NationStates Jolt Archive

... so says Dennis Sewell who seems to be arguing that it was regulation, not deregulation, that caused the crisis:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2189196/clinton-democrats-are-to-blame-for-the-credit-crunch.thtml

Clinton Democrats are to blame for the credit crunch

Dennis Sewell
Wednesday, 1st October 2008

Our current financial turmoil is not the fault of greedy bankers, says
Dennis Sewell. In fact, the banks were bullied into lowering their
lending standards by left-wing idealists intent on equal opportunities
at any cost

‘Let us be clear: this is a crisis caused on Wall Street,’ insisted
Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her consensus-strangling speech on Monday,
shortly before her fellow members of the House of Representatives
voted to reject the President’s $700 billion bail-out plan. Out on the
campaign trail, Barack Obama ventured that the root cause of the
trouble in the markets was that ‘too many people in Washington and
Wall Street weren’t minding the store’.

Pinning the blame for the crisis on greedy bankers and incompetent
regulators may have seemed plausible enough during the turmoil of the
past few days. Writing in The Spectator last week, the Archbishop of
Canterbury noted how ‘we find ourselves talking about capital or the
market almost as if they were individuals, with purposes and
strategies, making choices, deliberating reasonably about how to
achieve aims’. Not this week, we didn’t. We talked about the markets
as if they were thoroughly unreasonable, out of control, perhaps even
raving mad. Following Monday’s rejection of the bail-out plan, stock
markets, impatient with Congress’s delay in tying up a deal, threw a
massive hissy fit, which wiped billions off the value of shares. The
next day, they made a partial bounce back, based presumably upon a
belated recognition that talks to thrash out another bail-out plan
were already in progress. Meanwhile, the sullen banks remained
obdurate in their reluctance to lend to one another, let alone anyone
else, despite a massive injection of liquidity from central bankers
around the world. Not much there to inspire confidence in the system.

Consequently, this hardly seems the most appropriate moment to mount a
defence of capitalism in general, and American bankers in particular,
against the threats posed by meddlesome politicians and excessive
regulation. But, what the heck. Unless we take advantage of this
hiatus between the crashing of financial institutions to take an
honest look at the origins of our current predicament, then today’s
spin and myth-making will quickly harden into tomorrow’s firm
conviction. Let us be clear: this crisis was not caused on Wall Street
— it was caused in the White House. The root problem was not financial
— it was political, and those truly responsible for this fiasco were
not bankers, nor even Bush Republicans; they were Clinton Democrats.

For generations, America’s bankers have been firmly refusing credit to
those they judged unworthy of it. Yet the mountain of toxic subprime
debt that has threatened to overwhelm the entire financial system, and
the astonishing number of mortgage foreclosures across the United
States, is proof that, at some point in the relatively recent past,
bankers radically altered their behaviour and began to shower
mortgages on borrowers who had no realistic prospect of keeping up
their repayments. What could possibly have induced them to act so
recklessly, and so out of character? The facile answer to that
question is greed, the lure of a fast and easy buck. The correct
answer is that banks were bullied, cajoled and coerced into lowering
their lending standards by politicians in pursuit of an ideological
agenda.

Let’s wind back to 1993 and Roberta Achtenberg’s arrival on the
Washington political scene. Achtenberg had made her name in San
Francisco as a civil rights lawyer and activist, campaigning to keep
open the city’s gay bathhouses, and (I promise I’m not making this up)
pressing for an increase in the number of gay Scoutmasters. Bill
Clinton offered her a job in his new administration, and Roberta
Achtenberg became the first openly lesbian nominee ever to receive a
Senate confirmation. She duly took up her post as Assistant Secretary
for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD).

The main thrust of the Clinton housing strategy was to increase home
ownership among the poor, and particularly among blacks and Hispanics.
White House aides, in familiar West Wing style, could parrot the many
social advantages that would accrue: high levels of home ownership
correlated with less violent crime, better school performance, a
heightened sense of commun-ity. But standing in the way of the
realisation of this dream were the conservative lending policies of
the banks, which required such inconvenient and old-fashioned things
as cash deposits and regular repayments — things the poor and
minorities often could not provide. Clinton told the banks to be more
creative.

Meanwhile, Ms Achtenberg, a member of the kickass school of public
administration, was busy setting up a network of enforcement offices
across the country, manned by attorneys and investigators, and primed
to spearhead an assault on the mortgage banks, bringing suits against
any suspected of practising unlawful discrimination, whether on the
basis of race, gender or disability. Achtenberg believed racism was a
big factor in keeping minorities from enjoying the same level of home
ownership as whites. She doubted if much could be done to change
people’s attitudes on racial matters, but she was confident she, in
cahoots with Attorney General Janet Reno, could use the law to change
the behaviour of banks.

However, when little or no overt or deliberate racial discrimination
was discovered among the mortgage lenders, HUD’s investigators turned
to trying to prove ‘disparate treatment’ of minority groups, a notion
similar to that of unintentional ‘institutional racism’. If a bank
refused loans to proportionally more black applicants than white ones,
for instance, the onus would fall on it to prove it had good grounds
for doing so or face settlement penalties running into millions of
dollars. A series of highly publicised cases were brought on this
basis, starting in 1994. Eventually the investigators would turn
somewhat desperately to ‘disparate impact’, a form of discrimination
so abstract and rarefied as to be imperceptible to its supposed
victims, and indeed often only discernible at all through the
application of multivariate regression analysis to information stored
on regulators’ databases. In fact, by 1995 Achtenberg was actually
having to rein in her zealots, issuing a clarification that the use of
the phrase ‘master bedroom’ in a property advertisement was, despite
its clear patriarchal and slave-owning resonances, not actually an
actionable offence under the anti-discrimination laws.

These mortgage banks, which have been responsible for issuing about
three quarters of the dodgy subprime loans that are proving
troublesome today, quickly took the hint. From the mid-1990s they
began to abandon their formerly rigorous lending criteria. Mortgages
were offered with only 3 per cent deposit requirements, and eventually
with no deposit requirement at all. The mortgage banks fell over one
another to provide loans to low-income households and especially to
minority customers. In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the number of
African-American and Latino homeowners increased by two million.

The national banks, responsible for the remaining quarter of the
current subprime loans, were put under a different kind of pressure by
the Clinton team to boost their low-income and minority lending too.
Changes were made to the Community Reinvestment Act to establish a
system by which banks were rated according to how much lending they
did in low-income neighbourhoods. A good CRA rating was necessary if a
bank wanted to get regulators to sign off on mergers, expansions, even
new branch openings. A poor rating could be disastrous for a bank’s
business plan. It was a different kind of coercion, but just as
effective. At the same time, the government pressed Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae, the two giants of the secondary mortgage market, to help
expand mortgage loans among low and moderate earners, and introduced
new rules allowing the organisations to get involved in the
securitisation of subprime loans. The first package was launched in
1997 in collaboration with Bear Stearns.

So, by the end of the 20th century most of the ingredients that would
combine to cause today’s subprime crisis were already in place.
Nevertheless, the 1990s can seem a long time ago, and to grasp the
connection between the situation then and what is happening now, it’s
important to realise that only a small proportion of the subprime
loans made since George W. Bush became President have gone to new,
first-time buyers. A huge number of them have been refinancing loans,
replacing mortgages originally taken out perhaps eight, ten or 12
years ago.

Imagine yourself in the place of one of those low-income householders
who acquired a property in the late 1990s as a result of the Clinton
home-ownership drive. What happened next? Chances are you managed OK
for a while, but after a few years found that like most poor
Americans, your income wasn’t going up, it was declining. Around 2003,
with your credit cards maxed out, you desperately needed to release
some equity from your home. Luckily there was equity there to release,
so you refinanced for the first time and enjoyed having some real
money for a change. A couple of years later a pushy mortgage broker
called to suggest you do it all again, squeezing out the last drops of
equity and opting for a low-start mortgage. So you did — and that was
fine while it lasted, but the interest rate just sky-rocketed. You
will never pay off that loan, it is pure poison to you, just like it’s
pure poison to the investment bank that ended up with it on its books.
You will just walk away. It’s not your fault. It’s not the bank’s
fault. And it certainly isn’t George W. Bush’s fault — every attempt
he has made to reform the mortgage market has been blocked by
Congressional Democrats.

So that’s how we get from there to here, from crude attempts at social
engineering during the early, heady days of the first Clinton
administration to the turmoil on Wall Street today. There may be many
technical lessons to be learned about selling and buying mortgages,
about the best ways to price and manage risk, and about the regulation
of financial markets, but I believe the most important lesson of all
is an ethical one: it’s about not behaving ruthlessly when trying to
change the world for the better.

Bill Clinton’s team, like so many progressives here in Britain, were
not content to wait and see what fruits equal opportunities might
bring. They felt compelled to secure their equal outcomes by any means
necessary, even if that meant debauching institutions, corrupting
professions and trying to skew the operation of markets. That only
ever leads to chaos.


What do you make of this? Now ignore all the right wing rhetoric, the fact that its from a right wing source and other commentary of his that may annoy you, just focus on the facts presented by this guy, is what he says true? Were banks pressured by the government into allowing sub-prime loaning for poor minorities? The general argument doesn't seem to implausible to me actually, but I'm not so sure how valid the facts in his premise are, so I'd like NSG to dissect it. But if what he says is true, then a defence for the free market can be formed, since had the banks been left alone as you would have with a free market, they would probably never had issued these loans and thus the crisis would likely have never occurred, or at least not with the same magnitude.

... so says Dennis Sewell who seems to be arguing that it was regulation, not deregulation, that caused the crisis:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2189196/clinton-democrats-are-to-blame-for-the-credit-crunch.thtml



What do you make of this? Now ignore all the right wing rhetoric, the fact that its from a right wing source and other commentary of his that may annoy you, just focus on the facts presented by this guy, is what he says true? Were banks pressured by the government into allowing sub-prime loaning for poor minorities? The general argument doesn't seem to implausible to me actually, but I'm not so sure how valid the facts in his premise are, so I'd like NSG to dissect it. But if what he says is true, then a defence for the free market can be formed, since had the banks been left alone as you would have with a free market, they would probably never had issued these loans and thus the crisis would likely have never occurred, or at least not with the same magnitude.

LOL. Please ignore the little man behind the curtain and focus on the glory of the great and powerful Oz!!!

Regardless, no these "facts" aren't true.

LOL. Please ignore the little man behind the curtain and focus on the glory of the great and powerful Oz!!!


I'm just asking you to focus on the premise, I don't care about any of the right wing rhetoric he presents since I don't find it particularly relevant.


Regardless, no these "facts" aren't true.

You need to do a little better then that.

What do I make of this? Why, I can make a hat, or a brooch, or a little pterodactyl...

The quoted article is a load of horseshit. I feel that the writer's lack of reference to any actual specific evidence supports my conclusion. There is no substance here, only character assassination against this Achtenberg person, another round of "Let's Blame Clinton!", and the usual bunch of rightwing crybaby bull. There is not one fact present to show that it was the government that forced deregulation, not the private financial special interests putting pressure on government. Not one shred of evidence to show that it was the poor, suffering banks, who only ever wanted to do the right thing, who were forced and bullied by those big liberal meanies into not being bigoted assholes and thus had no choice but to make hundreds of billions of dollars off bad loans, those poor little dears, sobbing buckets of tears.

Really, this laughable.

Ahhh I was wondering when the "Clintondidit" defense would appear.

Which party owned Congress at that time?

You need to do a little better then that.

Why? Your source doesn't.

Or am I just supposed to make up a bunch of crap, claim it is factual, and add ridiculous spin to impress you?

What do I make of this? Why, I can make a hat, or a brooch, or a little pterodactyl...

The quoted article is a load of horseshit. I feel that the writer's lack of reference to any actual specific evidence supports my conclusion. There is no substance here, only character assassination against this Achtenberg person, another round of "Let's Blame Clinton!", and the usual bunch of rightwing crybaby bull. There is not one fact present to show that it was the government that forced deregulation, not the private financial special interests putting pressure on government. Not one shred of evidence to show that it was the poor, suffering banks, who only ever wanted to do the right thing, who were forced and bullied by those big liberal meanies into not being bigoted assholes and thus had no choice but to make hundreds of billions of dollars off bad loans, those poor little dears, sobbing buckets of tears.

Really, this laughable.

Well, he's saying that the banks faced law suits if it was shown that they were lending less to poor minorities than other classes. National banks were faced with a stop to their growth by the government if they didn't issue sub-prime loans to poorer classes. All I want to know is if this is true or not.

Why? Your source doesn't.


It doesn't provide a source for it's evidence no. Thus I'm trying to find a source for this evidence, or a source that shows this is not true. You don't have to if you don't want to.

Well, he's saying that the banks faced law suits if it was shown that they were lending less to poor minorities than other classes. National banks were faced with a stop to their growth by the government if they didn't issue sub-prime loans to poorer classes. All I want to know is if this is true or not.
Answer: Not true.

Plenty of banks faced lawsuits if they refused to loan to people on the basis of race, religion, or gender, but NO banks ever faced a lawsuit for not making a bad loan. Quite the opposite, in fact, before deregulation.

And as for what he says, hey, I say space aliens did it by implanting symbiots into the basal ganglia of key CEOs and politicians. Where's my evidence? It's in the same place as your quoted author's -- up his ass.

Hint, H: When a writer offers zero evidence to back up things he claims are facts, it is a safe bet that his claims are not true.

It doesn't provide a source for it's evidence no. Thus I'm trying to find a source for this evidence, or a source that shows this is not true. You don't have to if you don't want to.
Why are you asking us to do your homework for you? When I read something and want to fact-check it, I hit the google on my own.

Answer: Not true.

Plenty of banks faced lawsuits if they refused to loan to people on the basis of race, religion, or gender, but NO banks ever faced a lawsuit for not making a bad loan. Quite the opposite, in fact, before deregulation.


But is it true that you would face a lawsuit if you were lending to a lower proportion of black people? Not just refusing to loan to black people altogether? He's saying that in order to have equal lending to black people, they would have to do a whole lot more sub-prime loaning because black people are generally poorer in the USA.

edit: and what about the national banks, who were pressured into offering sub-prime loans to lower classes. They make up a quarter of banks in the US, so it's important that we know if this is true or not as well.


And as for what he says, hey, I say space aliens did it by implanting symbiots into the basal ganglia of key CEOs and politicians. Where's my evidence? It's in the same place as your quoted author's -- up his ass.

Hint, H: When a writer offers zero evidence to back up things he claims are facts, it is a safe bet that his claims are not true.

Most articles in newspapers don't have citations for everything they say, it's fairly normal.

Why are you asking us to do your homework for you? When I read something and want to fact-check it, I hit the google on my own.

Well I've been having trouble finding out information on this on my own. NSG is far better at dissecting articles than me.

Refresh my memory; which party had the majority in the House and Senate from 1994-2006?

*starts Jeopardy music*

Refresh my memory; which party had the majority in the House and Senate from 1994-2006?


To be honest, I don't really care which party is to blame. I do care more whether it was to do with regulation or deregulation.

To be honest, I don't really care which party is to blame. I do care more whether it was to do with regulation or deregulation.

Neither. The corporate masters are just flexing their muscles to remind everyone who really owns the country.

Or like Paul Atreides would say, "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."

But is it true that you would face a lawsuit if you were lending to a lower proportion of black people? Not just refusing to loan to black people altogether? He's saying that in order to have equal lending to black people, they would have to do a whole lot more sub-prime loaning because black people are generally poorer in the USA.
No, it is not true. How many times are you going to need to be told this? People have to bring lawsuits. People do not bring lawsuits on the basis of trends.

If your author, who you claim to merely want to fact-check, not defend, say there were such suits, let him cite some. I notice he doesn't.

edit: and what about the national banks, who were pressured into offering sub-prime loans to lower classes. They make up a quarter of banks in the US, so it's important that we know if this is true or not as well.
The bolded part is not a fact. Nobody was pressured into offering sub-prime mortgages to anyone. The banks chose to do this. In addition, the use of terms like "lower classes" in this context indicates an argument based on prejudiced assumptions, not on facts -- an interpretation supported by the obvious lack of facts cited in the article.

Most articles in newspapers don't have citations for everything they say, it's fairly normal.
Another thing that is actually not true. Most articles that purport to be facts include direct quotes from documents, for which the authorship/source are given, and/or direct quotes from people whose credentials for being an expert are also given in the body of the article.

Articles that are presented as pure opinion do not always do that, but they often do, even though they do not claim to be presenting facts.

Your article does not do it. It does not give us any basis for the assertions of fact made by the author, it gives us no guidance for how to fact check him, and yet it claims to describing real events. That is a very clear sign of bullshit.

Well I've been having trouble finding out information on this on my own. NSG is far better at dissecting articles than me.
Tip: Pick key phrases and names from the article and google them. Start with "Achtenberg" and add words that he connects to her. That should start you off.

Another hint, if you don't find anything after several searches with keywords arranged in different sequences, that usually means there is nothing to find -- an indicator that the author just made shit up.

To be honest, I don't really care which party is to blame. I do care more whether it was to do with regulation or deregulation.

Then the author can be ignored as he is blaming a party for the mess.

If you didn't know the Republicans owned both the Congress and the House at the time. The fact "Clinton" democrats could force this on everybody shows the author is grasping at straws, the republicans are weak, or they were working with the demos.

As to the issue of loans; as Mura said a bank could be rightfully sued if they were denying qualified applicants because they were black.

No, it is not true. How many times are you going to need to be told this? People have to bring lawsuits. People do not bring lawsuits on the basis of trends.


Yeah, but can you present a source that shows it's not true? I'm not saying your argument doesn't have merit, so don't start talking about burden of proof, but I'm really finding it difficult to find any hard evidence on the issue either way.


The bolded part is not a fact. Nobody was pressured into offering sub-prime mortgages to anyone. The banks chose to do this. In addition, the use of terms like "lower classes" in this context indicates an argument based on prejudiced assumptions, not on facts -- an interpretation supported by the obvious lack of facts cited in the article.


Ok, again can you present a contrary source? Also how does using terms like "lower classes" indicate prejudice?


Another thing that is actually not true. Most articles that purport to be facts include direct quotes from documents, for which the authorship/source are given, and/or direct quotes from people whose credentials for being an expert are also given in the body of the article.

Articles that are presented as pure opinion do not always do that, but they often do, even though they do not claim to be presenting facts.

Your article does not do it. It does not give us any basis for the assertions of fact made by the author, it gives us no guidance for how to fact check him, and yet it claims to describing real events. That is a very clear sign of bullshit.

Well I don't think a lack of quotes is enough to dismiss the article altogether.

Then the author can be ignored as he is blaming a party for the mess.


Right, which I was kind of telling you to do in the OP.

Yeah, but can you present a source that shows it's not true? I'm not saying your argument doesn't have merit, so don't start talking about burden of proof, but I'm really finding it difficult to find any hard evidence on the issue either way.


Ok, again can you present a contrary source? Also how does using terms like "lower classes" indicate prejudice?



Well I don't think a lack of quotes is enough to dismiss the article altogether.
1) Tough, because here comes "burden of proof." I don't have to defend or even present my own argument in order to attack his. I don't have to prove "B" in order to show that he has no proof of "A".

2) Why should I? See above. Also, I remind you again that it is not my job to do your homework for you. You claim you only want to fact-check your author, then go and do so.

3) Using terms like "lower classes" in this context indicates that all the blame is being put on banks dealing with less than wealthy borrowers. It assumes that all less than wealthy borrowers could never be anything but unqualified for a loan. It also assumes that all affluent borrowers can be assumed to be qualified for a loan. It also ignores everything the banking/lending industry did with those loans. Finally, your author also links the notion of "lower classes" with a specific race, another indicator of prejudice.

4) Of course you don't think the lack of facts is enough to dismiss an article that claims to be factual. You know, it is when you say things like this that I start questioning your honesty when you also say things like you only want to find out if the claims are true or not. Because at this point, you are sounding a lot more like you are defending the author's unsubstantiated claims, not questioning or fact-checking them.

1) Tough, because here comes "burden of proof." I don't have to defend or even present my own argument in order to attack his. I don't have to prove "B" in order to show that he has no proof of "A".

2) Why should I? See above. Also, I remind you again that it is not my job to do your homework for you. You claim you only want to fact-check your author, then go and do so.


I'm not saying you have to or are obliged to, just asking you to.


3) Using terms like "lower classes" in this context indicates that all the blame is being put on banks dealing with less than wealthy borrowers. It assumes that all less than wealthy borrowers could never be anything but unqualified for a loan. It also assumes that all affluent borrowers can be assumed to be qualified for a loan. It also ignores everything the banking/lending industry did with those loans. Finally, your author also links the notion of "lower classes" with a specific race, another indicator of prejudice

I don't see how he's making the first and second assumptions, you only need to assume that most sub-prime loaning comes from the lower classes, which is true. It would be prejudiced if it was blaming blacks for this crisis, it's not, it's blaming egalitarian measures for the crisis. I don't see that as inherently prejudiced. When he talks about lower-classes with national banks, he's not talking about race, he is literally just talking about lower-classes.


4) Of course you don't think the lack of facts is enough to dismiss an article that claims to be factual.

If someone makes an assertion, but does not provide evidence, I won't assume that the assertion is untrue. You can speculate on it's likeliness, but you shouldn't completely dismiss it.


You know, it is when you say things like this that I start questioning your honesty when you also say things like you only want to find out if the claims are true or not. Because at this point, you are sounding a lot more like you are defending the author's unsubstantiated claims, not questioning or fact-checking them.

I'm taking the role of the defender here yes, because otherwise nothing will get done.

I'm not saying you have to or are obliged to, just asking you to.
And apparently ignoring the answer to your request.

I don't see how he's making the first and second assumptions, you only need to assume that most sub-prime loaning comes from the lower classes, which is true. It would be prejudiced if it was blaming blacks for this crisis, it's not, it's blaming egalitarian measures for the crisis. I don't see that as inherently prejudiced. When he talks about lower-classes with national banks, he's not talking about race, he is literally just talking about lower-classes.



If someone makes an assertion, but does not provide evidence, I won't assume that the assertion is untrue. You can speculate on it's likeliness, but you shouldn't completely dismiss it.



I'm taking the role of the defender here yes, because otherwise nothing will get done.
Ah, so you were in fact not telling the truth when you said you only wanted to find out if the claims are true or not? Thanks, that will save us all a lot of time.

You have already been given all the answer your initial question needed. What do we make of the article and are it's claims true? Answer: It's crap, and no, they are not.

"It's crap" is supported by the lack of support the author gives to his own arguments.

"No, they are not" true is supported by the lack of any evidence otherwise -- the lack of lawsuits brought for the reasons he claims, the lack of a paper or money trail flowing the government-to-banks direction he claims, etc. All we have to do is examine the structure of his argument to conclude that what he is saying is not true.

Now, if, having established that, you would like to go on to ask how we did get into the current economic mess, that is an entirely different topic. If you want to pursue it, I suggest you start a thread along the lines of "Who can explain to me how the US economy got so messed up?" Because if you continue to play the role of defender of the quoted BS, you are not going to get anything but arguments attacking his, and by extension, your position.

And apparently ignoring the answer to your request.


Your first assertion said you don't have to. I agree. You then asked why you should, well, there is no 'should' in this, I already said you are not obliged to. So there you go, not ignored.


Ah, so you were in fact not telling the truth when you said you only wanted to find out if the claims are true or not? Thanks, that will save us all a lot of time.


:rolleyes: I've taken the role of the defender because otherwise this is how the thread go:

Me: Check out this article, is it a load of rubbish?
You lot: Yeah, it's a load of bollocks.
Me: Quite

And that would be it.


You have already been given all the answer your initial question needed. What do we make of the article and are it's claims true? Answer: It's crap, and no, they are not.


I've been given an answer, but what I'm looking for is an answer supported by sources.


"It's crap" is supported by the lack of support the author gives to his own arguments.


It may make it less likely to be true, but it does not make it inherently untrue.


"No, they are not" true is supported by the lack of any evidence otherwise -- the lack of lawsuits brought for the reasons he claims, the lack of a paper or money trail flowing the government-to-banks direction he claims, etc. All we have to do is examine the structure of his argument to conclude that what he is saying is not true.

I don't know about the amount of lawsuits, a source on the actual amount is what I'm looking for.


Now, if, having established that, you would like to go on to ask how we did get into the current economic mess, that is an entirely different topic. If you want to pursue it, I suggest you start a thread along the lines of "Who can explain to me how the US economy got so messed up?" Because if you continue to play the role of defender of the quoted BS, you are not going to get anything but arguments attacking his, and by extension, your position.

But I'll also, hopefully, be given actual evidence to show whether it is true or not.

Yeah, but can you present a source that shows it's not true?
A headline from the 90's saying "Lawsuits Aren't Being Filed Against Banks"?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. If your author actually cited any cases, we could look at those cases and see whether the facts substantiate his interpretation, but so far we haven't seen anything to indicate that such cases even existed.

A headline from the 90's saying "Lawsuits Aren't Being Filed Against Banks"?
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. If your author actually cited any cases, we could look at those cases and see whether the facts substantiate his interpretation, but so far we haven't seen anything to indicate that such cases even existed.

A source showing if it's true or not that Achtenberg actually thought that banks should be sued if they give loans to a disproportionate amount of black people would be a start.

Why blame democrats when you can easily blame the Canadians?

Your first assertion said you don't have to. I agree. You then asked why you should, well, there is no 'should' in this, I already said you are not obliged to. So there you go, not ignored.
I'm not into small talk.

:rolleyes: I've taken the role of the defender because otherwise this is how the thread go:

Me: Check out this article, is it a load of rubbish?
You lot: Yeah, it's a load of bollocks.
Me: Quite

And that would be it.
Well, next time, formulate a more fertile OP.

I've been given an answer, but what I'm looking for is an answer supported by sources.
And there is no reason for anyone to give you one because of the way YOU framed the discussion -- as being about the article and its author, not about the economic crisis itself.

It may make it less likely to be true, but it does not make it inherently untrue.
If you think it might be true, then YOU prove it. You don't have to prove it to me. Prove it to yourself. In other words, if all you want to do is fact-check the article, hit the google, my friend. Have fun. Let us know what you find.

I don't know about the amount of lawsuits, a source on the actual amount is what I'm looking for.
I'll bet you would find no source with an actual amount because there are no lawsuits of the kind the author claims. I already said this to you earlier.

But I'll also, hopefully, be given actual evidence to show whether it is true or not.
Again, the fault is in how you framed the discussion. I already told you how to fix that. If you choose not to, then you'll just have to take what answers the question you framed bring to you.

A source showing if it's true or not that Achtenberg actually thought that banks should be sued if they give loans to a disproportionate amount of black people would be a start.
Really? I'd rather see a source that says that, regardless of what she thought or didn't think, Achtenberg actually did anything that directly led to banks being pressured to do anything that ended up with the current fiscal crisis. In other words, any evidence that the circumstances affecting banks claimed by the author ever actually existed at all.

EDIT: And you meant to say "if they refused to give loans to a disproportionate amount of black people."

And also, you are perpetuating the prejudice of your quoted author by implying that giving loans to black people is what got banks into their current trouble, as if all black lenders are unqualified for loans.

You have already been told -- and ignored -- that banks could very properly be sued for refusing to give loans to people solely on the basis of their race.

You have also already been told -- and ignored -- that NO bank has ever been sued or could be properly sued for refusing to give a loan to an unqualified borrower. Race is not a disqualifying condition.

So, no, the argument does not hold up because, even if Achtenberg said that banks should be sued for not lending to black people, that does not automatically mean that she wanted to pressure banks into making bad loans. Banks were not supposed to give bad loans to anyone, even whites.

Well, next time, formulate a more fertile OP.


What do you mean by that?


And there is no reason for anyone to give you one because of the way YOU framed the discussion -- as being about the article and its author, not about the economic crisis itself.


Again, what do you mean? I framed the discussion asking for verification on its truthfulness. Although I'm also interested to see peoples opinions on it as well.


If you think it might be true, then YOU prove it. You don't have to prove it to me. Prove it to yourself. In other words, if all you want to do is fact-check the article, hit the google, my friend. Have fun. Let us know what you find.


As I've already said, I've been having trouble with that, it's tricky to get non-ambiguous information.

Really? I'd rather see a source that says that, regardless of what she thought or didn't think, Achtenberg actually did anything that directly led to banks being pressured to do anything that ended up with the current fiscal crisis. In other words, any evidence that the circumstances affecting banks claimed by the author ever actually existed at all.

What do you mean? A source that showed Achtenberg did, or didn't, threaten banks with lawsuits for the reasons given? Yeah, that would be good too.

A source showing if it's true or not that Achtenberg actually thought that banks should be sued if they give loans to a disproportionate amount of black people would be a start.

Let's see the premise is that Achtenberg is almost single-handedly to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Achtenberg was Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1995.

So a single Democrat government official in two years about 15 years ago caused the credit crisis?

And how did she cause it? By threatening to sue banks for discrimination if they denied loans to qualified minority applicants?

Really? You think this is a plausible enough story -- regardless of the ridiculous source -- to merit detailed factual rebuttal with hard evidence?

C'mon, this is an obvious and desperate attempt by the right-wing to distract from how deregulation and free market malfeasance actually caused this crisis.

What do you mean? A source that showed Achtenberg did, or didn't, threaten banks with lawsuits for the reasons given? Yeah, that would be good too.
"did, or didn't" -- again, you are asking for proof of a negative. How the hell are you or anyone going to find proof that Achtenberg did not do something? Hm? Your author asserted that she DID do it, go ask him for a source that shows her doing what he says.

Yeah, but can you present a source that shows it's not true? I'm not saying your argument doesn't have merit, so don't start talking about burden of proof, but I'm really finding it difficult to find any hard evidence on the issue either way.



Ok, again can you present a contrary source? Also how does using terms like "lower classes" indicate prejudice?



Well I don't think a lack of quotes is enough to dismiss the article altogether.

Hydesland, if you want evidentiary proof that this guy's a quack, you really ought to look elsewhere. Look around: I'm a first year law student with extensive experience in philosophy and political theory. I just learned two weeks ago how to read a business's balance sheet. I do not know, nor do I know where to look, for evidence that this guy is talking completely out of his ass.

Fortunately for me, I don't think it's necessary, because I do have one thing that I think trumps his argument: a bit of common sense and a well-developed sense of logic. His argument, as I understand it, is that banks once upon a time did not loan to people who did not meet their eligibility requirements. Because of political pressure, they changed their eligibility requirements. Evidence of this is apparently that 2 million African-Americans who didn't have homes before now did. This reduction of eligibility requirements is a direct cause of the current housing panic.

Now, I don't know how keen my sense of logic really is, but it seems to me that based on that argument and that evidence, that if it were true, then the damage from the housing panic would focus on the areas that the political pressure was designed to help. In shorter terms, if giving houses to poor black people is really the cause of the housing crisis, then it should be poor black people who are hurting the most from the housing panic. They aren't, therefore it isn't. The housing panic is instead concentrated in regions where growth was high, like Las Vegas, and it has spread to a generalized financial community because of the fact that these loans are often broken up and sold to speculators, and further that these same speculators often take loans granted on the expectation that whoever (read: these same speculators) held the loan would be getting income from mortgage payments. Since all the people who moved to Las Vegas in the last 10 years and bought a house are not black, and there is nothing about helping black people in splitting apart a loan and then taking loans out on the expectation of revenue from owning a piece of someone's mortgage, I am forced to conclude that there is zilch to this person's story.

I don't have a particularly keen sense of what benefit companies had in splitting apart a mortgage (I assume that it provides a semblance of diversity in allowing you to own mortgages from many different geographical areas, coupled with allowing people to buy in for a lower total amount than if they were buying mortgages wholesale), and I could only direct you to your weekly Newsweek or Time for evidence that the splitting of mortgages took place, but this seems sufficient. I can only tell you about Las Vegas because I watched people go nuts over housing while I lived there. Hell, I got kicked out of a place I was renting because the land got sold out to developers. If you want better evidence than my lying eyes, you'll have to find it on your own.

And also, you are perpetuating the prejudice of your quoted author by implying that giving loans to black people is what got banks into their current trouble, as if all black lenders are unqualified for loans.


I'm not sure why you play this 'all' or 'nothing' game. Black people in the US, at that time, were generally poorer, that doesn't mean they all were.


You have already been told -- and ignored -- that banks could very properly be sued for refusing to give loans to people solely on the basis of their race.


As I've already said, this is not the sort of lawsuits I'm looking for.


You have also already been told -- and ignored -- that NO bank has ever been sued or could be properly sued for refusing to give a loan to an unqualified borrower. Race is not a disqualifying condition.


Well, I'm not looking quite for that, but looking for lawsuits because a bank has been shown to be selling to less black people than white people. But yes I've been told that no bank has been sued for this as well. What I'm looking for, is evidence showing this.


So, no, the argument does not hold up because, even if Achtenberg said that banks should be sued for not lending to black people, that does not automatically mean that she wanted to pressure banks into making bad loans. Banks were not supposed to give bad loans to anyone, even whites.

She obviously didn't intend to have an increase in bad loans, but if she was pressuring banks with these egalitarian pressures, they may have been forced to do so, and it's an unintended consequence.

What do you mean by that?
I mean next time ask a question that is not as easily settled as you said this one would be if you didn't play the role of defender of the quoted tripe.

Really, I have a hard time believing you really can't follow these minor side points.

Again, what do you mean? I framed the discussion asking for verification on its truthfulness. Although I'm also interested to see peoples opinions on it as well.
I call BS because if all you wanted were facts in answer to a question, you would not feel the need to defend the quoted article.

As I've already said, I've been having trouble with that, it's tricky to get non-ambiguous information.
No, it isn't. I told you how to look for info. I even gave you a hint as to how to judge the info you find. I believe you are simply refusing to do it. I am increasingly coming to think that you are refusing to do it because you are not being entirely truthful when you say are only seeking factual information and are only playing "the role of defender" to keep the chat flowing.

A source showing if it's true or not that Achtenberg actually thought that banks should be sued if they give loans to a disproportionate amount of black people would be a start.You're looking for an article headlined "Deputy in HUD Isn't Saying Anything About Suing Banks?"

Let's see the premise is that Achtenberg is almost single-handedly to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Achtenberg was Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 to 1995.

So a single Democrat government official in two years about 15 years ago caused the credit crisis?


She only needs to have started the phenomenon and make it a precedent. I don't see why this precedent couldn't be set in two years.


And how did she cause it? By threatening to sue banks for discrimination if they denied loans to qualified minority applicants?


Wrong, by allegedly threatening to sue banks because they were loaning to more white people than black people. That doesn't inherently mean they were actually denying loans to qualified minority applicants at all.

"did, or didn't" -- again, you are asking for proof of a negative. How the hell are you or anyone going to find proof that Achtenberg did not do something?

You could look at a list of policies she implemented when she was working, and see that none of them included the things the author mentioned.

I'm not sure why you play this 'all' or 'nothing' game. Black people in the US, at that time, were generally poorer, that doesn't mean they all were.
You are now conflicting with what your OP article says. Apparently you're not able to defend his nonsense as well as you might have thought.

As I've already said, this is not the sort of lawsuits I'm looking for.



Well, I'm not looking quite for that, but looking for lawsuits because a bank has been shown to be selling to less black people than white people.
Are you kidding? What you describe in your second sentence IS the kind of lawsuit you said you were not looking for in the first sentence. You are teetering on the edge of your own argument being as intellectually bankrupt as the one you claim to be playing "the role of defender" for.

But yes I've been told that no bank has been sued for this as well. What I'm looking for, is evidence showing this.
Why? What reason have you to suppose it might not be the case?

She obviously didn't intend to have an increase in bad loans, but if she was pressuring banks with these egalitarian pressures, they may have been forced to do so, and it's an unintended consequence.
Another supported assertion. Another assertion that reinforces the bigotry inherent in the quoted author's original argument. And another assertion that contradicts what you yourself said, at the beginning of this post.

Seriously, H, the only thing you are demonstrating here is that the only way to "defend" bullshit is to shore it up with more bullshit.

She only needs to have started the phenomenon and make it a precedent. I don't see why this precedent couldn't be set in two years.

Wrong, by allegedly threatening to sue banks because they were loaning to more white people than black people. That doesn't inherently mean they were actually denying loans to qualified minority applicants at all.

I can threaten to sue you for just about anything. I could threaten to sue you for fraud for posting this thread. Would that empty threat really change your behavior?

You are reaching here and it is just sad to watch.

I can threaten to sue you for just about anything. I could threaten to sue you for fraud for posting this thread. Would that empty threat really change your behavior?
And I can CLAIM that NeoArt threatened to sue both of you. Prove to me that he didn't!

You could look at a list of policies she implemented when she was working, and see that none of them included the things the author mentioned.
Or YOU could. Or your author could. You know, look to see if any of the policies she implemented DID contain the things the author mentioned. The fact that neither of you is making the effort to support your own position is telling.

Now, I don't know how keen my sense of logic really is, but it seems to me that based on that argument and that evidence, that if it were true, then the damage from the housing panic would focus on the areas that the political pressure was designed to help. In shorter terms, if giving houses to poor black people

And also pressuring the national banks into sub prime loaning to lower classes as well.


is really the cause of the housing crisis, then it should be poor black people who are hurting the most from the housing panic. They aren't

How do you know?


, therefore it isn't.

Not necessarily, economics tends to be a little more complex then that.


The housing panic is instead concentrated in regions where growth was high, like Las Vegas, and it has spread to a generalized financial community because of the fact that these loans are often broken up and sold to speculators, and further that these same speculators often take loans granted on the expectation that whoever (read: these same speculators) held the loan would be getting income from mortgage payments. Since all the people who moved to Las Vegas in the last 10 years and bought a house are not black, and there is nothing about helping black people in splitting apart a loan and then taking loans out on the expectation of revenue from owning a piece of someone's mortgage, I am forced to conclude that there is zilch to this person's story.

I don't have a particularly keen sense of what benefit companies had in splitting apart a mortgage (I assume that it provides a semblance of diversity in allowing you to own mortgages from many different geographical areas, coupled with allowing people to buy in for a lower total amount than if they were buying mortgages wholesale), and I could only direct you to your weekly Newsweek or Time for evidence that the splitting of mortgages took place, but this seems sufficient. I can only tell you about Las Vegas because I watched people go nuts over housing while I lived there. Hell, I got kicked out of a place I was renting because the land got sold out to developers. If you want better evidence than my lying eyes, you'll have to find it on your own.

This is more what I'm looking for, even though it's not actual evidence, but thanks.

You could look at a list of policies she implemented when she was working, and see that none of them included the things the author mentioned.

*sigh*

The only "factual" basis for the OP article's claim is that the Clinton Administration put a new focus on enforcing the Fair Housing Act, which "makes it unlawful to engage in the following practices based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap (disability):

Refuse to make a mortgage loan
Refuse to provide information regarding loans
Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points, or fees
Discriminate in appraising property
Refuse to purchase a loan or set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan."


link (http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lending/index.cfm)

That is a far cry from pressuring banks to give out loans to unqualified applicants. In fact, it is almost the opposite by definition--as it requires lending decisions to be made on the merits rather than on the basis of race or other discriminatory criteria.

And also pressuring the national banks into sub prime loaning to lower classes as well.
^^ Non-fact repeated without support after having been attacked, which attack was never addressed. Just repeating a lie doesn't make it true, H.

How do you know?
He told you. He bases his analysis on observation of circumstances in the nation around him. On what do you base your questioning of this?

Not necessarily, economics tends to be a little more complex then that.
Oh, so you do know something about this? What, pray tell? What is it that makes you unwilling to dismiss an article that claims to be factual but presents no facts in support of its assertions? What evidence are you withholding from the conversation?

This is more what I'm looking for, even though it's not actual evidence, but thanks.
All he did was apply logic and critical thought to the author's argument. Why didn't you do that yourself?

You are now conflicting with what your OP article says. Apparently you're not able to defend his nonsense as well as you might have thought.


In what way? The article talks about 'poor minorities', it doesn't just say minorities in general. You only need to assume that black people are generally poorer then white people.


Are you kidding? What you describe in your second sentence IS the kind of lawsuit you said you were not looking for in the first sentence. You are teetering on the edge of your own argument being as intellectually bankrupt as the one you claim to be playing "the role of defender" for.


There's a difference between being sued specifically for not lending to unqualified borrowers, and being sued for loaning to more white people then black people. Since in the second case, they are suing because they believe the banks are discriminating, and you can get sued for discrimination.


Why? What reason have you to suppose it might not be the case?


Because businesses are routinely sued for discrimination, all it takes is the jury to be convinced that there is discrimination taking place (even if there isn't), in order to get sued for that.


Another supported assertion. Another assertion that reinforces the bigotry inherent in the quoted author's original argument. And another assertion that contradicts what you yourself said, at the beginning of this post.

Seriously, H, the only thing you are demonstrating here is that the only way to "defend" bullshit is to shore it up with more bullshit.

This is baffling, really. How is saying that someone does not intentionally want banks to give out bad loans, but may be causing it unintentionally, anything to do with bigotry? I really, really despise arguing with you sometimes, since you constantly come up with unbelievably inane bullshit like this. If you continue to do this again, I will again cease any further discussion with you.

I can threaten to sue you for just about anything. I could threaten to sue you for fraud for posting this thread. Would that empty threat really change your behavior?


If some banks actually start getting sued for that, then yes, it could be an actual threat to your business.


You are reaching here and it is just sad to watch.

And you and mura are constantly making utterly useless hostile remarks that add no value to the thread, even when I tried to make the OP as un-hostile and impartial as possible. It's sad to watch civility in NSG, as usual, go completely down the crapper.

*sigh*


If you didn't want to provide a source you didn't have to.


The only "factual" basis for the OP article's claim is that the Clinton Administration put a new focus on enforcing the Fair Housing Act, which "makes it unlawful to engage in the following practices based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap (disability):

Refuse to make a mortgage loan
Refuse to provide information regarding loans
Impose different terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points, or fees
Discriminate in appraising property
Refuse to purchase a loan or set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan."


link (http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lending/index.cfm)


What exactly do they mean by 'discriminate in appraising property'?


That is a far cry from pressuring banks to give out loans to unqualified applicants.

I know this is being pedantic, but as I've already said, they're trying to stop banks from discriminating, the fact that banks may have to give out more bad loans would just be an unintended consequence if true.


In fact, it is almost the opposite by definition--as it requires lending decisions to be made on the merits rather than on the basis of race or other discriminatory criteria.

Right, but the court could be convinced, hypothetically, that the fact that the banks give more loans to white people and less to black people, is evidence of discrimination, and thus sue them for that.

There's a difference between being sued specifically for not lending to unqualified borrowers, and being sued for loaning to more white people then black people. Since in the second case, they are suing because they believe the banks are discriminating, and you can get sued for discrimination.



Because businesses are routinely sued for discrimination, all it takes is the jury to be convinced that there is discrimination taking place (even if there isn't), in order to get sued for that.


Okay, now you're on my home field, and that simply is not true. If a complaint is filed against a company for discrimination, then there have to be briefs presented to the court that specify the elements of the criminal or civil statute in question and the fact that each and every element of the statute has been broken. If any conduct, intent, or attendant circumstances element is not met, even in the initial brief, the case is dismissed. Moreover, courts go out of their way in civil and contracts law to give companies leeway in how they conduct their business because they do not want to hamper economic development. I've been in law school for less than 2 months, and I can already refer you to cases I've covered in contracts and torts that require Gordian knots of reasoning to untangle if you ignore the fact that one party is a major corporation, and hence major employer, within the jurisdiction of the court.

The idea that the, any court, court is unfriendly to business or will simply take a case willy-nilly is not true.

^^ Non-fact repeated without support after having been attacked, which attack was never addressed. Just repeating a lie doesn't make it true, H.


I didn't say it was a supported fact, just that this is also what the author is saying.


He told you. He bases his analysis on observation of circumstances in the nation around him. On what do you base your questioning of this?


It's a strong assertion, I don't immediately trust any random person on the internet.


Oh, so you do know something about this? What, pray tell? What is it that makes you unwilling to dismiss an article that claims to be factual but presents no facts in support of its assertions? What evidence are you withholding from the conversation?


All I'm saying is that just because a certain class of people contributed to a crisis, does not mean they will then inherently get effected the worse by the crisis as well.


All he did was apply logic and critical thought to the author's argument. Why didn't you do that yourself?

Don't be silly. What he did was give lots of evidence and analysis of what is actually happening with the economy, and show that it may be counter to the author is actually saying. You can't do that from purely logic alone, you can't just use you common 'sense' or any analysis of the OP to discern what is actually happening in the financial markets to say, that takes actual research.

Right, but the court could be convinced, hypothetically, that the fact that the banks give more loans to white people and less to black people, is evidence of discrimination, and thus sue them for that.
Name me an ACTUAL case, and we would have something to talk about. Instead all you are doing is asking for "evidence" that we don't have anything to talk about. What exactly do you want? A listing of every court case that has ever been filed in the United States, with comments, "See? This isn't a bank being sued for discrimination, it's a divorce case", "See? This isn't it, either".... [repeat millions of times] ... "OK now we've gone through the whole legal history and we don't have the case you wanted."

Okay, now you're on my home field, and that simply is not true. If a complaint is filed against a company for discrimination, then there have to be briefs presented to the court that specify the elements of the criminal or civil statute in question and the fact that each and every element of the statute has been broken.

You cannot discriminate based on race, that's what they believe is happening, thus they believe that a statute has been broken.


If any conduct, intent, or attendant circumstances element is not met, even in the initial brief, the case is dismissed.

Are you saying that in 1994 the fact that banks are lending a lot more to white people then black people, was not a good enough reason to start a court case over discrimination?


Moreover, courts go out of their way in civil and contracts law to give companies leeway in how they conduct their business because they do not want to hamper economic development. I've been in law school for less than 2 months, and I can already refer you to cases I've covered in contracts and torts that require Gordian knots of reasoning to untangle if you ignore the fact that one party is a major corporation, and hence major employer, within the jurisdiction of the court.

The idea that the, any court, court is unfriendly to business or will simply take a case willy-nilly is not true.

I'm not saying the court is trying to be unfriendly to business, I'm saying they're unfriendly to possible discrimination. I'm not saying that they actually want to hamper economic growth, I'm saying they're unaware of the economic effects such a court case would have.

Name me an ACTUAL case, and we would have something to talk about.

This is exactly what I want.

This is exactly what I want.
The most probable reason no-one names an actual case is that there aren't any. If there is one, it was the author's responsibility to tell us where to find it, or else there is no reason for anyone to pay any attention to his baseless claims.

People in their quest for someone to blame are missing the real cause.


Low interest rates. when rates are this low (fed reserve is around 2%) you encourage people to borrow more. and you discourage people to save. The issue is because of a lack of liquidity. People fail on loans all the time, what we have here is a lack of the banks assets to cover the loans that do fail.

The most probable reason no-one names an actual case is that there aren't any. If there is one, it was the author's responsibility to tell us where to find it, or else there is no reason for anyone to pay any attention to his baseless claims.

I doubt he would completely make something up like that out of the blue. He must have based it on something, spun or not, flawed or not. I want to know what it is.

I doubt he would completely make something up like that out of the blue. He must have based it on something, spun or not, flawed or not. I want to know what it is.Why do you think so? People make crap up out of nothing all the time, particularly when attacking political enemies or diverting blame from your own side. A complete absence of substantiation ought to be a red flag that you are dealing with BS.

Ahhh I was wondering when the "Clintondidit" defense would appear.

Which party owned Congress at that time?



Whatever happened to the line the buck stops with the president? Or does that only apply when the president is a republican?

Whatever happened to the line the buck stops with the president?
Article one, section one of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Why do you think so? People make crap up out of nothing all the time, particularly when attacking political enemies or diverting blame from your own side.

Actually no, they don't just completely make it up. They usually spin something that is true into something it isn't.

I doubt he would completely make something up like that out of the blue. He must have based it on something, spun or not, flawed or not. I want to know what it is.
Probably a blog.

Article one, section one of the Constitution of the United States of America.



Like I said, the line only works when the president is a republican. When its a democrat blame congress.

You cannot discriminate based on race, that's what they believe is happening, thus they believe that a statute has been broken.


And whether or not they believe discrimination has happened is irrelevant if they cannot in fact demonstrate, even provisionally, that 1) a significant 2) disparity 3) between the home-ownership rates of African-Americans and Caucasian Americans exists, and 4) is caused by discrimination. I'd have to look at discrimination statutes in federal courts to be sure, but I'm from the outset that each of those things has to have factual backing before a lawsuit can proceed.

Just to be perfectly, crystal clear on what I'm saying: that the plaintiff believes a crime or tort, any crime or tort, even in this context, is sufficient for explaining only why they would want to bring their complaint or tort. It does not explain why it actually makes it into even the grand jury phase. What does explain it is that this belief is justified: that there is a relatively large amount of evidence that conduct occurred that violated a statute or common law. In this case, if the court is provided evidence that home-ownership between white Americans and black Americans is 3%, there is no case because it does not meet the requirement of significance. If the rate is low in either case, but equal, there is no case because there is no disparity. If neither African-Americans nor Caucasian Americans own homes, there is no violation of statute because there is no discrimination against African-Americans. If for instance it is proved that banks assign variables that obscurs what the name and racial status of the person requesting the loan is, then there is no case because discrimination cannot occur when you have no idea whether the person whose loan you are approving or rejecting is African-American.

Belief does not make a tort. Belief does not make a crime. Belief does not even make the initial complaint. The justifiability of that belief makes a tort. The justifiability of that belief makes a crime. The justifiability of that belief makes an initial complaint. Courts can and often do decide that cases should be thrown out because one party misjudged how justifiable their conduct or intent was given the attendant circumstances. But they DO NOT ACCEPT cases based purely on a feeling by one party that someone did something wrong.


Are you saying that in 1994 the fact that banks are lending a lot more to white people then black people, was not a good enough reason to start a court case over discrimination?


Possibly, but there might be other explanations for it.


I'm not saying the court is trying to be unfriendly to business, I'm saying they're unfriendly to possible discrimination. I'm not saying that they actually want to hamper economic growth, I'm saying they're unaware of the economic effects such a court case would have.

And I'm saying that you don't know what the courts are doing if you believe that. They bend over backwards to pay attention to what the likely economic effects might be if they decide a particular way against business, and they act with great care to prevent people from introducing lawsuits for the hell of it.

Actually no, they don't just completely make it up. They usually spin something that is true into something it isn't.

Plenty of people make things up. Rush Limbaugh, for one. Ann Coulter, for another.

Like I said, the line only works when the president is a republican. When its a democrat blame congress.

Got any support for that statement?

Are you saying that in 1994 the fact that banks are lending a lot more to white people then black people, was not a good enough reason to start a court case over discrimination?


Actually, why don't you answer that question: Do you think in 1994 the fact that banks are lending a lot more to white people than black people would be good enough reason to start a court case over discrimination? Why or why not?

What does it matter? Clinton's government hasn't been in power for nearly 8 years, why wasn't Bush and the republicans crushing this when they got in power?

It's ultimately their fault, not the democrats.

Like I said, the line only works when the president is a republican. When its a democrat blame congress.
Nonsense. The buck does not stop with the President (I assume that's the line you're referring to here), regardless of their political affiliation, with regards to legislation because your constitution clearly vests the power to create, amend or repeal legislation in Congress. Not that that stops Bush (see: signing statements).

Thus responsibility for regulatory changes arising from legislation (whether they be from a pre 1994 Democratic Congress or a post-1994 Republican Congress) lie with Congress.

Like I said, the line only works when the president is a republican. When its a democrat blame congress.

So, you're of the belief that the President should be blamed for legislation passed by a veto-proof Congress?

So, you're of the belief that the President should be blamed for legislation passed by a veto-proof Congress?

Only when the President's a Democrat.

The reality is that both parties had a reasonably happy consensus going on in fanning a bit of a housing bubble. The Democrats had lots of poor people owning their own homes, which is something they had tried to promote for some time, including through Fannie and Freddie. The Republicans had the same bonus when they were in power, because people who reckon they're about to have it made tend not to get as angry at the government. The whole deregulation thing could feasibly be a part of it as well, though as I keep saying time and time again, in terms of actual laws being repealed or not written, there isn't much.

I don't have a particularly keen sense of what benefit companies had in splitting apart a mortgage (I assume that it provides a semblance of diversity in allowing you to own mortgages from many different geographical areas, coupled with allowing people to buy in for a lower total amount than if they were buying mortgages wholesale), and I could only direct you to your weekly Newsweek or Time for evidence that the splitting of mortgages took place, but this seems sufficient.
It's maths. The idea was to cancel out risk factors against each other, by picking from diverse areas. That way a technique called VaR would tell you that the chance of the resulting bond defaulting is very low, which the ratings agencies would then accept blindly and give the bond a high credit rating. The banks could make lots of money from creating these bonds and selling them.

It all hung on the assumption that house prices wouldn't fall everywhere though. That seemed reasonable at the time, because it hasn't happened since the Depression, but then of course it promptly happened, not least because of the combination of subprime loans resetting and Bernanke putting up interest rates. The two together meant people suddenly had interest payments triple or more, and they couldn't stomach it. And that was happening all across the country.

There's a book called "Black Swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book))", which I'm planning to buy this week. It basically outlines the mistake in all this, particularly the overreliance on maths and the failure to use any other part of the brain.

As for your point about black people defaulting, the determining factor isn't location or race, it's leverage. The more people stretched to afford a house, the more at risk they are of being foreclosed. If they were buying into a bubble in Las Vegas, in effect they're in the same position as a much poorer person stretching just as far to buy a much cheaper house somewhere else.

<snip>

This is baffling, really. How is saying that someone does not intentionally want banks to give out bad loans, but may be causing it unintentionally, anything to do with bigotry? I really, really despise arguing with you sometimes, since you constantly come up with unbelievably inane bullshit like this. If you continue to do this again, I will again cease any further discussion with you.
Other people have already posted the answers I would have, so I won't repeat their work, since you have failed to respond to them any more constructively than you have to me. I'm just going to point out that the above line is another detail in evidence of a fundamental lack of intellectual honesty in your arguments -- or else a profound inability to keep track of your own arguments. YOU referred, and have been referring, specifically to banks lending money to black people in the same breath as banks being forced by threats of lawsuits to issue bad loans. YOU are taking this from the OP article. THIS is the bigotry I referred to. I explained that clearly to you before. Your attempt to pretend that I was talking about something else is a weak and failed dodged.

Another weak dodge is your threat to stop talking to me and TCT. You may not like our tone or manner of speaking, but the one thing I have noticed every time either one of us argues with you about anything, it is that you simply cannot or refuse to actually address arguments at all. It creates the impression that a possible real reason you don't want to argue with us is that you are not able to.

But you go right ahead and ignore me (I won't speak for TCT). It won't stop me from pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

Such as this one:

I doubt he would completely make something up like that out of the blue. He must have based it on something, spun or not, flawed or not. I want to know what it is.
You are willing to give the OP article author the benefit of this doubt, but you are not willing to give the same consideration to us who argue against him. Yeah, you're just looking for factual answers. Sure you are.

Once again, the GOP blames everything bad that happens to shrubs on Clinton.


You know, for the party of "personal responsibility" they sure whine and blame others a lot.

interesting article. Shame the author missed one or two minor points regards the subprime crisis:
Who’s to blame for the unfolding financial crisis? According to many conservatives, poor black people and, of course, Democrats.

National Review Online indicts President Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act for the meltdown. The CRA emboldened community organizers—like you-know-who—to force banks to make loans to uncreditworthy minorities, you see. Terry Jones of Investor’s Business Daily blames Clinton’s “multicultural housing policy” and his mandates to increase home ownership among blacks and Hispanics.

But as economist Michael Barr points out, about half of subprime loans came from mortgage companies that were unaffected by CRA’s mandates. Perhaps only a quarter of all subprime loans were made by banks governed by “multicultural housing” policies. Nothing excuses politically correct credit, but did community organizers really force lenders to infect all financial markets by repackaging their bad mortgages into securities? Did poor blacks invent credit default swaps?

Of course not. While these so-called conservatives criticize the misguided do-goodism of Democrats past, they ignore the present Republican administration that is pioneering socialism for the rich.

Bush proposed an “ownership society,” saying that Americans would prosper when they were given more economic freedom and accountability. Now the same administration insists that prosperity depends on bailouts, that accountability means disaster. Instead of Americans owning their own homes as free individuals, the Bush administration has made all of us collective owners of the worthless banks and lenders that ruined the real estate market. Never have so many owed so much to so few.

Above article from The American Conservative magazine. Good to see some people on the other side of the political fence are still sane and rational.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/oct/06/00004/



On a different topic altogether, does anyone else find the story at the bottom of the page disconcerting to say the least:
After spending 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq, the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team is taking on a new mission—at home. Beginning in October, the Army will station an active unit inside the United States. The Army Times reports that soldiers are being trained to subdue civil unrest and control crowds.

On a different topic altogether, does anyone else find the story at the bottom of the page disconcerting to say the least:
No, you're not the only one to find it fucking disconcerting, if it is accurate. On the other hand, there's this remark from it:
No doubt they’ll be assured that protecting Hank Paulson’s house will be a cakewalk.
That kind of sarcasm even from American Conservative? Hm... the times, they are a-changing, perhaps?

On a different topic altogether, does anyone else find the story at the bottom of the page disconcerting to say the least:

Probably to control the riots when Bush cancels the elections and names McCain as his successor then arrests Obama.

No, you're not the only one to find it fucking disconcerting, if it is accurate. On the other hand, there's this remark from it:

That kind of sarcasm even from American Conservative? Hm... the times, they are a-changing, perhaps?
i'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the idea of a battle-hardened Combat team being stationed in the US and being prepped for social unrest. Just what ARE they expecting?

I found the sarcasm refreshing as well. I just ommitted it as it was in relation to other articles on the website.


Back on track, here's some more info relating to the OP:
Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data... Between 2005 and 2007, the company’s acquisitions of mortgages with down payments of less than 10 percent almost tripled...The White House also pitched in. James B. Lockhart, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie, adjusted the companies’ lending standards so they could purchase as much as $40 billion in new subprime loans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html

sorry, I'm getting a bit forgetful in my old age: Who was in control of the Whitehouse, Congress and the Senate during 2005 and 2006?


As for CRAs, read this:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
specifically page 4 and 5:
Summary Conclusions
Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.
Specifically, our analysis shows that:
(1) CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;
(2) The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;
(3) CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in their portfolio; and
(4) Foreclosure rates were lower in MSAs with greater concentrations of bank branches.

i'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the idea of a battle-hardened Combat team being stationed in the US and being prepped for social unrest. Just what ARE they expecting?

I found the sarcasm refreshing as well. I just ommitted it as it was in relation to other articles on the website.


Back on track, here's some more info relating to the OP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html

sorry, I'm getting a bit forgetful in my old age: Who was in control of the Whitehouse, Congress and the Senate during 2005 and 2006?


As for CRAs, read this:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
specifically page 4 and 5:
Thanks for the info. Hydesland should find this most satisfactory in relation to his questions.

What is missing from this article is that Clinton never encouraged banks, finance & mortgage providers to...

Aggressively sell loans/undercut each other;
Take on "CEO's" with obscene amounts in bail out packages/short term bonus payments;
Lend people more money than the house they were buying was worth;
Encourage managers to neglect/ignore the fundamental principles of lending that they were taught in economics/finance at university through greed/hubris/stupidity;
Provide ever more finance to developers when it was evident that buyers were defaulting on mortgages.

All happened under the current Republican Administration.

Then there is the ultimate in financial/fiscal irresponsibility.
The SEC decision to allow a certain five firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1. Instead, the 2004 exemption, only given to these five firms ,allowed them to leverage up to 30, even 40 to 1!
Who were the five that received this special exemption?

Bear Stearns
Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brothers
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley


Notice any familiar names there?

Lee Pickard, a former SEC official, says that rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.
"The SEC allowed five firms, the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets, and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults."

"They constructed a mechanism that simply didn't work," Pickard said. "The proof is in the pudding — three of the five broker dealers have blown up."

Making matters worse, according to Pickard, who helped write the original rule in 1975 as director of the SEC's trading and markets division, is a move by the SEC to further erode the restraints on surviving broker dealers by withdrawing requirements that they maintain a certain level of rating from the ratings agencies. The SEC said it has no plans to re-examine the impact of the 2004 changes to the net capital rule, and last week, it put out a proposal to revise the rule once again. This time, it is looking to remove the requirement that broker dealers maintain a certain rating from the ratings agencies.

"The SEC doesn't want to appear they are endorsing the efficacy of ratings agencies, but once again, they are going to simply cause more problems down the road," Mr. Pickard said.

http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130/

What is missing from this article is that Clinton never encouraged banks, finance & mortgage providers to...

Aggressively sell loans/undercut each other;
Take on "CEO's" with obscene amounts in bail out packages/short term bonus payments;
Lend people more money than the house they were buying was worth;
Encourage managers to neglect/ignore the fundamental principles of lending that they were taught in economics/finance at university through greed/hubris/stupidity;
Provide ever more finance to developers when it was evident that buyers were defaulting on mortgages.

All happened under the current Republican Administration.

Then there is the ultimate in financial/fiscal irresponsibility.
The SEC decision to allow a certain five firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1. Instead, the 2004 exemption, only given to these five firms ,allowed them to leverage up to 30, even 40 to 1!
Who were the five that received this special exemption?

Bear Stearns
Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brothers
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley


Notice any familiar names there?

Lee Pickard, a former SEC official, says that rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.
"The SEC allowed five firms, the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets, and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults."

"They constructed a mechanism that simply didn't work," Pickard said. "The proof is in the pudding — three of the five broker dealers have blown up."

Making matters worse, according to Pickard, who helped write the original rule in 1975 as director of the SEC's trading and markets division, is a move by the SEC to further erode the restraints on surviving broker dealers by withdrawing requirements that they maintain a certain level of rating from the ratings agencies. The SEC said it has no plans to re-examine the impact of the 2004 changes to the net capital rule, and last week, it put out a proposal to revise the rule once again. This time, it is looking to remove the requirement that broker dealers maintain a certain rating from the ratings agencies.

"The SEC doesn't want to appear they are endorsing the efficacy of ratings agencies, but once again, they are going to simply cause more problems down the road," Mr. Pickard said.

http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130/
I bet they wouldn't have done any of that if some liberal wasn't holding a gun to their heads to force them into it, though. :rolleyes:

I bet they wouldn't have done any of that if some liberal wasn't holding a gun to their heads to force them into it, though. :rolleyes:
Of course not. It was all Bill Clinton's fault. He spent his 8 years in the Whitehouse hypnotising SEC officials so they would change their regulations 4 years after he left ended his tenure, thus dooming the USA to financial chaos.
The whole Monica Lewinsky scandal was just a diversion so we wouldn't see what he was really doing.

What is missing from this article is that Clinton never encouraged banks, finance & mortgage providers to...
There's no need to be disingenious about it though. The teaser loans and other aggressive marketing tactics, as well as looser lending standards with regards to credit histories, were tolerated or even promoted by the GSEs before Bush came into office. That doesn't mean it's Clinton's fault, but it means it isn't Bush's either.

The CEOs are utterly irrelevant to all of this. They're the scapegoat of the day. And besides, they've been getting big bonuses and severance packages for longer than Bush has been in office. Their value might have increased, but that is in part also due to a more favourable use of share options on their part, not least because the share prices of these firms were growing quickly.

Then there is the ultimate in financial/fiscal irresponsibility...
Bits you must have accidentally missed in your quote:
In 2004, the European Union passed a rule allowing the SEC's European counterpart to manage the risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.

[...]

"The Commission's 2004 rules strengthened oversight of the securities markets, because prior to their adoption there was no formal regulatory oversight, no liquidity requirements, and no capital requirements for investment bank holding companies," a spokesman for the agency, John Heine, said.

[...]

Despite the increased oversight and supposed strengthening of the rule, the SEC did reexamine its efficacy after the Bear Stearns collapse. "Immediately after the events of mid-March, when the run-on-the-bank phenomenon to which Bear Stearns was exposed demonstrated the importance of incorporating loss of short-term secured funding into regulatory stress scenarios, the CSE program revised the analysis of liquidity risk management, with enhanced focus on the use and resilience of secured funding," Mr. Cox testified at the July hearing. "The SEC has also worked closely with the Federal Reserve in directing this additional stress testing."

So they expanded their oversight from just the broker-dealer arm to the entire holding company, allowing them to see all the capital and sources of funding available, rather than just of a part of the firm, copying an EU approach. Because of that, they felt they had better oversight particularly with regards to liquidity and risk management, so they could afford to let them increase leverage. They were wrong, just as the banks themselves were.

When it comes to these technical points, it's not politics or ideology that's at fault. Bush wouldn't score free-market points for letting broker-dealers increase leverage - hell, he wouldn't know what that sentence meant. The fault lies with the overreliance on certain types of mathematical models, particularly because they didn't incorporate how one extremely unlikely event occuring could increase the probability of other extremely unlikely events.

That mistake was made in the banks themselves, by the SEC and by the FSA in the UK as well. I'm not sure about the details, but you can be reasonably sure that it was also made in Germany and other European countries where we're now seeing a lot of bank failures.

Why are you asking us to do your homework for you? When I read something and want to fact-check it, I hit the google on my own.
It's called "Burden of Proof"

Same as any court trial.

The Clinton Democrats that are accused here are innocent until proven guility.

Now does the Judge make the Jury or defense go out there and fine evidence to prosecute? No. The burden of proof is on the accuser, as in the person who wrote the message and the OP for posting it.

It's called "Burden of Proof"

Same as any court trial.

The Clinton Democrats that are accused here are innocent until proven guility.

Now does the Judge make the Jury or defense go out there and fine evidence to prosecute? No. The burden of proof is on the accuser, as in the person who wrote the message and the OP for posting it.
Hush!! "Burden of Proof" is a bad word around here. Here's the OP poster telling me not to use it (and my response to him):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14070422&postcount=21

Being told that it's up to him to prove the argument he is trying to defend annoys this thread's OP poster so much that he eventually even threatens to stop talking to the people who do it.

Hush!! "Burden of Proof" is a bad word around here. Here's the OP poster telling me not to use it (and my response to him):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14070422&postcount=21

Being told that it's up to him to prove the argument he is trying to defend annoys this thread's OP poster so much that he eventually even threatens to stop talking to the people who do it.
What a coward.

Then he'll enjoy me quoting his posts with
[This user is on your Ignore list]

Interestingly enough, there's a NYT article from 1999 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)that says the same thing as well as stating the pressure came from the banks as well:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

This part is really interesting:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Actually, why don't you answer that question: Do you think in 1994 the fact that banks are lending a lot more to white people than black people would be good enough reason to start a court case over discrimination? Why or why not?

*holds breath waiting for Hydesland to answer the question*

*passes out*

Interestingly enough, there's a NYT article from 1999 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)that says the same thing as well as stating the pressure came from the banks as well:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

This part is really interesting:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Let's be clear this article doesn't say quite "the same thing" as the OP. Instead it says the Fannie Mae was pressured into taking more risk by (1) the Clinton Adminstration, (2) its own stockholders, and (3) banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies--with emphasis on the last for subprime mortgages. The OP wishes to blame the Clinton Administration alone. (And, because it was written in 1999, the NYT article doesn't talk about the intervening 9 years.)

*holds breath waiting for Hydesland to answer the question*

*passes out*



Let's be clear this article doesn't say quite "the same thing" as the OP. Instead it says the Fannie Mae was pressured into taking more risk by (1) the Clinton Adminstration, (2) its own stockholders, and (3) banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies--with emphasis on the last for subprime mortgages. The OP wishes to blame the Clinton Administration alone. (And, because it was written in 1999, the NYT article doesn't talk about the intervening 9 years.)

That's why I made sure to add #3 in my post (I forgot #2 I'll admit).

I just got a kick out of the fact that they predicted this massive cluster-f*ck 9 years ago when it was first starting but the greed of money and votes clouded most eyes.

The reality is that both parties had a reasonably happy consensus going on in fanning a bit of a housing bubble. The Democrats had lots of poor people owning their own homes, which is something they had tried to promote for some time, including through Fannie and Freddie. The Republicans had the same bonus when they were in power, because people who reckon they're about to have it made tend not to get as angry at the government. The whole deregulation thing could feasibly be a part of it as well, though as I keep saying time and time again, in terms of actual laws being repealed or not written, there isn't much.


It's maths. The idea was to cancel out risk factors against each other, by picking from diverse areas. That way a technique called VaR would tell you that the chance of the resulting bond defaulting is very low, which the ratings agencies would then accept blindly and give the bond a high credit rating. The banks could make lots of money from creating these bonds and selling them.

It all hung on the assumption that house prices wouldn't fall everywhere though. That seemed reasonable at the time, because it hasn't happened since the Depression, but then of course it promptly happened, not least because of the combination of subprime loans resetting and Bernanke putting up interest rates. The two together meant people suddenly had interest payments triple or more, and they couldn't stomach it. And that was happening all across the country.

There's a book called "Black Swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book))", which I'm planning to buy this week. It basically outlines the mistake in all this, particularly the overreliance on maths and the failure to use any other part of the brain.

As for your point about black people defaulting, the determining factor isn't location or race, it's leverage. The more people stretched to afford a house, the more at risk they are of being foreclosed. If they were buying into a bubble in Las Vegas, in effect they're in the same position as a much poorer person stretching just as far to buy a much cheaper house somewhere else.

I thought The Black Swan was meh at best -- John Allen Paulos is generally better on the subject -- though my opinion was no doubt influenced by the fact that it was one of those books that get passed out in sales offices (a la The 48 Laws of Power <bleagh> and Tom Friedman's latest book on Globalization.) Curious to know what you think.

I'd disagree with what I think you're implying, though, which is the idea that nobody saw this coming. Heck, the analysts at Citi (who are some of the most bullish out there) were putting out scary graphs of national savings rates vs. property values relative to GDP back in '05, and everybody knew that Fannie Mae was run by a bunch of crooks as far back as...I don't remember when, as far back as I remember reading the newspapers. The NYT was talking about a California-Nevada property bubble in '01. Nobody knew when it would burst, and nobody wanted to do anything about it, but it's not like this came out of the blue.

That's why I made sure to add #3 in my post (I forgot #2 I'll admit).

I just got a kick out of the fact that they predicted this massive cluster-f*ck 9 years ago when it was first starting but the greed of money and votes clouded most eyes.

Don't get me wrong. I thought the article was interesting as well and I didn't mean to imply you were misrepresenting it. I just meant to emphasize how it differred from the OP.

Actually, why don't you answer that question: Do you think in 1994 the fact that banks are lending a lot more to white people than black people would be good enough reason to start a court case over discrimination? Why or why not?

No, I do not think that is a sufficient reason to start a court case over discrimination. However, that doesn't mean that, in 1994, the court agreed with me on this.

No, I do not think that is a sufficient reason to start a court case over discrimination. However, that doesn't mean that, in 1994, the court agreed with me on this.

First of all, let's clarify the difference between starting a court case -- i.e., filing a lawsuit -- and having a court uphold the merits of one's case and find in one's favor. Your discussion throughout appears to confuse these concepts.

Second, not even the OP claims that the courts held in 1994 that a bank "lending a lot more to white people than black people" would be sufficient to support a cause of action for discrimination. Why do you assume otherwise, especially if you think it self-evident that it is not sufficient reason. Are you really so desperate to excuse deregulation and greed?

Hush!! "Burden of Proof" is a bad word around here. Here's the OP poster telling me not to use it (and my response to him):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14070422&postcount=21

Being told that it's up to him to prove the argument he is trying to defend annoys this thread's OP poster so much that he eventually even threatens to stop talking to the people who do it.

Can you read? I don't actually think you can read. The whole point of that post was me acknowledging that the burden of proof was overwhelmingly on me, and me telling you that you are not obliged to prove anything or to provide sources, I was merely asking you to provide sources, but emphasis on the fact that you don't have to. I don't know, I seriously don't know how you can spin something so extremely hugely into the opposite direction, seriously, you should consider becoming a politician.

First of all, let's clarify the difference between starting a court case -- i.e., filing a lawsuit -- and having a court uphold the merits of one's case and find in one's favor. Your discussion throughout appears to confuse these concepts.

Second, not even the OP claims that the courts held in 1994 that a bank "lending a lot more to white people than black people" would be sufficient to support a cause of action for discrimination. Why do you assume otherwise, especially if you think it self-evident that it is not sufficient reason. Are you really so desperate to excuse deregulation and greed?

"If a bank
refused loans to proportionally more black applicants than white ones,
for instance, the onus would fall on it to prove it had good grounds
for doing so or face settlement penalties running into millions of
dollars."

Granted that in order to win the case, that court would need to see that the banks cannot prove that they had a good reason to refuse loans. However I don't tend to treat the justice system in the US as infallible, it could have been the case that it would be extremely difficult for a bank to prove something like this, even if they weren't discriminating, possibly due to what the courts considered convincing proof.

"If a bank
refused loans to proportionally more black applicants than white ones,
for instance, the onus would fall on it to prove it had good grounds
for doing so or face settlement penalties running into millions of
dollars."

Granted that in order to win the case, that court would need to see that the banks cannot prove that they had a good reason to refuse loans. However I don't tend to treat the justice system in the US as infallible, it could have been the case that it would be extremely difficult for a bank to prove something like this, even if they weren't discriminating, possibly due to what the courts considered convincing proof.

First, let's put that sentence in context:

HUD’s investigators turned to trying to prove ‘disparate treatment’ of minority groups, a notion similar to that of unintentional ‘institutional racism’. If a bank refused loans to proportionally more black applicants than white ones, for instance, the onus would fall on it to prove it had good grounds for doing so or face settlement penalties running into millions of dollars. A series of highly publicised cases were brought on this basis, starting in 1994.

Note that the most the OP article alleges is that HUD investigators pursued this theory, not that any court imposed such a rule. In fact, what actually happened in these alleged case is conspicuously absent from the article.

Moroever, even if such a rule were adopted by the courts (and it wasn't), why do you assume that it would be difficult for a bank to show why it denied a loan?

I don't believe the U.S. judicial system is infallible either. But that is a far cry from assuming that it was systematically biased against big corporate banks!!!

First, let's put that sentence in context:

HUD’s investigators turned to trying to prove ‘disparate treatment’ of minority groups, a notion similar to that of unintentional ‘institutional racism’. If a bank refused loans to proportionally more black applicants than white ones, for instance, the onus would fall on it to prove it had good grounds for doing so or face settlement penalties running into millions of
dollars. A series of highly publicised cases were brought on this basis, starting in 1994.

Note that the most the OP article alleges is that HUD investigators pursued this theory, not that any court imposed such a rule. In fact, what actually happened in these alleged case is conspicuously absent from the article.


Right, and this is one of the points of the OP. I'm looking for any possible cases that the author may be referring to (as I said, whether the court cases were anything like he was describing, or clearly different from what he spun them into).


Moroever, even if such a rule were adopted by the courts (and it wasn't), why do you assume that it would be difficult for a bank to show why it denied a loan?


Well, sorry to sound flippant, but possibly just by Lawyers being mischievous and manipulative, and making it look like these bankers are racist.


I don't believe the U.S. judicial system is infallible either. But that is a far cry from assuming that it was systematically biased against big corporate banks!!!

I don't think it has to be institutional bias, here, just a bunch of clever and agressive lawyers.

Right, and this is one of the points of the OP. I'm looking for any possible cases that the author may be referring to (as I said, whether the court cases were anything like he was describing, or clearly different from what he spun them into).

Do you really think for an instant that if such "highly publicized" cases had gone against the banks, the OP article wouldn't have said so?

Regardless, your insistence that others should prove a negative and refusal to accept logic and facts that tend to indicate that negative is bordering on the willfully obtuse.


Well, sorry to sound flippant, but possibly just by Lawyers being mischievous and manipulative, and making it look like these bankers are racist.

I don't think it has to be institutional bias, here, just a bunch of clever and agressive lawyers.

'Cuz lord knows big corporate banks can't afford clever or aggressive lawyers. Poor helpless corporate giants. :rolleyes:

Do you really think for an instant that if such "highly publicized" cases had gone against the banks, the OP article wouldn't have said so?


As I said, the OP may have refused to, because the actual cases he was referring to were nothing like what he was describing, and he was merely spinning the truth. But I don't know for sure.


Regardless, your insistence that others should prove a negative

I haven't insisted that people prove anything. In fact I've repeatedly said otherwise over and over again, yet people still don't seem to be getting that. Also, it's a total myth that you can't 'prove a negative'.


and refusal to accept logic and facts that tend to indicate that negative is bordering on the willfully obtuse.


Logic and facts huh? You've only presented one sourced fact, and it was a list of what banks were not allowed to do, including discrimination. We're currently debating whether it's possible the courts could have been convinced that discrimination was happening, even if it wasn't in reality.


'Cuz lord knows big corporate banks can't afford clever or aggressive lawyers. Poor helpless corporate giants. :rolleyes:

Look, I'm not just going to accept that the courts would never be corrupted or deceived in this way, and that it's all fine, just because you say so.

Just additional food for thought here
Ironically, the popularity of disparate-impact lawsuits in the employment area, where the concept began, has actually declined since 1991, when highly lucrative compensatory and punitive damages were made available if intentional discrimination was shown. But outside the workplace, disparate-impact claims are exploding (and their popularity may soon return in the employment area if a decision last summer by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, making it extremely easy to win disparate-impact lawsuits, is followed).

This new growth first became apparent in housing-discrimination lawsuits. During the Reagan and Bush administrations, the Justice Department had opposed expansion of disparateimpact doctrine to the housing area. The Clinton administration, however, has aggressively pursued these claims, as political scientist Robert Detlefsen has documented. An internal memorandum dated December 17, 1993, written by HUD Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg, and addressed to "all regional directors" of the agency's Office of Fair Housing and Equal 'Opportunity, instructed that Fair Housing Act cases should now be analyzed using disparate impact. It further stated that if a housing practice had a disproportionate effect, it could be justified only "by a business necessity which is sufficiently compelling to overcome the discriminatory effect," and that such defenses were to be viewed skeptically. Thus, for example, a landlord who decided that he would not rent to drug addicts could be sued if it turned out that, in his commu nity, this had a disparate impact on racial minorities. He would be liable unless he could prove to HUD's or a federal judge's satisfaction that this practice was a "necessity."

The administration has extended the disparate-impact theory not only to the actual providers of housing but also to housing lenders and insurers. Banks and insurance companies that turn down a "disproportionate" number of some racial or ethnic group are being sued. In the wake of one such lawsuit by the administration, Nationwide Insurance Company, one of the largest property and casualty insurers, agreed it would no longer make underwriting decisions on the basis of such objective factors as the age or market value of a home. The administration claimed that these policies had an illegally discriminatory effect on minorities. Allstate and State Farm have also caved in to this pressure.

From the Winter 2000 BNet Business Network Edition found here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2000_Wntr/ai_58672902/pg_1

This 1997 article is also interesting.http://www.allbusiness.com/government/advocacy-consumer-protection/615428-1.html

I bet they wouldn't have done any of that if some liberal wasn't holding a gun to their heads to force them into it, though. :rolleyes:
Like Clinton's HUD Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg?

Though the DOJ, in 2001, to please the new masters seem to have justified all they did in regard to the issue: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/bll_01.htm

EDIT: BTW, I will add here that the Republicans "no regulation" stance didn't help anything either. I just there is some merit to the claims made by the Clinton bashers. I by no means lay ALL the blame with Clinton's people though. It was a combination of the two. IMO.

Like Clinton's HUD Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg?

Though the DOJ, in 2001, to please the new masters seem to have justified all they did in regard to the issue: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/bll_01.htm

EDIT: BTW, I will add here that the Republicans "no regulation" stance didn't help anything either. I just there is some merit to the claims made by the Clinton bashers. I by no means lay ALL the blame with Clinton's people though. It was a combination of the two. IMO.
The current crisis has been brewing since the 1980s at least, and no president since Reagan (or earlier) is either wholly blameless or wholly at fault for it. It is private business, after all. But the Clinton bashers' arguments would have more merit if anything they are saying was actually true. The policies in question simply did not have the effect they claim for them because the impetus to give bad loans came up from the lenders, not down from the government. Rather than looking at a few socially liberal policies, try taking a look a the policies of the lending institutions.

Can you read? I don't actually think you can read. The whole point of that post was me acknowledging that the burden of proof was overwhelmingly on me, and me telling you that you are not obliged to prove anything or to provide sources, I was merely asking you to provide sources, but emphasis on the fact that you don't have to. I don't know, I seriously don't know how you can spin something so extremely hugely into the opposite direction, seriously, you should consider becoming a politician.
I call 'em like I see 'em, H. And every time I debate with you, I see in you a person who makes arguments and then tries to avoid resposibility for them by deflection (making it be someone else's argument), by moving his goalposts, and by claiming that he said something other than what his words mean. I also see someone who responds to strong challenges with personal insults rather than defenses of his argument.

For example, in this thread: You quote an article and claim that you are merely seeking to fact check it and ask people for their thoughts concerning it. You then proceed to attack every response you get that opposes your quoted article. Called on this, you claim you are merely "playing the role of defender" because if you don't "nothing will get done" (though you never said what you expected or were trying to "get done"), and you insist you are merely seeking facts. At the same time, you keep insisting that, although you'd like to have facts, nobody is required to give you any, but then you reject arguments that do not come with linked sources. Then, provided with facts, you dismiss them in a manner that casts doubt on the honesty of the people who posted them, but at the same time as you claim you have no reason to believe us, you also claim you have no reason not to believe your quoted article despite its lack of facts. And for the past page and a half at least, your entire argument has consisted of nothing but you repeating over and over that you have no reason to doubt the author's article, but every reason to doubt us, the courts, and the legislative history.

Your performance in this thread is a textbook example of an intellectually dishonest debate approach, one which is specfically designed to let you reject every single argument that is presented to you without actually addressing it, and to allow you to get away without presenting and seriously defending your own argument. That's how I see it, and that's how I call it.

Just additional food for thought here


From the Winter 2000 BNet Business Network Edition found here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2000_Wntr/ai_58672902/pg_1

This 1997 article is also interesting.http://www.allbusiness.com/government/advocacy-consumer-protection/615428-1.html

Okay, I admit this is quick first impressions and I'll read the articles more carefully before I comment more, but I'm less than impressed.

The first 2000 article is written by Roger Clegg (http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/507/123/). As a former Reagan and Bush DAAG, he is far from objective and his cynical view of disparate impact theories should be taken with more than a bit of a grain of salt.

Moreover, even Clegg's article doesn't say anything that I see supports the claim that lenders are being forced to give out bad loans because of disparate impact litigation. In fact, I would note his complaint about disparate impact litigation in the quoted passage is its alleged impact on housing insurers.

Similarly, the 1997 article does not complain that high-profile disparate impact cases starting in 1994 are effecting lenders, but rather says that "disparate-impact legal actions are in the works" and warns lenders about how to deal with such lawsuits in the future.

So, while these articles are interesting and provide some food for thought, they don't really support the OP allegations.

Like Clinton's HUD Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg?

Though the DOJ, in 2001, to please the new masters seem to have justified all they did in regard to the issue: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/bll_01.htm


Actually, this is a great document that should put the OP's fears to rest.

It documents in some detail the litigation in which the Department of Justice were involved since the inception of the Clinton Administration's fair lending initiative in 1992.

To my reading, not a single one of the lawsuits discussed involved a disparate impact claim. To the contrary, the document notes: "Our enforcement efforts in the area of credit scoring have not yet focused on disparate impact issues, but rather on the misuse of credit scoring systems." This is in 2001.

Moreover, the document focuses on predatory lending -- and specifically subprime mortgages--as a "principal concern."

Finally, although I would expect the authors to say this, they emphasize that "[i]n carrying out our law enforcement responsibilities, we have never asked a lender to make a bad loan. We have simply required that opportunities be equally available to all and that people are treated equally -- without regard to race, national origin, or any other prohibited factor."

Can we put the bogeyman to rest now?

What do I make of it? I cannot make a larger pile of shit than has already been made. Apologists and defenders of one group blame the other and look back for just enough coincidences to give their point a patina of legitimacy. Just one more proof of the adage that we're doomed to repeat history by not really paying any attention to it (or worse, trying to re-write it in the way that makes us the most money/votes/whatever-ya-got).

Neither. The corporate masters are just flexing their muscles to remind everyone who really owns the country.

Or like Paul Atreides would say, "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."

Oh a dune reference

I like :hail:

Okay, I admit this is quick first impressions and I'll read the articles more carefully before I comment more, but I'm less than impressed.

The first 2000 article is written by Roger Clegg (http://www.ceousa.org/content/view/507/123/). As a former Reagan and Bush DAAG, he is far from objective and his cynical view of disparate impact theories should be taken with more than a bit of a grain of salt.

Moreover, even Clegg's article doesn't say anything that I see supports the claim that lenders are being forced to give out bad loans because of disparate impact litigation. In fact, I would note his complaint about disparate impact litigation in the quoted passage is its alleged impact on housing insurers.

Similarly, the 1997 article does not complain that high-profile disparate impact cases starting in 1994 are effecting lenders, but rather says that "disparate-impact legal actions are in the works" and warns lenders about how to deal with such lawsuits in the future.

So, while these articles are interesting and provide some food for thought, they don't really support the OP allegations.
Food for thought is the main reason they were linked.

You're a smart enough attorney though to know that some times businesses do things to ensure they don't get sued - out of a fear of litigation - that they see headed their way. I can easily see lenders fearing disparate impact litigation being headed their way and changing tactics to ensure they didn't sucked into such a lawsuit.

Again, though, I think there is more than enough blame to share, Clinton's people were part of it, but by NO means the only, or even the root, cause. Just a contributing factor.

What do I make of this? Why, I can make a hat, or a brooch, or a little pterodactyl... :fluffle:

You're right, the rightwing approach *is* quite laughable.

Food for thought is the main reason they were linked.

You're a smart enough attorney though to know that some times businesses do things to ensure they don't get sued - out of a fear of litigation - that they see headed their way. I can easily see lenders fearing disparate impact litigation being headed their way and changing tactics to ensure they didn't sucked into such a lawsuit.

Again, though, I think there is more than enough blame to share, Clinton's people were part of it, but by NO means the only, or even the root, cause. Just a contributing factor.
So, in other words, despite the fact that your own source contains specific information that contradicts the claims of the OP, you're still going to insist on agreeing with the OP. Faced with facts about what the people in question actually did, you are going to brush it off in favor of speculation about what you can imagine happening even without evidence that it ever did happen. I'm so not surprised.