Originally posted by Red Nemesis
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?
What does this have to do with your all too relevant points on African Americans failing themselves as a result of their very only social behaviors and social norms?
That's what I thought.
Now, we both agree that there is a malfunction in African American culture in general...as it concerns money and it's many different associations (money as a function of credit score, money as a function of savings, money as a function of education, etc.), just what should be done is where we probably disagree. I think the African American culture needs an overhaul concerning money and education. One or two successful African Americans won't be enough.
However, I think Obama is an excellent example. He is spending like a mad man, but I like him as a person. When asked if he smoked weed and if he inhaled, he said, "yeah, that's kinda the point." 😄
Maybe it will take the Hispanic immigrants pushing them further into economic and educational deficiencies (relative to the rest of the US and world) before they experience cultural paradigm shift.
😮💨
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
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).
That information should exist. Those records are very necessary to gauge business volume, trending analysis (still, business), staffing, etc.
Keeping the records on file for previously turned away applicants is also an excellent way to pick right where they left off, with the customer, in case they come back with an additional proposal.
I would assume that this data is part of the defense against the accusations, if those accusations are even being given the time of day. I say that last part because the type of whining associated with the accusation may not even be dignified in court. It may just be ignored. OR, it could be more discrimination...not given this case very much time because they simply don't care about that people.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
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.
Well, it says "more likely", right?
I want to see numbers. I want to see total applicants. A distribution based on loan qualification factors, loans granted and denied based on race demographics, and the amounts of the loans granted based on race demographics.
If that data is presented, then we can draw conclusions.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
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.
No, I think those numbers are telling. If, in equal numbers, randomly, African Americans and say, whites, applied for loans at the same value, and the lenders gave out loans to a percentage of all applicants, then we would see MORE loans given to bad applicants on the African American side of the race coin. From what I read about the loan practices.....they were going for a specific volume in lending. Granting on the fly like there was no tomorrow.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
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.
Cool.
In all honesty, I don't think we disagree, all that much.
I think where we disagree is what should be done.
I like to take the "Zen" approach and say that the change has to come from within the african american subculture and not from the government.
To put it another way, America shouldn't change and/or adapt for African Americans, African Americans should change and/or adapt for America.
It would seem Chithappens is in agreement with me. In fact, he knows exactly what I'm referring to and he is even harder on African Americans than I am. However, he is like that for good reason. Here he is, bustin' his butt, whilst his race is still wallowing in mediocrity or worse. Then they have the audacity to blame their problems on others while he is doing the very thing they say they can't because "the man has got them down" or something. On top of that, they make snide comments when someone starts to make it in the world...such as getting education or getting a nice job. How is that helpful at all?
I mean...really....12 million illegal immigrants can't be wrong. Maybe they should work 2 and 3 jobs or work full time and go to school full time like the rest of the poor people trying to make it in this world. There is more and better opportunities for African Americans who want to make than there are for whitey. This is fact.
I have much greater respect for someone genuinely trying and little to no respect for someone complaining and doing little to nothing. You can only blame so much on "the man" before it is your own damn fault.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
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.
Sorry. My bad. My question was rhetorical. That smart assery of mine doesn't come through without tone of voice.
Again, my bad.
I was implying that the article was bias because they drew conclusions that shouldn't have been drawn without the appropriate data. This is the original of my "confusion." You can make data say anything you want...depending on which data you use, and how you use it.