CAA Drops Kanye West As Client

[Neo. The Only. The One.]

this aint black thing, it's capitalism. no one is going to pass up guaranteed 100's millions (or billions) in this day and age. it's too late into the era of capitalism for 100s of companies to survive on their own in consolidated fields like media, energy, finance, packaged food, etc. the finals bosses were established 2-3 generations ago and they absorb the smaller players. any new label is going to be owned or distributed by one of the big guys - Sony, Warner, Universal, successful agencies all get bought up by the big 3 WMA, CAA or UTA, radio stations (radio...ha!) get snapped up by iHeart or Cumulus and so on and so on. it's too late to start something that can live wholly independently, that's not how things work. the last frontier for full ownership on a large scale is tech.

"We can't do it! It's impossible!"

This is my face when people say stuff like that

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

"We can't do it! It's impossible!"

This is my face when people say stuff like that

so you think a black person can found a music company today that grows to rival universal, sony and warner music? despite them somehow being the three companies that managed to buy up every other label including what used to be peers in EMI and BMG...

my face when people don't understand how conglomerates work

 

[RamsayBolton]

So this dude was really gonna get away with all the anti-black shyt

 

[heart]

The worse person in the room is the person who thinks they are smartest person in the room because you cant tell them anything and they cannot be reasoned with.

Rather Kanye is half joking or not this is another page out of the Kardashian playbook of having any EVERYONE talk about you. Only difference it's going to cost him a lot of money in the long run and unlike when he bashed black folks, the jews and media won't let him walk this back... You can't bash the people you're in business with and I can't feel sorry for him because companies are cutting ties. Kanye should have taken lessons from Cosby about alienating your black base because in distress you may need their support..

 

[Rekkapryde]

Don't shyt on the Jews....

 

[Neo. The Only. The One.]

so you think a black person can found a music company today that grows to rival universal, sony and warner music? despite them somehow being the three companies that managed to buy up every other label including what used to be peers in EMI and BMG...

my face when people don't understand how conglomerates work

Self defeatist babble

 

[SupaDupaFresh]

this is really a slap in that face how much you can shyt on black folk and no one gives a fukk and you say Jew and everyone blackballs you. kanye aint shyt, but neither are these decision makers

Oh well.

Kanye has went out there with white lives matter shirts on talking all types of brazen shyt about black people and then jews.

Only difference between us and them is Jews don't love or have any affection for their enemies. They dont fantasize about sitting at some dining room table with people who obviously want them subjugated, begging for their respect and attention, and calling rhetoric that serves no purpose than to incite hate, suspicion or violence towards them free, respectable, and agreeable speech. They don't welcome, embrace, or tolerate anyone's "freedom" to incite hatred towards themselves.

We the only that do this shyt and that's the real reason why shyt wasn't done til now. And thats why Kanye knows that if he ever feels like laying off jews he can always go back to insulting George Floyd, Black Lives Matter and back to shilling for MAGA republicans.

Kanye should've been shunned by the rap industry, shunned by hip hop fans, shut out from every studio, every producer, every artist, every black radio station, every black television or internet platform, and left to starve as far as we concerned the moment he called slavery a choice with a MAGA hat on, let alone smiling and grinning for Trump. But we called his pure ignorance independent revolutionary thinking. nikkas is insecure, weak and love looking like kiss ass fools trying to prove to our enemies that we can agree with them.

Once he got cocky and wanna get buck with jews, they did what we should've done to his ass two years ago and shut his over inflated "genius" ass down in a week.

If we feel perfectly comfortable and even agreeable with being disrespected by white supremacists that's on us. Jews don't feel comfortable with that. That's on Kanye. I ain't going out of my way to defend this fool so he can go freely print his white lives matter shirts for a bunch of backwards thinking "free thinker" narcissists.

If its gonna take anti semitism and help from jews to finally hit this fool where he deserves and shut his ass and his entire "business" up, good. Im glad someone out there has the balls to remind this clown hes not "free" to be a bigot, nor is he a revolutionary for it, and I only wish it was us.

 

[Armchair Militant]

Adidas on the clock….

 

[No1]

this is really a slap in that face how much you can shyt on black folk and no one gives a fukk and you say Jew and everyone blackballs you. kanye aint shyt, but neither are these decision makers

Bingo

 

[50CentStan]

c00n gonna be on suicide watch soon

 

[No1]

Oh well.

Kanye has went out there with white lives matter shirts on talking all types of brazen shyt about black people and then jews.

Only difference between us and them is Jews don't love or have any affection for their enemies. They dont fantasize about sitting at some dining room table with people who obviously want them subjugated, begging for their respect and attention, and calling rhetoric that serves no purpose than to incite hate, suspicion or violence towards them free, respectable, and agreeable speech. They don't welcome, embrace, or tolerate anyone's "freedom" to incite hatred towards themselves.

We the only that do this shyt and that's the real reason why shyt wasn't done til now. And thats why Kanye knows that if he ever feels like laying off jews he can always go back to insulting George Floyd, Black Lives Matter and back to shilling for MAGA republicans.

Kanye should've been shunned by the rap industry, shunned by hip hop fans, shut out from every studio, every producer, every artist, every black radio station, every black television or internet platform, and left to starve as far as we concerned the moment he called slavery a choice with a MAGA hat on, let alone smiling and grinning for Trump. But we called his pure ignorance independent revolutionary thinking. nikkas is insecure, weak and love looking like kiss ass fools trying to prove to our enemies that we can agree with them.

Once he got cocky and wanna get buck with jews, they did what we should've done to his ass two years ago and shut his over inflated "genius" ass down in a week.

If we feel perfectly comfortable and even agreeable with being disrespected by white supremacists that's on us. Jews don't feel comfortable with that. That's on Kanye. I ain't going out of my way to defend this fool so he can go freely print his white lives matter shirts for a bunch of backwards thinking "free thinker" narcissists.

If its gonna take anti semitism and help from jews to finally hit this fool where he deserves and shut his ass and his entire "business" up, good. Im glad someone out there has the balls to remind this clown hes not "free" to be a bigot, nor is he a revolutionary for it, and I only wish it was us.

nikka what are you talking about? @dora_da_destroyer said decision makers? Who are the black decision makers that could’ve led to a Kanye boycott? His primary audience isn’t even black people anymore.

 

[voltronblack]

so you think a black person can found a music company today that grows to rival universal, sony and warner music? despite them somehow being the three companies that managed to buy up every other label including what used to be peers in EMI and BMG...

my face when people don't understand how conglomerates work

The banks would not even gave us the money to do that

How Banks Are Defending Their Right to Discriminate

Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB is the latest battle in Wall Street’s long war to destroy the consumer protection agency.

prospect.org

On May 25, 2020, police officer Derek Chauvin murdered Minnesota resident George Floyd on video. Nationwide demonstrations sparked what may have been the largest protest movement in American history and a global movement against racist policing. Less than a week after Floyd’s death, Wall Street CEOs told CNBC that they would fight systemic racism at their own firms.


JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said Floyd’s murder “strengthens our resolve to do more as individuals, as a firm, and in our communities.” Wells Fargo’s Charlie Scharf said, “Our company will do all we can to support our diverse communities.” Chief executives at Goldman Sachs and Bank of America echoed the comments.


Each of these men pledged to fight racism within their own banks. And all of their firms are members of trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and the Consumer Bankers Association, which last week jointly sued in federal court to defend their members’ rights to discriminate—often along racial lines.


Chamber of Commerce v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the latest battle in Wall Street’s long legal war to destroy the CFPB, the government’s watchdog against cheap tricks and consumer abuses in lending. The slew of trade groups bringing the case say the CFPB was wildly out of line when, in March, the agency decided to take it as a given that discrimination is an “unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice” (UDAAP). Now, the bank representatives are using the lawsuit as an opportunity to claim the CFPB itself is unconstitutional and should be defunded.


Read more from the Revolving Door Project


To any normal person, the idea that discrimination might not be “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” is ridiculous. But corporate lawyers have built a case based on the CFPB’s decision to update its examination manual—the guide for CFPB employees on firm oversight—to include discriminatory practices like denying marginalized people the ability to open accounts. The CFPB said it could take action here because consumers are protected against UDAAP under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. The CFPB claims that discrimination falls under one or all of those adjectives.


But the CFPB did not go through a formal rulemaking process to alert the world it was planning to start examining for discrimination. In a blog post accompanying the update, the CFPB just said it would “continue to scrutinize” these practices, implying that it has been examining for discriminatory conduct for some time already.


A formal rulemaking would have been more time-consuming. The CFPB instead took it as self-evident that denying someone credit due to bigotry is “unfair, deceptive, or abusive,” and appended the words “including discrimination” to their normal UDAAP instructions in the examination manual.


That move, banking trade groups now allege, was “arbitrary and capricious.” Tragically, they contend, it leaves banks with “no choice but to update their UDAAP compliance policies and programs, at significant cost.”

It doesn’t take much work to find Jim Crow–era legal thinking in the Chamber of Commerce’s reasoning.

To be clear: The harm alleged is that banks will have to spend money and time ensuring they aren’t being discriminatory. They should have been doing that anyway, and it is what they would end up having to do if the CFPB had gone through a rulemaking.


The trade groups insist that they don’t want member banks to have bigoted practices either, but say they “cannot stand by while a federal agency exceeds its statutory authority, creates regulatory uncertainty, and imposes costly burdens.” Nobody wants racist outcomes, you see, but this case is about something far more important than whether people are denied loans. That something is dull administrative procedure.


Using pedantic legal minutiae to justify discrimination should sound familiar to anyone who has studied American racism in the neoliberal era. Historian Nancy MacLean documents in Democracy in Chains how James Buchanan, a public choice theory economist, invented a way of continuing de facto school segregation by separating students along class lines instead of explicit race lines. Economist Milton Friedman worked with open segregationists to try to achieve this, no matter what The Wall Street Journal falsely claims. Former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater claimed he didn’t personally support segregation, he just thought the all-white electorates of the Jim Crow states should decide for themselves whether to end their laws. Conservative intellectuals at National Review argued that integration and segregation laws were equally bad, since, they believed, racial justice was secondary to limited government.


It doesn’t take much work to find Jim Crow–era legal thinking in the Chamber of Commerce’s reasoning. The trade groups contend that it isn’t obvious that discrimination is an “unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice,” because the legal precedent that established UDAAP law never said so.


The CFPB inherited the UDAAP legal framework from the Federal Trade Commission (though the FTC statute doesn’t include the word “abusive”). According to the Chamber, when Congress wrote this law in 1938, it “codified a constrained definition of unfairness—that does not include discrimination—to limit the Commission’s ability to use unfairness to pursue unlimited public-policy goals.”


In 1938, much of the United States was an apartheid state. It was illegal for white and Black Americans to marry in many places. That year, the NAACP won a Supreme Court case to integrate the University of Missouri Law School, only for their plaintiff to suddenly disappear under still-unexplained circumstances shortly after the trial. Rosa Parks wouldn’t refuse to sit at the back of the bus, and the Warren Supreme Court wouldn’t begin to decide that “separate but equal” wasn’t equal, for another decade and a half.


So yes, in 1938 Congress did not consider discrimination to be “unfair.” Is that the standard to which we should return?


Make no mistake: This argument is dangerous. The trade groups sued in the Fifth Circuit, which is loaded with Trump-appointed judges who reinstated Texas’s six-week abortion ban and froze the Biden administration’s COVID-19 workplace safety regulations. If the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, bank groups could prevail: The Roberts Court has sided with the Chamber of Commerce in 70 percent of its cases.


A ruling against the CFPB could imperil more than just that agency. The trade groups are also trotting out an old argument that the CFPB is unconstitutional because the Dodd-Frank Congress decided that the CFPB receives its funding at preset levels from the Federal Reserve, not from the current Congress at whatever level Congress chooses. (This has nothing to do with anti-discrimination enforcement, so one wonders why it’s relevant besides that the plaintiffs want to destroy the CFPB.)


The CFPB’s fellow financial regulators at the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency all receive funding the same way. Moreover, much of Medicare and Social Security is also funded outside of the annual congressional budgetary process. If the courts strike down the CFPB’s funding mechanism, that could put all of the other financial regulators at risk, and further threaten just about any automated government transfer spending—“entitlements,” in budgeting jargon.


The trade groups point to an opinion by Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones that differentiates the CFPB’s funding scheme from its peers. They claim they’re only after a narrow attack on the CFPB. But if the conservative legal movement succeeds at dismembering one agency, it’s unlikely to stop there.


Before she was a senator, Elizabeth Warren designed the CFPB’s funding structure to protect it from conservative members of Congress she knew would try to starve its funding, as they had earlier starved the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Subjecting the CFPB to the congressional budgeting process would force it into a deeply broken system with countless veto points for corrupt and conflicted actors. Note too that Congress hasn’t tried to pass a law modifying the CFPB’s funding mechanism. By leaving it up to the courts, Republican lawmakers could undercut the CFPB without having to launch an unpopular legislative attack on the agency.


This stealth attack is also part of the neoliberal playbook. The historian Quinn Slobodian has shown how some neoliberals designed government systems to require nearly impossible amounts of buy-in and coordination across multiple bureaucracies if the public ever wanted to constrain business. The goal was to maintain the trappings of democracy but make it practically infeasible to bend capitalism to democratic control.


Just two years after Wall Street executives named themselves allies in the fight against systemic racism, banking trade groups say a consumer regulator should be gutted for telling banks they should not discriminate.


Four days after he told CNBC in 2020 that he would fight racial inequities at JPMorgan Chase, Dimon walked into his local Chase branch and took a knee beside employees. He didn’t go to any protests or change JPMorgan’s political stances. He didn’t even explain what the photo meant—JPMorgan Chase refused to answer when the New York Post asked if he was signaling support for the protesters or not.


Wall Street’s anti-racism ends as soon as any talk about its own behavior begins. The suit against the CFPB is irrefutable proof.

 

[RageKage]

Whole world is now ending their relationship with Ye, except these guys

 

[Apprentice]

This would’ve been a great idea for Kanye to prove watever point he had about Jews

But he alienated black people for years so he left to dry here

 

[RARI_Godwind]

Pretty sure this what he want at this point