I didn't say "fuck you" because I disagree with you (I'm not 12 years old), I said it because you were being an anti-logical dick. Is it possible for you to say ANYTHING on this list without being as abraisive as you can, or is it really just you alone against the racist masses out there?
But since you brought it back up in public, I do have more to say about your post.
> Why is it so hard to see racist exploitation when it's
> right in front of you?
It's not hard at all, why do you ask? Why is it so hard for you to not acuse people of something that you have no evidence of? How long have you felt this way about your mother? I see plenty of racist exploitation, even quite often the bits that aren't right in front of my face.
So what's your point?
> Why the need for mental gymnastics to show that capitalism
> isn't racist?
When did you stop beating your wife? I don't believe that "capitalism isn't racist" (though I think it's a pretty airy statement), what leads you to believe this?
> If poor whites outnumber poor blacks 4:1 (or whatever number,
> I'm too lazy to look it up just for an analogy) then sub-prime
> loans to poor people should approximate that ratio.
You're too lazy to look up the number, but you're also too lazy to provide any other justification for why this might be so (and maybe it's not, but again: you're too lazy, right?) -- so let me just say: there's no reason to expect that this "should" be true. You just made it up, presumably to knock it back down.
Maybe you can start with that? Show your work why that "should" be true.
Or maybe I should ask: why the need for mental gymnastics (does "strawman" count as "mental gymnastics" ...) to show that "capitalism is racist" (whatever that means) ...?
> I know for a fact that in Atlanta of black home buyers making
> more than $100,000 a year, 41 percent got a subprime mortgage,
> compared with 7 percent of whites in the same income category.
Good for you. This, finally, is the basis for your bitchiness? Do you have a cite for that, or even a rough time-frame for this statistic? More importantly, do you know what it means? Is "more than $100k of yearly income" a useful category to you? And I thought we were talking about "poor" people? Is your definition of "poor" those who "make more than $100k a year" in Atlanta? Good factoid, tho!
Ok, here's a few reasons I can think of that might contribute to your factoid that aren't simply "capitalism is racist" ... to start, FICO scores don't simply correlate to income (I believe that's the implication you're setting up; and, well, it's false), it's much more complex than that. Don't be too lazy to at least read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICO_score
Ask questions here if you like.
Also: getting a particular mortgage product (vs. another) is often more complex than just looking at your score; it's also the result of where you go looking for a loan, how competitive you are willing to be, how much time you've alloted to the task, how comfortable you are with it and how much experience you have with it. Throw in a nice variable like how expensive the house is that you're looking for and how much of a down payment you're willing to make and I'll say right now: yearly income isn't much of a predictor of what mortgage product you'll get.
Anyway: can someone offer you a product that's more expensive (in N dimensions) than you're qualified for? Absolutely. Will some people do this because you're black? Yes. Will they do it to anyone? I claim they'll do it to anyone they can. Can you blame them? Maybe. Can you apply for and get a mortgage without telling anyone that you're black? Absolutely, it's even Federal law. Do enough people do this kind of thing yet? No. Should more? Yes. Do more people do it today than 20 years ago? Absolutely. Does this say anything useful about capitalism being racist? Not that I can tell, except maybe that it's "less racist" than it used to be, and can get moreso in the future. Does it, ultimately, have anything to do with anything? I do not think so.
You were even a dick to Doug on this:
---
>> Doug Henwood wrote:
>> > The Boston Fed did some rigorous mortgage studies in the
>> > late 80s or early 90s showing significant racial discrim
>> > after controlling for everything else. I hope someone does
>> > that for this cycle.
>>
>> But in the meantime since we know how much our society has
>> advanced with regards to race relations since those dark days
>> it really does behoove us to give the fine fellows who brought
>> us this current crisis the benefit of the doubt and assume
>> there was no racist targeting of minorities, right?
---
I mean: who the hell are you talking about? Show me where someone said that they assume there was no racist targeting of minorities? Sheesh.
Let's get back to your original post:
>> Does anyone doubt that poor people of color were targeted more
>> often that (sic) poor white people?
Check that: your prediction is that "more often" == greater than 50% (of those targeted). That's a mighty big claim, and so yes: I doubt it. And doubting it is NOT THE SAME as saying "there was no racist targeting of minorities" ... buy a book on logic, will you?
/jordan