goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Havs on July 19, 2014, 10:31:02 PM
-
Watched the documentary this week on Netflix. Has anyone else on here seen it?
-
Watched it tonight. There's a lot of repackaged material there, but it's all very good information. Reich does a great job presenting the facts, but I still think the audience that the documentary needs to leave an impression upon will dismiss it as liberal propaganda.
-
Watched it tonight. There's a lot of repackaged material there, but it's all very good information. Reich does a great job presenting the facts, but I still think the audience that the documentary needs to leave an impression upon will dismiss it as liberal propaganda.
Yes, based on nothing but the title and content if this thread, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss it as liberal propaganda.
But just out of curiosity, what was the proposed fix for all this inequality? Maybe more socialism?
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
-
Watched it tonight. There's a lot of repackaged material there, but it's all very good information. Reich does a great job presenting the facts, but I still think the audience that the documentary needs to leave an impression upon will dismiss it as liberal propaganda.
Yes, based on nothing but the title and content if this thread, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss it as liberal propaganda.
But just out of curiosity, what was the proposed fix for all this inequality? Maybe more socialism?
You should watch it.
Reich doesn't offer any solutions. He only presents the facts regarding the issue.
-
HUGE (yet short) STUD!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boothbayregister.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F11%2Ffield%2Fimage%2Frobert%2520reich-inequality-for-all.jpg&hash=f4d340d2275fd711acfb9c61a68fcd75c122a192)
-
Will watch and report back, my Orwellian friends.
-
Very nice. Really enjoyed it. You can tell he's a man who truly cares. I probably don't agree with many of his views, but his heart is in the right place.
Edit: he's obviously much smarter than me, but as are most of these guys, he's most likely "my way or the highway" in terms of fixing the problem.
-
He's the most adorable person I've ever seen
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
-
Yes, based on nothing but the title and content if this thread, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss it as liberal propaganda.
But just out of curiosity, what was the proposed fix for all this inequality? Maybe more socialism?
:love:
-
It's perfect
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
call me when we have equal opportunity.in.America.
I'll try to watch later, sound interesting.
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
Equality of opportunity involves socialism.
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
Equality of opportunity involves socialism.
I said "the best we can hope for" - not that we actually have it. Again, family and genetics play a role in opportunity that will never be truly equalized. A free market allows people with ambition and smarts to create better lives for themselves and, more importantly, to put their kids in a better position than they were in. It's the best we can hope for.
Socialism attemps to address this disparity a different way, but of course it doesn't work. Forced redistribution does not level the playing field, it just creates winners and losers by government fiat.
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
Equality of opportunity involves socialism.
I said "the best we can hope for" - not that we actually have it. Again, family and genetics play a role in opportunity that will never be truly equalized. A free market allows people with ambition and smarts to create better lives for themselves and, more importantly, to put their kids in a better position than they were in. It's the best we can hope for.
Socialism attemps to address this disparity a different way, but of course it doesn't work. Forced redistribution does not level the playing field, it just creates winners and losers by government fiat.
lol. as :opcat: as you can get.
also, "the best we can hope for" is total bullshit.
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
Equality of opportunity involves socialism.
I said "the best we can hope for" - not that we actually have it. Again, family and genetics play a role in opportunity that will never be truly equalized. A free market allows people with ambition and smarts to create better lives for themselves and, more importantly, to put their kids in a better position than they were in. It's the best we can hope for.
Socialism attemps to address this disparity a different way, but of course it doesn't work. Forced redistribution does not level the playing field, it just creates winners and losers by government fiat.
lol. as :opcat: as you can get.
also, "the best we can hope for" is total bullshit.
I guess it's racist now to say that some people are naturally smarter than others? Wow... I hate to break it to you, but we can't all be doctors, physisists, pro-athletes, etc. Some people have natural athletic and mental gifts, and they'll be compensated as the market dictates. But you stay classy tossing the racist moniker around.
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
Equality of opportunity involves socialism.
I said "the best we can hope for" - not that we actually have it. Again, family and genetics play a role in opportunity that will never be truly equalized. A free market allows people with ambition and smarts to create better lives for themselves and, more importantly, to put their kids in a better position than they were in. It's the best we can hope for.
Socialism attemps to address this disparity a different way, but of course it doesn't work. Forced redistribution does not level the playing field, it just creates winners and losers by government fiat.
lol. as :opcat: as you can get.
also, "the best we can hope for" is total bullshit.
I guess it's racist now to say that some people are naturally smarter than others? Wow... I hate to break it to you, but we can't all be doctors, physisists, pro-athletes, etc. Some people have natural athletic and mental gifts, and they'll be compensated as the market dictates. But you stay classy tossing the racist moniker around.
It's a classic technique used to justify the current system and mindset. Look, capitalism is good. But the system will adjust. And it needs to. Everything changes.
-
So its just coincidence that the "genetics" argument you just used to justify stratification in society is the same argument used by racists for over 100 years to justify racial stratification in society?
-
So there shouldn't be stratification? McDs fry cook should be able to live in the same place, eat the same food, and drive the same car as a neurosurgeon? Genetics has a lot to do with reaching those levels of employment.
-
So there shouldn't be stratification? McDs fry cook should be able to live in the same place, eat the same food, and drive the same car as a neurosurgeon? Genetics has a lot to do with reaching those levels of employment.
Attitude and work ethic have even more to do with it. I just can't make myself feel sorry for grown people who work the type of jobs I had as a teenager.
-
:lol:
-
So there shouldn't be stratification? McDs fry cook should be able to live in the same place, eat the same food, and drive the same car as a neurosurgeon? Genetics has a lot to do with reaching those levels of employment.
I agree that not everyone is equal. I believe that it is just not genetics per se, but also the environment that your genetics were conceived in.
Do I know how to rectify this situation? No. But I know that being born a decent looking, slim white male, from a middle middle class family affords be more opportunity without figuring in my above average intellect.
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
Equality of opportunity involves socialism.
I said "the best we can hope for" - not that we actually have it. Again, family and genetics play a role in opportunity that will never be truly equalized. A free market allows people with ambition and smarts to create better lives for themselves and, more importantly, to put their kids in a better position than they were in. It's the best we can hope for.
Socialism attemps to address this disparity a different way, but of course it doesn't work. Forced redistribution does not level the playing field, it just creates winners and losers by government fiat.
lol. as :opcat: as you can get.
also, "the best we can hope for" is total bullshit.
Wow, Benja outed as huge racist. If someone mentions genetics plays a part in whether or not you are successful in life, and you immediately focus on skin color as good genetics vs bad genetics, that is sincerely racist. Sad.
-
No part of this discussion is remotely related to the content of the documentary.
-
No part of this discussion is remotely related to the content of the documentary.
Well that may change as soon as we all have time to watch it. It may not though.
-
all this genetics/race talk and no dick jokes...
-
i thought metalhead finally released his top 10 albums list
-
i thought metalhead finally released his top 10 albums list
Well, he is a libtard. Maybe he just decided that all albums are equal and should each get a trophy. :lol:
-
i thought metalhead finally released his top 10 albums list
Well, he is a libtard. Maybe he just decided that all albums are equal and should each get a trophy. :lol:
You know very little about me.
-
i thought metalhead finally released his top 10 albums list
:lol:
-
i thought metalhead finally released his top 10 albums list
:lol:
that was pretty funny.
-
They bring Robert Reich on CNBC every once in a while to make fun of him. He's actually not very smart. I think he worked in the Clinton administration and now writes blogs for the SF newspaper.
His intelligence is evidenced by the fact that saying "inequality for all" is just another way of saying, "everyone is equal," which I doubt is the subject of the "documentary".
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
-
I really resent that I'm not an NFL Quarterback. It's 'cause I was discriminated against as a child. We should pass some laws to fix that. But, as long as we're drafting the laws, I'd prefer to just be paid like an NFL QB and not have toa ctually do the work, take the hits, etc. Can we make this happen already?
-
I really resent that I'm not an NFL Quarterback. It's 'cause I was discriminated against as a child. We should pass some laws to fix that.
Yep. Next thing you know, the libtards will decide NFL players make too much and cap their salaries.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
Is George Bush intelligent in your opinion?
-
George Bush is very intelligent.
-
So there shouldn't be stratification? McDs fry cook should be able to live in the same place, eat the same food, and drive the same car as a neurosurgeon? Genetics has a lot to do with reaching those levels of employment.
I agree that not everyone is equal. I believe that it is just not genetics per se, but also the environment that your genetics were conceived in.
Do I know how to rectify this situation? No. But I know that being born a decent looking, slim white male, from a middle middle class family affords be more opportunity without figuring in my above average intellect.
Agree with everything here except the "slim white male" bit. Success is a combination of many factors, none of which can be equalized by laws or redistribution. Genetics matters. Luck matters. Upbringing matters. Family matters. There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
-
So there shouldn't be stratification? McDs fry cook should be able to live in the same place, eat the same food, and drive the same car as a neurosurgeon? Genetics has a lot to do with reaching those levels of employment.
I agree that not everyone is equal. I believe that it is just not genetics per se, but also the environment that your genetics were conceived in.
Do I know how to rectify this situation? No. But I know that being born a decent looking, slim white male, from a middle middle class family affords be more opportunity without figuring in my above average intellect.
Agree with everything here except the "slim white male" bit. Success is a combination of many factors, none of which can be equalized by laws or redistribution. Genetics matters. Luck matters. Upbringing matters. Family matters. There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
So you agree that SDK is hawt?
-
So there shouldn't be stratification? McDs fry cook should be able to live in the same place, eat the same food, and drive the same car as a neurosurgeon? Genetics has a lot to do with reaching those levels of employment.
I agree that not everyone is equal. I believe that it is just not genetics per se, but also the environment that your genetics were conceived in.
Do I know how to rectify this situation? No. But I know that being born a decent looking, slim white male, from a middle middle class family affords be more opportunity without figuring in my above average intellect.
Agree with everything here except the "slim white male" bit. Success is a combination of many factors, none of which can be equalized by laws or redistribution. Genetics matters. Luck matters. Upbringing matters. Family matters. There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
So you agree that SDK is hawt?
:gocho:
-
I think ksu has never seen the movie trading places
-
I think ksu has never seen the movie trading places
liberal propaganda
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
Is George Bush intelligent in your opinion?
Yes, it takes a great deal of intelligence to graduate from Yale. Also, you should be more specific as to which George Bush you are referring to.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
Is George Bush intelligent in your opinion?
Yes, it takes a great deal of intelligence to graduate from Yale. Also, you should be more specific as to which George Bush you are referring to.
I was referring to the one with the masters degree from Harvard.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
Is George Bush intelligent in your opinion?
Yes, it takes a great deal of intelligence to graduate from Yale. Also, you should be more specific as to which George Bush you are referring to.
I was referring to the one with the masters degree from Harvard.
I really appreciate that you wanted to call me a hypocrite.
-
The problem is when the inequality becomes so great people don't even have a hope of moving up in classes. I.e. the Robber Baron days in America.
-
To expand on that thought I belive the "free market" will always lead to a few big winners and alot of losers. Hence it was government intervention that created the middle class in the 20th century.
-
To expand on that thought I belive the "free market" will always lead to a few big winners and alot of losers. Hence it was government intervention that created the middle class in the 20th century.
I liked the point that he made regarding that there is no "free market" and that there never really has been.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
-
To expand on that thought I belive the "free market" will always lead to a few big winners and alot of losers. Hence it was government intervention that created the middle class in the 20th century.
I liked the point that he made regarding that there is no "free market" and that there never really has been.
Yes the free market almost always inevitably leads to an oligopoly or monopoly.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous. See what expansion of the welfare state has done for the black community.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
-
yeah that's not "the cause" of the current recession you dopes
-
yeah that's not "the cause" of the current recession you dopes
That's why I said "indirectly". Banks never would have made the bad loans if Glass-Steagall had not been repealed in 1999 and gave them an outlet to appease pressure from congress to expand home lending.
-
yeah that's not "the cause" of the current recession you dopes
That's why I said "indirectly". Banks never would have made the bad loans if Glass-Steagall had not been repealed in 1999 and gave them an outlet to appease pressure from congress to expand home lending.
Are you saying the repeal of Glass-Steagall was an attempt to correct housing discrimination? uh, ok.
-
yeah that's not "the cause" of the current recession you dopes
That's why I said "indirectly". Banks never would have made the bad loans if Glass-Steagall had not been repealed in 1999 and gave them an outlet to appease pressure from congress to expand home lending.
Are you saying the repeal of Glass-Steagall was an attempt to correct housing discrimination? uh, ok.
No, just another part of the equation. I would assume it was just a favor to some banking industry friends of Clinton.
-
I would assume it was just a favor to some banking industry friends of Clinton.
that is likely far more accurate.
-
:)
-
All hail the pit. Another potentially enlightening and productive conversation ruined by blowhards.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
that's what he said
-
KSUW: is inequality not a problem or is it just any proposed remedy that is bad?
We're not all equal. Blame mother nature. Unequal gifts, unequal talents. The best we can hope for is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Liberal efforts to put a thumb on the scales in order to balance things out are both immoral and failures. They involve redistribution of weath and opportunity (see, e.g., race-based college admission standards).
You should give the article below a read. This Plutocrat himself, a multibillionaire and unapologetic capitalist, argues that it's not that there is inequality; of course that is bound to happen in any capitalistic society. It's that it is occurring at an unprecedented rate and magnitude. He states something to the effect, "you show me a society with this much inequality and I'll show you a police state or imminent uprising". The entire premise is that it's true...the game is rigged. His take home, however, is that they need to start favoring their employee base as much as they do their customers, that they ARE their customers (the Henry Ford model). He argues that this is not only conducive to long term profits, but that the inevitable alternative as evidenced throughout history will not be kind to them. He further cites the fact that Seattle, being one of the fastest growing city economies for start-ups and small business, is an example to this fact as they have one of the highest minimum wages limits in the Nation. Anyway, it's a good read and offers a lot of unapologetic truth, while allowing one to see the issue without so much as getting defense for the feeling of misplaced guilt.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U83G__ldWVM (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U83G__ldWVM)
-
There's no known system of government that creates equality from birth. If you want one, it's going to take a crap load of orphanages and nuns.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.
Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
that's what he said
It's clearly not.
Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.
-
A lot of "Romney provided the playbook for obamacare" people on here pretending like wall street made up subprime lending. Part of being libtarded I guess.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.
Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.
Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic. Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.
Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.
Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic. Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.
Intelligent people come from all walks of life, but it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.
Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.
-
it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.
I don't believe this is true at all
Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.
What position could you possibly be in to make this statement?
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
that's what he said
It's clearly not.
Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.
Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.
Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.
Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic. Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.
Intelligent people come from all walks of life, but it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.
Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.
It is very hard to get into an ivy league school if you are not intelligent, wealthy, or both. Everyone who gets in graduates, though. The rate is like 97%. I doubt the 3% who fail would manage to pass at any other university.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
that's what he said
It's clearly not.
Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.
Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.
Correct.
The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.
Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.
Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic. Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.
Intelligent people come from all walks of life, but it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.
Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.
It is very hard to get into an ivy league school if you are not intelligent, wealthy, or both. Everyone who gets in graduates, though. The rate is like 97%. I doubt the 3% who fail would manage to pass at any other university.
So, you're of the opinion that Ivy League schools just hand out degrees once individuals are accepted and enrolled? I think we both know better. Individuals make it into Ivy League schools because they are both highly intelligent and highly motivated, and most of the time very wealthy.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
An ironic choice to lead the "inequality for all" charge.
Yes, because an unintelligent person would be an excellent choice.
Your intelligence metric is awfully aristocratic. Also, you aren't getting what I'm blogging.
Intelligent people come from all walks of life, but it's incredibly hard to graduate from an ivy league college when you are unintelligent.
Also, I get what you're blogging, but Reich's privilege has no bearing on his knowledge of economic inequality or the stance he has chosen to take on it.
It is very hard to get into an ivy league school if you are not intelligent, wealthy, or both. Everyone who gets in graduates, though. The rate is like 97%. I doubt the 3% who fail would manage to pass at any other university.
So, you're of the opinion that Ivy League schools just hand out degrees once individuals are accepted and enrolled? I think we both know better. Individuals make it into Ivy League schools because they are both highly intelligent and highly motivated, and most of the time very wealthy.
I think that basically everyone who shows up to class and makes an effort ends up with a degree, yes.
-
okay
-
I have no idea how this turned into a referendum on an Ivy League education. But it's possible to admit someone is intelligent while also disagreeing with them. That is allowed.
-
I'm not saying that unintelligent people get into ivy league schools. I don't believe GW Bush would have been able to get into Yale on his own merits, but he was still intelligent enough for the school to accept him. Once you are in, though, what would make the school any harder to graduate than any other school? It's not like you are competing against the other students for a diploma and the classroom sizes are small. The schools set you up for success.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
that's what he said
It's clearly not.
Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.
Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.
Correct.
The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.
yeah, they were originally trying to say this was some form of reparations for housing discrimination. :lol:
-
This whole Ivy Leauge debate remind me of a time in Intermediate Micro Economics we had new professor whom had a degree from Dartmouth, and she was teaching Knox's game theory formula and a guy raised his hand and said this is Kansas State University not Yale and walked out.
-
This whole Ivy Leauge debate remind me of a time in Intermediate Micro Economics we had new professor whom had a degree from Dartmouth, and she was teaching Knox's game theory formula and a guy raised his hand and said this is Kansas State University not Yale and walked out.
:lol:
-
:lol:
-
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.
-
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.
That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.
-
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.
That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.
Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?
-
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.
That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.
Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?
Probably not. Our graduation rate is 27%, so knowing nothing about the guy, odds are he didn't graduate. The fact that he walked out in the middle of a class like that puts his odds around 4 or 5%, in my opinion.
-
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.
That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.
Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?
Probably not. Our graduation rate is 27%, so knowing nothing about the guy, odds are he didn't graduate. The fact that he walked out in the middle of a class like that puts his odds around 4 or 5%, in my opinion.
Holy Crap it's that low? I never knew that. I figured it was in the high 50s judging by my friend group. Learn something new everyday in the pit.
-
So yea the quality of student at my illustrious Alma Mater is a different than at an Ivy League school, and I for one am fine with that.
That doesn't really speak to how difficult it is to graduate from an ivy league school, though. I highly doubt the student you pointed out was able to graduate from Kansas State, either.
Probably not with an Economics degree from the 72nd best Economics program in the country but I bet he got some kind of degree. Marketing perhaps?
Probably not. Our graduation rate is 27%, so knowing nothing about the guy, odds are he didn't graduate. The fact that he walked out in the middle of a class like that puts his odds around 4 or 5%, in my opinion.
Holy Crap it's that low? I never knew that. I figured it was in the high 50s judging by my friend group. Learn something new everyday in the pit.
Well, that is the 4 year graduation rate according to US News. I think it is closer to 50% if you factor in a 5th year.
-
Rhodes scholar, Alumnus of Dartmouth, Oxford and Yale. Nope, not intelligent.
Is George Bush intelligent in your opinion?
Yes, it takes a great deal of intelligence to graduate from Yale. Also, you should be more specific as to which George Bush you are referring to.
*Unless you're parents are rich alumni
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
that's what he said
It's clearly not.
Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.
Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.
Correct.
The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.
yeah, they were originally trying to say this was some form of reparations for housing discrimination. :lol:
That isn't what I was saying at all.
-
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, b
ut government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
no
Yes. Source: I work in that industry. When you prevent lenders from discriminating based on, gasp, the ability to repay, that's a bad thing. The lenders then turned around and securitized their crap loans as quickly as possible to get them off their books.
You must be a teller then if you believe that bullshit.
Lenders were happy to sign off on risky loans as the premium for them was great in the secondary market. Wall Street had a want for risky packaged securities and mortgage companies were happy to oblige.
that's what he said
It's clearly not.
Nobody prevented lenders from following standard underwriting, the subprime lenders were more than happy to write risky loans. Wall Street had a scheme for high risk CDOs and the mortgage companies provided the supply.
Glass-Steagall is what used to keep lenders following standard underwriting. Separating lenders from the stock market was actually a good thing the government did after the depression.
Correct.
The repeal of it wasn't just something big bad guvment decided to repeal for the heck of it. It was done because the finance industry wanted to diversify their business.
yeah, they were originally trying to say this was some form of reparations for housing discrimination. :lol:
That isn't what I was saying at all.
:dunno:
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Didn't the attempt to fix this indirectly lead to the current recession?
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?
Intentional race-based lending discrimination doesn't really exist (but never say never, I suppose). You're probably referring to "disparate impact" which basically means "well, there's no intentional discrimination, but based upon the statistical impact of various guidelines against minorities, we're going to call it discrimination anyway." Meanwhile, the lenders are thinking "WTF? I'm just trying to lend to people who I think can actually pay me back."
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?
Intentional race-based lending discrimination doesn't really exist (but never say never, I suppose). You're probably referring to "disparate impact" which basically means "well, there's no intentional discrimination, but based the statistical impact of various guidelines against minorities, we're going to call it discrimination anyway." Meanwhile, the lenders are thinking "WTF? I'm just trying to lend to people who I think can actually pay me back."
No, I'm referring to things like redlining districts and denying FHA-backed mortgages to black families who could afford to pay until the 70's or so.
I'm not sure if any form of it exists today, but I don't know much about it and it wasn't what I was commenting on.
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?
I guess I missed where this turned into a race thing. :dunno:
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?
I guess I missed where this turned into a race thing. :dunno:
I was referring to it here, I did a poor job specifying I was referring to racist policies the mortgage and housing market from WWII until the 1970's:
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
Agreed, but government-sanctioned discrimination created a disproportionate distribution of springboards that still exists. Should the government have any responsibility to attempt to correct this mistake in any way?
Are you talking about slavery/segregation or something else? You correct the mistake by not doing it anymore. Efforts to affirmatively compensate for it have been disastrous.
housing financing discrimination probably has the biggest effect today.
Here's a good read, (just ignore the clickbait headline): http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
-
Becker pointed out that if an employer refuses to hire a productive worker simply because of skin color, that employer loses out on a valuable opportunity. In short, discrimination is costly to the person who discriminates. [masssofcatfan note: this helps explain why governments passed Jim Crow laws after the Civil War, to subvert/illegalize market forces that discourage discrimination]
Becker showed that discrimination will be less pervasive in more competitive industries because companies that discriminate will lose market share to companies that do not. He also presented evidence that discrimination is more pervasive in more-regulated, and therefore less-competitive, industries. The idea that discrimination is costly to the discriminator is common sense among economists today, and that is due to Becker.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Becker.html (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Becker.html)
-
Interesting. Did Becker look at he US military? Because that is a pretty uncompetitive industry and there is tons of diversity, and that is almost exclusively due to policy.
-
Interesting. Did Becker look at he US military? Because that is a pretty uncompetitive industry and there is tons of diversity, and that is almost exclusively due to policy.
Don't forget the industries: Federal Government, State Government, and Local Government, uncompetitive and bastions of diversity and efficiency due to policy. Also, see the industry FIFA soccer.
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?
Intentional race-based lending discrimination doesn't really exist (but never say never, I suppose). You're probably referring to "disparate impact" which basically means "well, there's no intentional discrimination, but based the statistical impact of various guidelines against minorities, we're going to call it discrimination anyway." Meanwhile, the lenders are thinking "WTF? I'm just trying to lend to people who I think can actually pay me back."
No, I'm referring to things like redlining districts and denying FHA-backed mortgages to black families who could afford to pay until the 70's or so.
I'm not sure if any form of it exists today, but I don't know much about it and it wasn't what I was commenting on.
Red lining, in its hay day, actually involved drawing a red line on a map where the bank would accept deposits but not make consumer loans. These were exclusively poor neighborhoods (not necessarily race based, but disparate in impact to minorities). CRA, ECOA, HMDA and myriad other duplicative consumer regs have made it illegal to do this, whether it's done intentionally or not. Banking has become so competitive and retail credit underwriting so automated that it only exists today in the minds of lunatics like Elizabeth Warren.
-
The repeal of glass-steagall only facilitated the ability of the banks to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?
Intentional race-based lending discrimination doesn't really exist (but never say never, I suppose). You're probably referring to "disparate impact" which basically means "well, there's no intentional discrimination, but based the statistical impact of various guidelines against minorities, we're going to call it discrimination anyway." Meanwhile, the lenders are thinking "WTF? I'm just trying to lend to people who I think can actually pay me back."
No, I'm referring to things like redlining districts and denying FHA-backed mortgages to black families who could afford to pay until the 70's or so.
I'm not sure if any form of it exists today, but I don't know much about it and it wasn't what I was commenting on.
Red lining, in its hay day, actually involved drawing a red line on a map where the bank would accept deposits but not make consumer loans. These were exclusively poor neighborhoods (not necessarily race based, but disparate in impact to minorities). CRA, ECOA, HMDA and myriad other duplicative consumer regs have made it illegal to do this, whether it's done intentionally or not. Banking has become so competitive and retail credit underwriting so automated that it only exists today in the minds of lunatics like Elizabeth Warren.
it was absolutely race-based in its heyday. It was not exclusively "poor" neighborhoods that were targeted.
Agree the practice of denying loans based on race is illegal basically no longer exists, (although the damage is pretty much done and these neighborhoods have been targeted by predatory lenders - that's a different discussion).
-
Regardless, the practice has been dead for 3-4 decades. I'm not sure how it's particularly relevant to this discussion, unless you believe the source of all undeserved wealth is related to inheriting your grandma's house.
-
Regardless, the practice has been dead for 3-4 decades. I'm not sure how it's particularly relevant to this discussion, unless you believe the source of all undeserved wealth is related to inheriting your grandma's house.
Yes, the specific process has been dead for some time. However, it's relevant today because it contributed greatly to the current wealth disparity between whites and blacks - not just because of grandma's equity in her house, but also because it ruined neighborhoods and education systems for blacks and didn't really offer alternatives. It's really tragic.
-
Regardless, the practice has been dead for 3-4 decades. I'm not sure how it's particularly relevant to this discussion, unless you believe the source of all undeserved wealth is related to inheriting your grandma's house.
Yes, the specific process has been dead for some time. However, it's relevant today because it contributed greatly to the current wealth disparity between whites and blacks - not just because of grandma's equity in her house, but also because it ruined neighborhoods and education systems for blacks and didn't really offer alternatives. It's really tragic.
This is an extremely bizarre and foolish position to take, considering the 1-4 family mortgage, as we know it today, began in the 70's.
-
FYI, the rolling stone is not a good source for information on economic topics.
-
Regardless, the practice has been dead for 3-4 decades. I'm not sure how it's particularly relevant to this discussion, unless you believe the source of all undeserved wealth is related to inheriting your grandma's house.
Yes, the specific process has been dead for some time. However, it's relevant today because it contributed greatly to the current wealth disparity between whites and blacks - not just because of grandma's equity in her house, but also because it ruined neighborhoods and education systems for blacks and didn't really offer alternatives. It's really tragic.
They should move then.
Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6
-
Regardless, the practice has been dead for 3-4 decades. I'm not sure how it's particularly relevant to this discussion, unless you believe the source of all undeserved wealth is related to inheriting your grandma's house.
Yes, the specific process has been dead for some time. However, it's relevant today because it contributed greatly to the current wealth disparity between whites and blacks - not just because of grandma's equity in her house, but also because it ruined neighborhoods and education systems for blacks and didn't really offer alternatives. It's really tragic.
They should move then.
Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6
ok
-
i remember an emo that debated topics with a modicum of respect for the intelligence of his audience and an assumption of good intentions by his debate opponent. that emo was a pleasure to messageboard with.
-
Sorry sys. I'm in a baby birthing class and bored and pretty bitter about it. I'm much better with a keyboard. IMO at least.
Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6
-
I'm in a baby birthing class and bored and pretty bitter about it.
that sounds horrible.
-
I'm in a baby birthing class and bored and pretty bitter about it.
that sounds horrible.
The worst thing I've ever done voluntarily.
Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6
-
Got around to watching it. I didn't feel that It was very effective in delivering an actionable message. I did like his self deprecating humor, I feel like if he got to serve in a third administration he would have the balls to jokingly call it the third reich.
-
Some light reading:
But this isn’t just a story of legacies and effects. In addition to showing the consequences of past discrimination, Sharp and Hall argue that African-Americans have been victimized by a new system of market exploitation. Banks like Wells Fargo steered blacks and other minorities into the worst subprime loans, giving them less favorable terms than whites and foreclosing on countless homes. In a 2012 lawsuit, the ACLU and National Consumer Law Center alleged that the now-defunct New Century Financial, working with Morgan Stanley, pushed thousands of black borrowers into the riskiest loans, leaving many in financial ruin. As early as 2005, the Wall Street Journal reported that blacks were twice as likely to receive subprime loans. And in a New York University study published last year, researchers found that black and Hispanic families making more than $200,000 a year were more likely to receive subprime loans than white families making less than $30,000.
Together, all of this means that—according to Sharp and Hall—African-Americans are 45 percent more likely than whites to lose their homes. That means they’re more likely to lose their accumulated wealth and to slide down the income ladder, and less likely to pass the advantages of status and mobility to their children.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/black_homeownership_how_the_recession_turned_owners_into_renters_and_obliterated.single.html
more:
http://news.rice.edu/2014/07/22/african-american-homeownership-increasingly-less-stable-and-more-risky-2/
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/07/black-homeowners-are-worse-off-today-than-they-were-40-years-ago/374824/