The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='magiic']I am in New Zealand.[/quote]
Motherfukher! When did that happen?
Motherfukher! When did that happen?
Stewart ripping mad money guy a new ass
- Thread starter Cracka
- Start date
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='kram']The only funny thing about the Daily Show is that only people who THINK they're educated actually like it.[/quote]
I know it's cool to hate the Daily Show and all, but sometimes it is really funny. This segment was more awkward and reminiscent of a train wreck though, not funny. Just remember Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are Bill O'Reillys for college kids.
I know it's cool to hate the Daily Show and all, but sometimes it is really funny. This segment was more awkward and reminiscent of a train wreck though, not funny. Just remember Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are Bill O'Reillys for college kids.
[quote name='The Crotch']Yes. Thank you. You know what you're talking about.
Jon Stewart is being a self-important bitch when he downplays the entire rivalry.
He is being a self-important bitch when he reacts awkwardly to fawning praise.
He is demonizing Cramer for not offering flawless advice when he says, "The problem isn't being wrong, it's being all over the place."
He is demonizing Cramer when he catches him in a flat-out lie.
He is being a self-important bitch when he reacts negatively to being talked down to.
He is being a self-important bitch when he calls himself a snake-oil salesman.
He is demonizing Cramer when he says, "This song ain't about you."
He is demonizing Cramer when he calls him brilliant and knowledgeable.
He is being a self-important bitch when he asks if he can get back to doing funny faces and fart jokes.
He is demonizing Cramer when he says, "You aren't the face of this, you shouldn't be the face of this."[/quote]
The Crotch wins.
[quote name='willardhaven']Just remember Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are Bill O'Reillys for college kids.[/quote]
Bill O'Reilly lies to his audience, bullies guests, and basically exists in the lowest evolutionary tier possible, all while taking himself completely seriously and attacking anybody who dare call him on his bullshit. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians who clearly do not take themselves seriously, especially considering that Colbert is playing a
ing character.
Yes, your analogy works. It's perfect. Flawless. One for the ages. You should write aing book.
Jon Stewart is being a self-important bitch when he downplays the entire rivalry.
He is being a self-important bitch when he reacts awkwardly to fawning praise.
He is demonizing Cramer for not offering flawless advice when he says, "The problem isn't being wrong, it's being all over the place."
He is demonizing Cramer when he catches him in a flat-out lie.
He is being a self-important bitch when he reacts negatively to being talked down to.
He is being a self-important bitch when he calls himself a snake-oil salesman.
He is demonizing Cramer when he says, "This song ain't about you."
He is demonizing Cramer when he calls him brilliant and knowledgeable.
He is being a self-important bitch when he asks if he can get back to doing funny faces and fart jokes.
He is demonizing Cramer when he says, "You aren't the face of this, you shouldn't be the face of this."[/quote]
The Crotch wins.
[quote name='willardhaven']Just remember Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are Bill O'Reillys for college kids.[/quote]
Bill O'Reilly lies to his audience, bullies guests, and basically exists in the lowest evolutionary tier possible, all while taking himself completely seriously and attacking anybody who dare call him on his bullshit. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians who clearly do not take themselves seriously, especially considering that Colbert is playing a
ing character.Yes, your analogy works. It's perfect. Flawless. One for the ages. You should write a
ing book.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I don't like things other people like.
The media (political and financial) is in bed with what they report on, and it took a comedian to get people to talk about it. Either you play ball and lose objectivity or you don't get access, and your customers are advertisers, not viewers.
Cramer isn't the face of this because he's not a journalist and does talk about certain abuses of the system, but CNBC and the financial media failed its viewers in the way CNN and the political media failed throughout the Bush administration. They got cozy with the insiders, didn't ask tough questions, didn't investigate and didn't ask why.
Print media was always considered the serious investigative, news gathering media, and they're dying. TV will have a robot read the AP wire on air verbatim and call it hard hitting journalism.
Jon Stewart's strength was always in his criticism of the media and their hypocrisy, and he delivers. Cramer could eat him for lunch in any discussion of finance, and though Stewart's arguments were a little simplistic his main point wasn't wrong. Cramer knew he was right and thats probably why he appeared.
I watched Cramer's show today and he only briefly addressed his appearance, but he spoke at length about tricks that hedge fund managers use when they're shorting, and specifically about the uptick rule which he has talked about before. It certainly seemed like it had an impact on him.
Cramer isn't the face of this because he's not a journalist and does talk about certain abuses of the system, but CNBC and the financial media failed its viewers in the way CNN and the political media failed throughout the Bush administration. They got cozy with the insiders, didn't ask tough questions, didn't investigate and didn't ask why.
Print media was always considered the serious investigative, news gathering media, and they're dying. TV will have a robot read the AP wire on air verbatim and call it hard hitting journalism.
Jon Stewart's strength was always in his criticism of the media and their hypocrisy, and he delivers. Cramer could eat him for lunch in any discussion of finance, and though Stewart's arguments were a little simplistic his main point wasn't wrong. Cramer knew he was right and thats probably why he appeared.
I watched Cramer's show today and he only briefly addressed his appearance, but he spoke at length about tricks that hedge fund managers use when they're shorting, and specifically about the uptick rule which he has talked about before. It certainly seemed like it had an impact on him.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='evanft']The Crotch wins.
Bill O'Reilly lies to his audience, bullies guests, and basically exists in the lowest evolutionary tier possible, all while taking himself completely seriously and attacking anybody who dare call him on his bullshit. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians who clearly do not take themselves seriously, especially considering that Colbert is playing aing character.
Yes, your analogy works. It's perfect. Flawless. One for the ages. You should write aing book.[/quote]
I'd do best not to cross someone with a Metallica sticker on his plastic guitar. All kidding aside, I always thought O'Reilly was playing a character as well.
Bill O'Reilly lies to his audience, bullies guests, and basically exists in the lowest evolutionary tier possible, all while taking himself completely seriously and attacking anybody who dare call him on his bullshit. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are comedians who clearly do not take themselves seriously, especially considering that Colbert is playing a
ing character.Yes, your analogy works. It's perfect. Flawless. One for the ages. You should write a
ing book.[/quote]I'd do best not to cross someone with a Metallica sticker on his plastic guitar. All kidding aside, I always thought O'Reilly was playing a character as well.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dafoomie']The media (political and financial) is in bed with what they report on, and it took a comedian to get people to talk about it. Either you play ball and lose objectivity or you don't get access, and your customers are advertisers, not viewers.[/QUOTE]
I want to address this because, with financial news, there's a feeling, and an acceptance, that you have to be disingenuous when it comes to bad financial news.
It's all quite sociological, really. Financial analysts want to avoid creating the self-fulfilling prophecy. Cramer, and those like him, would easily help *create* poor market conditions if they were to address the very genuine gravity of the situation we're in, and have been in, for almost two years now.
Cramer would yell "SELL, SELL! GET THE OUT NOW!!!" and help perpetuate a run at the banks, creating the conditions he was talking about avoiding.
Or, he could candy-coat everything under the excuse/guise of trying to avoid having a hand in killing the market...and get called out as a liar as a result.
Let's be fair: Cramer is a circus sideshow, in terms of both his predictions and the very, completely, absurdly silly format of his show. It'sin' goofy. At the same time, like all financial analysts, when things are bad - really bad - they feel the need to lie in order to avoid a total market collapse.
It essentially points to the idea that, when markets are down, you can't trust any market analyst. Not Cramer, not David Dyne, not nobody. When they finally admit we're in a recession, we have been for months. We're actually fewer than six months away from a technical depression; and that's focusing on market conditions rather than what analysts say. So, if the markets continue to decline for the next six months, we can expect that, a year from now at the very earliest, we'll hear an admittance that we're in a depression. But not sooner.
Short version of the story: when shit's hitting the fan, don't buy into anybody who is trying to tell you how to avoid it. Cuz you ain't gonna. And they're not being entirely honest with you.
I want to address this because, with financial news, there's a feeling, and an acceptance, that you have to be disingenuous when it comes to bad financial news.
It's all quite sociological, really. Financial analysts want to avoid creating the self-fulfilling prophecy. Cramer, and those like him, would easily help *create* poor market conditions if they were to address the very genuine gravity of the situation we're in, and have been in, for almost two years now.
Cramer would yell "SELL, SELL! GET THE
OUT NOW!!!" and help perpetuate a run at the banks, creating the conditions he was talking about avoiding.Or, he could candy-coat everything under the excuse/guise of trying to avoid having a hand in killing the market...and get called out as a liar as a result.
Let's be fair: Cramer is a circus sideshow, in terms of both his predictions and the very, completely, absurdly silly format of his show. It's
in' goofy. At the same time, like all financial analysts, when things are bad - really bad - they feel the need to lie in order to avoid a total market collapse.It essentially points to the idea that, when markets are down, you can't trust any market analyst. Not Cramer, not David Dyne, not nobody. When they finally admit we're in a recession, we have been for months. We're actually fewer than six months away from a technical depression; and that's focusing on market conditions rather than what analysts say. So, if the markets continue to decline for the next six months, we can expect that, a year from now at the very earliest, we'll hear an admittance that we're in a depression. But not sooner.
Short version of the story: when shit's hitting the fan, don't buy into anybody who is trying to tell you how to avoid it. Cuz you ain't gonna. And they're not being entirely honest with you.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Good point.
hiccupleftovers
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Oh for crying out loud, how could anyone think that Kiran Chetry is hot, goddamn.
Meg Oliver is the ONLY hot newscaster.
Yeah this. The show is funny at times but Stewart is a self-important.
Get. The.. Out. Of. America.[/quote]
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Okay, just finished watching this, and I don't see Cramer being "ripped a new ass" in this video. I see Stewart being a self-important little bitch who thinks he knows way more than he actually does and is far more important than he actually is (and all you idiots going on about how you think that Daily Show is a good source for news are just feeding more and more in to this crap), unfairly demonizing Cramer for not offering flawless advice (though it's not as extreme as some are saying), going on about how CNBC is a massive conspiracy. I seriously want to punch him in his goddamn throat.
And anyone who thinks that Cramer was manipulating Apple stock is dumb.
Arg how could everyone be so dumb.[/quote]
You. Are.ing. Hilarious. With. These. Two. Posts. 
:lol: You come off more as a prick than anything.
[quote name='dafoomie']The media (political and financial) is in bed with what they report on, and it took a comedian to get people to talk about it. Either you play ball and lose objectivity or you don't get access, and your customers are advertisers, not viewers.
Cramer isn't the face of this because he's not a journalist and does talk about certain abuses of the system, but CNBC and the financial media failed its viewers in the way CNN and the political media failed throughout the Bush administration. They got cozy with the insiders, didn't ask tough questions, didn't investigate and didn't ask why.
Print media was always considered the serious investigative, news gathering media, and they're dying. TV will have a robot read the AP wire on air verbatim and call it hard hitting journalism.
Jon Stewart's strength was always in his criticism of the media and their hypocrisy, and he delivers. Cramer could eat him for lunch in any discussion of finance, and though Stewart's arguments were a little simplistic his main point wasn't wrong. Cramer knew he was right and thats probably why he appeared.
I watched Cramer's show today and he only briefly addressed his appearance, but he spoke at length about tricks that hedge fund managers use when they're shorting, and specifically about the uptick rule which he has talked about before. It certainly seemed like it had an impact on him.[/quote]
dafoomie with another fantastic post. This is an intelligent post here. dafoomie and epobirs, consistently the best.
Meg Oliver is the ONLY hot newscaster.
Yeah this. The show is funny at times but Stewart is a self-important
.Get. The.
. Out. Of. America.[/quote][quote name='CoffeeEdge']Okay, just finished watching this, and I don't see Cramer being "ripped a new ass" in this video. I see Stewart being a self-important little bitch who thinks he knows way more than he actually does and is far more important than he actually is (and all you idiots going on about how you think that Daily Show is a good source for news are just feeding more and more in to this crap), unfairly demonizing Cramer for not offering flawless advice (though it's not as extreme as some are saying), going on about how CNBC is a massive conspiracy. I seriously want to punch him in his goddamn throat.
And anyone who thinks that Cramer was manipulating Apple stock is dumb.
Arg how could everyone be so dumb.[/quote]
You. Are.
ing. Hilarious. With. These. Two. Posts. :lol: You come off more as a prick than anything.[quote name='dafoomie']The media (political and financial) is in bed with what they report on, and it took a comedian to get people to talk about it. Either you play ball and lose objectivity or you don't get access, and your customers are advertisers, not viewers.
Cramer isn't the face of this because he's not a journalist and does talk about certain abuses of the system, but CNBC and the financial media failed its viewers in the way CNN and the political media failed throughout the Bush administration. They got cozy with the insiders, didn't ask tough questions, didn't investigate and didn't ask why.
Print media was always considered the serious investigative, news gathering media, and they're dying. TV will have a robot read the AP wire on air verbatim and call it hard hitting journalism.
Jon Stewart's strength was always in his criticism of the media and their hypocrisy, and he delivers. Cramer could eat him for lunch in any discussion of finance, and though Stewart's arguments were a little simplistic his main point wasn't wrong. Cramer knew he was right and thats probably why he appeared.
I watched Cramer's show today and he only briefly addressed his appearance, but he spoke at length about tricks that hedge fund managers use when they're shorting, and specifically about the uptick rule which he has talked about before. It certainly seemed like it had an impact on him.[/quote]
dafoomie with another fantastic post. This is an intelligent post here. dafoomie and epobirs, consistently the best.
[quote name='mykevermin']I want to address this because, with financial news, there's a feeling, and an acceptance, that you have to be disingenuous when it comes to bad financial news.[/QUOTE]
Thats an issue but its not just that. A hedge fund has tremendous power to influence the market, all they really need to do to advance their short positions is pull their money out of a stock and tell everyone how worried they are about the company. The SEC doesn't care, everyone does it, and no one talks about it.
Companies are over leveraged, executives are fixated solely on short term, quarter to quarter gain, everyone knows it, and nobody talks about it. There are all kinds of things going on, but everyone turns into Suze Orman on TV and talks down to their audience.
Its not just that they're Baghdad Bob on the markets, this stuff simply isn't discussed.
Thats an issue but its not just that. A hedge fund has tremendous power to influence the market, all they really need to do to advance their short positions is pull their money out of a stock and tell everyone how worried they are about the company. The SEC doesn't care, everyone does it, and no one talks about it.
Companies are over leveraged, executives are fixated solely on short term, quarter to quarter gain, everyone knows it, and nobody talks about it. There are all kinds of things going on, but everyone turns into Suze Orman on TV and talks down to their audience.
Its not just that they're Baghdad Bob on the markets, this stuff simply isn't discussed.
Cracka
CAG Newbie
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Okay, just finished watching this, and I don't see Cramer being "ripped a new ass" in this video. I see Stewart being a self-important little bitch who thinks he knows way more than he actually does and is far more important than he actually is (and all you idiots going on about how you think that Daily Show is a good source for news are just feeding more and more in to this crap), unfairly demonizing Cramer for not offering flawless advice (though it's not as extreme as some are saying), going on about how CNBC is a massive conspiracy. I seriously want to punch him in his goddamn throat.
And anyone who thinks that Cramer was manipulating Apple stock is dumb.
Arg how could everyone be so dumb.[/QUOTE]
Your right, Jon made all of these crazy claims about cramer, then showed video of cramer admitting to these things, then having cramer in person admitting to them and apologizing. That crazy Stewart bastard knows nothing!
And yes it would be dumb to believe Cramer was manipulating apple stock when theres video of him admitting to it and explaining how it was done, and then once again appologizing for his action.
I'm going to assume you watched the whole video with ear plugs in while scouring at Stewart the whole time.
And anyone who thinks that Cramer was manipulating Apple stock is dumb.
Arg how could everyone be so dumb.[/QUOTE]
Your right, Jon made all of these crazy claims about cramer, then showed video of cramer admitting to these things, then having cramer in person admitting to them and apologizing. That crazy Stewart bastard knows nothing!
And yes it would be dumb to believe Cramer was manipulating apple stock when theres video of him admitting to it and explaining how it was done, and then once again appologizing for his action.
I'm going to assume you watched the whole video with ear plugs in while scouring at Stewart the whole time.
I posted this in vs before seeing this thread in ot:
that prick is infuriating and jon wasn't anywhere near hard enough on him
I'm sure most of you saw the Daily Show showdown.. but it seems not so many (myself included, until today) have seen the most damning of evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVmlxhk-tU
It's the source of the clips Jon played, and
After hearing him say flat out (at 6:16) "and get it on CNBC, that's also very important" I really just want to punch something, it's infuriating. Can't send the SOB to jail where he belongs because he can so easily weasel out of accountability... I absolutely hate that rotten SOBs like this are stealing our money. They're stealing your money and they're devaluing any publically traded company you might work at.
Until saying this clip, I didn't feel this way... but Jim Cramer's such a rotten piece of shit. I sort of felt bad for him when watching the Daily Show, but now I realize Jon was nowhere near hard enough.
that prick is infuriating and jon wasn't anywhere near hard enough on him
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Thanks for posting the video link, I'll have to check it out. It was fun watching the guy squirm on the Daily Show. What I don't understand is why he let out so much information on that original recording. Did he want everyone to hate him?
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Haha crotchperson you can't step to this so back the up.
Jon Stewart is a nutjob and is just as detrimental to the state of this country as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and people rooting for his bullshit are just as bad and can gtfo my country.
Hey Jon Stewart lemme turn the tables on you motherer: Stop hurting America.
up.Jon Stewart is a nutjob and is just as detrimental to the state of this country as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and people rooting for his bullshit are just as bad and can gtfo my country.
Hey Jon Stewart lemme turn the tables on you mother
er: Stop hurting America.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Haha crotchperson you can't step to this so back the up.[/quote]First, "crotchperson"? Did you end up on the wrong end of a game of Ring of Fire with Vermin tonight or some shit? Second, "step to this"? My dancing skills have nothing to do with the topic at hand, good sir.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Jon Stewart is a nutjob and is just as detrimental to the state of this country as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and people rooting for his bullshit are just as bad and can gtfo my country.
Hey Jon Stewart lemme turn the tables on you motherer: Stop hurting America.[/quote]Alright, lemme guess. Jon Stewart encourages people to be lazy and cynical. People assume that he is a reliable newsource (a word that will never look right to me no matter what my spellchecker says) when he really isn't, and his popularity - especially among the younger crowd - means that the next generation will be uninformed and often apathetic as his "last sane man on the planet" routine creates a feeling of helplessness among those that take him at face value.
Now, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just that you haven't put anying half-way decent words down. First rule of writing, man, is show, not tell. You can tell me all ya mothering want that he is arrogant, that he is a nutjob, that he is bad for America, but god dammit, that means shit all. Deal in show, man.
After your post, I re-watched the program in its unedited form so that I could respond with actual points, specifically listening for instances of Stewart being arrogant/humble or unnecessarily aggressive/notably agreeable. I found nothing objectionable on his part. If your best response to me is to tell me that I "can't step", then shit, you can keep on going, but I'm leaving faster than Homer Simpson's brain during an apple cider speech. I just don't care. 'Til you can formulate a proper response, I'll keep assuming - as I and I'm willing to bet most other people here long have - that you're just ranting for the sake of ranting. You hate what other people like. We get it. You're edgy. You're cool. You can mothain' step to it, man!
So. Step to it. Show.
EDIT: Anyone ever notice that having 2+ ""s in a paragraph just kills the formatting? I really wish the image was a little bit smaller so that things would line up better.
up.[/quote]First, "crotchperson"? Did you end up on the wrong end of a game of Ring of Fire with Vermin tonight or some shit? Second, "step to this"? My dancing skills have nothing to do with the topic at hand, good sir.[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Jon Stewart is a nutjob and is just as detrimental to the state of this country as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and people rooting for his bullshit are just as bad and can gtfo my country.
Hey Jon Stewart lemme turn the tables on you mother
er: Stop hurting America.[/quote]Alright, lemme guess. Jon Stewart encourages people to be lazy and cynical. People assume that he is a reliable newsource (a word that will never look right to me no matter what my spellchecker says) when he really isn't, and his popularity - especially among the younger crowd - means that the next generation will be uninformed and often apathetic as his "last sane man on the planet" routine creates a feeling of helplessness among those that take him at face value.Now, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, it's just that you haven't put any
ing half-way decent words down. First rule of writing, man, is show, not tell. You can tell me all ya mothering want that he is arrogant, that he is a nutjob, that he is bad for America, but god dammit, that means shit all. Deal in show, man.After your post, I re-watched the program in its unedited form so that I could respond with actual points, specifically listening for instances of Stewart being arrogant/humble or unnecessarily aggressive/notably agreeable. I found nothing objectionable on his part. If your best response to me is to tell me that I "can't step", then shit, you can keep on going, but I'm leaving faster than Homer Simpson's brain during an apple cider speech. I just don't care. 'Til you can formulate a proper response, I'll keep assuming - as I and I'm willing to bet most other people here long have - that you're just ranting for the sake of ranting. You hate what other people like. We get it. You're edgy. You're cool. You can motha
in' step to it, man!So. Step to it. Show.
EDIT: Anyone ever notice that having 2+ "
"s in a paragraph just kills the formatting? I really wish the image was a little bit smaller so that things would line up better.
Last edited by a moderator:
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Your paragraphs, give them to me. If you want me to "show," then allow me to recommend that you, well, watch his show. He's horrible.
[quote name='The Crotch']First, "crotchperson"? Did you end up on the wrong end of a game of Ring of Fire with Vermin tonight or some shit?[/quote]
What?
In regards to "ranting for the sake of ranting," for real, you're paragraphing for the sake of paragraphing.
[quote name='The Crotch']First, "crotchperson"? Did you end up on the wrong end of a game of Ring of Fire with Vermin tonight or some shit?[/quote]
What?
Look, I just have to get one of you to say "We get it. You're edgy. You're cool." every couple weeks, cause it's funny. I like that there is always someone who thinks that they're the first person with the insight to tell me that.'Til you can formulate a proper response, I'll keep assuming - as I and I'm willing to bet most other people here long have - that you're just ranting for the sake of ranting. You hate what other people like. We get it. You're edgy. You're cool. You can motha
In regards to "ranting for the sake of ranting," for real, you're paragraphing for the sake of paragraphing.
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
[quote name='bmachine']The Crotch is my hero.[/quote]
^^
^^
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='h3llbring3r']^^[/QUOTE]
You should change your title to "Trolled by CoffeeEdge." So should most CAG users.
You should change your title to "Trolled by CoffeeEdge." So should most CAG users.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='keithp']And in the second round, Crotch wins AGAIN.[/QUOTE]
INTERNET WRASSLIN MATCH.
Insert homoeroticism comment.
INTERNET WRASSLIN MATCH.
Insert homoeroticism comment.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Why was my post nuked?
I kinda wanted a response to it...
I kinda wanted a response to it...
JolietJake
Banned
Here is the second half where they show most of the Kramer clips.
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?collectionId=221532&targetVideoId=221517
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?collectionId=221532&targetVideoId=221517
[quote name='bmachine']LOL..."Welcome to Brawl Street".
I'd agree with this. If it weren't for John Stewart, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow I'd have no freakin' clue what's happening in the world.
Oh, and Bill Maher. Love that guy.[/QUOTE]
If those are your news sources you're still completely in the dark.
I'd agree with this. If it weren't for John Stewart, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow I'd have no freakin' clue what's happening in the world.
Oh, and Bill Maher. Love that guy.[/QUOTE]
If those are your news sources you're still completely in the dark.
The problem I have with all of this is it's just one ideological moron attacking another for apostasy. Cramer was a big Obama supporter but couldn't contain his horror when Obama turned out to be exactly what he said he was all along. So Cramer get pilloried for speaking out.
Note that Stewart is clueless about the root cause of the problems. We've had an endless series of Wall St. smartest-guy-in-the-room-type guys come up with new scheme ever since the Dow was at 2. The damage they could do was limited by how quickly reality set in and investor took their money elsewhere. It took government interference in the form of wretchedly bad policies pushed by racial grievance mongers to really break things, just as it took hamfisted government interference to turn the depression started in 1929 into the Great Depression.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should never have existed. The entire rationale driving their creation was an ill-conceived bid to cure the mythological ill called red-lining. Those who wouldn't respond to white guilt ploys were instead fooled by the argument that high home ownership was the mark of a strong economy, so therefore the more people were given access to purchasing the home the more the economy would benefit. But that was nonsense that treats a symptom as a cause. They went ahead and did the CRA anyway and then under Clinton gave it real teeth.
The CRA affected only 25% of the entities giving subprime loans but this is like saying you lung is only 25% cancerous.It was the malignancy that got the ball rolling. Having the FMs around to buy up loans allowed the mortgage house of cards to get far bigger than it could in a normal market and the derivatives and other games built atop that only tied up more money in a faulty structure. Or perhaps that should be defaulty structure.
You won't hear Stewart talking about this because it would put him on the Congressional Black Caucus's shitlist and his liberal conscience couldn't bear that.
Note that Stewart is clueless about the root cause of the problems. We've had an endless series of Wall St. smartest-guy-in-the-room-type guys come up with new scheme ever since the Dow was at 2. The damage they could do was limited by how quickly reality set in and investor took their money elsewhere. It took government interference in the form of wretchedly bad policies pushed by racial grievance mongers to really break things, just as it took hamfisted government interference to turn the depression started in 1929 into the Great Depression.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should never have existed. The entire rationale driving their creation was an ill-conceived bid to cure the mythological ill called red-lining. Those who wouldn't respond to white guilt ploys were instead fooled by the argument that high home ownership was the mark of a strong economy, so therefore the more people were given access to purchasing the home the more the economy would benefit. But that was nonsense that treats a symptom as a cause. They went ahead and did the CRA anyway and then under Clinton gave it real teeth.
The CRA affected only 25% of the entities giving subprime loans but this is like saying you lung is only 25% cancerous.It was the malignancy that got the ball rolling. Having the FMs around to buy up loans allowed the mortgage house of cards to get far bigger than it could in a normal market and the derivatives and other games built atop that only tied up more money in a faulty structure. Or perhaps that should be defaulty structure.
You won't hear Stewart talking about this because it would put him on the Congressional Black Caucus's shitlist and his liberal conscience couldn't bear that.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='epobirs']The problem I have with all of this is it's just one ideological moron attacking another for apostasy. Cramer was a big Obama supporter but couldn't contain his horror when Obama turned out to be exactly what he said he was all along. So Cramer get pilloried for speaking out.
Note that Stewart is clueless about the root cause of the problems. We've had an endless series of Wall St. smartest-guy-in-the-room-type guys come up with new scheme ever since the Dow was at 2. The damage they could do was limited by how quickly reality set in and investor took their money elsewhere. It took government interference in the form of wretchedly bad policies pushed by racial grievance mongers to really break things, just as it took hamfisted government interference to turn the depression started in 1929 into the Great Depression.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should never have existed. The entire rationale driving their creation was an ill-conceived bid to cure the mythological ill called red-lining. Those who wouldn't respond to white guilt ploys were instead fooled by the argument that high home ownership was the mark of a strong economy, so therefore the more people were given access to purchasing the home the more the economy would benefit. But that was nonsense that treats a symptom as a cause. They went ahead and did the CRA anyway and then under Clinton gave it real teeth.
The CRA affected only 25% of the entities giving subprime loans but this is like saying you lung is only 25% cancerous.It was the malignancy that got the ball rolling. Having the FMs around to buy up loans allowed the mortgage house of cards to get far bigger than it could in a normal market and the derivatives and other games built atop that only tied up more money in a faulty structure. Or perhaps that should be defaulty structure.
You won't hear Stewart talking about this because it would put him on the Congressional Black Caucus's shitlist and his liberal conscience couldn't bear that.[/quote]
As always, epobirs speaks the truth.
Also, anyone who thinks Jon Stewart is some paragon of truth, please remember he is an entertainer first, and a concerned citizen second. That doesn't mean he didn't have very good points, but they were presented primarily to ridicule than inform.
Note that Stewart is clueless about the root cause of the problems. We've had an endless series of Wall St. smartest-guy-in-the-room-type guys come up with new scheme ever since the Dow was at 2. The damage they could do was limited by how quickly reality set in and investor took their money elsewhere. It took government interference in the form of wretchedly bad policies pushed by racial grievance mongers to really break things, just as it took hamfisted government interference to turn the depression started in 1929 into the Great Depression.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should never have existed. The entire rationale driving their creation was an ill-conceived bid to cure the mythological ill called red-lining. Those who wouldn't respond to white guilt ploys were instead fooled by the argument that high home ownership was the mark of a strong economy, so therefore the more people were given access to purchasing the home the more the economy would benefit. But that was nonsense that treats a symptom as a cause. They went ahead and did the CRA anyway and then under Clinton gave it real teeth.
The CRA affected only 25% of the entities giving subprime loans but this is like saying you lung is only 25% cancerous.It was the malignancy that got the ball rolling. Having the FMs around to buy up loans allowed the mortgage house of cards to get far bigger than it could in a normal market and the derivatives and other games built atop that only tied up more money in a faulty structure. Or perhaps that should be defaulty structure.
You won't hear Stewart talking about this because it would put him on the Congressional Black Caucus's shitlist and his liberal conscience couldn't bear that.[/quote]
As always, epobirs speaks the truth.
Also, anyone who thinks Jon Stewart is some paragon of truth, please remember he is an entertainer first, and a concerned citizen second. That doesn't mean he didn't have very good points, but they were presented primarily to ridicule than inform.
[quote name='Koggit']People need to stop pretending this has anything at all to do with Obama. uhg. It's not political at all.
This is about CNBC lying in bed with a bunch of scumbags that are ripping us off, when they should instead be exposing those very people...[/QUOTE]
Get a clue. With massive government interference in the marketplace, EVERYTHING is political. Everybody wants something and the more government reaches into the affairs of private citizens the more people will seek to wield government power as a tool to achieve their desires.
This is about CNBC lying in bed with a bunch of scumbags that are ripping us off, when they should instead be exposing those very people...[/QUOTE]
Get a clue. With massive government interference in the marketplace, EVERYTHING is political. Everybody wants something and the more government reaches into the affairs of private citizens the more people will seek to wield government power as a tool to achieve their desires.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='epobirs']mythological ill called red-lining[/quote]
Mythological? About as much of a mythology as Jim Crow laws. And as much of a relic of the past as the Playstation 4: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=7073246
I hear the CRA being blamed so much - but nobody's been able to explain this logic to me. If we blame the CRA for forcing banks to lend monies to people who were high risk, or were simply unable to be reasonably expected to repay these loans - then we're talking about loan applications that the banks would have turned down 100% of the time. Which, then, doesn't explain, and can't explain, why 3X that many loans of the same type were granted to people not under the visage of the CRA. The banks made bad mortgages 300% larger (actual dollar amounts aside, which surely increase that gap to far, far larger proportions) than the CRA - and we blame the CRA, not the banks that stopped behaving as the rational institutions we expect them to.
Which is absurd.
Mythological? About as much of a mythology as Jim Crow laws. And as much of a relic of the past as the Playstation 4: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=7073246
I hear the CRA being blamed so much - but nobody's been able to explain this logic to me. If we blame the CRA for forcing banks to lend monies to people who were high risk, or were simply unable to be reasonably expected to repay these loans - then we're talking about loan applications that the banks would have turned down 100% of the time. Which, then, doesn't explain, and can't explain, why 3X that many loans of the same type were granted to people not under the visage of the CRA. The banks made bad mortgages 300% larger (actual dollar amounts aside, which surely increase that gap to far, far larger proportions) than the CRA - and we blame the CRA, not the banks that stopped behaving as the rational institutions we expect them to.
Which is absurd.
B
Blackout
Guest
It's sad these guys are getting grilled by some guy on Comedy Central. Shouldn't there be watchdogs or actual people in the media (newscasters, journalists, etc) doing this shit? Or the politicians we elected? Does no one have the balls to do it or something? What a joke. Stewart is the last guy that should be doing this type of stuff.
JolietJake
Banned
Sadly, the "entertainers" seem to be the only folks on TV with the balls to even criticize anyone anymore. Sure, it may be for the entertainment value, but they're still doing it. Bill Maher puts people on the spot way more than most newscasters. Whether it's for entertainment or not, at least they're doing it.
Yes, it is sad that these people are closer to real news folks than the "real" ones.
Yes, it is sad that these people are closer to real news folks than the "real" ones.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='JolietJake']Sadly, the "entertainers" seem to be the only folks on TV with the balls to even criticize anyone anymore. Sure, it may be for the entertainment value, but they're still doing it. Bill Maher puts people on the spot way more than most newscasters. Whether it's for entertainment or not, at least they're doing it.
Yes, it is sad that these people are closer to real news folks than the "real" ones.[/quote]
I don't even think there is a real news station anymore. Or at the very least, not a very good one. Everything's sensationalized, and it has been for the better part of 3 decades, maybe 4.
Yes, it is sad that these people are closer to real news folks than the "real" ones.[/quote]
I don't even think there is a real news station anymore. Or at the very least, not a very good one. Everything's sensationalized, and it has been for the better part of 3 decades, maybe 4.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='JolietJake']Sadly, the "entertainers" seem to be the only folks on TV with the balls to even criticize anyone anymore. Sure, it may be for the entertainment value, but they're still doing it. Bill Maher puts people on the spot way more than most newscasters. Whether it's for entertainment or not, at least they're doing it.
Yes, it is sad that these people are closer to real news folks than the "real" ones.[/quote]
That's entirely not true. The whistleblower on Bernard Madoff was outright ignored until the market collapse, which was the only reason Madoff was arrested in the first place.
It doesn't take balls to criticize someone, it takes having a show with your name in it to get noticed, or being of a high enough stature. As an entertainer, when the whole point of the critique isn't to get involved with changing the system, but to simply get audience applause and/or laughter, then the critique is wasted regardless of how entertaining it is.
Yes, it is sad that these people are closer to real news folks than the "real" ones.[/quote]
That's entirely not true. The whistleblower on Bernard Madoff was outright ignored until the market collapse, which was the only reason Madoff was arrested in the first place.
It doesn't take balls to criticize someone, it takes having a show with your name in it to get noticed, or being of a high enough stature. As an entertainer, when the whole point of the critique isn't to get involved with changing the system, but to simply get audience applause and/or laughter, then the critique is wasted regardless of how entertaining it is.
[quote name='mykevermin']Mythological? About as much of a mythology as Jim Crow laws. And as much of a relic of the past as the Playstation 4: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=7073246
I hear the CRA being blamed so much - but nobody's been able to explain this logic to me. If we blame the CRA for forcing banks to lend monies to people who were high risk, or were simply unable to be reasonably expected to repay these loans - then we're talking about loan applications that the banks would have turned down 100% of the time. Which, then, doesn't explain, and can't explain, why 3X that many loans of the same type were granted to people not under the visage of the CRA. The banks made bad mortgages 300% larger (actual dollar amounts aside, which surely increase that gap to far, far larger proportions) than the CRA - and we blame the CRA, not the banks that stopped behaving as the rational institutions we expect them to.
Which is absurd.[/QUOTE]
Myke, you may want to sit down as this could be a bit shocking to you.
The NAACP is not an unbiased organization. and like any collection of humans they are subject to using claims which are conveyed in a deceptive or distorted, sometimes simply made up way. The technical term for this is lying. Without mistreatment of 'colored people' (really only those of African lineage) the NAACP has no reason to exist. Thus no matter how much things improve there will always be some new complaint.
They aren't saints. Get over it.
So some black folks discovered that you have to read the fine print when making a home purchase or any other major purchase. Welcome to the club, guys. You're getting equal treatment just like the white folks. My family is all unmistakably white and none of us would sign off on a mortgage agreement without substantial scrutiny because we know what hell our parents went through decades ago.
Twas ever thus, no matter your race, color, or creed. The people at the loans desks in banks are of varying degrees of honesty. That is due to their being people and therefore flawed. You can try getting a loan from the Robot Bank but with the great advances in Artificial Dishonesty taking place, that venue is probably no better.
Many people misunderstand the role of the CRA in all of this. It wasn't a make or break bit of legislature but it was a remarkably influential and bad bit of attempted social engineering by using a carrot and stick approach to make lenders work with people who would otherwise be considered hopelessly bad risks. The CRA took advantage of the existence of the FMs to supply a carrot in the form of buying mortgages. How could you lose when the government was taking on all of the risk? The stick was the power given the CRA administrators to audit banks for compliance and prevent them from opening new branches or doing mergers and acquisitions if they were found wanting.
This was a level of interference by the government that would have been stunning at one time but big government social engineering was in vogue at the time.
Big financial institutions were more affected by CRA because they at any given moment had a new branch in development somewhere or some deal the CRA auditor could ruin. Little regional banks that might open a new branch once a decade were less likely to be affected and could make a point of distancing themselves from those neighborhoods intended to be helped by CRA. This is why so many small banks have been doing business as usual while financial titans were in disarray.
Under CRA, first the Carter version, then the far worse Clinton version, the FMs evolved their operations to further accommodate the influx of risky loans. Once CRA got the ball rolling other lenders wanted to get in on the game, too. Again, with the government taking on the risks, how could they lose.
Well, the problem was that mortgages weren't so simple as they once were. Whole new markets had been built atop the mortgage business. ( See Michael Lewis' 'Liar's Poker' for an insider view of how this took off in the 80s.) People are always going to look for new ways to apply capital. In a genuinely free market the freedoms include that of failure. When government interference takes the punishing aspects out of failure, you get what we have now. A massive wad of financial instruments built on mortgages that have seen massive default levels due to government influence greatly lowering lending standards. Those instruments were fine so long as the defaults stayed below a certain level but when things went bad it turned into an insoluble mess because nobody could say with any authority what the paper was now worth.
The CRA created the federal support structure for loans that banks, including those not compelled by CRA, would never have made if they were solely responsible for the risk. Thus CRA had a far greater reach than those entities directly audited. This was an idealistic part of CRA all along. The premise being that forcing a few influential institutions to expand their mortgage customer base would make everyone want to get a piece of the action.
Not everyone who pushed for this had bad intentions. But they did lack an appreciation for the historic failure of government meddling. There were better ways to do this but they're far harder to explain to the average voter, especially in the poorer districts. The politicians wanted something tangible that would let a voter tie the roof over their head to that politician having delivered for them. This is why such appalling characters as Maxine Waters have a stranglehold on their districts.
There were far batter way to do the bailout, too. If someone wants to be mad at Bush, letting himself be talked into TARP by his financial advisers is a far better reason than anything in the preceding eight years. Paulson, Bernanke, and (Timmay!) Geithner (he was a major architect of TARP) made claims of a apocalypse that just wasn't necessary. Rather than handing wads of cash to banks or forcing it upon them in many cases, they could have directly addressed the defaulting mortgages for far less money.One detailed analysis I saw estimated that less than $100 billion would have dealt with the problem if the government simply slapped a number on each property in question and told the holders, "This is what we're offering. We don't care what it was worth 18 months ago. This is enough to get it off your books and keep you solvent." The banks would have taken big losses but not catastrophic losses. Some empires would have crumbled but the economy would keep rolling without laying waste to the Dow or jacking up taxes. Instead, they blew the election and handed the new guy a golden opportunity to go utterly berserk with spending.
There are some hints of sanity breaking out. Many recipients of TARP funds are now saying they think they're OK and want to give the money back immediately rather than have the Oval Office try to sit on their Board of Directors.
I hear the CRA being blamed so much - but nobody's been able to explain this logic to me. If we blame the CRA for forcing banks to lend monies to people who were high risk, or were simply unable to be reasonably expected to repay these loans - then we're talking about loan applications that the banks would have turned down 100% of the time. Which, then, doesn't explain, and can't explain, why 3X that many loans of the same type were granted to people not under the visage of the CRA. The banks made bad mortgages 300% larger (actual dollar amounts aside, which surely increase that gap to far, far larger proportions) than the CRA - and we blame the CRA, not the banks that stopped behaving as the rational institutions we expect them to.
Which is absurd.[/QUOTE]
Myke, you may want to sit down as this could be a bit shocking to you.
The NAACP is not an unbiased organization. and like any collection of humans they are subject to using claims which are conveyed in a deceptive or distorted, sometimes simply made up way. The technical term for this is lying. Without mistreatment of 'colored people' (really only those of African lineage) the NAACP has no reason to exist. Thus no matter how much things improve there will always be some new complaint.
They aren't saints. Get over it.
So some black folks discovered that you have to read the fine print when making a home purchase or any other major purchase. Welcome to the club, guys. You're getting equal treatment just like the white folks. My family is all unmistakably white and none of us would sign off on a mortgage agreement without substantial scrutiny because we know what hell our parents went through decades ago.
Twas ever thus, no matter your race, color, or creed. The people at the loans desks in banks are of varying degrees of honesty. That is due to their being people and therefore flawed. You can try getting a loan from the Robot Bank but with the great advances in Artificial Dishonesty taking place, that venue is probably no better.
Many people misunderstand the role of the CRA in all of this. It wasn't a make or break bit of legislature but it was a remarkably influential and bad bit of attempted social engineering by using a carrot and stick approach to make lenders work with people who would otherwise be considered hopelessly bad risks. The CRA took advantage of the existence of the FMs to supply a carrot in the form of buying mortgages. How could you lose when the government was taking on all of the risk? The stick was the power given the CRA administrators to audit banks for compliance and prevent them from opening new branches or doing mergers and acquisitions if they were found wanting.
This was a level of interference by the government that would have been stunning at one time but big government social engineering was in vogue at the time.
Big financial institutions were more affected by CRA because they at any given moment had a new branch in development somewhere or some deal the CRA auditor could ruin. Little regional banks that might open a new branch once a decade were less likely to be affected and could make a point of distancing themselves from those neighborhoods intended to be helped by CRA. This is why so many small banks have been doing business as usual while financial titans were in disarray.
Under CRA, first the Carter version, then the far worse Clinton version, the FMs evolved their operations to further accommodate the influx of risky loans. Once CRA got the ball rolling other lenders wanted to get in on the game, too. Again, with the government taking on the risks, how could they lose.
Well, the problem was that mortgages weren't so simple as they once were. Whole new markets had been built atop the mortgage business. ( See Michael Lewis' 'Liar's Poker' for an insider view of how this took off in the 80s.) People are always going to look for new ways to apply capital. In a genuinely free market the freedoms include that of failure. When government interference takes the punishing aspects out of failure, you get what we have now. A massive wad of financial instruments built on mortgages that have seen massive default levels due to government influence greatly lowering lending standards. Those instruments were fine so long as the defaults stayed below a certain level but when things went bad it turned into an insoluble mess because nobody could say with any authority what the paper was now worth.
The CRA created the federal support structure for loans that banks, including those not compelled by CRA, would never have made if they were solely responsible for the risk. Thus CRA had a far greater reach than those entities directly audited. This was an idealistic part of CRA all along. The premise being that forcing a few influential institutions to expand their mortgage customer base would make everyone want to get a piece of the action.
Not everyone who pushed for this had bad intentions. But they did lack an appreciation for the historic failure of government meddling. There were better ways to do this but they're far harder to explain to the average voter, especially in the poorer districts. The politicians wanted something tangible that would let a voter tie the roof over their head to that politician having delivered for them. This is why such appalling characters as Maxine Waters have a stranglehold on their districts.
There were far batter way to do the bailout, too. If someone wants to be mad at Bush, letting himself be talked into TARP by his financial advisers is a far better reason than anything in the preceding eight years. Paulson, Bernanke, and (Timmay!) Geithner (he was a major architect of TARP) made claims of a apocalypse that just wasn't necessary. Rather than handing wads of cash to banks or forcing it upon them in many cases, they could have directly addressed the defaulting mortgages for far less money.One detailed analysis I saw estimated that less than $100 billion would have dealt with the problem if the government simply slapped a number on each property in question and told the holders, "This is what we're offering. We don't care what it was worth 18 months ago. This is enough to get it off your books and keep you solvent." The banks would have taken big losses but not catastrophic losses. Some empires would have crumbled but the economy would keep rolling without laying waste to the Dow or jacking up taxes. Instead, they blew the election and handed the new guy a golden opportunity to go utterly berserk with spending.
There are some hints of sanity breaking out. Many recipients of TARP funds are now saying they think they're OK and want to give the money back immediately rather than have the Oval Office try to sit on their Board of Directors.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
High five @ epobirs. I love seeing myke get owned.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='GuilewasNK']That's entirely not true. The whistleblower on Bernard Madoff was outright ignored until the market collapse, which was the only reason Madoff was arrested in the first place.
It doesn't take balls to criticize someone, it takes having a show with your name in it to get noticed, or being of a high enough stature. As an entertainer, when the whole point of the critique isn't to get involved with changing the system, but to simply get audience applause and/or laughter, then the critique is wasted regardless of how entertaining it is.[/quote]
What the hell does the guy who squealed on Madoff have to do with anything i said? He isn't in the business of news reporting. I was specifically talking about spineless news people. Plenty of these reporters do have high profile shows, yet they still don't ask the tough questions. Jack Cafferty does, but he just comments on things, he isn't actually sitting face to face and grilling the people involved.
It doesn't take balls to criticize someone, it takes having a show with your name in it to get noticed, or being of a high enough stature. As an entertainer, when the whole point of the critique isn't to get involved with changing the system, but to simply get audience applause and/or laughter, then the critique is wasted regardless of how entertaining it is.[/quote]
What the hell does the guy who squealed on Madoff have to do with anything i said? He isn't in the business of news reporting. I was specifically talking about spineless news people. Plenty of these reporters do have high profile shows, yet they still don't ask the tough questions. Jack Cafferty does, but he just comments on things, he isn't actually sitting face to face and grilling the people involved.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
epobirs,
Calling out the NAACP for "needing" racism to exist is a logical fallacy. You might as well chide hospitals, because they depend on people being sick to exist. You conflate cause and effect. Moreover, you turn your focus to the organization and the ad hominem instead of dealing with the reality of discriminatory lending. Do you really want to argue that institutional racism doesn't exist in terms of lending or renting? I'll hand you over the bibliography if you really want it. But arguing that discrimination in the housing market doesn't exist - suggesting that redlining was a myth, or perhaps implying that residential covenants never happened - that's akin to arguing that the Federal Housing Amendment Act is not a piece of federal legislation. It's empirically untrue, and you're either being selective in your memory, or plain lying, to argue that it doesn't or never existed. Still happens to this day, in fact.
I can hand over a truckload of audit studies to demonstrate this, if you like. Don't like the NAACP? Fine. But let's focus on the topic of discussion at hand: the existence of discrimination on the basis of race in the housing market.
As for your thorough discussion of the CRA, while it's a wonderful tale, it's somehow impossible to reconcile with the mess we're currently in. You paint a picture that suggests banks were protected, by the federal government via the CRA, in the case that bad loans went bad. Your argument is that standards declined and loans increased because the banks' securities were guaranteed by the fed.
Well, were that really the case, we wouldn't have banks failing, now, would we? There are no guarantees to back up what you speak of. The banks took chances, and have failed. The government isn't backing them up due to the agreements of the CRA - were that the case, the fed would be in the shit (not that they aren't already to the tune of $10T), and the banks would be fine: their assets having been guaranteed.
Right? Right. Instead, what you're suggesting the fed's role here was, through the CRA, is absolutely contradictory to the problem we're currently in. With guaranteed mortgages, it would have been impossible for the banks to fail. Yet they did. Which suggests you're being, again, selective at best and absolutely untrue at worst with regard to this history.
Or, perhaps you're absolutely right: but the guarantees you speak of apply to the 25% (my sources say closer to 15-17%) of ARMs that fell under the visage of the CRA. And you're, therefore, blaming the entire financial crisis on the backs of only a portion of the loans.
When Amadou Diallo was shot by the police, as a comparative metaphor, do we discern which of the 41 rounds that entered his body killed him?
Calling out the NAACP for "needing" racism to exist is a logical fallacy. You might as well chide hospitals, because they depend on people being sick to exist. You conflate cause and effect. Moreover, you turn your focus to the organization and the ad hominem instead of dealing with the reality of discriminatory lending. Do you really want to argue that institutional racism doesn't exist in terms of lending or renting? I'll hand you over the bibliography if you really want it. But arguing that discrimination in the housing market doesn't exist - suggesting that redlining was a myth, or perhaps implying that residential covenants never happened - that's akin to arguing that the Federal Housing Amendment Act is not a piece of federal legislation. It's empirically untrue, and you're either being selective in your memory, or plain lying, to argue that it doesn't or never existed. Still happens to this day, in fact.
I can hand over a truckload of audit studies to demonstrate this, if you like. Don't like the NAACP? Fine. But let's focus on the topic of discussion at hand: the existence of discrimination on the basis of race in the housing market.
As for your thorough discussion of the CRA, while it's a wonderful tale, it's somehow impossible to reconcile with the mess we're currently in. You paint a picture that suggests banks were protected, by the federal government via the CRA, in the case that bad loans went bad. Your argument is that standards declined and loans increased because the banks' securities were guaranteed by the fed.
Well, were that really the case, we wouldn't have banks failing, now, would we? There are no guarantees to back up what you speak of. The banks took chances, and have failed. The government isn't backing them up due to the agreements of the CRA - were that the case, the fed would be in the shit (not that they aren't already to the tune of $10T), and the banks would be fine: their assets having been guaranteed.
Right? Right. Instead, what you're suggesting the fed's role here was, through the CRA, is absolutely contradictory to the problem we're currently in. With guaranteed mortgages, it would have been impossible for the banks to fail. Yet they did. Which suggests you're being, again, selective at best and absolutely untrue at worst with regard to this history.
Or, perhaps you're absolutely right: but the guarantees you speak of apply to the 25% (my sources say closer to 15-17%) of ARMs that fell under the visage of the CRA. And you're, therefore, blaming the entire financial crisis on the backs of only a portion of the loans.
When Amadou Diallo was shot by the police, as a comparative metaphor, do we discern which of the 41 rounds that entered his body killed him?
[quote name='mykevermin']epobirs,
Calling out the NAACP for "needing" racism to exist is a logical fallacy. You might as well chide hospitals, because they depend on people being sick to exist. You conflate cause and effect. Moreover, you turn your focus to the organization and the ad hominem instead of dealing with the reality of discriminatory lending. Do you really want to argue that institutional racism doesn't exist in terms of lending or renting? I'll hand you over the bibliography if you really want it. But arguing that discrimination in the housing market doesn't exist - suggesting that redlining was a myth, or perhaps implying that residential covenants never happened - that's akin to arguing that the Federal Housing Amendment Act is not a piece of federal legislation. It's empirically untrue, and you're either being selective in your memory, or plain lying, to argue that it doesn't or never existed. Still happens to this day, in fact.
I can hand over a truckload of audit studies to demonstrate this, if you like. Don't like the NAACP? Fine. But let's focus on the topic of discussion at hand: the existence of discrimination on the basis of race in the housing market.
As for your thorough discussion of the CRA, while it's a wonderful tale, it's somehow impossible to reconcile with the mess we're currently in. You paint a picture that suggests banks were protected, by the federal government via the CRA, in the case that bad loans went bad. Your argument is that standards declined and loans increased because the banks' securities were guaranteed by the fed.
Well, were that really the case, we wouldn't have banks failing, now, would we? There are no guarantees to back up what you speak of. The banks took chances, and have failed. The government isn't backing them up due to the agreements of the CRA - were that the case, the fed would be in the shit (not that they aren't already to the tune of $10T), and the banks would be fine: their assets having been guaranteed.
Right? Right. Instead, what you're suggesting the fed's role here was, through the CRA, is absolutely contradictory to the problem we're currently in. With guaranteed mortgages, it would have been impossible for the banks to fail. Yet they did. Which suggests you're being, again, selective at best and absolutely untrue at worst with regard to this history.
Or, perhaps you're absolutely right: but the guarantees you speak of apply to the 25% (my sources say closer to 15-17%) of ARMs that fell under the visage of the CRA. And you're, therefore, blaming the entire financial crisis on the backs of only a portion of the loans.
When Amadou Diallo was shot by the police, as a comparative metaphor, do we discern which of the 41 rounds that entered his body killed him?[/QUOTE]
Get real, there is a vast difference between a facility that deals with injury and disease and one that seeks to effect social change. Even if all disease were eliminated there would continue to be injuries in need of treatment. The hospital would continue to have a role to play.
(And what is this silliness about the FHA? It is demonstrably a piece of federal legislation. Are you really trying to claim federal legislation cannot be based on faulty facts or wishful thinking? Or become obsolete?)
But what of the social change organization after the change has been wrought?
The NAACP came into existence in a very different world than exists today. I'd estimate that there are extremely few people here old enough to remember things like separate drinking fountains and public restrooms for blacks and myriad other rejections in daily life that encouraged the creation of largely independent communities within larger cities. These were not ghettoes but thriving cultural centers like Harlem during the 1920s. These places produced much but outside of those places the treatment of blacks, especially below the Mason-Dixon line, was fairly awful.
The NAACP did much to help in correcting that. The world has changed greatly. But it is never going to be perfect because it is made by people and those cannot be perfect. You want perfect, you look at an ant colony where only a few individuals out of millions matter. There are always going to be people who are simply jerks in regard to certain other people. Since childhood I've had to deal with people who have a bug up their ass about Jews. Sometimes it was mere annoyances and other times it was more serious. But I don't let it rule my life. This is not the same world my grandparents lived in. Groucho Marx had a joke about bringing his family to a resort only to be told Jews weren't admitted to the pool. "My daughter is only half-Jewish. Can she go in up to her waist?"
Seen from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, you will never be entirely rid of irrational prejudice because it is driven by a essential mechanism that is used to evaluate other humans. The more that other human looks like you (or rather, your extended family since mirrors aren't a factor in primitive life) the more likely he is part of your group and not a threat. Someone who looks distinctly different from your group is likely a member of a rival group and a threat.
Countless millenia later, these instincts are still part of us at birth. Not being controlled by these instincts is something that has to taught. This is the role of culture. It works better on some than others, for both good and ill. Some people can grow up around those with strong prejudices and despite knowing better and consciously rejecting those beliefs are still ruled by that early training. Other people can come out of utterly repugnant environments and leave it behind like dead skin cells if they make that choice. This can just as easily allow someone from a culture we prefer to join one that we don't. Thus you can have some kid who grew in a well integrated suburb growing up to be an Aryan Brotherhood member.
There are always going to be some jerks who hate for good reason and pick those who are difference in some way as targets. So long as they remain within the law there isn't much else to be done about it. There are always going to Neo-Nazi sites on the web. I find them repugnant but so long as they don't do something to violate my rights as a citizen, I'm not going to give them my time worrying about them. If somebody wants to attack me I don't really care about their underlying motive. I'll shoot first and sort out the details later.
In recent years Jesse Jackson has become a joke and an embarrassment to many he claims to represent. He did important work in his youth but his work evolved into a ceaseless quest for new shakedown victims. The pattern is well established. Somebody comes up with a preposterous reason to accuse a large company of bigotry. Jackson and his group make the company nervous with bad PR. The company then settles by giving Jackson's group a pile of cash and creating a new high salary position within the company to monitor its behavior. This job has no real duties and inevitably goes to somebody closely connected to Jackson.
It's pathetic but Jackson once had real problems to confront and developed a skill set and organization around dealing with those problems. Once those problems had largely faded from the scene the skills and organization kept going to feed the lifestyle to which Jackson had become accustomed.
He isn't doing his radio show any more but check out the books written by Larry Elder. He makes some very valid criticisms of a black community that has become overly attached to victim status rather than regarding themselves as just more Americans. Are there people who hate blacks out there? Of course there are, just as there are blacks with an irrational distrust of non-blacks. It is an essential human flaw that can only be worked against and never eliminated.
Eddie Murphy nailed the victim mentality problem back in the 80s:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/10356/saturday-night-live-white-like-me
A defaulted mortgage is a liability regardless of who is holding the paper. When you have derivative built on top of the mortgage the liability potential is far worse. When you create a situation where very large numbers of these occur within a short time, you have a real problem.
Thus the FMs became a big problem last year. They'd taken up $Trillions in mortgage liabilities. No, they weren't the sole holder of sub-prime mortgages but their policies in the previous twenty years had created an underlying belief in the financial world that a bailout would always be there if disaster struck. Disaster wasn't necessarily malfeasance by some big player on Wall St. It could also be a uncontrollable event that destroyed a large volume of assets overnight.
Imagine an event comparable in damage to the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. In a matter of hours (the fires that followed the earthquake massively increased the damage and injuries) a large number of homes and jobs are ruined. The homeowners can no longer make their mortgage payments and even if their job still exists may not be inclined to make payments on a ruined home if the insurance isn't sufficient or the insurers face collapse under the volume of claims. This is more what people had in mind traditionally when speaking of a government bailout but it is the way of human affairs that corruption will always be present and ready to grow if allowed.
This video covers the problem far better than I can (or am willing to attempt):
http://reason.tv/video/show/626.html
CRA wasn't the only item at fault but it is highly illustrative of a well intentioned policy that guaranteed bad results because it reduced standards that existed for very good reasons and not because bankers hated black people.
Calling out the NAACP for "needing" racism to exist is a logical fallacy. You might as well chide hospitals, because they depend on people being sick to exist. You conflate cause and effect. Moreover, you turn your focus to the organization and the ad hominem instead of dealing with the reality of discriminatory lending. Do you really want to argue that institutional racism doesn't exist in terms of lending or renting? I'll hand you over the bibliography if you really want it. But arguing that discrimination in the housing market doesn't exist - suggesting that redlining was a myth, or perhaps implying that residential covenants never happened - that's akin to arguing that the Federal Housing Amendment Act is not a piece of federal legislation. It's empirically untrue, and you're either being selective in your memory, or plain lying, to argue that it doesn't or never existed. Still happens to this day, in fact.
I can hand over a truckload of audit studies to demonstrate this, if you like. Don't like the NAACP? Fine. But let's focus on the topic of discussion at hand: the existence of discrimination on the basis of race in the housing market.
As for your thorough discussion of the CRA, while it's a wonderful tale, it's somehow impossible to reconcile with the mess we're currently in. You paint a picture that suggests banks were protected, by the federal government via the CRA, in the case that bad loans went bad. Your argument is that standards declined and loans increased because the banks' securities were guaranteed by the fed.
Well, were that really the case, we wouldn't have banks failing, now, would we? There are no guarantees to back up what you speak of. The banks took chances, and have failed. The government isn't backing them up due to the agreements of the CRA - were that the case, the fed would be in the shit (not that they aren't already to the tune of $10T), and the banks would be fine: their assets having been guaranteed.
Right? Right. Instead, what you're suggesting the fed's role here was, through the CRA, is absolutely contradictory to the problem we're currently in. With guaranteed mortgages, it would have been impossible for the banks to fail. Yet they did. Which suggests you're being, again, selective at best and absolutely untrue at worst with regard to this history.
Or, perhaps you're absolutely right: but the guarantees you speak of apply to the 25% (my sources say closer to 15-17%) of ARMs that fell under the visage of the CRA. And you're, therefore, blaming the entire financial crisis on the backs of only a portion of the loans.
When Amadou Diallo was shot by the police, as a comparative metaphor, do we discern which of the 41 rounds that entered his body killed him?[/QUOTE]
Get real, there is a vast difference between a facility that deals with injury and disease and one that seeks to effect social change. Even if all disease were eliminated there would continue to be injuries in need of treatment. The hospital would continue to have a role to play.
(And what is this silliness about the FHA? It is demonstrably a piece of federal legislation. Are you really trying to claim federal legislation cannot be based on faulty facts or wishful thinking? Or become obsolete?)
But what of the social change organization after the change has been wrought?
The NAACP came into existence in a very different world than exists today. I'd estimate that there are extremely few people here old enough to remember things like separate drinking fountains and public restrooms for blacks and myriad other rejections in daily life that encouraged the creation of largely independent communities within larger cities. These were not ghettoes but thriving cultural centers like Harlem during the 1920s. These places produced much but outside of those places the treatment of blacks, especially below the Mason-Dixon line, was fairly awful.
The NAACP did much to help in correcting that. The world has changed greatly. But it is never going to be perfect because it is made by people and those cannot be perfect. You want perfect, you look at an ant colony where only a few individuals out of millions matter. There are always going to be people who are simply jerks in regard to certain other people. Since childhood I've had to deal with people who have a bug up their ass about Jews. Sometimes it was mere annoyances and other times it was more serious. But I don't let it rule my life. This is not the same world my grandparents lived in. Groucho Marx had a joke about bringing his family to a resort only to be told Jews weren't admitted to the pool. "My daughter is only half-Jewish. Can she go in up to her waist?"
Seen from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, you will never be entirely rid of irrational prejudice because it is driven by a essential mechanism that is used to evaluate other humans. The more that other human looks like you (or rather, your extended family since mirrors aren't a factor in primitive life) the more likely he is part of your group and not a threat. Someone who looks distinctly different from your group is likely a member of a rival group and a threat.
Countless millenia later, these instincts are still part of us at birth. Not being controlled by these instincts is something that has to taught. This is the role of culture. It works better on some than others, for both good and ill. Some people can grow up around those with strong prejudices and despite knowing better and consciously rejecting those beliefs are still ruled by that early training. Other people can come out of utterly repugnant environments and leave it behind like dead skin cells if they make that choice. This can just as easily allow someone from a culture we prefer to join one that we don't. Thus you can have some kid who grew in a well integrated suburb growing up to be an Aryan Brotherhood member.
There are always going to be some jerks who hate for good reason and pick those who are difference in some way as targets. So long as they remain within the law there isn't much else to be done about it. There are always going to Neo-Nazi sites on the web. I find them repugnant but so long as they don't do something to violate my rights as a citizen, I'm not going to give them my time worrying about them. If somebody wants to attack me I don't really care about their underlying motive. I'll shoot first and sort out the details later.
In recent years Jesse Jackson has become a joke and an embarrassment to many he claims to represent. He did important work in his youth but his work evolved into a ceaseless quest for new shakedown victims. The pattern is well established. Somebody comes up with a preposterous reason to accuse a large company of bigotry. Jackson and his group make the company nervous with bad PR. The company then settles by giving Jackson's group a pile of cash and creating a new high salary position within the company to monitor its behavior. This job has no real duties and inevitably goes to somebody closely connected to Jackson.
It's pathetic but Jackson once had real problems to confront and developed a skill set and organization around dealing with those problems. Once those problems had largely faded from the scene the skills and organization kept going to feed the lifestyle to which Jackson had become accustomed.
He isn't doing his radio show any more but check out the books written by Larry Elder. He makes some very valid criticisms of a black community that has become overly attached to victim status rather than regarding themselves as just more Americans. Are there people who hate blacks out there? Of course there are, just as there are blacks with an irrational distrust of non-blacks. It is an essential human flaw that can only be worked against and never eliminated.
Eddie Murphy nailed the victim mentality problem back in the 80s:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/10356/saturday-night-live-white-like-me
A defaulted mortgage is a liability regardless of who is holding the paper. When you have derivative built on top of the mortgage the liability potential is far worse. When you create a situation where very large numbers of these occur within a short time, you have a real problem.
Thus the FMs became a big problem last year. They'd taken up $Trillions in mortgage liabilities. No, they weren't the sole holder of sub-prime mortgages but their policies in the previous twenty years had created an underlying belief in the financial world that a bailout would always be there if disaster struck. Disaster wasn't necessarily malfeasance by some big player on Wall St. It could also be a uncontrollable event that destroyed a large volume of assets overnight.
Imagine an event comparable in damage to the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. In a matter of hours (the fires that followed the earthquake massively increased the damage and injuries) a large number of homes and jobs are ruined. The homeowners can no longer make their mortgage payments and even if their job still exists may not be inclined to make payments on a ruined home if the insurance isn't sufficient or the insurers face collapse under the volume of claims. This is more what people had in mind traditionally when speaking of a government bailout but it is the way of human affairs that corruption will always be present and ready to grow if allowed.
This video covers the problem far better than I can (or am willing to attempt):
http://reason.tv/video/show/626.html
CRA wasn't the only item at fault but it is highly illustrative of a well intentioned policy that guaranteed bad results because it reduced standards that existed for very good reasons and not because bankers hated black people.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
A wonderful rant, but one that, again, completely dodges the very question I asked you to begin with, and one that shows that your understanding of what "racism" is is faulty. I didn't ask if there are people who hated blacks or minorities out there. I asked about discrimination. Pay attention to the words I am using, and don't waste your time answering points I'm not making.
Race is "hate" to people who seem to think that racism must be intentionally acted upon by the individual agent, and not something institutionally patterned. Your understanding of what "racism" is is unnecessarily defensive and draconian. Racism doesn't have to wear a white hood, or burn a cross, or call you "boy" at the age of 50. But it can be the pattern by which audit studies show white men with felony histories stand a better chance of getting a job callback than otherwise-identical black men with no criminal history whatsoever, or that having the name "Jamal" instead of "George" on a rental application, or a loan application, will close more doors than it should - or that "sounding black" (on the phone) will create problems in attaining loans compared to if you do not "sound black."
Racism's still here in the form of discrimination, and it's not the same thing DW Griffith told you about back in your youth.
But you feel a lot better now that you got that white-angry-guy "reverse racism boy-howdy-I'm-so-discriminated-against-woe-is-the-modern-white-male" rant out of the way, don't ya?
Actually, what's funny is that your rant almost comes off verbatim like my old landlord, who nearly burnt me to death with his hate stare because a city-level audit study showed that he was renting properties in a discriminatory manner (I was telling him about some research I was doing that day, and he laid into me with how he was cited. :lol
. Are you a landlord?
Lastly, now you're just making allusions to suggest that bailouts would support the banks should the housing market crumble. Not quite as staunch a stance as that last post, is it? At least have some consistency in your argument. You sound less and less convinced of the causal responsibility of the CRA with each post. But, at least, I finally got you to admit that the CRA was not as much of a factor as your ideology wants it to be.
Race is "hate" to people who seem to think that racism must be intentionally acted upon by the individual agent, and not something institutionally patterned. Your understanding of what "racism" is is unnecessarily defensive and draconian. Racism doesn't have to wear a white hood, or burn a cross, or call you "boy" at the age of 50. But it can be the pattern by which audit studies show white men with felony histories stand a better chance of getting a job callback than otherwise-identical black men with no criminal history whatsoever, or that having the name "Jamal" instead of "George" on a rental application, or a loan application, will close more doors than it should - or that "sounding black" (on the phone) will create problems in attaining loans compared to if you do not "sound black."
Racism's still here in the form of discrimination, and it's not the same thing DW Griffith told you about back in your youth.
But you feel a lot better now that you got that white-angry-guy "reverse racism boy-howdy-I'm-so-discriminated-against-woe-is-the-modern-white-male" rant out of the way, don't ya?
Actually, what's funny is that your rant almost comes off verbatim like my old landlord, who nearly burnt me to death with his hate stare because a city-level audit study showed that he was renting properties in a discriminatory manner (I was telling him about some research I was doing that day, and he laid into me with how he was cited. :lol
. Are you a landlord?Lastly, now you're just making allusions to suggest that bailouts would support the banks should the housing market crumble. Not quite as staunch a stance as that last post, is it? At least have some consistency in your argument. You sound less and less convinced of the causal responsibility of the CRA with each post. But, at least, I finally got you to admit that the CRA was not as much of a factor as your ideology wants it to be.
[quote name='mykevermin']A wonderful rant, but one that, again, completely dodges the very question I asked you to begin with, and one that shows that your understanding of what "racism" is is faulty. I didn't ask if there are people who hated blacks or minorities out there. I asked about discrimination. Pay attention to the words I am using, and don't waste your time answering points I'm not making.
Race is "hate" to people who seem to think that racism must be intentionally acted upon by the individual agent, and not something institutionally patterned. Your understanding of what "racism" is is unnecessarily defensive and draconian. Racism doesn't have to wear a white hood, or burn a cross, or call you "boy" at the age of 50. But it can be the pattern by which audit studies show white men with felony histories stand a better chance of getting a job callback than otherwise-identical black men with no criminal history whatsoever, or that having the name "Jamal" instead of "George" on a rental application, or a loan application, will close more doors than it should - or that "sounding black" (on the phone) will create problems in attaining loans compared to if you do not "sound black."
Racism's still here in the form of discrimination, and it's not the same thing DW Griffith told you about back in your youth.
But you feel a lot better now that you got that white-angry-guy "reverse racism boy-howdy-I'm-so-discriminated-against-woe-is-the-modern-white-male" rant out of the way, don't ya?
Actually, what's funny is that your rant almost comes off verbatim like my old landlord, who nearly burnt me to death with his hate stare because a city-level audit study showed that he was renting properties in a discriminatory manner (I was telling him about some research I was doing that day, and he laid into me with how he was cited. :lol. Are you a landlord?
Lastly, now you're just making allusions to suggest that bailouts would support the banks should the housing market crumble. Not quite as staunch a stance as that last post, is it? At least have some consistency in your argument. You sound less and less convinced of the causal responsibility of the CRA with each post. But, at least, I finally got you to admit that the CRA was not as much of a factor as your ideology wants it to be.[/QUOTE]
Myke, you are apparently very attached to your illusions. If not buying into every claim of "It was because I'm black!" makes me a racist then I guess I am. Along with the rest of humanity. You can call me racist all day long and that won't make me buy into bullshit. The scammers have gotten away with too much already with that tactic.
Where did I pull any 'woe is me' complaint? I specifically said I'd seen discrimination first hand and didn't try to let that awareness dominate my life because I knew it wasn't going to affect me much in the long run. In an earlier generation it would have been worthy of more attention because the problem was far more difficult to not have enter day to day life. I need some really undeniable evidence before I'm going to ever say, "It was because I'm Jewish!" Or Ukrainian. I've heard from some recent immigrants that there are places where being a Uke make you a third class citizen but I don't expect I'll ever go there. My ancestors came to the US over a century ago and, except for the now largely vanished anti-semitism, found mostly fair treatment.
You sound like Obama, when trying to defend Wright, whining that his grandmother had a distrust of black men on the street in situations where she would be helpless against assault. Nevermind that this fear was well founded in the statistics showing this situation was a far higher risk for her than with any other identifying factor. There was a possibility of being mugged by a white woman but that was a vanishingly small possibility. Nearly all muggers were male. Of that group the next highest identifying factor was race. Guess which race was reported as committing the most street robberies?
Now, you can say that this was due to prevalent unemployment and poverty in the black community but that doesn't change the immediate problem faced by a woman who needs to walk home without being robbed.
If discrimination is not driven by irrational dislike aka hatred (just because it is expressed subtly doesn't make it something else) but instead by demonstrable concerns, how is that wrong? Are we not allowed to exercise any judgment in ourlives but just trust in everything regardless of past experience?
At no point did I ever say the CRA was the make or break factor in the credit crisis. In fact, I said just the opposite. But it was a major factor and as I've already said, the most illustrative of the defective thinking driving bad policy.
Funny thing, when you don't interfere in the functions of a market you don't have to calculate the consequences of policy. Things lay where they fall. But if you do choose to intervene, to correct some perceived ill, you also take on responsibility for all of the myriad results your new policy causes to happen. Politicians have always been very bad at this sort of thing. They're people and the human ability to predict the outcome of complex systems is very limited. Worse, they often simply don't care if they're making voters happy in the short term.
This is why many of us prefer small government. The history of government meddling has not been a pleasant journey. There are very few successes and countless failures. The market nearly always does a better job of fairness than government policies. Why? Because the government has no competition. If they get it wrong, they don't go out of business. They just ask for more money in the next budget.
The claims of redlining were found wanting because of the assumption that black loan applicants were not a higher risk. The stat showed that they plainly were. This may be for a variety of tragic reasons but it doesn't change the fact that the banks are responsible to their shareholders for exercising judgment in who they will give loans.
This is where competition comes in. Say Wells Fargo has a policy of not giving loans or good terms to blacks. (This strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. For the last year I've been doing contract work installing new computers and updates in Wells Fargo branches. Many of these I've worked in are run by an entirely black staff, top to bottom, who aren't idiots. The company would be facing some serious internal issues if it was thought to be discriminating against blacks.) And we'll also say that blacks have no greater risk of defaulting on a loan than any other category of applicants. This means Wells Fargo is turning away profitable business. Any other bank in the same region would take advantage of this by targeting their marketing to draw more black customers and reap the rewards.
We're talking about banks here. The only color they really about is green. The green goes out so it can come back as a larger pile of green. If you tap into a group of customers everyone else turns away, you've made your pile of green much larger. Unless your customers turn out to have a severe rate of financial failure, in which you're likely out of business. To avoid this and still reach those otherwise unserved customers you might place higher requirements on the loans. Larger down payments to assure a greater stake in the purchase, is one common approach. This doesn't directly benefit the lender since the down immediately goes to the property seller but it provides the indirect benefit of filtering out the less committed applicants. If risk remains high, the other item that enter the transaction is a higher interest rate. Making more money on the loan makes it easier to absorb the losses from defaults.
All of this works just fine in a free market. Can;t get a loan? Save up a bigger down payment. Somebody will work with you when you can demonstrate the means and commitment, regardless of where on earth your ancestors lived. Lenders who give too many risky loans will fail but without taking the rest of the financial world with them.
Race is "hate" to people who seem to think that racism must be intentionally acted upon by the individual agent, and not something institutionally patterned. Your understanding of what "racism" is is unnecessarily defensive and draconian. Racism doesn't have to wear a white hood, or burn a cross, or call you "boy" at the age of 50. But it can be the pattern by which audit studies show white men with felony histories stand a better chance of getting a job callback than otherwise-identical black men with no criminal history whatsoever, or that having the name "Jamal" instead of "George" on a rental application, or a loan application, will close more doors than it should - or that "sounding black" (on the phone) will create problems in attaining loans compared to if you do not "sound black."
Racism's still here in the form of discrimination, and it's not the same thing DW Griffith told you about back in your youth.
But you feel a lot better now that you got that white-angry-guy "reverse racism boy-howdy-I'm-so-discriminated-against-woe-is-the-modern-white-male" rant out of the way, don't ya?
Actually, what's funny is that your rant almost comes off verbatim like my old landlord, who nearly burnt me to death with his hate stare because a city-level audit study showed that he was renting properties in a discriminatory manner (I was telling him about some research I was doing that day, and he laid into me with how he was cited. :lol
. Are you a landlord?Lastly, now you're just making allusions to suggest that bailouts would support the banks should the housing market crumble. Not quite as staunch a stance as that last post, is it? At least have some consistency in your argument. You sound less and less convinced of the causal responsibility of the CRA with each post. But, at least, I finally got you to admit that the CRA was not as much of a factor as your ideology wants it to be.[/QUOTE]
Myke, you are apparently very attached to your illusions. If not buying into every claim of "It was because I'm black!" makes me a racist then I guess I am. Along with the rest of humanity. You can call me racist all day long and that won't make me buy into bullshit. The scammers have gotten away with too much already with that tactic.
Where did I pull any 'woe is me' complaint? I specifically said I'd seen discrimination first hand and didn't try to let that awareness dominate my life because I knew it wasn't going to affect me much in the long run. In an earlier generation it would have been worthy of more attention because the problem was far more difficult to not have enter day to day life. I need some really undeniable evidence before I'm going to ever say, "It was because I'm Jewish!" Or Ukrainian. I've heard from some recent immigrants that there are places where being a Uke make you a third class citizen but I don't expect I'll ever go there. My ancestors came to the US over a century ago and, except for the now largely vanished anti-semitism, found mostly fair treatment.
You sound like Obama, when trying to defend Wright, whining that his grandmother had a distrust of black men on the street in situations where she would be helpless against assault. Nevermind that this fear was well founded in the statistics showing this situation was a far higher risk for her than with any other identifying factor. There was a possibility of being mugged by a white woman but that was a vanishingly small possibility. Nearly all muggers were male. Of that group the next highest identifying factor was race. Guess which race was reported as committing the most street robberies?
Now, you can say that this was due to prevalent unemployment and poverty in the black community but that doesn't change the immediate problem faced by a woman who needs to walk home without being robbed.
If discrimination is not driven by irrational dislike aka hatred (just because it is expressed subtly doesn't make it something else) but instead by demonstrable concerns, how is that wrong? Are we not allowed to exercise any judgment in ourlives but just trust in everything regardless of past experience?
At no point did I ever say the CRA was the make or break factor in the credit crisis. In fact, I said just the opposite. But it was a major factor and as I've already said, the most illustrative of the defective thinking driving bad policy.
Funny thing, when you don't interfere in the functions of a market you don't have to calculate the consequences of policy. Things lay where they fall. But if you do choose to intervene, to correct some perceived ill, you also take on responsibility for all of the myriad results your new policy causes to happen. Politicians have always been very bad at this sort of thing. They're people and the human ability to predict the outcome of complex systems is very limited. Worse, they often simply don't care if they're making voters happy in the short term.
This is why many of us prefer small government. The history of government meddling has not been a pleasant journey. There are very few successes and countless failures. The market nearly always does a better job of fairness than government policies. Why? Because the government has no competition. If they get it wrong, they don't go out of business. They just ask for more money in the next budget.
The claims of redlining were found wanting because of the assumption that black loan applicants were not a higher risk. The stat showed that they plainly were. This may be for a variety of tragic reasons but it doesn't change the fact that the banks are responsible to their shareholders for exercising judgment in who they will give loans.
This is where competition comes in. Say Wells Fargo has a policy of not giving loans or good terms to blacks. (This strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. For the last year I've been doing contract work installing new computers and updates in Wells Fargo branches. Many of these I've worked in are run by an entirely black staff, top to bottom, who aren't idiots. The company would be facing some serious internal issues if it was thought to be discriminating against blacks.) And we'll also say that blacks have no greater risk of defaulting on a loan than any other category of applicants. This means Wells Fargo is turning away profitable business. Any other bank in the same region would take advantage of this by targeting their marketing to draw more black customers and reap the rewards.
We're talking about banks here. The only color they really about is green. The green goes out so it can come back as a larger pile of green. If you tap into a group of customers everyone else turns away, you've made your pile of green much larger. Unless your customers turn out to have a severe rate of financial failure, in which you're likely out of business. To avoid this and still reach those otherwise unserved customers you might place higher requirements on the loans. Larger down payments to assure a greater stake in the purchase, is one common approach. This doesn't directly benefit the lender since the down immediately goes to the property seller but it provides the indirect benefit of filtering out the less committed applicants. If risk remains high, the other item that enter the transaction is a higher interest rate. Making more money on the loan makes it easier to absorb the losses from defaults.
All of this works just fine in a free market. Can;t get a loan? Save up a bigger down payment. Somebody will work with you when you can demonstrate the means and commitment, regardless of where on earth your ancestors lived. Lenders who give too many risky loans will fail but without taking the rest of the financial world with them.
JolietJake
Banned
Keep digging a bigger hole for yourself epobirs.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
epobirs, you don't seem to understand, in the slightest, what I'm trying to explain. You misinterpret it to be...well, whatever it is you think I'm saying. Then you're discussing fear of crime victimization to **justify** the discrimination you were just telling me didn't exist? - when I'm not talking about crime.
So you have two (at least) stories so far:
1) discrimination doesn't exist, racism wears a white hood.
2) discrimination does exist, but it makes sense that it exists. black people are poor and criminals after all.
You continue to change the issue as I continue to press the same issue. I'm very disappointed, because you are a smart person. Very much so, in fact. I've enjoyed your posts ever since I joined this site years ago.
Which makes it such a let down to see you resorting to personal attacks (not against myself) and put up straw men arguments that are immaterial to the conversation, all the while disregarding the very points I'm trying to make and trying to frame the conversation to suit your needs. Which takes the argument away from what it is actually about, and into what you want it to be about.
I'm, really, really, really disappointed. You're too smart to be trying to change the subject, reframing the argument like you're some kind of talk radio guy, or otherwise dancing around the issue as clumsily as you have.
Start with John Yinger and get back to me. And, before you read nothing but the abstract and make a retort, as someone familiar with Yinger's work, let me explain what is meant when he says that the "discrimination" is "economic." His argument is that antiblack discrimination is the norm among housing lenders in order to keep those (1) in the neighborhood already and (2) looking to move into the neighborhood satisfied enough that housing prices don't decline (therefore racism = economic boon to the residential area and the realtor's wallet).
Economic = rational, perhaps. But it's also racism, no matter how much "sense" you think it makes. It's the acknowledgment that white fear of blacks is so strong that the presence of blacks in a neighborhood can bring housing prices down.
So you have two (at least) stories so far:
1) discrimination doesn't exist, racism wears a white hood.
2) discrimination does exist, but it makes sense that it exists. black people are poor and criminals after all.
You continue to change the issue as I continue to press the same issue. I'm very disappointed, because you are a smart person. Very much so, in fact. I've enjoyed your posts ever since I joined this site years ago.
Which makes it such a let down to see you resorting to personal attacks (not against myself) and put up straw men arguments that are immaterial to the conversation, all the while disregarding the very points I'm trying to make and trying to frame the conversation to suit your needs. Which takes the argument away from what it is actually about, and into what you want it to be about.
I'm, really, really, really disappointed. You're too smart to be trying to change the subject, reframing the argument like you're some kind of talk radio guy, or otherwise dancing around the issue as clumsily as you have.
Start with John Yinger and get back to me. And, before you read nothing but the abstract and make a retort, as someone familiar with Yinger's work, let me explain what is meant when he says that the "discrimination" is "economic." His argument is that antiblack discrimination is the norm among housing lenders in order to keep those (1) in the neighborhood already and (2) looking to move into the neighborhood satisfied enough that housing prices don't decline (therefore racism = economic boon to the residential area and the realtor's wallet).
Economic = rational, perhaps. But it's also racism, no matter how much "sense" you think it makes. It's the acknowledgment that white fear of blacks is so strong that the presence of blacks in a neighborhood can bring housing prices down.
S
strongpimphand
Guest
Hilarious that anyone think Stewart ripped anyone a new ass....this is the biggest ratings ploy possible!
REAL financial people don't watch Mad Money in the first damn place. I do a bit of investing and I know he's a joke. He's entertainment. The man blows horns and shit! He's like wrestling; you have to KNOW how to wrestle...but it's entertainment. Now, there are some REAL wrestlers in the WWE....but most of them wouldn't last a minute on the mat. Not knocking Cramer...but the information he presents on his show is not meant for that person trying to get into stocks and funds...
On the other hand, Stewart didn't really do much in that interview. He just posted an old youtube video (You or I could have posted it...) and asked simple damning questions. And obviously he was lobbing Cramer softballs because all Cramer was doing was going "Yea, we apologize..."
At the end of the day, both programs win. CNBC sent the goftball to a goftball show. Big whoop! If it was really a serious issue, CNBC would have sent its most serious correnspondant to a respected network program.
REAL financial people don't watch Mad Money in the first damn place. I do a bit of investing and I know he's a joke. He's entertainment. The man blows horns and shit! He's like wrestling; you have to KNOW how to wrestle...but it's entertainment. Now, there are some REAL wrestlers in the WWE....but most of them wouldn't last a minute on the mat. Not knocking Cramer...but the information he presents on his show is not meant for that person trying to get into stocks and funds...
On the other hand, Stewart didn't really do much in that interview. He just posted an old youtube video (You or I could have posted it...) and asked simple damning questions. And obviously he was lobbing Cramer softballs because all Cramer was doing was going "Yea, we apologize..."
At the end of the day, both programs win. CNBC sent the goftball to a goftball show. Big whoop! If it was really a serious issue, CNBC would have sent its most serious correnspondant to a respected network program.
[quote name='strongpimphand']
REAL financial people don't watch Mad Money in the first damn place ... but the information he presents on his show is not meant for that person trying to get into stocks and funds...
[/quote]
That's been the whole point of this saga from the beginning -- average, everyday people watch Cramer, CNBC advertises overblown concepts of trust, knowledge, and expertise to the these people, and then the people geted over. Arguments over whether "real" financial people watch CNBC or merits of Jon Stewart's understanding of the finacial crisis are not germane to this whole discussion.
People need to take a step back and look at what was originally presented here. This was an attack on CNBC and the way they pitch their network; Cramer just got caught in the crosshairs. In fact, someone earlier mentioned Jon's drubbing of Tucker Carlson a few years back, this is actually strikingly similar to that situation. In that case, Jon argued that shows like "Crossfire" are not forums for reasoned political debate. In this case, he's arguing that shows like "Fast Money" or "Mad Money" are not forums for reasoned financial advice. This is all in the face of CNBC likening Cramer to an infallible entity.
This thread quickly became rife with people overanalyzing the matter and going off on tangeants for the seemingly sole sake of being disagreeable. Or perhaps some are willfully refusing to allow the exposure of a major network's hypocrisy on a comedy show to be just what it is. Whatever the case, people should probably stop looking for things that aren't there so that a bit on the Daily Show is not confused with some referendum for economic debate.
REAL financial people don't watch Mad Money in the first damn place ... but the information he presents on his show is not meant for that person trying to get into stocks and funds...
[/quote]
That's been the whole point of this saga from the beginning -- average, everyday people watch Cramer, CNBC advertises overblown concepts of trust, knowledge, and expertise to the these people, and then the people get
ed over. Arguments over whether "real" financial people watch CNBC or merits of Jon Stewart's understanding of the finacial crisis are not germane to this whole discussion.People need to take a step back and look at what was originally presented here. This was an attack on CNBC and the way they pitch their network; Cramer just got caught in the crosshairs. In fact, someone earlier mentioned Jon's drubbing of Tucker Carlson a few years back, this is actually strikingly similar to that situation. In that case, Jon argued that shows like "Crossfire" are not forums for reasoned political debate. In this case, he's arguing that shows like "Fast Money" or "Mad Money" are not forums for reasoned financial advice. This is all in the face of CNBC likening Cramer to an infallible entity.
This thread quickly became rife with people overanalyzing the matter and going off on tangeants for the seemingly sole sake of being disagreeable. Or perhaps some are willfully refusing to allow the exposure of a major network's hypocrisy on a comedy show to be just what it is. Whatever the case, people should probably stop looking for things that aren't there so that a bit on the Daily Show is not confused with some referendum for economic debate.
[quote name='mykevermin']epobirs, you don't seem to understand, in the slightest, what I'm trying to explain. You misinterpret it to be...well, whatever it is you think I'm saying. Then you're discussing fear of crime victimization to **justify** the discrimination you were just telling me didn't exist? - when I'm not talking about crime.
So you have two (at least) stories so far:
1) discrimination doesn't exist, racism wears a white hood.
2) discrimination does exist, but it makes sense that it exists. black people are poor and criminals after all.
You continue to change the issue as I continue to press the same issue. I'm very disappointed, because you are a smart person. Very much so, in fact. I've enjoyed your posts ever since I joined this site years ago.
Which makes it such a let down to see you resorting to personal attacks (not against myself) and put up straw men arguments that are immaterial to the conversation, all the while disregarding the very points I'm trying to make and trying to frame the conversation to suit your needs. Which takes the argument away from what it is actually about, and into what you want it to be about.
I'm, really, really, really disappointed. You're too smart to be trying to change the subject, reframing the argument like you're some kind of talk radio guy, or otherwise dancing around the issue as clumsily as you have.
Start with John Yinger and get back to me. And, before you read nothing but the abstract and make a retort, as someone familiar with Yinger's work, let me explain what is meant when he says that the "discrimination" is "economic." His argument is that antiblack discrimination is the norm among housing lenders in order to keep those (1) in the neighborhood already and (2) looking to move into the neighborhood satisfied enough that housing prices don't decline (therefore racism = economic boon to the residential area and the realtor's wallet).
Economic = rational, perhaps. But it's also racism, no matter how much "sense" you think it makes. It's the acknowledgment that white fear of blacks is so strong that the presence of blacks in a neighborhood can bring housing prices down.[/QUOTE]
Once again, I must insist you are the one who doesn't understand.
Repeat after me: Life isn't fair.
Until you get that through your head you'll be a victim for every grievance monger who comes down the pike. You can eliminate all discrimination or you can have freedom. You cannot have both because freedom means making choices for yourself. Those choices can be described as discrimination.
Now, before your reflexes kick in and tell you to decry discrimination, ask yourself what is inherently wrong with discrimination in of itself? We're talking about the basis of personal choice, not 'racial discrimination' or 'class discrimination.' Free people make choices that other people may not like. So long as those choices don't violate the rights of another, such as choosing to steal or assault, there is no basis for action.
I say with some confidence that you practice discrimination in your daily life. Or do you find yourself faced with a difficult choice between, say, the current hot FPS and Barbie horse Adventure? I suspect not. More likely, the very mention of Barbie in the game's title initiate an immediate discriminatory response. (This is likely why Barbie Stripper Pole Adventure was overlooked by most game shoppers.)
The Yinger paper? You've got to be kidding. The audits that form the statistical basis of that report are almost 30 years old. The world has moved on. Even in 1981 was a very different world from thirty years before that. In 1951 the sole reason any black person would be seen in any middle-class burb was because they were a housekeeper or some other menial laborer. The average income and economic power of blacks in the US has improved consistently for the last fifty years and this has made far more difference in the treatment of blacks and other minorities by businesses than any other factor. No amount of government intervention has meant more to lenders than the improved economic standing of the would be customers for loans.
Money talks. If one bank doesn't want your money, another does. If you're good for it the second bank wins and the stats for people who look like you get better.
I NEVER claimed racial discrimination doesn't exist. What I said was that there is more to it than the irrational hatred display by some. Some people are just wired so that they desperately need an Other to oppose. They are most content during times of war when they can really express themselves.
If you consistently have bad results from interacting with people who fit a certain profile, you are going to become inclined to avoid future interactions with same. This is discrimination. Thus far we're talking about a rational response based on experience. It isn't about fair or not fair. It's the mechanism that kept our ancestors alive long enough to raise children while those lacking the response tended to get killed off early because they didn't learn to avoid threats to their existence.
Modern life is more complicated and we need to be more sophisticated in how we deal with things but the equipment we're born with for this hasn't changed much in 100,000 years. This means that people who have to overcome the bad behavior of a group they cannot help being associated with are going to occasionally get screwed. Again, life isn't fair. It happens to everybody to some degree or another.
But it has gotten better. Pretending it is still 1981 is just not going to pass muster. Because if you're going to pull that nonsense we might as well pretend that nothing has changed since the the 1860s and you need to break off to go attend your Abolitionist group meeting.
It's 2009. Neighborhoods where non-white residents would have been unthinkable around the time of my birth have all sorts of people living there and nobody gives it any thought. Because it's normal in 2009. Is it normal everywhere? No but it is only a matter of time. In the late 60s it was a big deal when a black actress kissed a white actor on Star Trek. Then in the 70s it was edgy on TV to have inter-racial couples after Sidney Potier had shocked Spencer Tracy as his daughter's fiance. Nowadays it is difficult to find anything left with shock value. I suppose it will be when a non-SF show has an inter-species couple, especially if the non-human is VERY non-human. Donald Trump and his string of wives may have set a precedent there.
Is everything perfect and wonderful for everybody in America? No, never has been nor is it ever likely to be. Perfection is unattainable. But are things generally better? Yes, with more improvement on the horizon if we don't make the stupid choice of making everyone equal by making everyone poor. That didn't go well for the Soviets but some people persist in thinking they know how to get it right if only they were put in charge.
What had the biggest influence was culture, not government. All too often, government intervention has only damaged those it was intended to help. It is culture shifts that open up neighborhoods more effectively than anything wrought by a politician. The Yinger paper supports this in that it shows that anti-discrimination laws had failed, yet fewer and fewer locales remain inaccessible to non-whites.
So you have two (at least) stories so far:
1) discrimination doesn't exist, racism wears a white hood.
2) discrimination does exist, but it makes sense that it exists. black people are poor and criminals after all.
You continue to change the issue as I continue to press the same issue. I'm very disappointed, because you are a smart person. Very much so, in fact. I've enjoyed your posts ever since I joined this site years ago.
Which makes it such a let down to see you resorting to personal attacks (not against myself) and put up straw men arguments that are immaterial to the conversation, all the while disregarding the very points I'm trying to make and trying to frame the conversation to suit your needs. Which takes the argument away from what it is actually about, and into what you want it to be about.
I'm, really, really, really disappointed. You're too smart to be trying to change the subject, reframing the argument like you're some kind of talk radio guy, or otherwise dancing around the issue as clumsily as you have.
Start with John Yinger and get back to me. And, before you read nothing but the abstract and make a retort, as someone familiar with Yinger's work, let me explain what is meant when he says that the "discrimination" is "economic." His argument is that antiblack discrimination is the norm among housing lenders in order to keep those (1) in the neighborhood already and (2) looking to move into the neighborhood satisfied enough that housing prices don't decline (therefore racism = economic boon to the residential area and the realtor's wallet).
Economic = rational, perhaps. But it's also racism, no matter how much "sense" you think it makes. It's the acknowledgment that white fear of blacks is so strong that the presence of blacks in a neighborhood can bring housing prices down.[/QUOTE]
Once again, I must insist you are the one who doesn't understand.
Repeat after me: Life isn't fair.
Until you get that through your head you'll be a victim for every grievance monger who comes down the pike. You can eliminate all discrimination or you can have freedom. You cannot have both because freedom means making choices for yourself. Those choices can be described as discrimination.
Now, before your reflexes kick in and tell you to decry discrimination, ask yourself what is inherently wrong with discrimination in of itself? We're talking about the basis of personal choice, not 'racial discrimination' or 'class discrimination.' Free people make choices that other people may not like. So long as those choices don't violate the rights of another, such as choosing to steal or assault, there is no basis for action.
I say with some confidence that you practice discrimination in your daily life. Or do you find yourself faced with a difficult choice between, say, the current hot FPS and Barbie horse Adventure? I suspect not. More likely, the very mention of Barbie in the game's title initiate an immediate discriminatory response. (This is likely why Barbie Stripper Pole Adventure was overlooked by most game shoppers.)
The Yinger paper? You've got to be kidding. The audits that form the statistical basis of that report are almost 30 years old. The world has moved on. Even in 1981 was a very different world from thirty years before that. In 1951 the sole reason any black person would be seen in any middle-class burb was because they were a housekeeper or some other menial laborer. The average income and economic power of blacks in the US has improved consistently for the last fifty years and this has made far more difference in the treatment of blacks and other minorities by businesses than any other factor. No amount of government intervention has meant more to lenders than the improved economic standing of the would be customers for loans.
Money talks. If one bank doesn't want your money, another does. If you're good for it the second bank wins and the stats for people who look like you get better.
I NEVER claimed racial discrimination doesn't exist. What I said was that there is more to it than the irrational hatred display by some. Some people are just wired so that they desperately need an Other to oppose. They are most content during times of war when they can really express themselves.
If you consistently have bad results from interacting with people who fit a certain profile, you are going to become inclined to avoid future interactions with same. This is discrimination. Thus far we're talking about a rational response based on experience. It isn't about fair or not fair. It's the mechanism that kept our ancestors alive long enough to raise children while those lacking the response tended to get killed off early because they didn't learn to avoid threats to their existence.
Modern life is more complicated and we need to be more sophisticated in how we deal with things but the equipment we're born with for this hasn't changed much in 100,000 years. This means that people who have to overcome the bad behavior of a group they cannot help being associated with are going to occasionally get screwed. Again, life isn't fair. It happens to everybody to some degree or another.
But it has gotten better. Pretending it is still 1981 is just not going to pass muster. Because if you're going to pull that nonsense we might as well pretend that nothing has changed since the the 1860s and you need to break off to go attend your Abolitionist group meeting.
It's 2009. Neighborhoods where non-white residents would have been unthinkable around the time of my birth have all sorts of people living there and nobody gives it any thought. Because it's normal in 2009. Is it normal everywhere? No but it is only a matter of time. In the late 60s it was a big deal when a black actress kissed a white actor on Star Trek. Then in the 70s it was edgy on TV to have inter-racial couples after Sidney Potier had shocked Spencer Tracy as his daughter's fiance. Nowadays it is difficult to find anything left with shock value. I suppose it will be when a non-SF show has an inter-species couple, especially if the non-human is VERY non-human. Donald Trump and his string of wives may have set a precedent there.
Is everything perfect and wonderful for everybody in America? No, never has been nor is it ever likely to be. Perfection is unattainable. But are things generally better? Yes, with more improvement on the horizon if we don't make the stupid choice of making everyone equal by making everyone poor. That didn't go well for the Soviets but some people persist in thinking they know how to get it right if only they were put in charge.
What had the biggest influence was culture, not government. All too often, government intervention has only damaged those it was intended to help. It is culture shifts that open up neighborhoods more effectively than anything wrought by a politician. The Yinger paper supports this in that it shows that anti-discrimination laws had failed, yet fewer and fewer locales remain inaccessible to non-whites.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Fair enough. Now I know better: racial discrimination is (1) good because it represents "freedom," (2) is ok because it's presumably economically rational, and (3) it's no more harmful than selecting Killzone over Barbie Adventures.
Thanks for the lesson. Now I'm going to find your house, kick down your door, and forcibly put my balls on your forehead, all in the name of "freedom." Because I'm discriminating like that.
Since, after all, in your world, gross violations of EOE and FHA are evidently legal, why can't we just continue to pick and choose which statutes we abide by? If that's "freedom" in your world, why settle to think that only *you* can emphasize laws we need to follow?
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/374403
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145386
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ts=dJaleGM9EJ&sig=HCdIOEb48IsspIPbnnerXNXylIg
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ts=vKH5jMgtCM&sig=OxdHHZ0TjY2Cu4Yj9pJG8kbkp30
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579183
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2061599
http://uar.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/4/452
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/cico/2004/00000003/00000003/art00003
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40027430
You can check out the respective bibliographies and find your own path from there.
Thanks for the lesson. Now I'm going to find your house, kick down your door, and forcibly put my balls on your forehead, all in the name of "freedom." Because I'm discriminating like that.
Since, after all, in your world, gross violations of EOE and FHA are evidently legal, why can't we just continue to pick and choose which statutes we abide by? If that's "freedom" in your world, why settle to think that only *you* can emphasize laws we need to follow?
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/374403
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145386
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ts=dJaleGM9EJ&sig=HCdIOEb48IsspIPbnnerXNXylIg
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ts=vKH5jMgtCM&sig=OxdHHZ0TjY2Cu4Yj9pJG8kbkp30
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579183
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2061599
http://uar.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/36/4/452
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/cico/2004/00000003/00000003/art00003
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40027430
You can check out the respective bibliographies and find your own path from there.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Not this crap again.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Popcorn anyone?
bread's done