Re:

["Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>]

At 03:14 PM 12/4/96 EST, Bovine Remailer wrote:
>At 11:26 AM 12/4/1996, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote:
[snippo]
>If I earned my very own money honestly and I choose to lend it only to
>Albanians, you believe that this would be inefficient and, therefore,
>forbidden.  

Actually I didnt say anything about private lending.  But as this thread
goes on you seem to assume much.

>In other words, you do not believe that I should be able
>to lend money to anybody I please.  You can call it "equal access to
>capital" or "denial of opportunity", but the clearest and simplest
>description is that you believe I should not be able to lend my money
>to whomever I please.  Instead of pretending otherwise, just say "I
>believe you should not be able to lend your own money which you earned
>honestly to anybody you please.  I believe you should be allowed only
>to lend money in these circumstances..."

I dont assume that anyone (or any corporation) has earned their money
honestly.  Quite often that is not the case.  I have said a few times
already that I *do* believe in limited regulation.  And apparently you
believe that ad hominem is cool.

>Of course, non-discrimination is a vague term.  

Actually it is not.  I am an employment law attroney.  I know the
definition.  I know also what I need to do to prove it.  I also know that
many times the definition (legal) fails to meet the reality of the
situation.  But as I said before, we do not live in a perfect society.

>Let's say I lend money
>only to people I know.  I only know Albanians.  Am I therefore a
>racist in my lending practices?  That is unclear.

See above.

>
>Am I racist in my choice of friends?  Perhaps we should make that
>illegal.
>

Perhaps we should argue irrelevant things.

>>I have never suggested that provably bad credit risks should be given money.
>
>What is irksome is that you are talking about Other People's Money and
>not your own.  The perspective tends to change when it's your own
>savings on the line.
>

Actually, in my case, it absolutely does not.  But as I said above, you
appear to continually assume things.  My perspective doesnt change, maybe
yours does.

>>It does if my argument is that this part of the system *is* just.  I
>>realize you disagree, but I am sure you are not dismissing my argument
>>out-of-hand.  If you disagree, as you say, then disagree.
>
>Actually, I have trouble following your argument.  Please forgive me
>for my limited intelligence.

You were forgiven long ago ;-)

[snipped]
>>I agree.  I am not arguing that we need to withdraw Title VII.  Aparently
>>you are?
>
>I do not know what is in Title VII.  Perhaps it would be better to ask
>me about particular policies.
>

It is all becoming clear to me now.  Perhaps you should understand what
laws you are rallying against before you attempt to defeat them.  I have no
need to ask *you* about policies.  Considering you have recently popped up,
you have not even a small collection of reputation built up.  

[snip]

>In fact, I am open to the possibility that poor people really are
>disenfranchised.  

No you are not.  You show your stripes below.

>But, if I am to believe that I must hear an
>explanation that makes sense to me.  If poor people are poor because
>absolutely nobody will do business with them for completely irrational
>reasons, that seems extremely unlikely.  Even if most rich people are
>able to control their greed just to punish poor people of the wrong
>race, which is already hard to believe, you actually have to claim
>that they are all this way.
>

Actually, I dont.  Not all rich people utilize their wealth.  Dont believe
it?  Ask Bill Gates and the latest Slate.

>Just like anybody else does.  You watch every penny.  You don't eat
>meat.  When you buy food, you buy inexpensive healthy food like
>lentils instead of expensive unhealthy food like Coca-Cola and potato
>chips.  You do not go to McDonald's.  You walk when you can instead of
>taking the bus or you ride a (used) bicycle.  You don't smoke
>cigarettes.  You do not buy alcohol.  You do not buy other
>recreational drugs.  You buy your clothing used.  You economize on
>your living arrangements, perhaps by having a large number of
>roomates.  (Note that this is illegal in most cities.  That is a form
>of disenfranchisment.)  You do not make long distance calls.  If you
>can, you share a phone with other people. etc. etc. etc.
>
>If you know poor people, you will know that few of them do these
>things.

My vocation is intimately involved with poor people.  I have been there
myself.  I do not defend my beliefs on those grounds.  If I did I could
easily just state the opposite.  But hey, Ill bet you arent racist either
'cause you have Black friends.  

The poor people that I help are nothing like the media productions you
believe in.  I realized after reading this last paragraph what kind of
person I am dealing with.  Poor people, in your eyes, remain poor because
they apparently have no will of their own to get out.  If you *actually*
understood utter poverty you would also understand the idiocy of the
statement.  Many of personal friends have 'escaped from the killing fields'
and have opened my eyes to the reality of the situation.  I will no longer
try to open yours.  You are not interested in learning anything.

>Also, you work hard to increase your earnings.  You show up at work on
>time every time.  You develop a good work ethic.  You wear clean
>professional clothing at work.  You treat your employer and coworkers
>with respect.  etc. etc. etc.

That's right.  I forgot.  Poor people dont come to work on time. They dont
develop a work ethic.  They wear dirty clothes.  And they are
disrespectful.  And when they dont do these things they are not passed up
for promotion, never meet a glass ceiling and are never discriminated
against.  Now I get it.  What was I thinking?

>Read "Your Money or Your Life" by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin.  It
>outlines a workable program that all poor people - and quite a few
>others - will be able to use to their benefit.

I live in reality not theory.

>If you are going through prospective leads and the number of qualified
>people is, say, 10 in 1000, you will make a lot more money than going
>through a pool of leads that only has 1 qualified person per 1000.

Redlining occurs when people from these neighborhoods *go to the bank*.
Banks do not target these people.  When approached by them, the banks look
at the lines and decide.  They are not weighing whether to do business
there.  They simply dont.

>But why isn't that good news?  If it's really market inefficiency, why
>not exploit it?
>

Because I personally carry to high a debt burden to qualify for the loan.
I also suffer from doing something with my life that I both enjoy and feel
makes a difference.  I advocate for others that would like opportunity.

>>I am glad that you admit that racism is irrational.
>
>A lot of human activity is irrational.
>
>In the case of racism, it is difficult to even define what it is for
>the purpose of writing a law under which people are to be prosecuted.
>This undermines the rule of law in the United States and opens the way
>to abuse and political corruption.  Probably that was the idea.

Yep, that was it.  We all got together in 1964 to try to find a way that we
could increase political corruption.  Read the law.

>But, even if it were possible to define precisely what racism is, I
>would still believe it should be legal.  There is no accounting for
>taste and it is wrong to dictate it to other people when they are
>causing no harm to others.

Try defining harm.  Try defining taste.  People like you have argued that
slavery caused no harm.  Disallowing women to vote caused no harm.  And of
course that discrimination in the workplace causes no harm.  You may
believe that in all of these cases the legislature should not have acted.
This just makes me glad that you are clearly in a minority, unable to
withstand the wheels of change.  You and Tim could start your own country.

>>That is the core as to why the problem doesnt go away.  It is an
>>infinite loop.  Current interests wont go there.
>
>Not one?  Absolutely no one?  That's pretty hard to believe.

Irrationality is always hard to believe.  

>>Generally, people who understand the problem are without access to
>>capital.  They would like to go there.  They cant get capital.  When
>>they approach current interests, they wont go there.
>
>Maybe there's something funny about the deal.

That's it.  All those lawyers involved with putting together deals
(something they succesfully do for a living) put together a funny deal.
That's it.  It's a conspiracy.  Be careful everyone, the poor people are
planning something.  Run, run.

>>There are a few examples of people who actually realize this as a
>>problem/opportunity.  Oddly enough, this point reinforces mine.
>>Redlining did exist.  Bank of America realized it and made a lot of
>>money.  But it still exists elsewhere.  Why dont business plans
>>around the country spring up on venture capitalists desks with an
>>approved stamp on them?
>
>More to the point, why isn't Matthew J. Miszewski drooling in
>anticipation of all the money he is going to make by recognizing this
>glorious opportunity?  Giannini made a tremendous amount of money.

Just because a market exists that is far from stating that barriers to
entry arent enormous and that a market segment is sufficient to make
'tremendous amounts of money'.  Money is also far from my prime motivator.
This will be hard for you to understand, but apparently you have no
interest in expanding your horizons.  

>Hmmm?  Maybe it was lousy investment in spite of a good ROI number.
>Nobody?  Not one person was willing to buy in?  Hardly an endorsement.

What are you talking about?  Good ROI, good investment.  How do you define
'lousy investment'?  Maybe you work for a bank?  What do you do?  Oh yeah,
you are Red Rackham.

>>Compare this now to people whom banks would generally consider a good risk.
>>College Graduates.  Generally, these folks live outside of the red line.
>>Good risks right?  What about those nasty student loan default rates?  The
>>red lines dont make business sense.
>
>I'm hearing that cash register ringing.  Go for it!
>

Whenever a good point is made, you go to that nifty "ring, ring" crap.  Do
you deny that the default rate on student loans is outrageous.  Do you deny
that these people generally live out of the redlines?  

>That's easy.  Once a month get ten families together to go to the
>nearest warehouse store in the suburbs and stock up on provisions.

Have you carried that much home on a bus lately?  I mean, you were poor,
no?  Or do we all forget little things like that?

>Or, one poor family could buy a bunch of stuff every month and sell it
>out of their house and save everybody the trip.

Making the original capital in their basement of course.  How many
microloan programs do you know of Red?

>Discussions regarding "the cycle of poverty" are usually little more
>than litanies of excuses.

I keep forgetting that poor people want to remain poor.  When will I learn.
 They use up all their energy thinking up excuses.  Oil Company execs never
treat blacks differently.  Glass ceilings dont exist.  Hey if I keep saying
it maybe I will learn.

>>Again, business plans have been presented to no avail.  Even private
>>foundation subsidized events were tried.  To no avail.
>
>Gee, you would almost think there was something wrong with the
>investment.

See above.

>I challenge you to put your own money into this venture.  You don't
>even have to quit your job to get into the microlending business until
>you've built it up to the point where it can support you.

This sounds like advice from someone who has never tried.  Not you, red.

>>I once believed much like you.  I saw an "opportunity" the existance of
>>which I could not explain.  It seemed irrational.  And it was.
>
>What I don't understand is why you are not excited by this
>opportunity.  You claim there is this gaping hole in the banking
>business.  If that is true, whoever exploits it is going to be
>unbelievably rich in addition to being a great human being.

See above.

>My point is not that there is a great opportunity so "somebody
>somewhere" will solve the racism problem.  My point is that you
>yourself do not believe there is a great opportunity if it involves
>money you really care about, i.e. your own.

Actually, my largest investment is in a minority owned business.  Funny
thing.  My money.  How odd.

>>Racism is irrational.  As you seem aware (BTW, I applaud you on what
>>seems to be an honest degree of care)...
>
>Don't get your hopes up.  I've been poor and I've known many poor
>people.  The unpleasant truth is that there are usually reasons why
>people are poor.

I keep forgeting.  What was it stupid, lazy, smelly, discourteous?  I have
to watch the news more closely.

>You are claiming that there are ZERO investors who will invest in this
>great opportunity because they are racists.  Contrary to popular
>belief, most African-Americans are not poor or even gang members.

Where the hell did this come from?  I *never* asserted it.  Red must be
watching too much TV.

>There are large numbers of middle class African-Americans and a
>smaller number of quite successful African-American businesspeople.
>

I know some of them.  They work very hard.  Funny thing is, Red, they sound
nothing like you.  Go read your book.

>If you are claiming that even African-American investors are
>irrationally racist about lending to poor people, you should be
>forewarned that I and many other people are going to find that a
>little hard to believe.

Racism is a dynamic of Power Red.  There are, unfortunately, successful
Blacks that do not help out the neighborhoods they came from.  They do not
credit Affirmative Action for its help.  Consider me 'forewarned'.

>>>Banks have practiced discrimination, and not just against black
>>>people.  They have been able to get away with it.  How?  Because the
>>>government has protected the banking guild from competition.

I never mentioned that blacks were the only poor in this country.  That was
one of Red's assumptions.  Much like the ones about poor people being lazy,
dirty, blah, blah.

>>We agree.  But I feel that a legal elimination of redlining would decrease
>>costs to the industry.
>
>Wrong.  Redlining is devilishly difficult to define.  

What's so difficult.  God, I hope you arent an attorney.

>That hurts a
>small bank more than any other because they have to figure out how to
>comply with the law and defend themselves against the regulators
>instead of just borrowing and lending money.  It raises the costs of
>banking.  That means it is harder for people to borrow and lend money.
>And that, if you care about efficiency, is inefficient.
>

It costs money *to practice* redlining.  Not to eliminate the practice.  If
decisions are based on merit alone, where do costs increase.  Redlining
adds a layer of investigation to a loan analysis.  Eliminating it
eliminates one.

>>If they never did we would still have slavery and only white, adult, male,
>>land-owners would vote.  While success is rare, it has prevailed when the
>>cause is just.
>
>I hate to admit it, but you do have a point here.
>

And yet you assert that the government should not tell you what to do.
Make up your mind Red.  

>However, the way privacy will be permanently eroded is through laws
>called "The Privacy Protection Act" which have clauses allowing the
>government to do whatever it wants.  It is disconcerting to have the
>government dictating what information you may or may not keep on your
>computer or who you may give it to.

While this is totally of the point of the post, at least we can agree on
something.

>
>Red Rackham

[Excuse the tone of the post.  Dealing daily with some of the effects of
racism, one gets sick of the same arguments and assumptions made by most.
I thought you were interested in differing points of view, but the tone of
your post suggested otherwise.]