Jan 27, 2025 11:37 PM
(This post was last modified: Jan 28, 2025 12:33 AM by Magical Realist.)
Quote:"In that period, "redlining" was a misnomer (hence the scare quotes). Banks were not denying loans due to race/ethnicity. They were denying loans to high risks of defaulting on the debt. But the left is always so eager to attribute to immutable characteristics, like race or gender (to create victims they can farm for votes), they ignore the obvious facts that bad loan risks do not make the lenders money. IOW, they caused the Great Recession because they insisted there was racism where there was none. That's what social justice always does... more harm than what it seeks to address.
The collapse of the housing market was directly due to all the defaulting on home mortgages.
A total lie, originally put forward by ex-NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg:
"Last week, comments surfaced from a 2008 lecture by former New York City mayor and current Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, in which he asserted that the period’s housing crisis was due to the end of “redlining,” the mid-20th century discriminatory practice that made home loans unavailable in Black neighborhoods. Bloomberg’s conclusion is utterly contradicted by the facts, but it persists because it reinforces one of the most pernicious narratives of the American economy: that the economic and social statuses of poor and Black people are of their own doing.
“It probably all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone,” Bloomberg said in the 2008 Georgetown University lecture. When “Congress got involved” and decided redlining was unfair, he continued, “banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like.” This, Bloomberg claims, is what sparked the Great Recession.
Bloomberg’s argument—one that he has repeated over the years—is wrong from start to finish. Take his definition of redlining: “Redlining, if you remember,” Bloomberg said, “was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said, ‘People in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your salesmen don’t go into those areas.’”
If you do not “remember” redlining as Bloomberg defines it, that’s probably because his definition is nonsense. Redlining was the U.S. government practice—operating through the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation—of defining the riskiness of mortgages based on the racial makeup of neighborhoods. Areas with sizable Black populations were marked in red ink on maps as a warning to mortgage lenders that those areas would be too risky to underwrite, effectively isolating Black people in neighborhoods that would suffer lower levels of investment than their white counterparts.
Redlining was not about banks identifying which neighborhoods were poor. It was, as historian Richard Rothstein famously described, “a state-sponsored system of segregation.”
Moreover, to link the end of redlining to the recent economic downturn is an egregious miscasting of the facts. The Fair Housing Act was 40 years old, and the Community Reinvestment Act was 30, before the economic collapse of 2008. Subprime mortgages were concentrated in the private market, and were commonly sold to homeowners who would have qualified for a safer loan. It was not government efforts to make homeownership affordable that provoked the risky investments that preceded the crash. It was predatory lenders’ greed.
Bloomberg was arguing that fair housing policies went too far, but in truth they have not gone nearly far enough. Black homeownership rates today have fallen to pre-1968 levels, before the Fair Housing Act outlawed housing discrimination. And Black neighborhoods continue to bear a stigma: a devaluation of $48,000 per home on average, even after controlling for factors such as housing quality, neighborhood quality, education, and crime. This amounts to a whopping $156 billion in cumulative losses.
We see the consequences of this stigma not only in our neighborhoods, but in our families. Black people in redlined neighborhoods were robbed of the ability to improve their homes and communities because the government only facilitated investment, development, and growth in white suburbs. Residents of Black-majority neighborhoods were not afforded the opportunity to pass on equity accrued from their homes to future generations. Today, white families have the highest median family wealth at $171,000—Black and Latino or Hispanic families have $17,600 and $20,700, respectively.
Policies such as redlining—which have concentrated wealth in the hands of the few while inflicting economic violence on poor people and minorities—have received rhetorical cover for far too long. The next president must address the real housing crisis in this country: unaffordable housing in segregated neighborhoods, the result of decades of policy built on racism and classism. Bloomberg is the eighth-richest man in the world; he should know better about where wealth in America really comes from and how it is gained and lost."---
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/bloom...of-racism/
Quote:These lefty academics are as out of touch with the real world as those who had to do a study to find out that fat girls get less dates.
Yeah..just the people with the PhDs who actually study all of the data instead of cherry-picking things out of it just to confirm their political agenda.
Quote:It's a direct result of all the BLM rioting, prosecuting police officers for doing their jobs, attempts to "defund the police," etc., etc.. The overreaction against all police to isolated real racism has made officers gun-shy about doing their jobs in neighborhoods of certain demographics... even the officers of the same race as that neighborhood, as they get accused of internalized racism.
Again, cite your sources and show how this was caused by working to eliminate racial profiling. Just pulling unsupported claims out of your ass doesn't prove anything.
Quote:Many of their disadvantages are created or maintained by the social justice left. See the increased crime rates in their neighborhoods, the predatory loans to objectively bad loan risks, the victim/oppressed narrative, welfare, etc..
Really? So programs for getting blacks and hispanics and immigrants and single moms jobs and education grants and better housing and affordable healthcare are increasing crime rates in their neighborhoods, predatory loans, and crime victimization? How? Cite your sources..
Quote:Again, your tenuous grasp of the English language fails you. I never said actual oppressed people were losers. I said, "Social justice is just the losers demanding the capable and hard working take care of them." The losers are those who fail because they do not work hard, do not develop marketable skills, etc..
No...you quite clearly applied the term "losers" to all who receive help to get jobs and education and financial aid via social justice advocacies. That is clearly your sole criterion for believing they are losers. Hence your racist assumption that blacks, hispanics, single moms, etc. do not work hard and so are losers simply because of who they are. Which means you are pretty much a scum sucking bigot..
