I agree.Ironically,was written by a guy named White!
The author is correct about one of the roots of the problem.
Financial geniuses took this root, manageable even if all of them defaulted, and sliced and diced the bad mortgages into derivatives and managed to inflate the damage by between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude. Then a lot of them walked away with a bunch of money.
The government is involved, but the financial geniuses we’ve idolized for the last 10 or 15 years are a great deal more responsible.
Nail. Hit. Head.
bttt
Too late. Our economy is already destroyed. And PresentObama is making sure we’ll never get up off the mat.
Break down all forclosures as to race. Asian, Hispanic, White, Black, etc. See where it ends up. How many in each race? Bet they won’t do it.
Great explanation of a somewhat complicated topic
bttt
He’s right, but don’t expect anyone in the political world to have the courage to agree. The official party line is that DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH. You know, like the way it’s turned California into such a great place to live.
A few weeks ago, I saw an article posted to FR that made the claim that AA costs the US 40% in productivity. IOW, US productivity would be 40% higher if not for AA in college admissions and in hiring, among other things. My settings don’t save articles for more than 7 days-perhaps someone who has the link could post it to this thread? IIRC the link was posted in a reply to an article, not as an original article-and I can’t remember what the article’s title was. :-(
All of these economic plans are simply reparations without calling it that.
Here is the CRA wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
According to it, the original CRA was signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977. A radical group called National Peoples’ Action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Action
pushed for it then. Prof. John L. McKnight (no wikipedia entry yet) was a leader of NPA, and also according to WorldNetDaily here
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76170
was an early supporter of Obama, including writing a letter of recommendation to Harvard Law School on Obama’s behalf.
The article makes the point that there was too much government regulation of the banks, not that there was (as seems to be commonly thought) not enough regulation. A hole in the logic appears to be the implication that minorities and whites defaulting at the same rates means that there was no discrimination by banks towards minorities prior to CRA. However, it leaves open the possibility that deserving minorities could have been denied loans by bank “redlining,” or location-based discrimination.
Also how do the bad loan policies go virtually unnoticed for decades? - I could better understand if it were just for a few years...