Skip to comments.Discrimination Data You Havenít Seen
Posted on 04/13/2018 10:52:09 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
And might never have but for two independent-minded economistsWalter Williams and Thomas Sowell.
In his review of Sowells new book on Townhall.com, Dr. Williams makes note of two data points that make the discrimination nation narrative about the United States look questionable, to say the least:
~"A study of National Merit Scholarship finalists shows that firstborns are finalists more often than their multiple siblings combined. Data from the U.S., Germany and Britain show that the average IQ of firstborns is higher than the average IQ of their later siblings. Such outcomes challenge those who believe that heredity or one's environment is the dominant factor in ones academic performance. Moreover, the finding shows that if there is not equality among people born to the same parents and living under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected under other conditions?"
~"In 2000, a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights study pointed out that 44.6 percent of black applicants were turned down for mortgages, while only 22.3 percent of whites were turned down. These and similar statistics led to charges of lending industry discrimination and demands that government do something about it. While the loan rejection rate for whites was 22.3 percent, that for Asians and native Hawaiians was only 12.4 percent. Those statistics didn't see the light of day. Why? They didnt fit the racial discrimination narrative. It would have been difficult for the race hustlers to convince the nation that lending institutions were discriminating against not only black applicants but white applicants, as well, in favor of Asian and native Hawaiian applicants."
Firstborns get a special HeadStart program.
It’s our first born privilege.
For accuracy, the Clinton-era laws against discrimination in housing (which caused the 2007 financial meltdown, by the way) were not justified by deliberate racial animus, but by “disparate impacts.”
Essentially, the government said, “we recognize that banks are doing what they’re doing for legitimate reasons, namely, because the blacks who have been rejected for loans are more likely to default on those loans. The point is that by creating policies to prevent bad loans, you have hurt black people more than white people. This means that more black people have to pour their money down the drain by renting, which perpetuates the poverty that is the excuse for rejecting loans to more black people.”
The bank that most resisted “leveling the playing field,” racially would be the one that was the most economically successful, since it made the fewest risky loans.
So, bankers and the government, including Republicans and Democrats, came up with a plan by which banks and their investors could share the risk: CDOs. The Bush administration even tightened the rules on bankruptcy in part to make CDO safer.
The problem was that the Clinton administration, supported later by the Bush administration, changed the rules AFTER the Gramm bill. Banks had to lend equally not only to blacks, but also to Hispanic immigrants, of whom a large percentage were illegal aliens. Once illegal aliens went underwater, they disappeared, their debts included. No bankruptcy.... just disappearance.
The more illegal immigrants disappeared, the more housing values went down, meaning more houses went underwater, encouraging more illegal immigrants to disappear, further driving housing values. Soon, the entire economy was collapsing and people were losing their jobs meaning they defaulted on their loans, driving housing prices down further.
My second born is my national merit scholar. Must be an outlier. I don’t think she has a higher IQ than her older sister, but her personality is one of being more resolute and driven.
No wonder the israel of the OT made such a big deal out of someone being firstborn. Apparently they knew something we’ve forgotten.
I can confirm my younger siblings are way dumber than, exponentially down to the last.
However, they are still smarter than the average bear....
Maybe your first born is just more efficient and doesn’t have anything to prove..../S...LOL
I see I made a mistake, which still makes me smarter than my brothers and sisters, who wouldn’t even try to fix their mistake....
“I can confirm my younger siblings are way dumber than I, exponentially down to the last.
However, they are still smarter than the average bear....”
I’m the youngest of 4. So who do I get to sue?
I was a merit scholar, but only barely in the top third of my high school class. Fourth of six. I just never had any fear of the standardized test.
Firstborns tend to be Alphas. This Firstborn is a Alpha, Female, LEO. Siblings are Beta’s. Hubby is a third born, a laid back a Beta. My Firstborn is a Alpha, his brother is a Beta. You can add in Stubborn Scot to boot.
Not to disagree, but merely to raise a point: the distinction is being made between heredity and environment. But the implication is the environment is exactly the same for first born and later siblings. I’m not certain we can “prove” that. In our house we tried to spend the same effort with each child, but I’m almost certain we were more involved with our first. Everything was new, all excited, etc. Does that “natural” inclination lead to differing personality traits, and ultimately to higher IQ? Don’t know, just asking.
Taggart: Let’s kill every first born male child in Rock Ridge.
Hedley Lamarr: Nah, too Jewish.
I think parents generally put decreasing effort in with subsequent children.
And those laws relied on a "study" out of the Boston FRB. Some chick economist created a fraudulent study to "correct" lending laws.
The first kid also trains the parents.
With a birth rate of 1.84, 54% of children are first born and 46% are second or later (ignoring combined families and child deaths). I would expect there to be a majority of first born winners. Plus we're naturally superior. :-)
Oops. I screwed up the math. I forgot that women who don’t have any babies pull down the birth rate but don’t skew towards firstborns. My math assumed one or more babies per woman.