The 'Democratization Of Credit': Is It Over?

Affirmative Action, Business, Debt, Democracy, Federal Reserve Bank

WSJ: “The democratization of credit began decades ago. Federal legislation in the late 1970s required banks to avoid discriminatory lending and meet the needs of local communities, spawning a wave of home buying and entrepreneurship in lower-income neighborhoods. The rate of homeownership in families with incomes in the bottom two-fifths rose to nearly 49% by 2001 from below 44% in 1989, according to Fed data analyzed by Mr. Mann at Columbia.”

[This is not what that ignoramus Michael Moore claims. The sad thing about the man’s propaganda is that nobody among the so-called conservative MSM can refute it with reference to First Principles.]

“But the financial crisis and recession have reversed … the ‘democratization of credit,’ forcing a tough adjustment on both low-income families and the businesses that serve them.”

‘We saw an extension of credit to a much deeper socioeconomic level, and they got access to the same credit instruments as middle-class and mainstream Americans,’ says Ronald Mann, a Columbia University law professor. Now, ‘it will be harder for families at the bottom of the income ladder to get credit cards,’ he says.

The financial crisis has forced lenders to be especially cautious with the riskiest borrowers, a category that low-income families often fall into because their debt tends to be higher relative to income and assets. The ratio of credit-card debt to income is 50% higher for the lowest two-fifths of Americans by income than for the top two-fifths, Federal Reserve data show.”

[SNIP]

The following aside is beside the point, but my guess is that if a multiple regression analysis were conducted, IQ would be the underlying variable that would stubbornly crop up to account for this alarming, yet ostensibly unintuitive, ratio of debt to income in low-income individuals.

IN ANY CASE, do you agree that the democratization of credit is on the wane? I find that a dubious statement. The latest legislation described has not eliminated the imperative to lend to risky entities and individuals, so much as it has created, as ever, unintended consequences. These contingencies have, so far, caused banks to twist like pretzels in order to find legal ways around eliminating risky borrowers.

The ‘Democratization Of Credit’: Is It Over?

Affirmative Action, Business, Debt, Democracy, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank

WSJ: “The democratization of credit began decades ago. Federal legislation in the late 1970s required banks to avoid discriminatory lending and meet the needs of local communities, spawning a wave of home buying and entrepreneurship in lower-income neighborhoods. The rate of homeownership in families with incomes in the bottom two-fifths rose to nearly 49% by 2001 from below 44% in 1989, according to Fed data analyzed by Mr. Mann at Columbia.”

[This is not what that ignoramus Michael Moore claims. The sad thing about the man’s propaganda is that nobody among the so-called conservative MSM can refute it with reference to First Principles.]

“But the financial crisis and recession have reversed … the ‘democratization of credit,’ forcing a tough adjustment on both low-income families and the businesses that serve them.”

‘We saw an extension of credit to a much deeper socioeconomic level, and they got access to the same credit instruments as middle-class and mainstream Americans,’ says Ronald Mann, a Columbia University law professor. Now, ‘it will be harder for families at the bottom of the income ladder to get credit cards,’ he says.

The financial crisis has forced lenders to be especially cautious with the riskiest borrowers, a category that low-income families often fall into because their debt tends to be higher relative to income and assets. The ratio of credit-card debt to income is 50% higher for the lowest two-fifths of Americans by income than for the top two-fifths, Federal Reserve data show.”

[SNIP]

The following aside is beside the point, but my guess is that if a multiple regression analysis were conducted, IQ would be the underlying variable that would stubbornly crop up to account for this alarming, yet ostensibly unintuitive, ratio of debt to income in low-income individuals.

IN ANY CASE, do you agree that the democratization of credit is on the wane? I find that a dubious statement. The latest legislation described has not eliminated the imperative to lend to risky entities and individuals, so much as it has created, as ever, unintended consequences. These contingencies have, so far, caused banks to twist like pretzels in order to find legal ways around eliminating risky borrowers.

Snub 'Snob Conservatism'

Elections 2008, John McCain, Neoconservatism, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, War

From “GOP, RIP?”: “Chief among the leftist factions that would hate to see a recrudescence of the Right are neoconservatives. Enter David Brooks, whose sinecure at the New York Times is a testament to the ‘mushy middle ground’ he has so successfully occupied. … Brooks has flourished in the neoconservative sorority. … he, nevertheless, now sees fit to reinvent himself as a Republican ‘Reformer.’ Brooks the Reformer has been brooding about the dangers of ‘slashing government,’ if the Republican faction he calls ‘Traditionalist’ manages to unseat neocons like himself.”

Now Jack Hunter of Taki’s further distills the essence of the Brook’s bastardized (neo) conservatism: … “But if [David] Brook’s snob conservatism, Thompson and Romney’s wannabe-Reagan-imitations, Huckabee’s holy-rolling and McCain’s mad-bomber mentality are all just stylistic variations of the same Republican policies, it is worth noting the one candidate in 2008 who attracted widespread, bipartisan support, based not only almost purely on his ideas – but ideas that stood in stark contrast to the rest of his party. Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign reflected the antiwar sentiment that helped elect Obama and the anti-government outrage that now defines the grassroots Right. Paul, unlike his fellow 2008 presidential contenders, not only rejected the failed policies of the Bush administration, but despite his lack of charisma, possessed the only political platform that might have had a chance of winning – while remaining conservative to the core.

But strict, limited government conservatism is of little concern to establishment men like Brooks, which makes him completely useless. … ‘the reformists, whose new ideas are not conservative and whose old ideas are the ones that destroyed the Bush GOP, are the very last pundits Republicans should heed.’

Indeed. And if the American Right needs a new, better identity – as many rightly believe it does – a good start might be to move as far away as possible from the politics and person of David Brooks.”

Snub ‘Snob Conservatism’

Elections 2008, John McCain, Neoconservatism, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, War

From “GOP, RIP?”: “Chief among the leftist factions that would hate to see a recrudescence of the Right are neoconservatives. Enter David Brooks, whose sinecure at the New York Times is a testament to the ‘mushy middle ground’ he has so successfully occupied. … Brooks has flourished in the neoconservative sorority. … he, nevertheless, now sees fit to reinvent himself as a Republican ‘Reformer.’ Brooks the Reformer has been brooding about the dangers of ‘slashing government,’ if the Republican faction he calls ‘Traditionalist’ manages to unseat neocons like himself.”

Now Jack Hunter of Taki’s further distills the essence of the Brook’s bastardized (neo) conservatism: … “But if [David] Brook’s snob conservatism, Thompson and Romney’s wannabe-Reagan-imitations, Huckabee’s holy-rolling and McCain’s mad-bomber mentality are all just stylistic variations of the same Republican policies, it is worth noting the one candidate in 2008 who attracted widespread, bipartisan support, based not only almost purely on his ideas – but ideas that stood in stark contrast to the rest of his party. Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign reflected the antiwar sentiment that helped elect Obama and the anti-government outrage that now defines the grassroots Right. Paul, unlike his fellow 2008 presidential contenders, not only rejected the failed policies of the Bush administration, but despite his lack of charisma, possessed the only political platform that might have had a chance of winning – while remaining conservative to the core.

But strict, limited government conservatism is of little concern to establishment men like Brooks, which makes him completely useless. … ‘the reformists, whose new ideas are not conservative and whose old ideas are the ones that destroyed the Bush GOP, are the very last pundits Republicans should heed.’

Indeed. And if the American Right needs a new, better identity – as many rightly believe it does – a good start might be to move as far away as possible from the politics and person of David Brooks.”