It's a bit of a work around but if you have the income, and the loan (debt) you can see there's a perception of income to debt.
That's not how debt-to-income ratio works. It involves *pre-existing* debt -- debt the loan applicant already had prior to applying for the loan.
As for the importance of credit score there is plenty of research on that which goes to show correlate effect that is clearly a reverberation of the past system of loans which favored whites [2].
The study I cited used the following metric to evaluate credit score: "Researchers assigned a rating of “bad” to anyone who had two bills past due by more than 30 days in the past two years, a single bill past due by 90 days or more, a judgment against them, a lien against them or a bankruptcy." There's nothing racially biased about that metric. It's an accurate reflection of how financially responsible a person is, and the reality is that Blacks tend to be less financially responsible than Whites -- regardless of income level.
Even today PoC with good credit scores are saddled with higher rates compared to whites [3].
Read the study, man. It's blatantly flawed. Any credit score between 660 and 800 may be officially classified as a "good," but variation within that range makes a huge difference. Look at the
data on average credit scores by race. Even though they're all above 660, there are massive disparities between races. Black and Latino credit scores tend to be 30-60 points lower than White credit scores, which explains why they face higher interest rates.
And even if you argue that we should abandon any notions of racism and look at this through a purely economic lens you're just playing into what Mr. Atwater was saying, to take the issues into the abstract knowing ultimately policy crafted in such a way will hurt minorities more than whites.
I haven't said anything about what we ought to do in the realm of policy. That's a separate discussion. Right now we're debating the purely factual question of whether or not racial discrimination is a significant force in modern American society.
You claim to acknowledge the past yet you don't seem to appreciate the economic board was set by white hands with inevitable socio economic consequences.
I do acknowledge the immensely negative effect the slavery and segregation have had on the socioeconomic stature of the African American community. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not present-day racial discrimination is widespread.
You seem too eager to dismiss race as a factor despite its prominence in recent history.
I'll admit that I'm heavily biased against the "racism is everywhere" narrative, but that bias is rooted in the empirical
evidence:
"One of the most substantial changes in white racial attitudes has been the movement from very substantial opposition to the principle of racial equality to one of almost universal support. For example, in 1942, just 32 percent of whites agreed that whites and blacks should attend the same schools; in 1995, when the question was last asked, 96 percent of whites agreed. In 1944, only 45 percent of whites agreed that blacks should have “as good a chance as white people to get any kind of job,” but by 1972 almost all whites agreed with this statement on equal opportunity (97 percent). Finally, in a question that taps whites’ feelings about a black person holding the highest office in the U.S., Gallup found that in 1958, only 37 percent of whites said they would vote for a black candidate for president; by 1997 that figure was up to 95 percent."
Racist attitudes are confined to a tiny, marginalized segment of the population. That's why we should always look for alternative explanations first before invoking the phantom of "implicit racism." And as I've repeatedly demonstrated throughout this exchange, there's no shortage of those alternatives.
Trump didn't make race a polarizing issue, he capitalized on a pre-existing, one could say historical, disdain. Millions of Americans chose to believe Trump's conspiracies from birtherism "millions of illegals voting" and "Muslims celebrating 9/11" not because it was true but because it's the racist BS they've been feeling should be said aloud.
Perfect example of what I was just talking about. Partisanship fully explains all of those conspiracy theories (along with most of what's wrong with modern politics). Why assume that some sort of secret underlying racism is also involved?
