(09-24-2022, 07:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: Redlining wasn't about which borrowers qualified for credit. It was about which areas were allowed to become mostly homeowners vs other areas that remained mostly renters. There were black people with sufficient income and savings to get a subsidized loan at the time. But nearly all the houses they might have wanted to buy were either considered "risky" by the federal government or else they were in desirable areas that had "whites only" covenants.
The racial wealth disparity in this country is mainly driven by this.
You want to blame welfare and abortion, and I'm not arguing in favor of either of those things, but I am saying those things impacted poor whites and poor blacks equally. The disparate impact was in the housing policy.
(09-24-2022, 08:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: (09-24-2022, 08:02 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Lies lies LIES. redlining was an intervetionary policy started by the federal government to categorize which loans should be federally backed and it bled over into private lending. That's what I said. That has nothing yo do with the credit worthiness of the underlying population or their ability to offer barter in lieu of credit. Correct.
Due to this reason the actual increase in HOME OWNERSHIP during the period of redlining was congruent between whites and blacks. When you start out behind, you don't want to go just as fast as the guy in front of you. You want to catch up. The entire mortgage subsidy program was supposed to target the lower middle class regardless of race, so since blacks were disproportionately in the lower middle class, it should have helped them more than it did whites. So it is likely that blacks would have come closer to catching up in terms of home ownership rates if not for red lining, and racial covenants, and self-fulfilling prophesies about blacks ruining neighborhood values working against them. And the rate of home ownership doesn't really capture if the family is building wealth - if society has decided that the home you own is no longer valuable due to your complexion or the complexion of your neighbors, your ability to pass wealth on to your children is greatly reduced. This rarely happens now, but we know it was happening during our lifetimes, and the impact lasts. Today in many areas bad zoning laws make it very difficult for low-wealth families to start down the road of home ownership. In many areas, especially the West Coast, the time to buy was the late 70s and early 80s. If your family didn't buy then, and you're lower middle class, you're SOL in terms of buying now. You could have built some wealth then, but you won't now. So it's nice that attitudes are much less racist now, but it's too late for many people in many areas.
I was not saying that abortion was the cause of the wealth disparity. I am saying that during the mid 60s black Amrica adopted self destructive sociopolitical ideologies that derailed three decades of geometric economic progression and ALSO killed 20 million plus blacks! True but irrelevant.
Childish. Families are asymmetrical. If one group has 70% two income housholds and another group has 30% two income families which group is going to be able to build generational wealth. It's not rocket science, social justice, our systemic inequity. It's basic economics.
The core driving spiritual ideological and cultural incentives within black America have been antithetical to economic growth. Whether it's blacks in America or western European social democracies. There are certain economic systems that cause economic stagnation.
