Red Nemesis
The Blind Critic
I read this again, and a couple things stuck out as being not quite right.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If more African Americans were turned away then the white numbers on a per capita basis, then that number means nothing...it just means more African Americans, per capitia, applied for those same type of loans and were correctly denied. I believe that this is what the defense would be building a defense around so there should be some numbers somewhere.
Here you may have simply misarticulated your points or simply suffered a case of dyslexia: The NAACP is upset at too
many bad loans to blacks, not too many denied. It isn't a systematic denial of rights, it is a systematic con job (they argue).
When adjusted for disparities in economic trends (like the huge over representation of blacks in the lower economic classes), the statistics show that black borrowers were more likely to be given a sub-prime loan than white people in the same situation. This indicates (to the NAACP) that banks deliberately gave black people bad loans.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What about credit?Since I've worked on the business part of the world for a long time before getting into IT, I can say with surety that African Americans, per capita, have worse credit than say, whites. (And black women, more so than ANY demographic (male, female, asian, hispanic, ANY demographic that you could probably think of), when they don't understand their bill, they will try to say the bill is wrong and that they are being incorrectly charged. If they don't understand the bill, they will argue for hours about it. The "strong black woman"(which can apply to other races WITHOUT having to do with race.....it is just a name I've given it) persona is the root of this problem as the same traits in these women are present in other women from other races such as feminists...The same type of persona present in others causes these same type of argument. (However, the "strong black woman" type is much more present in African American women.)
This is all subjective to my own perceptions in the business world and is only of US customers, as those are the only customers I've worked with.
It seems reasonable that blacks would tend to have lower credit scores, as a whole, than other groups. Blacks are over represented in the poor community and unless I'm missing something (like a basic understanding of how credit scores are figured) poverty would have a causal relationship to bad credit scores. (A credit card bill is a lot lower priority than food, gas and water. Given the choice between lights or paying 'now' most people, even the most educated, would opt to maintain services while continuing to defer payments.)
So:
Poverty leads to poor credit scores
Blacks tend to have a disproportionate number of poor people
Blacks therefore would tend to have a disproportionate number of poor credit ratings
Am I wrong?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, this isn't as anecdotal as it seems. Speaking with other people from businesses, they echo the same sentiments. They (African Americans) also, as I noticed, have more delinquent accounts than average. This is, in my opinion, cultural. This could be related to this loan problem. Maybe, just maybe, African Americans need to adjust their culture. Some may say, "but, altering that culture is to change the very essence of what it means to be African Amercan and all that entail being part of that subculture." K, and here's my response:"F*ck that aspects of that culture. F*ck it very much. 😐"
See, here is another place where you lose me. You are blaming 'black culture' for the relatively large numbers of poor credit scores and defaults on loans rather than the more direct sociological trends:
Black males tend to drop out of school more than any other ethnicity.Adults who don't finish high school in the U.S. earn 65 percent of what people who have high school degrees make, according to a new report...
Black people are more likely to drop out and therefore make less money.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html
A greater percentage of the black population lies below 5,000$/year than any other (tracked) ethnicity as of 2006. Also, Blacks had the lowest median income of any tracked group.
We know that blacks have less money. This will only mean anything if I can link poverty to lack of education:
Ms Gilbert focused her attention on the “stark” relationship between poverty and educational achievement.
This is talking about poor students: they cannot be poor because they slacked in school or were simply incompetent. The poverty is causing the shortcomings in performance.
There. To blame the large numbers of defaulted loans and poor credit scores within the black community on the culture of a 'strong (black) woman' is patently absurd.
Of course, if you wanted to damn the intellectually oppressive culture of the lowest economic classes, rather than the strong individualistic characteristics of these cultures I'd probably join in. If you continue along this route however I can and will shout "Cultural Imperialism" at the top of my lungs. Let's not make a scene, ok?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Back a little more on topic:I would assume that more African Americans were turned away, per capita, than any other group. Does this mean that there was a disproportional, by race, application for sub prime loans? Then it becomes a question of chicken and egg: Did the African Americans seek out the loans based on "happy" stories from friends and family and then the loan officers predatorily seek out the African Americans (as well as other race demographics), or did the predatory loaning start with African Americans and then they spread the news amongst themselves? That would be the REAL question. Cue meme discussion.
I don't think that you get to 'cue' anything. 😠
😛
This article does not actually say how many were turned away. We can't really ascertain those numbers without divine insight or pure guessing (or extra research, I suppose). The article says that a black person was more likely to get a bad loan than a white person in the same situation. I don't know if I'm comfortable saying that there were just more black loans (and more opportunities for
bad black loans) than white loans because blacks are a
minority. While there is a systematic trend towards black poverty, there are still fewer poor black people than poor white people.
Wikipedia claims 221.3 million White people. The census Bureau claims 8.2 percent poverty among that group. This translates to 18,146,600 poor white people. Those same sites call for 40.9 million black people and 24.5 percent, respectively. This translates to 10,020,500 poor black people. 18,146,600 >>>>> 10,020,500. By a lot. I doubt that more black people getting bad loans caused the discrepancy in distribution.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, yeah, thanks Red Nemesis for pointing out my idea not being correctly explained. I take for granted that people have read all my other posts concerning what I've posted. Very arrogant of me, and I don't even realize I'm doing it, sometimes.
I'm going to have to remember that you aren't the jewish texan that I usually debate here. You'll have to forgive me if I make assumptions about you.
But no problem. Srsly.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit- I just reread what you posted. I still don't get it. How do they know they were steered, disproportionally, into subprime loans?
They clearly adjusted their formulas or data input for the economic similarities that they were looking for. Computers can make some crazy correlations and so some
sh*t. I saw a machine
counting cells. Srsly. 😐
CELLS. It was also sorting them by the amount of DNA in them.