This racial discrimination finding is very weak
Then why did this happen? (settlement)
Black, Hispanic, and Asian car buyers have been getting a raw deal, according to the US Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The federal agencies on Tuesday (July 14) settled a discriminatory lending suit with Honda Motor’s finance arm, alleging the car company’s auto dealers charged higher interest rates on loans to minorities than for loans issued to white customers. The CFPB also has been investigating Toyota Motor and Nissan Motor for similar practices.
Between January 2011 and December 2013, African-American customers paid an average of $250 more in interest than comparable white customers paid during the terms of their loans, because of discrimination, the Justice Department said. Likewise, Hispanics and Asians paid $200 and $150 more, respectively.
https://qz.com/453693/us-government-is- ... an-whites/
BTW, some of the litigious nature of the US that you correctly point to, is started by the regulatory agencies, and not the corporations
Actually its starts back at the form of governance. You've got competing legislatures and competing branches of government, and competing regulatory bodies, and a court system that somehow entertains every form of legal dispute....
Its often noted on this forum that the US Constitution was written in order to ensure that compromise would be required by the various elected officials in order to produce good governance. And perhaps that vision worked until party politics was developed. And especially stopped since an effective duopoly developed.
But it strikes me that the US Constitution and the form of government now create nothing but conflict and inertia. Except where monies interests wield their influence.
I see nothing wrong with some agency or another enforcing regulations that would make consumer lending completely transparent. Including car loans. I doubt you do either.
What is wrong about empowering consumers with complete information about the costs of their loans? Why would any legislator interested in the well being of his constituents fight legislation or regulation intended to accomplish such transparancy?
More importantly, is it right in a democracy to create an agency with an independent stream of funding?
You mean like public utilities?
The four main financial regulators?
Or how about the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. This law permitted local and federal law enforcement agencies to divvy up the seized assets and cash. And lead to the promotion of such seizures in random traffic stops, as police departments sought to fund equipment...
Fate your arguments are typically American, and illustrate exactly the point I was trying to make with Rayjay... You constantly point to minutia, or debate interpretations of the constitution or legalistic interpretations or competing regulatory or government branches...
In countries that work well for the working and middle class, governance is simpler, more transparent and prone to far less conflict as a result.
When the question of "should we protect consumers from predatory lending practices", doesn't follow with a yes. And doesn't then follow with a committed attempt to find and apply the best way of accomplishing this...
Then governance isn't working.
In this case, I would bet that congress men and senators that are fighting the CFPB are receiving enormous campaign contributions from those interested in continuing the practices the CFPB is rooting out.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -sponsors/