0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: michigancat on July 22, 2014, 02:56:40 PMQuote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 22, 2014, 02:08:31 PMThe 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 They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?I guess I missed where this turned into a race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.
Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 22, 2014, 02:08:31 PMThe 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 They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.What does this have to do with race-based lending discrimination?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 They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 21, 2014, 03:31:50 PMQuote from: michigancat on July 21, 2014, 02:53:19 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 21, 2014, 02:02:02 PMThere'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.
Quote from: michigancat on July 21, 2014, 02:53:19 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 21, 2014, 02:02:02 PMThere'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.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 21, 2014, 02:02:02 PMThere'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?
There's nothing wrong with parents passing on what they accumulate as a springboard for their children. That's part of the American Dream.
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.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 22, 2014, 03:22:05 PMQuote from: michigancat on July 22, 2014, 02:56:40 PMQuote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 22, 2014, 02:08:31 PMThe 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.
Quote from: michigancat on July 22, 2014, 02:56:40 PMQuote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 22, 2014, 02:08:31 PMThe 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."
Quote from: michigancat on July 22, 2014, 03:32:18 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 22, 2014, 03:22:05 PMQuote from: michigancat on July 22, 2014, 02:56:40 PMQuote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 22, 2014, 02:08:31 PMThe 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.
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.
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2014, 01:51:01 PMRegardless, 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.
Quote from: michigancat on July 24, 2014, 02:09:14 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 24, 2014, 01:51:01 PMRegardless, 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
I'm in a baby birthing class and bored and pretty bitter about it.
Quote from: Emo EMAW on July 26, 2014, 03:14:36 PMI'm in a baby birthing class and bored and pretty bitter about it.that sounds horrible.
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.
