The issue with credit card companies and race seems not to be one currently of gouging with higher interest rates like payday lenders but who companies are offering credit to at all. My reading indicates that many minorities and African Americans especially don't have access to credit cards at all, often because fewer are home owners and don't have established credit histories. That's despite the fact that many might have established reliable histories as renters card companies could investigate if they chose. It's not so much racism of usury it seems but of exclusion altogether. This explains the issue rather well:
https://forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/from-inherent-racial-bias-to-incorrect-data-the-problems-with-current-credit-scoring-models/
And this too: https://morningconsult.com/2019/06/03/access-to-cheap-money-has-a-racial-gap/

Thanks for giving examples of what bothers you. Some I agree with, some are beyond Vanguard's control, and some don't fall under the rubric "poorly designed and inefficient".
[snip]
Research facilities are clunky and barebones - I completely agree that Vanguard doesn't provide useful fund search tools (poorly designed site in this respect, since the info is there, just not easy to get to). Then again, I wouldn't use Fidelity's fund search tool or that of any brokerage for a new search. YMMV.
I don't use Fidelity's fund screener as my primary research tool.
However, I have discovered a few good funds via Fidelity's tool that I was previously unaware of.
I'm not asking for much in the way of research tools, but it would be nice if Vanguard offered a good fund screener.
[snip]
"Balances and holdings" view of data different from "account overview" view of data - These have a relatively small amount of data in common (current price and holdings), but otherwise differ in content and purpose.
The pages reached via "account overview" provide lots of data in addition to price and holdings (YTD/1/3/5/10 year returns, SEC yield) but only as of the current (or standardized) moment in time. The pages reached via "balances and holdings" provide only the price and holdings, but at multiple moments in time.
Where I think the "modern" layout erred was in including divs and capital gains data under "Holdings." These data belongs under "Activity" as they are historical. In fact, you can find them under the Activity tab, and filter for them using the Transaction Type select box.
When I login, the "normal" Account View is displayed. The second part of each example above refers to navigating the menu under "My Accounts". You're missing the larger point that page layouts are completely different. I can't think of a good reason to implement totally different page layouts for the same (or similar) data.
Two different presentations of transaction/activity/history data- Unlike the other example, here the two sets of pages really are presenting "the same (or essentially same) data".
Some people like the ability to choose a layout, especially a "classic" (what you call "dated") layout that they're accustomed to. Others, as you wrote can get confused by having too many (read: more than one) choice.
It might have been better had Vanguard provided a mode setting for the website: "new" vs. "classic". Though given Vanguard's inability to support a "new" (brokerage platform) and "classic" (fund platform) simultaneously I have doubts about their ability to implement a mode setting.
I never wrote that others can get confused; I said it can be distracting.
It would have been better if Vanguard provided "new" and "classic" views.
Personally, what I care about is functionality and ease of use for buying/selling/exchanging mutual funds (including the ability to cancel orders). Not research, and not nightly updates by 9PM ET. Sure the website could be better, though.
Functionality and ease of use are also my two primary concerns.
I don't expect a vast array of research tooIs but a good fund screener would be nice to have.
Although Vanguard has many other strengths, their website could be improved.

• Inconsistent holdings data (balances), varying by page - I haven't experienced this, but then again I don't go into Vanguard's site two different ways in the same session. I'll take your word for this. Sounds like a similar problem to what Fidelity has where one sees updates in one's portfolio view soon after market close, but one has to wait until the wee hours of the morning to see the same account updated on the Full View holdings page. This problem clearly comes under "poorly designed".
  
• Mutual fund orders cannot be cancelled once placed - this is simply not correct. I just tested this by submitting an order on Vanguard's brokerage site and cancelling it a few seconds later.
  
• It can take several days for a non-house fund distribution to show up in an account - I see the same thing at Fidelity, where two funds (different families) make a distribution. One shows up that evening, the other isn't posted for days (though it is backdated). It's likely a matter on the third party fund side, especially since it is the same families repeatedly that I see posted days late at Fidelity.
  
• Inconsistent statistics by page - is this different from the first item, that the holdings data (and hence derived data like asset mix) vary by page?
  
• Research facilities are clunky and barebones - I completely agree that Vanguard doesn't provide useful fund search tools (poorly designed site in this respect, since the info is there, just not easy to get to). Then again, I wouldn't use Fidelity's fund search tool or that of any brokerage for a new search. YMMV.
  A Fidelity-specific problem is that in order to see closed funds (which may be open, just not at Fidelity), you have know it's necessary to include closed funds. Then you have to work to find "include closed funds" checkbox. It's buried under "Fund Features" in full criteria screener.
  More generally, brokerage screeners won't show you funds that the brokerage doesn't carry, unlike MFO or M*. For example, Fidelity's screener doesn't show you Vanguard U.S. Multifactor Fund. But Schwab's screener does, because Schwab sells VFMFX.
  
• Can take up to twelve hours for a trade to post - I see the same thing at Fidelity. The impression I have is that on the fund side, they gather all the orders together and process them in bulk. If that's correct, this would be an example of efficiency, not inefficiency. And not a problem with the website, but an attribute of the in-house fund family.
  
• "Balances and holdings" view of data different from "account overview" view of data - These have a relatively small amount of data in common (current price and holdings), but otherwise differ in content and purpose.
  The pages reached via "account overview" provide lots of data in addition to price and holdings (YTD/1/3/5/10 year returns, SEC yield) but only as of the current (or standardized) moment in time. The pages reached via "balances and holdings" provide only the price and holdings, but at multiple moments in time.
  Where I think the "modern" layout erred was in including divs and capital gains data under "Holdings." These data belongs under "Activity" as they are historical. In fact, you can find them under the Activity tab, and filter for them using the Transaction Type select box.
  
• Two different presentations of transaction/activity/history data- Unlike the other example, here the two sets of pages really are presenting "the same (or essentially same) data".
  Some people like the ability to choose a layout, especially a "classic" (what you call "dated") layout that they're accustomed to. Others, as you wrote can get confused by having too many (read: more than one) choice.
  It might have been better had Vanguard provided a mode setting for the website: "new" vs. "classic". Though given Vanguard's inability to support a "new" (brokerage platform) and "classic" (fund platform) simultaneously I have doubts about their ability to implement a mode setting.

How to Be Proactive With Your Medicare Options:
planning-for-medicare

Unlike tax brackets, the [IRMAA] thresholds don’t automatically change with inflation.

Starting on January 1, 2020, the threshold amounts will resume adjustment for inflation

New England Mutual expects its credit rating to be raised to Met Life’s level, which could potentially attract more wealthy clients. Affluent policy buyers are particularly sensitive to low ratings of insurance companies.
The higher credit rating is also expected to make it easier for New England Mutual to dispose of troubled real estate assets that have dragged down its rating in recent years.

When Funds Collide, Survivors Often Suffer: Article (linked below) examines how business reasons that prompt fund mergers don't necessarily dovetail with the interests of the funds' shareholders. A fund company may simply be trying to bury a poor track record. More importantly, surviving funds tend to under perform after a merger

MERFX collapse was due to the collapse of the Aon/Willis Towers Watson merger agreement. DOJ had argued merger would reduce competition and raise prices in the insurance industry, so merger was called off due to regulatory concerns. This was a $30 billion deal, and the Merger Fund has 4+ billion in assets, so they figured this was an easy way to soak up some assets. Other event-driven funds with smaller asset bases stayed away from the deal, like VARAX . To me, it seems like Westchester Capital didn't perform due diligence with this deal, as apparently other fund houses sensed the deal's uncertainty. For me, I'm in the process of selling out of my entire position, and redeploying some of the assets into VARAX ntf at Schwab and Vanguard. ARBFX and BALPX were also hurt to a smaller degree by the collapse. I've invested in MERFX off and on for about 20 years, and this was a disappointing result that didn't have to happen !

The consensus is that U.S. equities will deliver strong performance as the economy recovers, and that higher inflation will drive rising interest rates. All of that is wrong, according to David Rosenberg.
The Toronto-based Rosenberg started his own economic consulting firm in January 2020, Rosenberg Research & Associates, after working a decade as chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates. He was the opening speaker at this year’s Strategic Investment Conference, hosted by John Mauldin.
Before you place too much weight on Rosenberg’s analysis, recall that he delivered the opening keynote at this conference last year, when he proclaimed that U.S. equity market bulls were in “fantasyland.” He was wrong. The return for the S&P 500 for the last year was 56.25%.
The “fiscal juice” from stimulus checks and the re-opening of the economy are outstripping supply, creating temporary inflation. Supply will catch up when demand subsides as the effect from the stimulus wanes, according to Rosenberg. That will happen before the end of the year.
When the effect of stimulus checks expired last year, GDP declined by 2.5%. We will see a repeat of that this year, according to Rosenberg.