3 ms·

> Until a country decides to stop making policy to support this notion Which policy? You mean government charters for e.g. Fannie Mae that were established in

> Until a country decides to stop making policy to support this notion Which policy? You mean government charters for e.g. Fannie Mae that were established in part to combat behavior like redlining, which excluded certain ethnicities from loans for certain neighborhoods based on the loan applicant's skin color?

bombcar 5y ago
Everyone found a workaround for that - price the “undesirables” out instead of banning an accidental aspect. The average well-to-do homeowner is much more concerned about living next to a “poor” of any race or color than living next to a rich.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  Competition based on price has always been a thing. The point of combatting redlining was to provide equal opportunity for the same income levels, and to not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity alone.
DeathArrow 5y ago
>You mean government charters for e.g. Fannie Mae that were established in part to combat behavior like redlining US government used $200 billion of taxpayers money to revive Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those money will lower the cost of borrowing and thus push the prices up. A new crisis will come, people will lose their houses, Fannie Mae will lose the tax payers money. The government will give Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $400 billion this time, thinking that $200 billion was clearly not enough.
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  The question remains, what policy was the above commenter refering to if not those that combat redlining? Fannie/Freddie were captured and should never have bought NINA (no-income-no-asset) loans. If they had died out as a natural result of competition that would have been fine. But they were misled into a disaster. Allowing them to crash in 2008 would have been a bigger disaster. They no longer give out such risky loans. Now the sharks have moved on to other scams.

bombcar 5y ago

Everyone found a workaround for that - price the “undesirables” out instead of banning an accidental aspect. The average well-to-do homeowner is much more concerned about living next to a “poor” of any race or color than living next to a rich.

unityByFreedom 5y ago
Competition based on price has always been a thing. The point of combatting redlining was to provide equal opportunity for the same income levels, and to not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity alone.

DeathArrow 5y ago

>You mean government charters for e.g. Fannie Mae that were established in part to combat behavior like redlining US government used $200 billion of taxpayers money to revive Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those money will lower the cost of borrowing and thus push the prices up. A new crisis will come, people will lose their houses, Fannie Mae will lose the tax payers money. The government will give Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $400 billion this time, thinking that $200 billion was clearly not enough.

unityByFreedom 5y ago
The question remains, what policy was the above commenter refering to if not those that combat redlining? Fannie/Freddie were captured and should never have bought NINA (no-income-no-asset) loans. If they had died out as a natural result of competition that would have been fine. But they were misled into a disaster. Allowing them to crash in 2008 would have been a bigger disaster. They no longer give out such risky loans. Now the sharks have moved on to other scams.