The CFPB and Predatory Home Lending

I’ve been reading this morning about this CFPB investigation into seller-financed home sales.

Apparently after 2008 a couple firms started buying up cheap (sub $10k) properties — mostly in the midwest — from Fannie Mae. Since then they’ve been putting low-income homebuyers in the properties on long-term, high-interest installment plans — called “contracts for deed” (where the seller retains ownership of the property). Pretty soon the loan becomes a cash pit, the homebuyer defaults, the seller evicts and then flips the property.

There are racial and historical overtones to this — contracts for deed were used extensively from the 1930s to 1960s in poor black and hispanic neighborhoods where it was difficult to get a mortgage. Needless to point out the societal changes that were occurring during that period. Today these contracts are used almost exclusively in poor areas of color.

Somewhat troubling to read about this, especially against the backdrop of having read so much in the past week about folks in the Rust Belt being “disgruntled” and “dissatisfied” and “disillusioned” with Obama-era housing. Trump looks poised to significantly reduce the role of the CFPB, which would only allow this kind of predatory lending to flourish.

It occurs to me that when stuff like this happens, people don’t think to blame the lender (they’re just doing their job, right?). Instead they blame the government — the president, their state reps and “Congress”. To me this is an example of how people could be swayed to vote for the wrong guys and gals because they’re disenfranchised and under-informed.

73 Days

This is funny…

“Another contributing factor: Mr. Trump’s victory surprised even his own top advisers, who, before Tuesday, were unable to focus the New York businessman on the 73 days between the election and inauguration, a senior aide said. They said Mr. Trump didn’t want to jinx himself by planning the transition before he had actually won.

During their private White House meeting on Thursday, Mr. Obama walked his successor through the duties of running the country, and Mr. Trump seemed surprised by the scope, said people familiar with the meeting. Trump aides were described by those people as unaware that the entire presidential staff working in the West Wing had to be replaced at the end of Mr. Obama’s term.”

Election Reax Pt. 2: What to Do Next

I think it’s critical that we start doing positive, productive things now and not get hung up on the results of this election for too long. A couple things I’ve thought of:

1) The Supreme Court is likely to issue key decisions on bank/financial regulation in 2017, including a pivotal decision in the MetLife case. Let’s figure out who to approach about journalistic coverage and filing amicus briefs. I’m sure Paul Volcker, Ben Bernanke, Gretchen Morgensen and others would be receptive.

2) Pending the result of MetLife, there may be a slew of heavy-duty polluters (e.g. coal and gas companies) that go to court next year seeking refuge from EPA and other environmental regulations. How do we get out in front of this? Again I’m thinking of drumming up legal support, but there may be private sector approaches such as PSA/advocacy and clean energy campaigns. Ppl like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Alex Matthiessen could be helpful — if we know how to get in touch with them.

3) For the NY Staters reading this — we have three strong anti-Trump insiders on our side in Andrew Cuomo, Bill DeBlasio and Chuck Schumer. Let’s make sure these guys are speaking up for us. New York State should stand with California in opposing rollbacks to environmental regulations, gay rights, women’s rights, and other core elements of the progressive agenda. Their phone numbers are publicly available on their websites. Put them in your phone and call them — squeaky wheels get the grease!

Like it or not, the Republicans control the government for the next two years (the white house, both houses of congress and the courts). I hope we can make gains in the 2018 midterms… but UNTIL THEN we are fighting with one arm tied behind our back. A lot can happen in two years, for better or worse. That means we need to get creative now about pressuring lawmakers and judges to do the right thing.

Let’s protest and let’s demonstrate. But let’s also fight the battles where they are being fought — in Congress, in the courts, and in the press.

Defining Racism in the Age of Trump

There are a lot of examples of Trump being a racist that are omitted from this article, but I understand the value of trying to move the conversation past “Is Trump a racist?”

That said, I don’t quite agree with the point that people identify statements differently and therefore come to different conclusions about whether Trump is a racist. I think it’s more that people attach different valence and import to racist remarks (or ideologies) and therefore come to different conclusions about whether it matters. For instance, some people think Trump is a racist, but that that’s a funny and trivial fact and unconnected to his fitness to be president. Whereas other people think it’s serious and sinister and totally disqualifies him. So I don’t really think there’s widespread disagreement about whether he’s a racist — just about whether it’s a significant thing to consider as a voter.

In this respect, I would agree that the political left has done itself a disservice by expanding the definition of racism (and various other -isms) too far. “Implicit bias”, for example, seems to undermine the notion of free will, which in my mind is fundamental to liberalism. If my being white is a sufficient condition for my being a racist, then I’m likely to reject the seriousness of being a racist.

I think this is roughly what’s going on, and what’s been going on, in the electorate. Normal people don’t feel that they get to take part in the labeling convention, but they do feel they get to decide how seriously to take the labels. By expanding the labels to be comically broad, I think you’ve seen something approximating the appropriate reaction in people treating the labels as comedy.

The Failures of Polling

This is an interesting piece about the shortcomings of polling in this and recent votes.

I do hope the sun is setting on so-called “data journalism”. Nate Silver — who I gather is held in fairly high regard — may be a good data scientist for all I know but he’s clearly a shitty journalist.

I’d sooner lose the data than the journalism (ask me how I feel about fantasy sports sometime). If there’s a silver lining in all of this it’s that good thinkers and writers might come out of the woodwork to cover the Trump presidency.

Election Reax

Trying to gather myself, wrote down some thoughts this morning…

I’m not shocked to discover the ppl who exist in middle America. Nor do I make much of the theory that a populist surge across the Midwest carried Trump to victory.  A lot of those people voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and liberal candidates in years before that. Wisconsin hasn’t voted Republican in 32 years. Michigan has to be similar.

I am shocked at the anti-intellectual infatuation with “middle america” among people who are so far removed from it — and have so much reason to do better. I’m shocked at the obsession with otherness for entertainment’s sake. I’m shocked at the people who call themselves down-home, conservative Christians (Mike Pence?) and voted for a pussy-grabbing, money-grubbing reality TV star from New York. I’m shocked at the Wall Street, academic and media elites who can’t stop glorifying the hopeless rednecks that showed up at Trump rallies unable to summon basic facts or reasons.

The amount of media time devoted to raucous, hateful, stupid behavior at trump rallies is atrocious. We are a little too titillated by each other’s differences and a little too taken with sleazy entertainment. Unfortunately think that’s as true of the liberal base as anyone else.

What are you all thinking so far?