were able to harvest because they create an obstacle course to switching accounts.

Ye, so you brought up de banking, So let's let's move to that one, which is not the one I have in here.

Ye, so you brought up de banking, So let's let's move to that one, which is not the one I have in here.

H one.

H one.

But let's let's start with h H two.

But let's let's start with h H two.

This is Mark Zuckerberg appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, and I want people to notice that when he's about to say the word consumer, he pretends to forget the name of the agency because it isn't helpful to him. I think to call it the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because you're starting on your back foot when you're a company that says you're against that. So let's roll H two here, and then I want to get you to respond to this Zuckerberg allegation.

This is Mark Zuckerberg appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, and I want people to notice that when he's about to say the word consumer, he pretends to forget the name of the agency because it isn't helpful to him. I think to call it the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because you're starting on your back foot when you're a company that says you're against that. So let's roll H two here, and then I want to get you to respond to this Zuckerberg allegation.

And we had organizations that were looking into us that were like not really involved with social media, like the CFPB, like this financial I don't even know what it stands for. It's the it's the financial organization that Elizabeth Warren had set up. Oh great, And it's basically it's like, we're not a bank.

And we had organizations that were looking into us that were like not really involved with social media, like the CFPB, like this financial I don't even know what it stands for. It's the it's the financial organization that Elizabeth Warren had set up. Oh great, And it's basically it's like, we're not a bank.

The bank.

The bank.

Yeah, so we're not a bank, right, It's like like what what does meta have to do with this? But they kind of found some theory that they wanted to investigate, and it's like, okay, clearly they were trying really hard, right to like find find some theory. But it like, I don't know, it just it kind of like throughout the the the the the party and the government, there's just sort of I don't know if it's I don't know how this stuff works. I mean, I've never been in government. I don't know if it's like a directive or it's just like a quiet consensus that like, we don't like these guys. They're not doing what we want.

Yeah, so we're not a bank, right, It's like like what what does meta have to do with this? But they kind of found some theory that they wanted to investigate, and it's like, okay, clearly they were trying really hard, right to like find find some theory. But it like, I don't know, it just it kind of like throughout the the the the the party and the government, there's just sort of I don't know if it's I don't know how this stuff works. I mean, I've never been in government. I don't know if it's like a directive or it's just like a quiet consensus that like, we don't like these guys. They're not doing what we want.

We're gonna punish them.

We're gonna punish them.

But but it's uh, it's uh, it's tough to be at the other end of that. What was it like, Well, it's not good. I think the thing that I think is actually the toughest is it's it's global right. So, and really, when you think about it, the US government should be defending its companies right, not be the tip of the spirit attacking its companies.

But but it's uh, it's uh, it's tough to be at the other end of that. What was it like, Well, it's not good. I think the thing that I think is actually the toughest is it's it's global right. So, and really, when you think about it, the US government should be defending its companies right, not be the tip of the spirit attacking its companies.

All right, so Zackerbarg who later kind of implies there's previous in this clip, he had said that because they were getting pressure to uh censor COVID content.

All right, so Zackerbarg who later kind of implies there's previous in this clip, he had said that because they were getting pressure to uh censor COVID content.

Well, then all of a sudden, the CFPB comes after.

Well, then all of a sudden, the CFPB comes after.

Them over, you know, which he implies as part of this kind of pressure campaign against Facebook. So what was CFPB's role in going after Facebook.

Them over, you know, which he implies as part of this kind of pressure campaign against Facebook. So what was CFPB's role in going after Facebook.

Well, it's actually funny in some ways because this is a company that just about five years ago launched a big ploy to start its own currency, to start its own way.

Well, it's actually funny in some ways because this is a company that just about five years ago launched a big ploy to start its own currency, to start its own way.

What were they going to call it?

What were they going to call it?

Called Libra, And what you saw was an attempt. It was a surveillance program essentially that if they could embed payments throughout their whole empire of digital properties, they would be able to track payments across the board.

Called Libra, And what you saw was an attempt. It was a surveillance program essentially that if they could embed payments throughout their whole empire of digital properties, they would be able to track payments across the board.

You're like cookies to the next degree.

You're like cookies to the next degree.

Yeah, and in some ways that is really what many say is a goal to ultimately move toward personalized pricing. And look, the truth is, if you call companies, some of these big tech companies, we are a social media company, please, we know that their tentacles are all over and many have significant aspirations in banking, lending and payments. We have seen that with Google, we have seen that with Apple, and there are laws on the books Ryan that are financial privacy laws. There are laws about how you can traffic credit information like the credit bureaus do. So I'm not going to comment on the investigation they disclosed it to their investors the nature of it, but to suggest that some of these companies are not engaging in some of the same exact practices as big financial conglomerates, I mean as laughable, I'll tell you that. This is also I think part of the reason the CFPB has been targeted is because you have big tech conglomerates that are looking to get into banking, lending and payments and they don't even want a minor speed bump in that process. They don't even want, i think, to be held to the same standards that when consumers are defrauded, or if there's errors in their accounts, or if their information is being harvested and trafficked to those overseas. I don't think they want to even touch that. And the truth is there's laws on the books and the job of the CFB was to enforce it.

Yeah, and in some ways that is really what many say is a goal to ultimately move toward personalized pricing. And look, the truth is, if you call companies, some of these big tech companies, we are a social media company, please, we know that their tentacles are all over and many have significant aspirations in banking, lending and payments. We have seen that with Google, we have seen that with Apple, and there are laws on the books Ryan that are financial privacy laws. There are laws about how you can traffic credit information like the credit bureaus do. So I'm not going to comment on the investigation they disclosed it to their investors the nature of it, but to suggest that some of these companies are not engaging in some of the same exact practices as big financial conglomerates, I mean as laughable, I'll tell you that. This is also I think part of the reason the CFPB has been targeted is because you have big tech conglomerates that are looking to get into banking, lending and payments and they don't even want a minor speed bump in that process. They don't even want, i think, to be held to the same standards that when consumers are defrauded, or if there's errors in their accounts, or if their information is being harvested and trafficked to those overseas. I don't think they want to even touch that. And the truth is there's laws on the books and the job of the CFB was to enforce it.

So this appearance came after Mark Andresen. Venture Capitalist was also on Joe Rogan. Uh, let's let's move to uh to Mark Andreas and one I think that's h h one.

So this appearance came after Mark Andresen. Venture Capitalist was also on Joe Rogan. Uh, let's let's move to uh to Mark Andreas and one I think that's h h one.

Here we have this thing called independent federal agencies Sully for example, with this thing called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau CFPB, which was the it's sort of Elizabeth Warren's personal agency that she gets to control. And it's an independent agency that just gets to run and do whatever it wants. Right, And if you read the constitution, like there is no such thing as an independent agency, and yet there it is.

Here we have this thing called independent federal agencies Sully for example, with this thing called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau CFPB, which was the it's sort of Elizabeth Warren's personal agency that she gets to control. And it's an independent agency that just gets to run and do whatever it wants. Right, And if you read the constitution, like there is no such thing as an independent agency, and yet there it is.

What does her agency do?

What does her agency do?

Whatever she wants?

Whatever she wants?

What does it do though?

What does it do though?

We basically terrorize financial terrorize financial institutions, prevent crypt fintech, prevent new competition, new startups that want to compete with a big bankery. Oh yeah, house, just terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services.

We basically terrorize financial terrorize financial institutions, prevent crypt fintech, prevent new competition, new startups that want to compete with a big bankery. Oh yeah, house, just terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services.

And can you give me an example, said, you know.

And can you give me an example, said, you know.

De banking. This is where a lot of the d banking comes from, is these agencies. So d banking is when you're you as either a person or your company or literally kicked out of the banking system like they did to Kanye exactly like they did the Kanye my partner band's father has been d banked. Really, we had an employee for what for having the wrong politics, for saying unacceptable things under current banking regulations under okay, here's a great here's a great thing. Under current banking regulations. After all the reforms the last twenty years, there's now a category called a politically exposed person PEP. And if you were a PEP, you were required by financial regulators to kick them off of your to kick them out of your bank.

De banking. This is where a lot of the d banking comes from, is these agencies. So d banking is when you're you as either a person or your company or literally kicked out of the banking system like they did to Kanye exactly like they did the Kanye my partner band's father has been d banked. Really, we had an employee for what for having the wrong politics, for saying unacceptable things under current banking regulations under okay, here's a great here's a great thing. Under current banking regulations. After all the reforms the last twenty years, there's now a category called a politically exposed person PEP. And if you were a PEP, you were required by financial regulators to kick them off of your to kick them out of your bank.

You're not allowed to if you're politically on the left.

You're not allowed to if you're politically on the left.

That's fine because they're not politically exposed.

That's fine because they're not politically exposed.

So no one on the left gets d banked.

So no one on the left gets d banked.

Now, I have not heard of a single instance of it.

Now, I have not heard of a single instance of it.

So much to unpack there. Let's start with his PEP claim. What is a what is a politically exposed person?

So much to unpack there. Let's start with his PEP claim. What is a what is a politically exposed person?

Well?

Well?

There anything accurate in what he said there?

There anything accurate in what he said there?

There's a lot there. First of all, a politically exposed person certainly would be someone who's like a government official, who for example, could be subjected to bribery other things.

There's a lot there. First of all, a politically exposed person certainly would be someone who's like a government official, who for example, could be subjected to bribery other things.

But putting all all of the act completely misclassified, well, I think.

But putting all all of the act completely misclassified, well, I think.

The point though, I would say, there's a place where I think is important, which is that when it comes to debanking, I don't think people should ever lose their account because of their exercising their religion speech. And I'll tell you one of the first things I did years ago was to put forth a stronger policy that made it clear when that type of discrimination or debanking ran a foul of the law. Guess who sued to block it. It was actually the bank lobby and the Chamber of Commerce. Then more recently, you know, we went through some court press was there.

The point though, I would say, there's a place where I think is important, which is that when it comes to debanking, I don't think people should ever lose their account because of their exercising their religion speech. And I'll tell you one of the first things I did years ago was to put forth a stronger policy that made it clear when that type of discrimination or debanking ran a foul of the law. Guess who sued to block it. It was actually the bank lobby and the Chamber of Commerce. Then more recently, you know, we went through some court press was there.

What's their business rationale for wanting to block that?

What's their business rationale for wanting to block that?

I have no idea other than just that they were saying that while that only really applies to lending, it doesn't apply to banking. And you know, we could go through the argument about whether the law prohibits that. So I said, Okay, we're going to propose a rule. We're going to use a different procedure to make clear that you cannot close someone's account or otherwise take a negative action like that. Based on some of these core things, we did not hear a peep a peep of support from the big banks and others. So I think we need to start looking at some of the facts here, we should not allow deplatforming and debanking unless there is some sort of legitimate reason, and I will share with you we have heard a lot from the banks and others about this, but what we haven't seen is them showing their data. And one of the big places that they are closing accounts is using algorithms, and sometimes they might not even know the answer why they are closing those accounts. But the idea that the CFPB was somehow, I mean, I know he's conflating a whole set of other regulators, and we also know that there are companies that he had invested in that were repeat offenders and that the CFPP had to take multiple actions against, not just by me, but even my predecessor put in place by President Trump. So I don't know what that is, but I think the idea that somehow, both the banks and these fintech companies we were applying and aggressively enforcing the law when they were egregiously violating.

I have no idea other than just that they were saying that while that only really applies to lending, it doesn't apply to banking. And you know, we could go through the argument about whether the law prohibits that. So I said, Okay, we're going to propose a rule. We're going to use a different procedure to make clear that you cannot close someone's account or otherwise take a negative action like that. Based on some of these core things, we did not hear a peep a peep of support from the big banks and others. So I think we need to start looking at some of the facts here, we should not allow deplatforming and debanking unless there is some sort of legitimate reason, and I will share with you we have heard a lot from the banks and others about this, but what we haven't seen is them showing their data. And one of the big places that they are closing accounts is using algorithms, and sometimes they might not even know the answer why they are closing those accounts. But the idea that the CFPB was somehow, I mean, I know he's conflating a whole set of other regulators, and we also know that there are companies that he had invested in that were repeat offenders and that the CFPP had to take multiple actions against, not just by me, but even my predecessor put in place by President Trump. So I don't know what that is, but I think the idea that somehow, both the banks and these fintech companies we were applying and aggressively enforcing the law when they were egregiously violating.

Did you did you run into any progressive opposition, because I know sometimes progressive organizations would run campaigns to say, you know, if this this person should not actually have access to banking services.

Did you did you run into any progressive opposition, because I know sometimes progressive organizations would run campaigns to say, you know, if this this person should not actually have access to banking services.

So did you kind of push up against.

So did you kind of push up against.

There had been you know, it was not there was definitely. For example, I had undertaken an initiative with respect to greater accountability for Blackrock. Blackrock is an investment giant. I felt that if they were going to be pursuing certain policy goals when taking over banks, they should actually, you know, go through the process of saying we're taking over a bank, rather than relying on some loopholes that say, well, we're just passive, we're not doing anything. And yeah, there maybe I'm sure there was others who felt, why don't we just you know, kind of leave them alone. Maybe they agree with the goals they're doing. My point was different, is that it's really about power. Who should have the power to determine what whether you're getting your account closed because of no reason or a questionable reason, or how they're saying they're passive but are really exerting a lot of pressure on boards and CEOs. So I think we got to stick to our principles, which is that the laws on the books are supposed to prevent abuse of power. And sure, maybe I agree with some of the maybe I agree with some of the Blackrock voting policies on.

There had been you know, it was not there was definitely. For example, I had undertaken an initiative with respect to greater accountability for Blackrock. Blackrock is an investment giant. I felt that if they were going to be pursuing certain policy goals when taking over banks, they should actually, you know, go through the process of saying we're taking over a bank, rather than relying on some loopholes that say, well, we're just passive, we're not doing anything. And yeah, there maybe I'm sure there was others who felt, why don't we just you know, kind of leave them alone. Maybe they agree with the goals they're doing. My point was different, is that it's really about power. Who should have the power to determine what whether you're getting your account closed because of no reason or a questionable reason, or how they're saying they're passive but are really exerting a lot of pressure on boards and CEOs. So I think we got to stick to our principles, which is that the laws on the books are supposed to prevent abuse of power. And sure, maybe I agree with some of the maybe I agree with some of the Blackrock voting policies on.

Share environmental stuff.

Share environmental stuff.

But it doesn't matter. I mean, they should still have to go through the process that we have in place in our laws to avoid abuse of that power, and especially monopoly power.

But it doesn't matter. I mean, they should still have to go through the process that we have in place in our laws to avoid abuse of that power, and especially monopoly power.

So you passed a rule to bar debanking, and you've got.

So you passed a rule to bar debanking, and you've got.

We proposed one and we'll see if it gets finalized.

We proposed one and we'll see if it gets finalized.

Oh that's an interesting point.

Oh that's an interesting point.

It's all House Republicans are actually moving to repeal it. I don't know if you've noticed this with a piece of their legislation. So have you been Have you been surprised to see one of the number one attacks against the COPV being that it was doing the thing that actually it's trying to ban.

It's all House Republicans are actually moving to repeal it. I don't know if you've noticed this with a piece of their legislation. So have you been Have you been surprised to see one of the number one attacks against the COPV being that it was doing the thing that actually it's trying to ban.

Not really, I mean you saw even those on the right pushback very hard on whatever that soliloquy was. That being said. I think let's put our money where our mouth is and say, let's all get on record across the ideological spectrum that people should have a right to a bank account. And we see so many people pushed out of the banking system, and the economic impacts of that are real now, of course, if they're engaged in money laundering, criminal fraud, others. Sure, I mean I do favor some updates that give people the ability to have some access to the banking system, and many, for example, are kicked out because of overdraft, an overdraft feed churning. We got to make sure that people when you're when you're kicked out of the banking system, it's almost like kicking someone on your screw economy.

Not really, I mean you saw even those on the right pushback very hard on whatever that soliloquy was. That being said. I think let's put our money where our mouth is and say, let's all get on record across the ideological spectrum that people should have a right to a bank account. And we see so many people pushed out of the banking system, and the economic impacts of that are real now, of course, if they're engaged in money laundering, criminal fraud, others. Sure, I mean I do favor some updates that give people the ability to have some access to the banking system, and many, for example, are kicked out because of overdraft, an overdraft feed churning. We got to make sure that people when you're when you're kicked out of the banking system, it's almost like kicking someone on your screw economy.

Yeah, So when he says that CFPB is terrorizing financial companies and blocking FinTechs and other startups from competing with big banks, what does he mean by that?

Yeah, So when he says that CFPB is terrorizing financial companies and blocking FinTechs and other startups from competing with big banks, what does he mean by that?

That's in direct conflict with what you just mentioned was JPMorgan Chase's criticism. You know, we actually put into place the ability for smaller players to eat the lunch of their bigger competitors if they're providing better rates in service.

That's in direct conflict with what you just mentioned was JPMorgan Chase's criticism. You know, we actually put into place the ability for smaller players to eat the lunch of their bigger competitors if they're providing better rates in service.

That was just because you're setting setting up a pathway for people to leave the big.

That was just because you're setting setting up a pathway for people to leave the big.

Time switch and that was partly strongly supported by those new firms that we're trying to do it. And look, some of them are doing some great things that allow you to get lower interest rates on your loans, higher rates on your savings. Look at what some of the banks offered. Even as the FED raised rates enormously, people's deposit rates barely budged. And we ended up needing to investigate some of that, including suing Capital One for cheating people out of billions of hours. I think we'll want to put more power in the hands of consumers for them to fire a company with bad customer service and to vote with their feet.

Time switch and that was partly strongly supported by those new firms that we're trying to do it. And look, some of them are doing some great things that allow you to get lower interest rates on your loans, higher rates on your savings. Look at what some of the banks offered. Even as the FED raised rates enormously, people's deposit rates barely budged. And we ended up needing to investigate some of that, including suing Capital One for cheating people out of billions of hours. I think we'll want to put more power in the hands of consumers for them to fire a company with bad customer service and to vote with their feet.

So some of the companies financed by Andrees in the fintech space or the crypto space say that the CFPB has prevented them from doing what they want to do?

So some of the companies financed by Andrees in the fintech space or the crypto space say that the CFPB has prevented them from doing what they want to do?

What what? What does? What does he mean by that?

What what? What does? What does he mean by that?

And how you respond to all I know is you know right now? In terms of crypto, most of that was really a confrontation with other agencies, not with the CFPB. The place the CFPB was always looking at his new digital payments, digital currencies, so video game platforms, you know, things like Facebook's Libra project, where it would be used to pay at stores or online. So we were always trying to figure out what's the way we can create these new digital technologies without being ruined by fraudsters, errors, and how do you make sure there's some base level of consumer protection that people have had on their debit cards and credit cards for decades and on fintech companies. I don't know I mean, certainly there have been venture capital firms who have been annoyed that the CFPB has taken some of their lawbreaking companies to court. And sometimes, you know, we battle it out in court, but certainly we prevailed in many cases. And I'll tell you many of them are extremely well financed to fight back very hard.

And how you respond to all I know is you know right now? In terms of crypto, most of that was really a confrontation with other agencies, not with the CFPB. The place the CFPB was always looking at his new digital payments, digital currencies, so video game platforms, you know, things like Facebook's Libra project, where it would be used to pay at stores or online. So we were always trying to figure out what's the way we can create these new digital technologies without being ruined by fraudsters, errors, and how do you make sure there's some base level of consumer protection that people have had on their debit cards and credit cards for decades and on fintech companies. I don't know I mean, certainly there have been venture capital firms who have been annoyed that the CFPB has taken some of their lawbreaking companies to court. And sometimes, you know, we battle it out in court, but certainly we prevailed in many cases. And I'll tell you many of them are extremely well financed to fight back very hard.

Sure they are. So.

Sure they are. So.

One of the arguments Mark Zuckerberg also rolled out in that interview is that from a national security and a kind of geopolitical perspective, the Silicon Valley and big tech in the United States is, you know, ought to be just defended rather than than attacked. Let's play H three here. It gets your respond to this other Zuckerberg argument.

One of the arguments Mark Zuckerberg also rolled out in that interview is that from a national security and a kind of geopolitical perspective, the Silicon Valley and big tech in the United States is, you know, ought to be just defended rather than than attacked. Let's play H three here. It gets your respond to this other Zuckerberg argument.

I think the real issue is that when the US government does that to its tech industry, it's basically just open season around the rest of the world, right. I mean the EU, I pull these numbers. The EU has fined the tech companies more than thirty billion dollars over the last I think it was like ten or twenty years.

I think the real issue is that when the US government does that to its tech industry, it's basically just open season around the rest of the world, right. I mean the EU, I pull these numbers. The EU has fined the tech companies more than thirty billion dollars over the last I think it was like ten or twenty years.

Holy and shit.

Holy and shit.

So when you think about it, like okay, there's it's like, you know, one hundred million dollars here, a couple of billion dollars there. But what I think really adds up to is this is sort of like a kind of EU wide policy for how they want to deal with American tech. It's almost like a tariff, and I think the US government basically gets to dec how are they going to deal with that? Right because if the US government, if some other country was screwing with another industry that we cared about, the US government would probably find some way to put pressure on them. But I think what happened here is actually the complete opposite. The US government led the kind of attack against the companies, which then just made it like the EU is basically in all these other places just free to just go to town on all the American companies and do whatever you want.

So when you think about it, like okay, there's it's like, you know, one hundred million dollars here, a couple of billion dollars there. But what I think really adds up to is this is sort of like a kind of EU wide policy for how they want to deal with American tech. It's almost like a tariff, and I think the US government basically gets to dec how are they going to deal with that? Right because if the US government, if some other country was screwing with another industry that we cared about, the US government would probably find some way to put pressure on them. But I think what happened here is actually the complete opposite. The US government led the kind of attack against the companies, which then just made it like the EU is basically in all these other places just free to just go to town on all the American companies and do whatever you want.

What would you say to Zuckerberg there, Well, you know, we've all gotten various forms of questions. For example, in the past few years, we did a number of enforcement actions against certain Japanese automakers whose lending and credit reporting was completely botched. Now, the way we do it is we look at consumer complaints, we'll look at where there's actual harm, and I do think it's important for us to prove, you know, where we finding this non compliance But on the other hand, this is a strange comment in some way he's made because it was actually and I was an FTC commissioner at the time. During the Trump administration, we had a bipartisan antitrust complaint against Facebook. Same thing happened on Google, and those have carried forward across administrations. And here's the reason why in the US we want our economy progressing, not based on cheating, but on competing. And we have found a number of cases where big firms, whether they're domestic, whether they're foreign, have been cornering the market or monopolizing it. And we have laws on the books, and just because they are global conglomerates, that does not mean they should not honor our laws. I have to tell you, I really don't think that all of these firms genuinely think of themselves as American companies. I think some of them think of themselves as just a multi national investor base. And the north star is profit and they if they want to get rid of laws in countries across the world, that's what they're going to do. But to suggest that, you know, Facebook and other big tech companies have been just so squeaky clean when it comes to following the laws is frankly.

What would you say to Zuckerberg there, Well, you know, we've all gotten various forms of questions. For example, in the past few years, we did a number of enforcement actions against certain Japanese automakers whose lending and credit reporting was completely botched. Now, the way we do it is we look at consumer complaints, we'll look at where there's actual harm, and I do think it's important for us to prove, you know, where we finding this non compliance But on the other hand, this is a strange comment in some way he's made because it was actually and I was an FTC commissioner at the time. During the Trump administration, we had a bipartisan antitrust complaint against Facebook. Same thing happened on Google, and those have carried forward across administrations. And here's the reason why in the US we want our economy progressing, not based on cheating, but on competing. And we have found a number of cases where big firms, whether they're domestic, whether they're foreign, have been cornering the market or monopolizing it. And we have laws on the books, and just because they are global conglomerates, that does not mean they should not honor our laws. I have to tell you, I really don't think that all of these firms genuinely think of themselves as American companies. I think some of them think of themselves as just a multi national investor base. And the north star is profit and they if they want to get rid of laws in countries across the world, that's what they're going to do. But to suggest that, you know, Facebook and other big tech companies have been just so squeaky clean when it comes to following the laws is frankly.

A joke, and so speaking of getting getting rid of laws or ignoring them. This is Elon Musk's famous tweet where he said, delete CFPB, there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies. Interestingly, that was a reply to somebody who was correcting Mark Andresen and saying, hey, man, you're wrong about this. Actually, the CFPB is against dbanking and is fighting it, and Musk interestingly comes in and says, basically saying, I.

A joke, and so speaking of getting getting rid of laws or ignoring them. This is Elon Musk's famous tweet where he said, delete CFPB, there are too many duplicative regulatory agencies. Interestingly, that was a reply to somebody who was correcting Mark Andresen and saying, hey, man, you're wrong about this. Actually, the CFPB is against dbanking and is fighting it, and Musk interestingly comes in and says, basically saying, I.

Don't care like elete this and then put up H five.

Don't care like elete this and then put up H five.

The White House very quickly put out this statement saying CFPB isn't a Wall Street regulator, it's a main street regulator, and they are effectively trying to move to shut it down. In their list of bill of indictments basically against them, they list a bunch of things, and I want to run through.

The White House very quickly put out this statement saying CFPB isn't a Wall Street regulator, it's a main street regulator, and they are effectively trying to move to shut it down. In their list of bill of indictments basically against them, they list a bunch of things, and I want to run through.

Some of them since we got you here and got some time.

Some of them since we got you here and got some time.

So the White House says CFPB targeted a Chicago small business after it complained about the city's rampant crime.

So the White House says CFPB targeted a Chicago small business after it complained about the city's rampant crime.

That sounds bad. Why did CFPB do that.

That sounds bad. Why did CFPB do that.

Well, you'd have to ask President Trump CFPB director, because she's the one who brought that case. I reviewed that case. The case was actually a lending discrimination case or a mortgage lender in Chicago essentially was refuse and not offering mortgage loans to certain neighborhoods. I think the idea that it was something about uh, I don't even know what that bullet was saying. But what's funny is that it's it's it has nothing to do with that bullet, and it was brought under the last trumpet illustration. Another one of those bullets I just noticed talks about our victims Relief fund. During my time as director, we returned the slush fund. And what's funny is that it's a victims relief fund. During my time, we collected I think nine billion dollars in refunds and penalties. And here's how it works. The penalties paid by companies like Apple, Goldman, Sachs, Wells Fargo. They go to compensate victims where the defendant may be totally bankrupt judgment proof, so we want a judgment. I believe it was for two point seven billion dollars against a nationwide debt relief scammer. We were able to make so many of those victims whole because of that victim's Relief fund. So we're talking about something that has really put money in the pockets of people across the country, and to suggest that it is something that is trying to do something outside of its laws. Look, I hate to say, you know, mister Musk Elon Musk, he has stated they want twitter x to become essentially a bank, the ability to move and track payments across its platforms. And I think that it's reasonable for Americans to wonder why is he targeting this little age. And I think a lot of the opposition is coming from tech conglomerates because it has been a little bit the agency has been a speed bump in their plans to conquer payments in banking, and I think that that's Americans deserve to have their financial privacy, financial fraud. These are important laws on the books that we have to enforce, and we shouldn't just be enforcing it against banks.

Well, you'd have to ask President Trump CFPB director, because she's the one who brought that case. I reviewed that case. The case was actually a lending discrimination case or a mortgage lender in Chicago essentially was refuse and not offering mortgage loans to certain neighborhoods. I think the idea that it was something about uh, I don't even know what that bullet was saying. But what's funny is that it's it's it has nothing to do with that bullet, and it was brought under the last trumpet illustration. Another one of those bullets I just noticed talks about our victims Relief fund. During my time as director, we returned the slush fund. And what's funny is that it's a victims relief fund. During my time, we collected I think nine billion dollars in refunds and penalties. And here's how it works. The penalties paid by companies like Apple, Goldman, Sachs, Wells Fargo. They go to compensate victims where the defendant may be totally bankrupt judgment proof, so we want a judgment. I believe it was for two point seven billion dollars against a nationwide debt relief scammer. We were able to make so many of those victims whole because of that victim's Relief fund. So we're talking about something that has really put money in the pockets of people across the country, and to suggest that it is something that is trying to do something outside of its laws. Look, I hate to say, you know, mister Musk Elon Musk, he has stated they want twitter x to become essentially a bank, the ability to move and track payments across its platforms. And I think that it's reasonable for Americans to wonder why is he targeting this little age. And I think a lot of the opposition is coming from tech conglomerates because it has been a little bit the agency has been a speed bump in their plans to conquer payments in banking, and I think that that's Americans deserve to have their financial privacy, financial fraud. These are important laws on the books that we have to enforce, and we shouldn't just be enforcing it against banks.

So the White House goes on, they say the CFPP granted itself broad new powers in the waning hours of the lame duck Biden administration, described as classic quote government overreach. The agency gave itself the authority to regulate Americans checking accounts by dictating government price controls, and unilaterally buried fifty billion dollars in medical debt.

So the White House goes on, they say the CFPP granted itself broad new powers in the waning hours of the lame duck Biden administration, described as classic quote government overreach. The agency gave itself the authority to regulate Americans checking accounts by dictating government price controls, and unilaterally buried fifty billion dollars in medical debt.

Let's take those one by one.

Let's take those one by one.

So when they say you're dictating government price controls, what are they referring to there?

So when they say you're dictating government price controls, what are they referring to there?

So what I think is that there had been very serious abuses across the marketplace.

So what I think is that there had been very serious abuses across the marketplace.

When it can just give you a hint if you click their link, its talks about overdraft.

When it can just give you a hint if you click their link, its talks about overdraft.

Yes, we uncovered a number of serious, serious wrongdoing on overdraft, including manipulation of payment order and more. So, here's what we do.

Yes, we uncovered a number of serious, serious wrongdoing on overdraft, including manipulation of payment order and more. So, here's what we do.

That's when they move the time that they.

That's when they move the time that they.

Hit exactly, so instead of one overdraft fee, you might get three or four in a day.

Hit exactly, so instead of one overdraft fee, you might get three or four in a day.

So they're calling that dictating price control.

So they're calling that dictating price control.

Well, here's what we did. We took a look at overdraft lending because you essentially it's a loan, and we found that even if you were overdrawing thirty five cents, you might get hit with a thirty five dollars fee.

Well, here's what we did. We took a look at overdraft lending because you essentially it's a loan, and we found that even if you were overdrawing thirty five cents, you might get hit with a thirty five dollars fee.

I've been there.

I've been there.

So the original law says the following you got to fully disclose the terms and conditions of loans. And what we found is in nineteen sixty nine, the Federal Reserve created a carve out for a specific set of circumstances. It was when you were mailing paper checks through the US Postal Service. Sometimes it was delayed, sometimes your paycheck came later. And they said, you know, because you can't really predict this the bank, you don't have to give all these disclosures. You can just charge a reasonable fee. We then looked at today and now overdraft is overwhelmingly debit card purchases, and they're small purchases. So here's what we said. We said, let's update that exemption and say, in general, you got to fess up as to what the interest rate you're charging. Fully disclose that interest rate on the loans you're extending. But if you don't want to do that, just charge a reasonable fee and will publish. We'll publish what that average is. So they don't have to they don't have to charge five dollars alow. If they want to, they want to keep making big money, they can disclose the interest rate. We really thought of this as modernizing an outdated regulation and making sure that people are being upfront and honest about the interest rate they're charging on a loan.

So the original law says the following you got to fully disclose the terms and conditions of loans. And what we found is in nineteen sixty nine, the Federal Reserve created a carve out for a specific set of circumstances. It was when you were mailing paper checks through the US Postal Service. Sometimes it was delayed, sometimes your paycheck came later. And they said, you know, because you can't really predict this the bank, you don't have to give all these disclosures. You can just charge a reasonable fee. We then looked at today and now overdraft is overwhelmingly debit card purchases, and they're small purchases. So here's what we said. We said, let's update that exemption and say, in general, you got to fess up as to what the interest rate you're charging. Fully disclose that interest rate on the loans you're extending. But if you don't want to do that, just charge a reasonable fee and will publish. We'll publish what that average is. So they don't have to they don't have to charge five dollars alow. If they want to, they want to keep making big money, they can disclose the interest rate. We really thought of this as modernizing an outdated regulation and making sure that people are being upfront and honest about the interest rate they're charging on a loan.

So's that's what the White House called dictating government price controls. Then they say unilaterally buried fifty billion.

So's that's what the White House called dictating government price controls. Then they say unilaterally buried fifty billion.

Dollars in medical debt. What do they mean by that?

Dollars in medical debt. What do they mean by that?

Here's what I speculate. We did a multi year analysis, and.

Here's what I speculate. We did a multi year analysis, and.

If you hint by clicking of credit reports, midnight rule making from Liz Warren's favorite agency spells even more bad news for cash strapped Americans, the Daily Caller.

If you hint by clicking of credit reports, midnight rule making from Liz Warren's favorite agency spells even more bad news for cash strapped Americans, the Daily Caller.

So in twenty twenty one, we completed a major analysis of credit reports. It used to be that your credit report, the items that were in debt collection was largely credit cards. But something flipped and we found that debt collectors were parking meta bills on people's credit report, and there were very systemic issues with inaccuracy. Many people already paid it or it was supposed to be paid by the insurance company. And after we published our analysis, the big credit reporting conglomerates immediately said, we're going to really take off most of this. We also had evidence that it was not even predictive of your repayment on your auto loaner credit card. So we didn't want to just take volunteers for this. We said, you know what, the law actually prohibits medical information from appearing on credit reports. So we updated the rule to put serious limitations and essentially forbid the parking of these medical bills on the credit reports. It would still include, for example, medical bills you paid on a credit card, but the actual bills that you were stuck in the doom loop doing the insurance company, the hospital, and others. We found that that was it was coercive. It was a way to coerce people into paying that they don't owe. Now, of course, hospitals others, they still have many other ways to collect. In some cases they sue people. But we thought that that was a very reasonable update to stop systemic abuses, and it was broadly supported, and we've seen states across the country enact their own state laws to prohibit that abuse as well.

So in twenty twenty one, we completed a major analysis of credit reports. It used to be that your credit report, the items that were in debt collection was largely credit cards. But something flipped and we found that debt collectors were parking meta bills on people's credit report, and there were very systemic issues with inaccuracy. Many people already paid it or it was supposed to be paid by the insurance company. And after we published our analysis, the big credit reporting conglomerates immediately said, we're going to really take off most of this. We also had evidence that it was not even predictive of your repayment on your auto loaner credit card. So we didn't want to just take volunteers for this. We said, you know what, the law actually prohibits medical information from appearing on credit reports. So we updated the rule to put serious limitations and essentially forbid the parking of these medical bills on the credit reports. It would still include, for example, medical bills you paid on a credit card, but the actual bills that you were stuck in the doom loop doing the insurance company, the hospital, and others. We found that that was it was coercive. It was a way to coerce people into paying that they don't owe. Now, of course, hospitals others, they still have many other ways to collect. In some cases they sue people. But we thought that that was a very reasonable update to stop systemic abuses, and it was broadly supported, and we've seen states across the country enact their own state laws to prohibit that abuse as well.

So my co host Emily couldn't be here for this, but she wanted me to ask you about something that happened at CFPB before you got there, which is what and here's how she put it the CFPB. So she does roeh agree with this assessment in the Washington Examiner.

So my co host Emily couldn't be here for this, but she wanted me to ask you about something that happened at CFPB before you got there, which is what and here's how she put it the CFPB. So she does roeh agree with this assessment in the Washington Examiner.

The CFPB did.

The CFPB did.

Play a key role, according to a report from the Fdiics Inspector General in the Obama era Operation Choke Point even more disturbing, For the past few years, the CFPP has wielded its enforcement authority over housing discrimination to effectively censor speech with which it degrees with which it disagrees. Let's take them in two parts. One Operation Choke Point that was an effort, as I recall, by the FBI to clamp down on gun trafficking by basically I think, deed banking a bunch of arms dealers or something, but which of course then caught up a lot of people by citizens who were involved in selling weapons, which the right would say is, look, this is Second Amendment protected activity. So what was what's your understanding of what CFPB's role was in Operation Chowpoint.

Play a key role, according to a report from the Fdiics Inspector General in the Obama era Operation Choke Point even more disturbing, For the past few years, the CFPP has wielded its enforcement authority over housing discrimination to effectively censor speech with which it degrees with which it disagrees. Let's take them in two parts. One Operation Choke Point that was an effort, as I recall, by the FBI to clamp down on gun trafficking by basically I think, deed banking a bunch of arms dealers or something, but which of course then caught up a lot of people by citizens who were involved in selling weapons, which the right would say is, look, this is Second Amendment protected activity. So what was what's your understanding of what CFPB's role was in Operation Chowpoint.

I don't know, And what I recall was that this was a Justice Department operation, but there was really no consumer law involved, and the CFPB can only really enforce those consumer laws. And I also understand that it was a lot of business accounts. So as far as I know, the CFPB during that time was also worried about bank account access, trying to make sure there is fair access to bank accounts. So I don't have all the details, but it would surprise me because consumer law is the only thing the CFPP can really pursue when it comes to savings and checking accounts.

I don't know, And what I recall was that this was a Justice Department operation, but there was really no consumer law involved, and the CFPB can only really enforce those consumer laws. And I also understand that it was a lot of business accounts. So as far as I know, the CFPB during that time was also worried about bank account access, trying to make sure there is fair access to bank accounts. So I don't have all the details, but it would surprise me because consumer law is the only thing the CFPP can really pursue when it comes to savings and checking accounts.

So what about wielding your enforcement authority over housing discrimination to sensor speech.

So what about wielding your enforcement authority over housing discrimination to sensor speech.

I have really no clue where that allegation comes from. I think it is possible when there are redlining cases, there's data that you take a look at as to where are people denying or not offering loans. And redlining is the concept where you may not even get an application, you just may refuse to even offer services or lending there. And it is true that in sometimes the cases do uncover documents that where the lender is using a lot of charged racial language. But that's not the violation itself. The violation is actually the red lining.

I have really no clue where that allegation comes from. I think it is possible when there are redlining cases, there's data that you take a look at as to where are people denying or not offering loans. And redlining is the concept where you may not even get an application, you just may refuse to even offer services or lending there. And it is true that in sometimes the cases do uncover documents that where the lender is using a lot of charged racial language. But that's not the violation itself. The violation is actually the red lining.

So right, the speech proves that they're actually discriminating against it.

So right, the speech proves that they're actually discriminating against it.

In some ways, the documents can show where there was blatant discrimination.

In some ways, the documents can show where there was blatant discrimination.

Got it, So the CPP might find out that, you know, black or Hispanic applicants are rejected at a much higher rate, and then find the executives using charge.

Got it, So the CPP might find out that, you know, black or Hispanic applicants are rejected at a much higher rate, and then find the executives using charge.

Language about a specific applicant or about a specific neighborhood, and so as a bunch of backs together, I see, I see. But certainly a person's speech cannot trip thee in any way trip that law. What trips the law as denying or redlining based on a protected characteristic like religion or race.

Language about a specific applicant or about a specific neighborhood, and so as a bunch of backs together, I see, I see. But certainly a person's speech cannot trip thee in any way trip that law. What trips the law as denying or redlining based on a protected characteristic like religion or race.

Let's talk for a minute about some of the good stuff that, from your perspective, Trump has done, because you're in an interesting position here in the sense that you came in first to the FTC as what I would say is one of the first FTC commissioners of this new era, really trying to wield the Federal Trade Commissions of power on behalf of people against monopolies, against scam artists, and since then you were doing it later obviously joined by Lena Khan and Andrew Ferguson and other So a bipartisan not that they agree on everything, but a bipartisan sense that something's wrong here, and the populist wings of each party actually have more in common maybe than the corporate wings of each party. So let's get together and block some of these murders and force some of these actions.

Let's talk for a minute about some of the good stuff that, from your perspective, Trump has done, because you're in an interesting position here in the sense that you came in first to the FTC as what I would say is one of the first FTC commissioners of this new era, really trying to wield the Federal Trade Commissions of power on behalf of people against monopolies, against scam artists, and since then you were doing it later obviously joined by Lena Khan and Andrew Ferguson and other So a bipartisan not that they agree on everything, but a bipartisan sense that something's wrong here, and the populist wings of each party actually have more in common maybe than the corporate wings of each party. So let's get together and block some of these murders and force some of these actions.

The FTC is still.

The FTC is still.

Going kind of strong in that mode. You then left and go over to the CFP B, which is now just getting absolutely slaughtered by Trump. So it's this schizophrenic approach from the Trump administration, where on the one hand, there's good work being done at the FDC, on the other hand, they're dismissing all of these obvious good cases against scam artists and saying that they're going to try to utterly completely eliminate the thing. So let's pick a couple things like, so Trump has talked about capping credit card interest rates.

Going kind of strong in that mode. You then left and go over to the CFP B, which is now just getting absolutely slaughtered by Trump. So it's this schizophrenic approach from the Trump administration, where on the one hand, there's good work being done at the FDC, on the other hand, they're dismissing all of these obvious good cases against scam artists and saying that they're going to try to utterly completely eliminate the thing. So let's pick a couple things like, so Trump has talked about capping credit card interest rates.

Where do you come down on that?

Where do you come down on that?

And where should the populace right it's come down on this?

And where should the populace right it's come down on this?

Is this?

Is this?

Should they understand the attack on the CFPB? Is that the essence of what Trump is doing? Or is there upholding of the FTC's populism. Is that kind of who they are? What the heck is going on?

Should they understand the attack on the CFPB? Is that the essence of what Trump is doing? Or is there upholding of the FTC's populism. Is that kind of who they are? What the heck is going on?

I think that's the jury is really out because on one hand, like I mentioned before, you saw President Trump call out Jamie Diamond. You saw campaigning on capping credit card interest rates. That's totally in conflict with, not with defunding the Wall Street Police, And that's really what this seems to be happening to the CFPB. Again, the jury is out about which way it will turn out, But it seems like right now a lot of the big tech companies are wielding a lot of control over some of these pieces. But then let's see what happens at the FTC. I was part of that original bipartisan It was a three to two vote, two Democrats and a Republican versus two Republicans voting out that big inn I trust complaint against Facebook. Lena Khan came to the to the FTC really fix the complaint, to continue to prosecute it. The trial will occur, Google others will see. I think there is a lot of mixed messages across the board, and I think, to answer your question, yes, I think we are seeing a lot more energy from across the ideological spectrum that is questioning abuse of power. Now there's also a strong corporate influence across the board. When I got to the FTC Ryan in twenty eighteen, I was really shocked and to see what I saw, it was hard to understand what planet people were that age. It was basically a dead fish. There was massive abuses, for example in subprime mortgages, where the FTC really took a back seat.

I think that's the jury is really out because on one hand, like I mentioned before, you saw President Trump call out Jamie Diamond. You saw campaigning on capping credit card interest rates. That's totally in conflict with, not with defunding the Wall Street Police, And that's really what this seems to be happening to the CFPB. Again, the jury is out about which way it will turn out, But it seems like right now a lot of the big tech companies are wielding a lot of control over some of these pieces. But then let's see what happens at the FTC. I was part of that original bipartisan It was a three to two vote, two Democrats and a Republican versus two Republicans voting out that big inn I trust complaint against Facebook. Lena Khan came to the to the FTC really fix the complaint, to continue to prosecute it. The trial will occur, Google others will see. I think there is a lot of mixed messages across the board, and I think, to answer your question, yes, I think we are seeing a lot more energy from across the ideological spectrum that is questioning abuse of power. Now there's also a strong corporate influence across the board. When I got to the FTC Ryan in twenty eighteen, I was really shocked and to see what I saw, it was hard to understand what planet people were that age. It was basically a dead fish. There was massive abuses, for example in subprime mortgages, where the FTC really took a back seat.

There was still in twenty eighteen.

There was still in twenty eighteen.

Well, I was saying in the two thousand and eight era, then you have opioids where there's enormous enormous abuses by a pharmaceutical industry where the FTC is sort of missing in action. And the thing that really got me was I had discovered that there was a policy, a bipartisan consensus over multiple administrations that made in USA fraud should not be penalized. So we had cases come in where they were ripping off the Maiden China label, ripping off the Maid in Mexico label, and putting on a fake Maid in USA label, and the FTC's response was catch and release. And I thought that that was a serial. We changed that policy. We changed the policy toward pharmaceutical mergers, which was put on a blind, unfold rubber stamps and let them run wild. Obama too, right, I mean multiple administrations. So I think that that really was something that it needed a massive reboot. But we'll see, we'll really see right now if it does continue or not. And I think that is what all of us will have to keep a close watch on whether the big tech companies in big pharma companies will be the ones that call the shots or not.

Well, I was saying in the two thousand and eight era, then you have opioids where there's enormous enormous abuses by a pharmaceutical industry where the FTC is sort of missing in action. And the thing that really got me was I had discovered that there was a policy, a bipartisan consensus over multiple administrations that made in USA fraud should not be penalized. So we had cases come in where they were ripping off the Maiden China label, ripping off the Maid in Mexico label, and putting on a fake Maid in USA label, and the FTC's response was catch and release. And I thought that that was a serial. We changed that policy. We changed the policy toward pharmaceutical mergers, which was put on a blind, unfold rubber stamps and let them run wild. Obama too, right, I mean multiple administrations. So I think that that really was something that it needed a massive reboot. But we'll see, we'll really see right now if it does continue or not. And I think that is what all of us will have to keep a close watch on whether the big tech companies in big pharma companies will be the ones that call the shots or not.

Emily had also floated this thing that's going around on the right. It's this idea that why not just move the CFPB under the FTC. FTC is now doing some good consumer work. Let's just let's just go with that.

Emily had also floated this thing that's going around on the right. It's this idea that why not just move the CFPB under the FTC. FTC is now doing some good consumer work. Let's just let's just go with that.

Well, we tried that and it was a disaster. We had for other people say why don't we put it under this office called the Office of the Comptroller of the.

Well, we tried that and it was a disaster. We had for other people say why don't we put it under this office called the Office of the Comptroller of the.

Current Jamie Diamond said that.

Current Jamie Diamond said that.

Through the occ we tried that, it was a massive failure. So what occurred after the financial crisis. We killed one of the agencies that failed, and we also which it was called the Office of Thrift Supervision, who was clearly at the back end call of big subprime mortgage lenders who were paying the bills at the agency. So it was in some ways a consolidation, a reorg plan, but it was a smart one because what it did is it took it stripped away the authorities of some It eliminated an agency and eliminated divisions in certain places. But it created a huge amount of accountability because now you know there's an agency that was responsible. If you just park it somewhere else, it will just be a blame game of oh, it's someone else's problem. And we saw how much it just did not work. So look, I'm always open of ways we can make things more effective. One way to make a lot of things more effective is to make sure that our states can also enforce these laws. That's a place where people across the board agree. But I don't think hiding the function in an agency that has other responsibilities. Maybe that can work, but also it can really dilute accountability for that leadership. The Federal Reserve Board, they were responsible for regulating a lot of the rules around mortgages. I think everyone saw that the Fed, they were paying attention and prioritizing other things, and that's why it needed to be stripped away.

Through the occ we tried that, it was a massive failure. So what occurred after the financial crisis. We killed one of the agencies that failed, and we also which it was called the Office of Thrift Supervision, who was clearly at the back end call of big subprime mortgage lenders who were paying the bills at the agency. So it was in some ways a consolidation, a reorg plan, but it was a smart one because what it did is it took it stripped away the authorities of some It eliminated an agency and eliminated divisions in certain places. But it created a huge amount of accountability because now you know there's an agency that was responsible. If you just park it somewhere else, it will just be a blame game of oh, it's someone else's problem. And we saw how much it just did not work. So look, I'm always open of ways we can make things more effective. One way to make a lot of things more effective is to make sure that our states can also enforce these laws. That's a place where people across the board agree. But I don't think hiding the function in an agency that has other responsibilities. Maybe that can work, but also it can really dilute accountability for that leadership. The Federal Reserve Board, they were responsible for regulating a lot of the rules around mortgages. I think everyone saw that the Fed, they were paying attention and prioritizing other things, and that's why it needed to be stripped away.

Now, what we're discovering is that it turns out that the market actually does want some rules. So if you can put up a seven here. This is a post by Dave Dan referencing an article that he had written in the American Prospect.

Now, what we're discovering is that it turns out that the market actually does want some rules. So if you can put up a seven here. This is a post by Dave Dan referencing an article that he had written in the American Prospect.

He says, new from me.

He says, new from me.

Russ Vote, whose is the OMB director, was on the verge of breaking the mortgage market by shutting down a core function provided by CFPB. But he blinked and in so doing revealed that regulation is actually pretty important. So what happened here CFPB eliminated all effectively eliminated all rules, and it wasn't the consumers that rebelled, it was the mortgage lender.

Russ Vote, whose is the OMB director, was on the verge of breaking the mortgage market by shutting down a core function provided by CFPB. But he blinked and in so doing revealed that regulation is actually pretty important. So what happened here CFPB eliminated all effectively eliminated all rules, and it wasn't the consumers that rebelled, it was the mortgage lender.

So what happened here, Well.

So what happened here, Well.

I'm not really sure what is going on over there, other than to say that we actually usually had all of these regulated companies wanting us. They were the ones coming to us go after these companies that are clearly breaking the law. How are we supposed to compete if there is agregious lawbreaking. But there was also other pieces, which is, in some cases there are laws on the books, and the CFPB will publish data or other pieces of information that helps the whole market comply and make sure they're on the right side of the law. And I think what you saw there was just one example where the mortgage lenders want to know the key pieces of data they keep them on the right side of the law. One of the things I was proud of when I was at the agency is instead of forcing a lot of these companies, especially small companies, to hire all sorts of lawyers about novel situations, new types of products, we just published the legal opinion and basically allowed any company to just rely on that and if they didn't agree with that, sure they could they could choose their own way of doing it, and maybe they'll take that risk, but we really reduce the need to hire a lot of high priced lawyers. And I think that's actually what government should do. Government shouldn't be serving the interests of the biggest companies. It should be providing information and in many cases, bright line rules whenever it can, because that's what's simpler for the new folks who want to challenge the corporate royalty.