You knew it was going to happen. With subprime victim sob stories flooding the news, there’s no way shakedown vulture Jesse Jackson could stay away. Strap on those marching boots and megaphones, here he comes. I always get a kick out of Jackson calling anyone else “unscrupulous:”
The Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. on Monday demanded City Council hearings and plans a Dec. 10 march on LaSalle Street to shine the light on a mortgage foreclosure epidemic he warned could trigger a “sustained depression” as early as next year.
Jackson accused “unscrupulous lenders” of targeting minorities for high-cost loans in a “form of redlining and racial profiling.” He pointed to a study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition that shows African Americans of all income levels in the Chicago area were more than twice as likely as whites to receive the subprime and ballooning adjustable interest rate mortgages that can be a prelude to foreclosure. The City Council has no power to bring about the solution that Jackson is seeking: a freeze on both adjustable rate mortgages and home foreclosures, and restructuring in favor of repossession. But, City Council hearings can apply political pressure.
“Rats run in holes when lights come on. The City Council can expose the lenders,” Jackson said. He added, “People who have been trapped are suffering in the dark alone.” With 30,000 Chicago homes in foreclosure and 85,000 more threatened by late payments, Jackson warned that “the biggest economic crisis” to hit the U.S. since the Great Depression threatens city services.
And Jackson and company couldn’t be happier. The subprime mess isn’t a result of ruthless discrimination. If anything, it’s the result of too little discrimination by lenders too willing and eager to sign on people who had no business taking on mortgages.
Thomas Sowell debunked the “racial profiling” propaganda two years ago:
A headline in the September 14th issue of the New York Times says: “Blacks Hit Hardest By Costlier Mortgages.” Thirteen years ago, virtually the identical story appeared in the Wall Street Journal under the title, “Federal Reserve Details Pervasive Racial Gap in Mortgage Lending.”
Both stories are based on statistical studies by the Federal Reserve showing that blacks and whites have different experiences when applying for mortgage loans — and both stories imply that racial discrimination is the reason.
The earlier study showed that blacks were turned down for mortgage loans a higher percentage of the time than whites were and the later story shows that blacks resorted to high-priced “subprime” loans more often than whites when they financed the purchase of a home. Both amount to the same thing — less credit being extended to blacks on the same terms as credit extended to whites. Both studies also say that this is true even when black and white loan applicants have the same income. The first time around, 13 years ago, this seemed like a pretty good case for those who blamed the differences on racial discrimination.
However, both research and old age tend to produce skepticism about things that look plausible on the surface. Just scratching the surface a little often makes a plausible case collapse like a house of cards.
For example, neither study took credit histories into account. People with lower credit ratings tend to get turned down for loans more often than people with higher credit ratings, or else they have to go where loans have higher interest rates. This is not rocket science. It is Economics 1. Blacks in the earlier study turned out to have poor credit histories more often than whites. But the more recent news story did not even look into that.
Anyone who has ever taken out a mortgage loan knows that the lenders not only want to know what your current income is, they also want to know what your net worth is. Census data show that blacks with the same income as whites average less net worth. That is not rocket science either. Not many blacks have affluent parents or rich uncles from whom they could inherit wealth. The earlier study showed that whites were turned down for mortgage loans more frequently than Asian Americans and the more recent study shows that Asian Americans are less likely than whites to take out high-cost “subprime” loans to buy a house.
Does that mean that whites were being discriminated against? Or are statistics taken seriously only when they back up some preconception that is politically correct?
The question answers itself.