3 ms·
I, the author, was not seeking to show intent to discrimate. I as only showing the policy effectively did discriminate. In order to show intent I would need th
by ugwigr 6y ago
I, the author, was not seeking to show intent to discrimate. I as only showing the policy effectively did discriminate. In order to show intent I would need the statistics you mentioned but to show the effect the stats you mentioned are entirely irrelvant
- nickff 6y agoI added my comment not to imply intentional discrimination, but as a slightly better 'base-rate' than the statistic you offered, which was African-Americans as a proportion of Americans. I personally think it is most likely that more of the money went to larger corporations than intended.
- ugwigr 6y agoThe correct base rate to use to determine 'effective' discrimintation (as intended or unintended consequence) is the general population.
- nickff 6y agoWell, it depends on your definition of effective discrimination; you could also argue that what matters most is how many employees of PPP-recipient companies were AA. Going another step, one might argue that what matters is the employment impact of PPP on different races. I am not sure which of these metrics is most important, but I think comparing PPP recipient ownership to the general population is rather blunt, especially if it is the only metric offered.
- ugwigr 6y agothe US Treasury controls the IRS, funds the US govenrment and is in charge of all money printing in the US. Every man (and woman) is equal before the law/govt. Hence it makes sense to analyze how the activity of the US Treasury benefits one group over another.