Bloomberg once blamed end of 'redlining' for 2008 economic collapse
The practice known as redlining was used to deny home loans to people living in certain neighborhoods, often based on race.
www.pbs.org
This dude really hates black people huh?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Racist Presidential candidate Micheal Bloomberg once blamed end of redlining as cause of 2008 financial Crisis.
- Thread starter CharlesAznable
- Start date
www.pbs.org
This dude really hates black people huh?
Imagine this guy as president, a more competent calculated Trump. One whose record is so much worse.
It's a shitty statement by a shitty candidate that also made for a shitty article where the conversation gets further and further from how to fix this mess.
Redlining is an absolute abomination. Let's start there. That's also why (as mentioned) you have references to Congress stepping in. Hence the ECOA, HMDA, etc etc.
What both Bloomberg in whatever that interview was failed to do and what this article also failed to do was make the important distinction between disparate treatment and disparate impact. This article and any/all of the fallout from it will focus on the former. It's easy to digest. Redlining = bad. Supporting redlining = bad. There's nothing controversial about that. That's simple common sense. But the more time we give to the former, the more the latter becomes the real problem.
I was working for one of the largest banks in the country during the lead-up to 2008. Most of the adjustable rate mortgages (poorly alluded to in that article) were booked during my time there. In a VERY small office in an otherwise bang average in every way area, we were closing (not underwriting, rather having the docs signed) somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple million dollars a week in the early '00s. These predominately had 5-year balloons with the (false) assumption that you'd either move or refi by the time these payments came due. And it's not like your home would ever lose value, right? Right?
Then it did. Roll on 2008. In the above, your disparate treatment in the way that more borrowers were able to secure mortgages during that time, was at least partially addressed. The disparate impact, namely the foreclosure crisis on the back of those bullshit loans, wasn't. And by focusing again just on the disparate treatment rather than the disparate impact, I'd wager anything that we're setting ourselves up for more poor outcomes.
If any candidate (and Bloomberg even alluded to it specifically later in the article) uses this abomination of a quote as a jumping point, we get further and further away from actually making long term solutions. Revamping credit to qualify more borrowers? Great! Now let's hear your plan about how you're going to translate that into actual products that won't lead us down the same road as the ARMs from the early '00s. Regulate the banks more you say? Great! Now let's hear your plan about how to impact the cost of funds via controlling their product suite without having knock-on impacts either in other parts of the credit market or in terms of the other services offered by the institution. For instance, I'd watch fees closely. Everything from your checking account minimum balances to the cost at your local merchant when you use your debit card. Nothing happens in a vacuum despite the burning desire to fit all things into 140-characters or less.
This article, these comments, it's all missing the bigger point. Bloomberg made himself look like a total fool. Rather than a thousand more comments dunking on a candidate without a clear path to the nomination, I'd much rather hear about how we as a country are going to do better and make it sustainable. Saying you're going to strengthen the ECOA or write new laws governing things like redlining is sizzle. It makes for good copy. An easy to digest headline, however hollow in and of itself without the backbone behind it. Wake me up when there's steak.
But anyway, back to your standard dunking on Bloomberg already in progress.
Redlining is an absolute abomination. Let's start there. That's also why (as mentioned) you have references to Congress stepping in. Hence the ECOA, HMDA, etc etc.
What both Bloomberg in whatever that interview was failed to do and what this article also failed to do was make the important distinction between disparate treatment and disparate impact. This article and any/all of the fallout from it will focus on the former. It's easy to digest. Redlining = bad. Supporting redlining = bad. There's nothing controversial about that. That's simple common sense. But the more time we give to the former, the more the latter becomes the real problem.
I was working for one of the largest banks in the country during the lead-up to 2008. Most of the adjustable rate mortgages (poorly alluded to in that article) were booked during my time there. In a VERY small office in an otherwise bang average in every way area, we were closing (not underwriting, rather having the docs signed) somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple million dollars a week in the early '00s. These predominately had 5-year balloons with the (false) assumption that you'd either move or refi by the time these payments came due. And it's not like your home would ever lose value, right? Right?
Then it did. Roll on 2008. In the above, your disparate treatment in the way that more borrowers were able to secure mortgages during that time, was at least partially addressed. The disparate impact, namely the foreclosure crisis on the back of those bullshit loans, wasn't. And by focusing again just on the disparate treatment rather than the disparate impact, I'd wager anything that we're setting ourselves up for more poor outcomes.
If any candidate (and Bloomberg even alluded to it specifically later in the article) uses this abomination of a quote as a jumping point, we get further and further away from actually making long term solutions. Revamping credit to qualify more borrowers? Great! Now let's hear your plan about how you're going to translate that into actual products that won't lead us down the same road as the ARMs from the early '00s. Regulate the banks more you say? Great! Now let's hear your plan about how to impact the cost of funds via controlling their product suite without having knock-on impacts either in other parts of the credit market or in terms of the other services offered by the institution. For instance, I'd watch fees closely. Everything from your checking account minimum balances to the cost at your local merchant when you use your debit card. Nothing happens in a vacuum despite the burning desire to fit all things into 140-characters or less.
This article, these comments, it's all missing the bigger point. Bloomberg made himself look like a total fool. Rather than a thousand more comments dunking on a candidate without a clear path to the nomination, I'd much rather hear about how we as a country are going to do better and make it sustainable. Saying you're going to strengthen the ECOA or write new laws governing things like redlining is sizzle. It makes for good copy. An easy to digest headline, however hollow in and of itself without the backbone behind it. Wake me up when there's steak.
But anyway, back to your standard dunking on Bloomberg already in progress.
Ron Mexico this isn't the thread for that discussion though.
what a waste of a really good post. should be in a thread where it will actually generate discussion instead of being a failed derail.
what a waste of a really good post. should be in a thread where it will actually generate discussion instead of being a failed derail.
Not surprising. This was a common right-wing talking point and Bloomberg is a right-wing racist.
In a fucked up sort of way, I can kinda understand what he's saying. He believes being racist is just the natural mode that America needs to work, and he understands that 1) the 2008 crisis was an inherent failure of the financial system and 2) certain racist practices, like redlining, have been legally curtailed since the Civil Rights era. So the racist guy adds 1 and 1 together, and finds the solution: let's go back to being super racist, and then maybe everything else will sort itself out too
And folks will still try and guilt others for saying they will not vote for this awful piece of shit? Fuck off. And fuck Bloomberg. Dude's only in the race to lose because Trump's policies directly benefit him.
I'm hoping the other candidates wipe the floor with this slug come the next debate.
I'm hoping the other candidates wipe the floor with this slug come the next debate.
Inflammatory OP title. Just because a person has done and said many destructive things based specifically on race or ethnicity doesn't mean they're racist. Just because describing the economic crisis by placing the blame on African Americans who were bankrupt because they were given predatory loans on purpose designed to default and create massive interest balloons doesn't make somebody a racist. The mere act of ordering armed police to arrest and detain innocent people based on their color or heritage does not make somebody racist.
Frankly I don't know why the OP hasn't been sanctioned and the thread title force-changed.
The Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster both have the same, solitary definition of the word:
rac·ist
/ˈrāsəst/
noun
A person who openly admits in writing in very specifically delineated context, or directly claims to be Racist. Disambiguation ~ maybe Hitler. But only at the end with the Camps, not the Trains running on time and amazing speeches parts.
Frankly I don't know why the OP hasn't been sanctioned and the thread title force-changed.
The Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster both have the same, solitary definition of the word:
rac·ist
/ˈrāsəst/
noun
A person who openly admits in writing in very specifically delineated context, or directly claims to be Racist. Disambiguation ~ maybe Hitler. But only at the end with the Camps, not the Trains running on time and amazing speeches parts.
This is the state of politics in this country anymore, it's a team sport with winners and losers, fans observing on the sidelines waiting for juicy gossip and sick burns, and pretty much anyone who follows it says they're staying informed but basically they're just staying entertained. If even a portion of the people who armchair QB'd every political development with their own pointless commentary actually participated in local elections we'd be seeing a different country right now.
I'll actively advocate against Bloomberg during the primaries.
We know the solutions to redlining - follow the Fed's advice for revamping the CRA (...and not the OCC's) and strengthen HUD's disparate impact rule that they just rolled back. And probably let the Fed, OCC, and FDIC regulate the mortgage lenders who aren't banks. There are more radical solutions - but really there's nearly a century's worth of wealth that black communities were excluded from building just by redlining alone, and it takes a large scale solution to fix it.
We know the solutions to redlining - follow the Fed's advice for revamping the CRA (...and not the OCC's) and strengthen HUD's disparate impact rule that they just rolled back. And probably let the Fed, OCC, and FDIC regulate the mortgage lenders who aren't banks. There are more radical solutions - but really there's nearly a century's worth of wealth that black communities were excluded from building just by redlining alone, and it takes a large scale solution to fix it.
We can do both at the same time though. Us dunking on Bloomberg doesn't mean we're automatically not paying attention to everything else.
Then start a thread proposing solutions to the problem? We are in a primary, and pointing out a shitty thing a candidate said that shows an inability to understand or address a problem seems pretty relevant. There hasn't been some larger conversation going on about this, the current conversation is who should or shouldn't get your vote in the primary.
And you'll see this is why I have something like 500 posts over my time here. I'm not one for reactionary posts, I'm not one for throwaway commentary, I'm not one that takes any kind of joy in screaming into the void. What I am is a finance guy on an admittedly slow day at the office before a long weekend that happened upon a thread that falls right into my wheelhouse of professional experience. If that's a recipe for a "failed derail", so be it. And yeah, I probably should have just ignored this and moved on, but this:
Happened and I couldn't possibly agree more with the bolded. I've voted from the bottom of the ticket up in every election for as long as I can remember and at the very least the nearly 2 decades since college. Those '08 meltdowns (going once again back to the article and its impact) of course had an impact on our local property values which in turn impacted the taxes, the services offered, the whole nine yards. Again, these things don't happen in a vacuum, nor do their solutions.
So maybe there's another discussion to be had at another time in another thread with another title. Maybe at that time it won't be a slow Friday in the office. Maybe someone takes a fraction of any of my posts to heart. Maybe they don't. Waiting for the ideal moment is a fool's errand as there will always be some level of distraction. C'est la vie.
These things and importantly without the buddies in media that Trump has.
Bloomberg is rightfully getting shredded right now for his history of racism but NBC is still sitting on their Apprentice tapes 🤔
Fair, I just think it's a weird thing To get frustrated about when we all understand the context.
For a counterargument to Bloomberg's comments, here is a study that looks at the impact of CRA loans on the mortgage crisis.
Yeah, poor people caused the 2008 depression... Not financial fuckery by wall street sociopaths that didn't get punished.
^he ain't say that, he goes on to explain it as the financial institutions getting too brazen right there in the video. Also, this was in 2008 so they didn't get bailouts yet I don't think.
The interview does a very good way of explaining the crisis in the mid of the crisis (Sept 2008) in layman terms. Then goes into the need for fixes to the current healthcare system. Really a pity for that red-lining part at the beginning lol jeez Mike fix your shit.
The interview does a very good way of explaining the crisis in the mid of the crisis (Sept 2008) in layman terms. Then goes into the need for fixes to the current healthcare system. Really a pity for that red-lining part at the beginning lol jeez Mike fix your shit.
Moderates need to get put in time out. They suck. They've fucked over everyone but the rich since the beginning of this country. I hate the term moderate too, they're not moderate anything, they're just not as outwardly far right as the obvious psychopaths.
don't wait for the moment.
make the moment.
make the thread.
maybe today, maybe not today.
Believe it or not, we're saying the exact same thing. The entire idea about pointing out how shitty leading with redlining is (both for Bloomberg and for the article itself) is we're practically begging for who can reply with the best rhetoric rather than the best actual solution. I want my candidate to first and foremost have the best sustainable plan of action rather the best sound byte or the best tweet. The whole actions speak louder than words thing.
Bloomberg isn't that guy. Nor would ideally any other politician that would place rhetoric ahead of policy (not that we'd EVER have that in politics, right?).
One of the foundations of how I train my employees is we can't help find a solution without first correctly identifying the problem. It's what I use to set my people apart from the big bank mentality of throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. This article (and the responses it's nailed on to get) begs for flinging shit at the "easy" target. Redlining is an abomination and nobody in their right mind should ever support it and Bloomberg is an absolute idiot to even open himself up there. Use that energy instead to address what could actually make a difference unless all we actually want is hollow rhetoric.
Thanks for this - and I know subsequent studies have found the same.
Let me get this straight:
You're saying every moderate sucks because they're actually hidden far right?!
I'm saying they suck because they aren't any different when it comes to the ballot box. They're too comfortable to notice anyone else suffering. They want the status quo because they're inconvenienced by protests or political news interrupting their favorite tv show. They're bothered by people wanting equal rights and protections because it makes them feel uncomfortable. They're upset that 'both sides' are fighting and just want things to go back to how they were. They suck. MLK was right about them. They are the roadblock to progress.
Yup, Bloomberg sucks and will hopefully not be anywhere near the nomination come November.
Bloomberg vs Trump is basically the nightmare scenario.
He would be a more effective version of Trump. Harsher on the poor, brutal on minorities, indifferent to harmful on civil rights, and opening the floodgates to corporate welfare and wall street fuckery.
Yeah, exactly. Like, trump absolutely SUCKS. And the damage he's doing is BAD. And the real, long-lasting damage that is taking place right now is opening the door for someone like Bloomberg to waltz in and make it even worse in more efficient ways. It's terrifying.
The guy that put Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff immediately after promising the end of establishment politics? Why he sure did.
for once, people would actually be telling the truth when they pull the "both sides" card