Inquring Minds Or No?

[Winstonm]

I see the myth of our special nature as being particularly harmful. Religious folks see it as God watching over us. But the non-religious are not immune. We have a special destiny or we are the city on the hill, or the world's last best hope or something. No, we are folks. No better, no worse, then the French, the Chinese, the Brazilians, whatever. If we want things to go well for us we need to get down to work, same as they do.

Not exactly on topic I know, but I am more than a little worried about where we are headed and I think some confrontation with realism is long past due.

This is some serious wisdom and it does not surprise me to see that Ken is aware of it. Ken, if you have not already, you might find "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" by Adrew J. Bacevich a good read.

 

We have a special destiny or we are the city on the hill, or the world's last best hope or something. No, we are folks. No better, no worse

 

At the heart of the beast, when all excuses are stripped away, it is our own profligacy and hubris that has caused our grief - our belief that somehow because we were "better" or "more moral" that we deserved V-8 engines, everlasting cheap oil, and living beyond our means has made us dependent on foreign nations for the purchase of our debt in order for us to maintain a way of life.

 

This Empire Rents Its Clothes.

[Al_U_Card]

Every "empire" is full of itself. Nationalism is the movement of the masses that exemplifies the feeling of patriotism that is nothing more than wanting to belong and be part of the "in" group. Our familial and tribal roots gone to hell.

 

No need to save the world (spiritual) nor to conquer it (material). Peaceful co-existence is a natural state of being. Extending that sense of belonging and need of appartenance is the best application of the golden rule.

 

Understanding that there will always be a continuum of conditions within the human experience is what we need to provide perspective. It is all about respect and recognition.

[kenberg]

I'm not so confident that peaceful coexistence is a natural state of being. Desirable, of course. Natural? Maybe, but it needs some help.

 

Sustained and effective action is often rooted in self-interest and, to my mind, delusional thinking about our special place or our special destiny is ripe to be junked on that basis alone. We will thrive if we make sound decisions and work hard. Relying on destiny, or for that matter on the natural state of peaceful coexistence, won't do it.

 

 

Back to the CRA: Helping communities revitalize is a very good idea. It's good for them and it strengthens the nation. CRA, or any program with that intent, has to earn its keep by doing more good than harm. The balance of evidence appears to be that this is the case with CRA.

[Winstonm]

I am somewhat in the camp with Ken in that I had not previously been aware of the CRA until some of the hardline types started beating the drum on t.v. and in the news that it was the cause of the crisis.

 

That led - as I always try to do (but fail often) - me to try to discern the facts. The facts did not support the claims, yet the claims didn't stop.

 

Then I had the conversation with my brother, and I was certain (knowing him and his viewing habits) he was simply spewing the same false information he'd heard on radio or t.v. from some WingNut blindly pushing an Ayn Rand, greed-is-good: poor-are-evil ideology.

 

And that's what got us to here....sorry to anyone I have offended, but people spreading misinformation, hiding their own culpability, and pointing fingers at an innocent group makes me cranky.

[Al_U_Card]

I'm not so confident that peaceful coexistence is a natural state of being. Desirable, of course. Natural? Maybe, but it needs some help.

That is where the respect and recognition comes into play. Overcrowding and resource allocation is paramount. Making sure that there is enough to go around is the key.

[Winstonm]

There was another Op-Ed in the NYT today blaming the CRA. Barry Ritholtz iimmediately countered. He wrote today:

 

In the 1960s and 70s, banks would redline neighborhoods. They would literally put a map on a wall, and with a red magic marker, draw a redline enveloping certain neighborhoods. If you lived within the redlined areas, regardless of your income, credit score, assets, debt servicing ability, if you were in the redlined area you could not qualify for a mortgage.

 

Although Redlining was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the practice still surreptitiously continued. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was the next attempt to stop redlining. There were two main aspects of the CRA: First, it required banks to apply the same lending criteria in all communities. Credit Score, Loan-to-value, percentage of monthly take home, etc. had to be the same across different areas.

 

Second, the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make good faith attempts to loan the money back to its own depositors. If you open up a branch in Harlem, you cannot suck up all the local business and residents’ cash, and then turn around and only lend it out to Tribeca condo buyers. You must make a fair attempt to loan the money locally. Banks have no obligation to open branches in Harlem, but if they did, they are required to at least try to lend the locals back their own money.

 

Note that there are no quotas, minimums or mandates. This is a very soft rating system.

 

As long as disinformation is clearly marked Op-Ed, I have no problem. Where I have a problem is when this type of information is presented as factual on news shows - "Some people say..."

[jtfanclub]

What I don't get is, redlining was almost unimaginably destructive. Cities became giant rings, and the inside of the ring was a lawless region of desperate poor and horrible crime. As somebody whose father grew up only a few blocks from downtown Detroit, I get to hear about just how much cities have improved in the last few decades.

 

The CRA is a major reason for that. Mortgages allowed the areas to stabilize, and gave the residents there a reason for improving their homes and their credit scores. Once you had some "good" people in the inner ring, the police and ambulances were willing to go help those "good" people. Businesses started to open in the inner ring, because the there were people with some money there, and the lawlessness dropped so much. And the cycle continued. The "generational poor" still exist- people who are born poor, have no chance outside of the lottery of making something for themselves, and will die poor. But they're a tiny fraction of what they were when my father was young.

 

Could this have been done without the CRA? I suppose. Big government grants and loans, heavy handed laws, and so forth. Was there a better method than the CRA out there? I can't imagine what it would have been.

 

 

The CRA did enormous good for over 25 years. I guess that's why the right-wingers want to blame it for the current catastrophe, instead of the more recent changes.

[Winstonm]

What I don't get is, redlining was almost unimaginably destructive. Cities became giant rings, and the inside of the ring was a lawless region of desperate poor and horrible crime. As somebody whose father grew up only a few blocks from downtown Detroit, I get to hear about just how much cities have improved in the last few decades.

 

The CRA is a major reason for that. Mortgages allowed the areas to stabilize, and gave the residents there a reason for improving their homes and their credit scores. Once you had some "good" people in the inner ring, the police and ambulances were willing to go help those "good" people. Businesses started to open in the inner ring, because the there were people with some money there, and the lawlessness dropped so much. And the cycle continued. The "generational poor" still exist- people who are born poor, have no chance outside of the lottery of making something for themselves, and will die poor. But they're a tiny fraction of what they were when my father was young.

 

Could this have been done without the CRA? I suppose. Big government grants and loans, heavy handed laws, and so forth. Was there a better method than the CRA out there? I can't imagine what it would have been.

 

 

The CRA did enormous good for over 25 years. I guess that's why the right-wingers want to blame it for the current catastrophe, instead of the more recent changes.

Well said.

[Winstonm]

This sums up the point I made at first. It is a real comment to Barry Ritholtz after Barry had pointed out on his website the facts concerning CRA (Barry supported McCain in 2004 but mostly he is apolitical.):

 

 

December 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

 

Barry - i can see the veins popping out of your forehead…it’s so transparent that what is sooooo upsetting to you is that someone who’s not a far left loony dared to express some insight in the liberal soon to be bankrupt rag known as the New York Times….tThe reason you are sooooo defensive about CRA is that it is one of those things which clearly shows that the seeds for this mess were sown long before Bush 43 took office … heaven forbid Bill Clinton and the Dems bear any responsibility…go take a valium and try reading some publications that aren’t so clearly politically slanted.

 

Who can argue with such succinct logic?