Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
We need other policies to address the unfairness inherent in some areas being more risky than others, but I'm not sure we want lenders to ignore certain aspects of risk because they may also correlate with race.
|
I personally do want lenders to ignore certain aspects of risk because they also correlate with race. What's more, I want them to be subject to litigation if they don't.
I don't believe that bankers or insurers are special in any way. They want to earn money, they need to risk money. Especially if they are going to ask the taxpayers to prop up their greedy fat asses when they screw up. I don't think a bank is entitled to any more leeway than any other business. If they don't like the fact that lending to black people is more risky, then they shouldn't be allowed to lend to white people. If an insurer doesn't want to cover a poor, underfed, underclothed kid in a ghetto, then it shouldn't be allowed to write a policy on a well-fed Midwestern farm girl with braces on her teeth and an annual checkup.
I don't expect anybody to agree with me. Just don't ask me to believe that any argument that markets are fair or efficient in this country, or that they are not designed to maintain the status quo, especially as it relates to race and poverty. And don't expect me to offer any cover to anyone who tries to argue that "market efficiency" is anything more than a means of preserving privilege for those who have it.
Threaded Mode