Author Topic: "Inequality For All"  (Read 5999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40097
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #100 on: July 22, 2014, 05:51:58 PM »
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 They never would have given those loans had glass-steagall not been repealed because they would have been stuck with them. I never implied that it was repealed for the specific purpose of sub-prime lending.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/

Offline massofcatfan

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #101 on: July 23, 2014, 03:37:48 PM »
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
I want to wake up in a city that never sleeps, etc.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16447
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #102 on: July 23, 2014, 05:48:00 PM »
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.
@bentren

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #103 on: July 24, 2014, 12:50:15 PM »
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.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #104 on: July 24, 2014, 12:55:41 PM »
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.

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40097
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #105 on: July 24, 2014, 01:10:55 PM »
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).

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #106 on: July 24, 2014, 01:51:01 PM »
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.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40097
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #107 on: July 24, 2014, 02:09:14 PM »
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.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #108 on: July 24, 2014, 02:43:54 PM »
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. 

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #109 on: July 24, 2014, 02:48:54 PM »
FYI, the rolling stone is not a good source for information on economic topics.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #110 on: July 26, 2014, 10:28:26 AM »
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


Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40097
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #111 on: July 26, 2014, 10:43:22 AM »
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

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 33217
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #112 on: July 26, 2014, 03:13:14 PM »
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.
we understand it better now that the american century is over and some of us sound more and more like serbs.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #113 on: July 26, 2014, 03:14:36 PM »
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

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 33217
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #114 on: July 26, 2014, 03:18:39 PM »
I'm in a baby birthing class and bored and pretty bitter about it.

that sounds horrible.
we understand it better now that the american century is over and some of us sound more and more like serbs.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #115 on: July 26, 2014, 03:20:11 PM »

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

Offline wetwillie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20969
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #116 on: July 26, 2014, 08:54:27 PM »
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.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40097
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: "Inequality For All"
« Reply #117 on: July 28, 2014, 05:37:04 PM »
Some light reading:

Quote
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/