Slashdot Mirror

Back at you.

Not at all, I'm not relying on that page at all, to put it expressly, I don't believe in it.

But I do recognize that there are folks with a vested interest in making sure their version of their story is believed. And that's why you believe it, isn't it?

Or do you not realize the signals you're sending?

This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it...

Oh, that's ok, you could have ASKED.

Oh wait, you went and got off on your own, without even paying attention to what I said or even asking first. And I do note you cut off two of the other issues I brought up. Well, actually, you cut of my own statement in the middle. That says a good bit. I suggest not doing that, if you don't want to create the impression of being deliberately misleading.

If you're going to be confrontational, at least be right, but you're not even right.

Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites.

Which doesn't address what I said at all. I didn't make a distinction along racial lines, I said "that failure rates for those loans were not any higher than other loans (even commercial loans)" which refers to a different aspect of the problem. Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant by those loans? For that, you'll want to look at other documents.. But then, you should have asked first.

If you want to talk about racial policies, there is much of interest there, but hmm, no, I wasn't saying what you think I was, so I guess we should address that first, before moving on.

Can you admit you weren't even arguing with what I said, but over something else? If not, then stop here, and we'll go over it again.

(And seriously, the Center for Responsible Lending? That's a cringe-worthy name. Never trust somebody with a name like that, whether Honest Bob, the Committee of Public Safety, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.

Hmm, I'm not seeing an argument for the suffering being caused here, let alone it being increased by those actions, let alone the harming actions being from Democrats. In fact, I'd say the most harmful actions would be from financial institutions who you can read about.

It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race.

Oh no, you don't need to think of David Duke as hard-core. He's slick, but not hard-core at all. He's smarmy enough to be a bank officer though, and he'd have all the sound and justifiable reasoning lined up to validate his actions. And no, they'd worry about losing their bonuses, or being sent to Duluth instead, because the bosses wouldn't like it. Same reason they don't rep

So you'd like to believe. You'd REALLY like to believe it.

Back at you.

But then we look, and we see that failure rates for those loans were not any higher

This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it... Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites. The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.

It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race. No one would do it — and none of the allegations of this happening en masse has ever been substantiated.

Now, don't be an asshole, and reply under your own name to undo the cowardly downmoderations...

Smart buyers read the Notice to Borrowers Required by Federal Law (or foreign counterparts) before signing and tell the dealer in no uncertain terms, "I'll make you a deal: You can drop this prepayment penalty and sell me the car for $xxxx. Or you can keep it and the car." In any case, I don't see the point of a prepayment penalty because if the debtor prepays, the creditor has the money back to lend to someone else.

Check out the painful ugliness.

The idea that the CRA caused the mortgage meltdown is flat wrong. There are plenty of other sources besides those 2, from all sorts of economists.

The other basic thing that you fail to acknowledge is that oligopolies are different from free markets. If the number of sellers in your market drop into the single-digits (which is true of a lot of markets right now), Adam Smith's work stops being half as useful as John Nash's. It's sort of like how Isaac Newton's physics works extremely well most of the time, but once you get into the realm of really big, really small, or really fast things it tends to fall apart.

Interestingly enough, the link you posted does not quote any sources nor has a link to the report mentioned in the first paragraph.
However, the The Center for Responsible Lending is not exactly an unbiased source of information, since several of its board members are leading members of the NAACP and other civil rights organizations so they have a vested interest in the outcome of this study.

Of course, it's easier to just post this link rather than look at the actual study. Here, let me help you.
The report quoted by the CNN article is here: http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/research/page.jsp?itemID=29371010

In the report, there is an interesting statement in the executive summary:

This analysis does not allow us to estimate precisely how much race and ethnicity increase the prices charged to borrowers. It is also beyond the scope of this paper to determine definitively why these disparities exist. However, we do posit several possible causes, including the considerable leeway mortgage originators have to impose charges beyond those justified by risk-based pricing.

What that says is "We can't really state for a fact that race/ethnicity is why they can be charged higher rates, so we're going to make shit up and claim that the white man is keeping them down." But don't take my word for it. It's at the top of page 5 in the report.

"Many of those "they" are playing by the rules, are educated, have gone to college, have careers, etc. Is it right that even when you play by the rules, you still run up against bias?"

Where did you see that? Nowhere in the article says anything like what you're saying, so you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that historically, minorities have worse financial track records, meaning they're a higher liability, therefore lenders have to take extra precautions when lending to them. Blame that on the idiots that have screwed up in the past.

"And you're saying they should blame that on civil rights leaders?"

You're mixing apples and oranges. My first comment to blame the so-called 'civil rights leaders' like Sharpton and Jackson was to the fact that they constantly argue that minorities cannot succeed without help, which means that those who do succeed are always going to be viewed as not having done so by their own merits and competence, but because they were 'given a pass'.
This had nothing to do with the other comment about housing, which was my reply to a different poster all together. Reading comprehension will take you a long way.

Just don't use credit cards. [...] if you don't have a credit card, they can't rack up the charges. If you were to use a debit card instead, [...] once it runs out, it's gone and they can't keep charging more.

That's not necessarily true, because of a nice feature named overdraft protection. It's a big moneymaker for banks; you could argue it's an opt-in service, but here's a recent press release, describing a debit card with "built-in" overdraft protection (the link is to the cache, because the original article has expired). And I'll bet dollars to pennies that you won't get a warning when the overdraft "protection" kicks in, so you could just continue blissfully using the card and get hit with multiple overdraft charges.

Furthermore, statistics show that poor people almost never get loans, because the banks know they're not getting paid back.

Whew. That'll come as a great relief to all of these people who seem to be under the mistaken impression that the poor are often preyed upon by mortgage banks offering loans they know can never be paid off. I'll be sure to let the attorneys we employ whose sole responsibility it is to handle these types of cases know that they can move on to ther things.