> The GOP was in the White House when the Housing Bubble was brewed up in 2002–2005. President George W. Bush strongly pushed the finance industry to lend more to nonwhites at his Oct. 15, 2002, White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership. There he told his federal regulators not to worry so much about traditional credit standards regarding down payments and documentation of income because he wanted to see 5.5 million more minority homeowners by 2010. ...
> Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial...wanted to boost Countrywide’s share of the national mortgage market from 10 percent to 30 percent. He believed he could safely do that by increasing lending to marginal customers, especially Hispanics. ... In 2003, Mozilo, citing Bush’s push for minority home ownership, pledged to a Harvard audience that Countrywide would lend $600 billion to minority and lower-income borrowers by 2010. In 2005, he boosted that promise to one trillion dollars. ... Countrywide went under in 2008. ...
> For example, a 2015 paper by Lin, Liu, and Xie found that in a sample of 18,000 households: The difference in the mortgage delinquency rates between immigrants (15.7%) and natives (4.4%) is significant.
> Similarly, a 2013 paper by Luea, Reichenberger, and Turner revealed 2009 default rates for whites of 3.4 percent, blacks 11.3 percent (3.3 times the white rate), and Hispanics 16 percent (4.7 times the white rate)
> A 2013 paper by Reid featuring data from the fifty largest metro areas for mortgages originated just in 2005 shows that foreclosure rates by 2009 were twice as bad for blacks as whites and almost three times as bad for Hispanics as whites. By 2010, 10.5 percent of Hispanics were in foreclosure versus 4 percent of whites.
> According to Zillow, Hispanic neighborhoods nationally exploded in price by 280 percent from 2000 to 2006 versus about 160 percent for white neighborhoods. Remarkably, by the peak of the Bubble, the median home in a Hispanic neighborhood was worth almost a hundred thousand dollars more than the median home in a white neighborhood. Not surprisingly, the decline in home value from peak to trough was almost twice as severe in Hispanic neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods.
> In summary, immigration was seen as a vast boon to the housing market until it turned out that Hispanics tended not to be able to afford the huge mortgages they had been given. At that point in 2008, housing prices in several high-priced Hispanic-heavy states, such as California and Florida, plummeted, taking down financial institutions like Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, and Countrywide Financial. This carnage set off a national recession even in places without a Housing Bubble.
> Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” But what if you haven’t forgotten it because you never had a clue in the first place?
This stuff is basically all true, and I'll add that it started in the Clinton years. Dems wanted to open up homeownership to minorities, Republicans wanted more mortgages, it was a pretty perfect policy, then they forgot to regulate the mortgage industry. The documents that came out of banks revealing predatory lending tactics are... basically evil.
Emil Kirkegaard? That's your example? Did you dig that out not knowing who he is, or did you post it with full knowledge of who he was, hoping HNers wouldn't actually look at who he is?
> Emil Ole William Kirkegaard is a Danish far-right eugenicist, perjurer[3] and activist for legalising child pornography. He has a wide range of crank views and is a global-warming denier, anti-feminist, ableist, anti-vegan, homophobe, Islamophobe, transphobe and has promoted white supremacy. He is most notorious and obnoxious online for his ableism and calling transgender people, liberals, feminists and pretty much anyone with left-wing political views who merely disagrees with him as "mentally ill".
> Aside from his controversial writings on eugenics and race, Kirkegaard has been involved in other activities such as publishing personal data of 70,000 OKCupid users without permission, including their sexual preferences,[10] considered by Vox to be "without a doubt one of the most grossly unprofessional, unethical and reprehensible data releases".[11] His writings on race and intelligence[12] have caused controversy and because peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish his work, he set up the OpenPsych pseudojournals.[13] However, after this journal was discredited he now publishes pseudo-scientific race articles in the open-access Psych journal.[14][15]
[...]
> His highest qualification is a Bachelor’s in linguistics. Having dropped out of his Masters degree, instead preferring to be "self-taught in various subjects"
[...]
> Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as "Is miscegenation bad for your kids?" and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy
Emil Kirkegaard tried to sue one of the article writers but lost the libel suit - he put himself nearly £40,000 in debt and in contempt of court.
https://oliveratlantis.com/emil-kirkegaard/
1) Ad hominem; even if it were an accurate claim, it would also be an irrelevant one.
2) You're broadly dismissing factual statements as "claims" with no supporting evidence. Given the statements on RW are backed extensively by citations, please support "a lot of claims about him are a stretch" with citations of your own.
3) I take it your "hypothetical" example about race and intelligence isn't actually hypothetical but something you actually believe?
Emil Kirkegaard tried to sue one of the writers of that article, lost the libel suit and got himself nearly £40,000 in debt. He's now being counter-sued:
https://oliveratlantis.com/emil-kirkegaard/
3% of the population commits 57% of all crime. So you could incapacitate those individuals prior to them committing murder. IE: put them in prison for 20 years for theft, then they can't commit murder. Let them out when their testosterone drops below criminal thresholds (in their late 30s)
He was also a terrorist: a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is classified as a terror organization by many states (including SA). So how is this different than other states killing terrorists?
I think it's problematic because it creates perverse incentives to make more criminals. And there are religious / moral concerns about taking parts of your body after you die without consent.
But I also understand that the biggest objections are the religious / moral ones, and I don't know maybe that doesn't bother people as much in China?
> I think it's problematic because it creates perverse incentives to make more criminals.
We have this issue all over the US. Private prison contracts often have a "minimum filled cell" clause that causes penalties to the city/county/state if there are too _few_ people incarcerated.