March 16, 2013

Learning from the Housing Bubble

Wells Fargo foreclosure pipeline in Los Angeles, Feb 2013
Darker green = more minority
Since the Housing Bubble burst in the Sand States in 2007, I've been pointing out that the Boom/Bust had been in sizable measure an overly optimistic bet on blacks and, especially, Hispanics. And, this fact ought to be remembered when thinking about, say, immigration policy. 

Yet, nobody seems to be able to remember any of what just happened, or at least not well enough to notice implications. How often have we been assured that Immigration Is Good for the Economy.

About the only folks who have remembered this pattern, however, have been liberal activists. For example, here is a new report (big PDF) from three "community" groups about homes still in Wells Fargo's foreclosure pipeline in California, all these years later, and how Latinos and African-Americans are hit by far the hardest. 

It's fun to imagine that defaulters were rich white people, but, statistically that just isn't true. For example, above is a map of Wells Fargo's foreclosure pipeline in the Los Angeles basin as of last month. The darker the green, the higher the minority percentage in that zip code. 

Basically, foreclosures in L.A. remain concentrated in the black & Latino 'hood: South-Central (or as they now officially have rebranded it after the unfortunate incidents of 1992: South Los Angeles).

The question is not, centrally, Who Was to Blame? But can we learn from the past?


41 comments:

anony-mouse said...

Somewhat misleading. Minorities tend to live in more dense communities so their 'dots' will show clusters more easily. If there would be the same percentage of foreclosures in Bel Air you would never find such clusters.

David H. Fucktrelle, Male Feminist Extraordinair (tm) said...

you forgot to put the SF Valley where you could show the defaults of coke addled porn stars....

Anonymous said...

And I bet the dark areas without any foreclosures are heavily Asian.
Robert Hume

Anonymous said...

Steve it wasn't liberal actvist but r neo-cons like George W Bush that pushed the housing bubble. Conservatives are terrible, the recent CPAC convention tells me the right never learns that cheap labor has a price and by the way Arizona is in some categories doing better than Texas not hit by the housing bubble.

Anonymous said...

Lanser who writes for the Orange County reigster. Houses were highest under George W Bush at 3.4 in Orange County versus the national average and under 2.0 for Bill Clinton in the 1990's. During the 1980's OC was under 2 times higher than the national average but 2.7 in the late 1980's when the savings and loan bubble happen. Liberals yes but probably the bubble was cause by a lot of conservatives like Bush that wanted cheap labor and housing for the cheap labor workers.

Anonymous said...

Looking at raw foreclosure numbers isn't quite fair for two reasons. First, whites and asians often tried to avoid foreclosure by doing a short sale. The result is nearly the same, a big loan loss for the bank, though lower legal costs. You also need to be able to jump through the hoops required to get the bank to approve the short sale. IOW, it helped to be educated and able to interact with english only bank employees. Second, the smaller number of west side white foreclosures are for houses worth 2-3 times one in south LA. My house in CA was a short sale I purchased from a white couple, on which the bank lost about 200,000.

My other observation is that "loans to illegal aliens with fake landscaping businesses" was more the exception. More often Hispanic buyers were 2nd generation or long-time first gen immigrants who had variable family incomes, and who might have been able to afford the mortagage if their relatives living with them working in construction could continue to find work.

A final point is that LA really did not crash for very long or as hard as other bubble cities. The Central Valley, inland empire, Vegas, and all of Florida crashed much harder and have many more foreclosures. Coastal markets from San Diego to Marin Co don't have many foreosures now because prices have recovered so much that troubled homeowners can sell for more than their mortgage, and many others have refinanced to below 4%.

Anonymous said...

There were hard hit white areas, south orange county has less than 2 percent black and about 16 percent Hispanic but some parts of South OC were hit as much as Santa Ana and Anaheim. Steve needs to do some more reserach into the La-Santa Ana, he just does La.

Anonymous said...

The California info map I found most interesting lately is the change in black population between 2000 and 2010. The whole state has seen its black population crash downward. San Diego right now does not have a single black plurality census track, much less zip code, nor does OC. LA and the Bay Area have also seen the number of black neighborhoods fall by more than half in just this one decade. Within another 10 years, there may not be a single black neighborhood left in the whole state. Oakland may be the only possible holdout, but it is gentrifying very fast. Overall, the black pop dropped by about 15% in the state, but the drop was much larger in the central cities and desirable coastal areas. San Francisco's black population fell from 13% to 6% in the last 40 years.

Rex Little said...

One question I'd have: were most of the defaulters in high-minority areas themselves minorities, or were they whites whose property values got trashed by an influx of minorities?

Anonymous said...

Ron Rosenbaum ranting about food again. Surprise, surprise. White bread and white turkey meat bad, remember? But white cream is okay! Hey is Ronnie going 'white nationalist'?

Cookarthyism.

Matt said...

I'm sympathetic to your general thesis, but I'd be much happier if that map were better-done. It's cropped so that the majority-minority parts of town are almost exclusively in focus, and the dots are colored so that they show up much better in the darker areas than in the lighter ones. If you made this map, or cropped it like this, then I've got to accuse you of "white-hispanic"-level special pleading, just in order to maintain my own self-concept as a consistent person.

Anonymous said...

Maybe all that slave trading made some Nigerians--who caught and sold slaves to whites and Arabs--very good at math.

Big Bill said...

It is hard to learn from the past when it is systematically erased and rewritten. Fortunately there is the internet.

Shortly after the real estate crisis in 2008 the ACORN folks repackaged themselves as Champions of the Underdog, erasing entirely their complicity in the crappy loan business and how easily (willingly? happily?) they were bought off by the banks.

Whenever some leftie gives me the ACORN-as-rescuer shtick, I ask him to Google "ACORN loans" for articles back in 2005-2007. AS long as that institutional memory persists there is some hope.

Anonymous said...

“I just want a modification with
principal reduction so that I can stay in my home. It is everything to me.”
BETTY BARDO, WHO HAS LIVED IN
HER GLENDALE HOME SINCE 1994

I bet you do, Betty.

2Degrees said...

I have a question.

I may not be much of an authority after only three months, but coming from New Zealand I arrived in Latin America with very few preconceptions.

Hispanic is a very broad term and far less usable from an HBD perspective than black or white.

I have just been to Nicaragua and it was a hell-hole, grotesquely poor and dirty. Politics also seems to matter much more there than in Costa Rica.

Costa Rica is not a rich country, but it is so much better off than Nicaragua.

I have noticed that I pass for a Costa Rican, but not for a Nicaraguan. Also Nicas seem to emphasize their non-European heritage more than Costa Ricans.

Are the differences between Costa Ricans and Nicaraguans purely cultural/political/historical or is there an HBD element?

J. Bevington Taliaferro said...

Part of learning from the past is achieved by accurately assigning blame. We very much need to loudly and persistently point out who is to blame, because those people are destroying Western civilization.

So who is to blame? Essentially is it Leftist, PC Whites and their nonWhite allies. They are the enemy. They are the ones who are stringently enforcing acceptance of their malignant lies and fantasies. They are the ones imposing a Leftist tyranny that is destroying your country and your civilization.

You cannot learn from the past without understanding who are our enemies. As long as we avoid blame, we are playing right into the hands of our Leftist, multicultural, non-judgemental (for thee not me) antiWhite enemies; enemies who are enforcing a code of immoral conduct and self-destructive behavior that demonizes the eternal verities and decent morals and ethics.

George W. Bush told us he was a conservative. He was nothing but a front man for evil Leftists, and a cowardly panderer to nonWhites. Hence, the Diversity Housing Bubble.

Our lively, vibrant, diverse enemies are mentally ill as well as morally evil. To achieve anything in the Leftist agenda, reality must be denied; personal experience and accurate observation must be demonized. When an individual lives their life according to these principles it is a sure sign he is mentally ill.

We very much need to apportion the blame. We very much need to talk about it as often and as bluntly as possible. We need to do this today.

Jan Rogozinski said...

Steve:
This is a not so off-topic question brought to mind by the Portman case.

If I understand genetics correctly, it’s a question of genes and DNA. However, children are not the exact clones of their parents; “Survival of the fittest” works over a period of time.

Beginning with the Song of Roland, about 1100 AD--which, by the way, has a strong subplot about the love affair between Roland and Olivier. (Dorothy Sayers said Olivier must be the wife because he tries to calm down R’s over-testosteroned machismo.) Beginning then, uncles are very important in European literature.

There is a reason why that is so. Homosexuality is (or at least was) a positive factor to ensure the survival of an early family or tribe. Think, for example, of the benefit of an unmarried uncle in helping feed a man’s children if he is killed. Because of the gay uncle, his children and his genes (including those of his gay brother) survive and our passed on.

Moving on in time, the same would be true for the nephews of as gay Medieval or Renaissance priest, especially an abbot or bishop. As a medieval historian, I know of dozens of cases, when a prelate helped his nephews (and nieces) prosper and have lots of well-fed children by giving them, for example, very-low-rent long-term leases to “church” property.

I am sure that the same has been true in bourgeois society: It helped professional success to be the protegee of an unmarried banker or lawyer uncle or cousin.

There thus is a good reason why straight fathers have gay sons. Throughout history,evolution “selects in” and preserves the ”gay gene.” Over time, families with the latter are less likely to survive than those without it.

Hence, a father should celebrate his son’s gayness since it is a genetic plus for all the father’s descendants.

Jan Rogozinski said...

Steve:
This is a not so off-topic question brought to mind by the Portman case.

If I understand genetics correctly, it’s a question of genes and DNA. However, children are not the exact clones of their parents; “Survival of the fittest” works over a period of time.

Beginning with the Song of Roland, about 1100 AD--which, by the way, has a strong subplot about the love affair between Roland and Olivier. (Dorothy Sayers said Olivier must be the wife because he tries to calm down R’s over-testosteroned machismo.) Beginning then, uncles are very important in European literature.

There is a reason why that is so. Homosexuality is (or at least was) a positive factor to ensure the survival of an early family or tribe. Think, for example, of the benefit of an unmarried uncle in helping feed a man’s children if he is killed. Because of the gay uncle, his children and his genes (including those of his gay brother) survive and our passed on.

Moving on in time, the same would be true for the nephews of as gay Medieval or Renaissance priest, especially an abbot or bishop. As a medieval historian, I know of dozens of cases, when a prelate helped his nephews (and nieces) prosper and have lots of well-fed children by giving them, for example, very-low-rent long-term leases to “church” property.

I am sure that the same has been true in bourgeois society: It helped professional success to be the protegee of an unmarried banker or lawyer.

There thus is a good reason why straight fathers have gay sons. Throughout history, evolution “selects in” and preserves the ”gay gene.” Over time, families with the latter are less likely to survive than those without it.

Hence, a father should celebrate his son’s gayness since it is a genetic plus for the father’s genetic make up and descendants.

Anonymous said...

This has become a highly politicized issue, due to the probablity (in my opinion a certainty) that overzealous enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act played an important role in causing the collapse.
In politics, the question always is "Who Was to Blame." That is why the buyer is always portrayed as an innocent, a naif. I remember a case (NY State I believe, although I do not remember the cite) in which the judge opined that the buyer, a major in the United States Army (!) who just happened to be female and black, was "unsophisticated," thus lending credence to her argument that the lending company had issued her a "predatory" mortgage.

Anonymous said...



San Francisco's black population fell from 13% to 6% in the last 40 years.

3/16/13, 12:02 PM
Will this eventually happen with Hispanics that when robots replayed some of the service work that Hispanics will moved inland and less Hispanic immirgation.

Derb's Mossberg said...

" Think, for example, of the benefit of an unmarried uncle in helping feed a man’s children if he is killed. Because of the gay uncle, his children and his genes (including those of his gay brother) survive and our passed on."


And if the gay uncle turns out to be a role model, and increase the chance that the kids turn out gay? Also, homosexuality turns out disproportionately often in people who were molested as children... and who go on to molest other children when adults... and perpetuate the cycle. So other than the possibility of the uncle contributing financially, the brother may well be worse off with a gay brother.

Lastly, I don't think the comparison is right- we are comparing the gay man as if the other alternative would be no siblings- if he had a straight sibling, they could serve as a potential surrogate parent (with less likelihood of the above problems) AND further his gene pool by having their own kids. So it doesn't really show that having a gay relative is better at all.

Anonymous said...

I think another Who? Whom? question we could ask is why a self-proclaimed "Citizenest" such as yourself writes numerous "woe is us!" articles about the oh so tragic housing bubble collapse brought about by poor dumb blacks being unable to make their payments while seemingly unaware of the tragedy of these poor dumb blacks not owning a small place to live on this planet.

Yeah, the majority of them are incapable of handling modern american capitalism and therefore under the rules of said system they shouldn't have received loans. So what? In all of your numerous articles about the tragedy of "the housing crisis" you routinely ignore the suffering that comes from being a poor dumb black dude. Should that poor dumbness be made less painful by stealing a trailor from some dumb white family? Hell no. By stealing a seventh trailer from some rich guy of any race? Maybe. But the point here isn't economics, it's the fact that you claim to be a citizenest yet hardly seem to have any empathy for poor folk who happen to be of a different race. And nowhere is this more evident than in your interminable articles about how loaning to poor dumb blacks caused the "housing crisis" where you manage to talk about blacks' financial inability to buy a home for pages on end without displaying a droplet of sincere sympathy for the bereft blacks themselves.

P.S. I'm as racially aware as anyone here and think that modern america's views on race are literally insane. I would also support segregation until blacks get their violent crime rate down. This post has nothing to do with any of that.

Anonymous said...



Jan R:

"There is a reason why that is so. Homosexuality is (or at least was) a positive factor to ensure the survival of an early family or tribe. Think, for example, of the benefit of an unmarried uncle in helping feed a man’s children if he is killed. Because of the gay uncle, his children and his genes (including those of his gay brother) survive and our passed on. "

No, no, and more no! As fast as you can, get thee to "West Hunter," the blog of Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending. There, in the right-hand margin, you will find Greg Cochran's posts on male homosexuality. Read them, learn a little evolutionary logic, and then never, ever again let slip from your mouth the "gay uncle" hypothesis.

If you don't know who GC is, do a little googling. It's worth your time.

Anonymous said...

White homeowners had the lowest foreclosure rate at 452 per 10,000 loads while black homeowners had the highest at 790 per 10,000 loans.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/foreclosures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf

Anonymous said...

"San Francisco's black population fell from 13% to 6% in the last 40 years."

Since liberals couldn't just kick blacks out of the city, they incentivized black departure.
They say to blacks, "if you agree to move out by signing up to our program, we'll let you live in the white suburbs with better schools and everything".
So, why wouldn't blacks take a free ticket out of the city into the better white suburbs and white small towns. Of course, less rich whites have to deal with black problems.

desert lady said...

once again steve fails to acknowledge, or perhaps he cannot even realize, that the purpose of the USA govt is NOT to govern well, but instead to make profits for investors and protect their wealth from the majority. That is a paraphrase from the writings of james madison, aka the father of the constitution.

You seem to have this naive belief that the purpose of the govt is to learn from past mistakes, and then do better in the future...for the good of the majority. Where on earth did you get that idea?

The purpose of the govt in america is to allow investors to maximize profits. That was the express intent of the founding aristocrats.

Of course there will always be one scheme or another to help the rich investors get over on the majority. What naivete to believe otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

I hope you answer Anonymous 5:28 PM, who begins, "I think another Who? Whom? question...." The commenter is needlessly insulting to you and has odd ideas about bringing back segregation, but his question is interesting. My variation on 5:28's question is: How can we make America a great country for our own citizen underclass, without ruining the place for everyone else?

If I were in charge, there might not be strong affirmative action for Ivy league undergrad schools or for professional schools, but we would probably do even more to set aside good, low-skill government jobs for low-income folks, and especially black people. Companies might be given tax credits to set aside easy jobs for members of the underclass. I would be thrilled if a think tank were to find out that this approach would result in more upward mobility in terms of social status, and perhaps even IQ among the underclass. It would also be nice if the approach would result in lazy, smart people from advantaged backgrounds achieving more highly because they wouldn't have a chance for cushy government jobs. A broader point is that when we help minorities, we should choose approaches that involve longer-term hand-holding. It doesn't make sense to say, "Mr. Washington, here's ticket to Harvard Law school, since you're half-way smart," and "Mr. Watts, you are entitled to a huge home loan because you seem to have kicked your crack habit."

Anonymous said...

"San Francisco's black population fell from 13% to 6% in the last 40 years."

Since liberals couldn't just kick blacks out of the city, they incentivized black departure.
They say to blacks, "if you agree to move out by signing up to our program, we'll let you live in the white suburbs with better schools and everything".
So, why wouldn't blacks take a free ticket out of the city into the better white suburbs and white small towns. Of course, less rich whites have to deal with black problems.
True, La Times and the OC Register running about racists whites against blacks in OC. Granted, the Yorba Linda incident was bad by pouring acid, screaming at the black kid and vandalism. The KKK joke was bad taste and the Confederate Flag incident was not that big a deal. The Register and The La times mentions that hate crimes in OC are mainly against blacks. OC has a small hate crime percentage compared to nearby La were Blacks and Hispanics get on each other's nerds and the LA Times and the OC Register failed to mention some of the hate crimes against blacks in Orange County are done by Hispanics. Anaheim has the largest Black population and Blacks live in Anaheim in the Hispanic areas not white. About 5 years ago a Hispanic on a bike in Santa Ana went up to a black getting gas and stabbed him. Yet, the recent comission just mentions incidents in more white areas not hispanic areas. Granted, there is a snall white supreemists group in OC that probably ony has a thousand members but Mexicans are involved in the hate of blacks as well.

Anonymous said...

I think Republicans or conservatives actually like Mexicans and other latins better than blacks or asians even though they complain about illegal immirgation Republican counties in Texas and former ones in California like San Diego knew Mexicans because they were farm communities in the olden days granted sometimes Mexicans were in separate classrooms prior to 1950 but it seems that Republicans like Bush and even Rick Perry have a softer spot for Latins over Blacks or Asians.

Whiskey said...

Who? Whom? Its all about the money. Creating property bubbles and churn is about ... money. Nothing more or less.

Re Blacks in California, their absolute numbers may be declining, but Black housing patters are radically changing. I see Blacks in OC where they were very scarce to non-existent before, this has coincided with the ethnic cleansing of Black enclaves (South Central, Watts, Compton, etc.) by the Mexican-led immigrant tidal wave.

My guess is that even larger scale Mexican immigration will force Blacks into closer contact with Whites in greater degrees than now, erasing the defacto segregation painfully built up by White liberals. Creating not a re-assessment of policy but a greater scramble for ...

... wait for it ...

MONEY! So they can move to exclusive gated communities where the only Blacks are NBA stars and actors.

Anonymous said...

Writing from England, I must tell you all of the absoluyely devasting impact the fallout from the MMM had on England. To put it bluntly, Britain is screwed. It hasn't had any economic growth at all for the last 5 years, it has suffered the longest, direst economic depression in recorded history, racked up massive debts, and there is no apparent way out. Plus the political scene has probably changed forvere with the unabashed English nationalists UKIP likely to be a permanent fixture.
So, we in Britain, (so long as the USA is economically dominant), have a vested interest in a sensible American immigration policy. For the motherland's sake, (things are so dire here that the long term economic future is doubtful), please don't listen to bullshit economists, lefties or righties, but do the right thing and keep the third world out.

Anonymous said...

I hope you answer Anonymous 5:28 PM, who begins, "I think another Who? Whom? question...." The commenter is needlessly insulting to you and has odd ideas about bringing back segregation, but his question is interesting.


What the hell are you talking about? Steve's as imperfect as the rest of us (though less than you obviously) but otherwise he's great. Nobody's insulting anyone, there's no moral demand on anyone to care about poor black americans and it's no great crime to call yourself a Citizenest when really you aren't. It's just an error, not an insult.

And again, because your reading comprehension is so poor, I'll remind you that the point is that Steve writes endlessly about the horrible, horrific housing crisis caused by dumb blacks' inability to keep their homes from getting foreclosed on and fails to take note of the sad fact that their homes are getting foreclosed on. That's a rather glaring emotional omission and one that puts his claims to Citizenismry* on pretty thin ice.

(*Sorry but "Citizenry" was taken.)

Stewart J. said...

"So, we in Britain, (so long as the USA is economically dominant), have a vested interest in a sensible American immigration policy. For the motherland's sake, (things are so dire here that the long term economic future is doubtful), please don't listen to bullshit economists, lefties or righties, but do the right thing and keep the third world out."


You guys had a great opportunity with political leaders like Enoch Powell to avoid 3rd world migration but still the people opted to not listen, what chance do we have with great leaders like McCain, Obama, and the like?

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/17/the-rise-of-the-cossacks-amidst-russias-decline/

Anonymous said...

"Enoch Powell"

His rhetoric and style were too hysterical to be taken seriously. He should have made a more rational and sensible case. 'Rivers of blood' indeed.

Anonymous said...

A broad ruling against the University of Texas affirmative action program could cause colleges to take into account various socioeconomic measures, including income, neighborhood and family composition. Such a step would require an increase in these colleges’ financial aid spending but would help them enroll significant numbers of minority students.

Followed by . . .

Among high-achieving, low-income students, 6 percent were black, 8 percent Latino, 15 percent Asian-American and 69 percent white, the study found.

Did no one involved in this story even recognize the mismatch between the statistics and the "significant numbers of minority students" bit?

Anonymous said...

Dear 5:43 AM,

I am the target of your "What the hell are you talking about" comment. Your are right to surmise that I am a simpleton with little ability to comprehend what I read. I am a simple unfrozen caveman, so I don't know a lot. But I do know that 5:28 gave insult in saying that Steve writes "interminable articles," because interminable means "too long." Also, you typed an insult when you wrote, "Steve writes endlessly about...." You also insulted this plainspoken caveman when you wrote, "Your reading comprehension is so poor...." Surely this won't make Steve or me start crying, but you need to napkin into your collar and eat the words, "Nobody's insulting anyone."

Oh, and when you say, "There's no moral demand on anyone to care about poor black americans," what the hell are *you* talking about, my friend? In most ethical systems, caring about poor people -- especially poor people without advantages like intelligence -- is the most basic moral imperative.

Anonymous said...

> Nobody's insulting anyone, there's no moral demand
> on anyone to care about poor black americans.

Hey, 5:43 AM, here's a game: which one of statements is not like the others:
A) "There's no moral demand on anyone to care about poor black americans."
B) "Al Sharpton is a buffoon."
C) "Black people are not as smart on average as white people."
D) "I do not support affirmative action or welfare."

Answer: A is different. Unlike the others, A is naked racism. You are just like Al Sharpton in that you are both buffoons. Neither of you sees a difference between these options. For Al, they are all out of bounds comments. For you, none of them is out of bounds.

Anonymous said...

San Francisco, Denver and Seattle also experienced net positive domestic migration in the year.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2013/03/14/UPI-NewsTrack-Business/UPI-80701363300088/#ixzz2NtTsUzKR San Fran had a net migration inflow if 13,000. So I think well to do liberal whites are heading to certain cities and even some suburbs. San Diego I think had a gain of 600 white people. Orange County had a net migration inflow of 1,800. This is only the third time was net in migration from other states and in 2010 there was one. These counties are having less white flight. Immirgation migration has dropped a little its still higher than the net in migration. San Fran might be a trend where well to do whites will pick up the white population again and might see some exdous of the hispanic population in some areas or a slowed down of growth. Los Angeles had a net outflow of 38,0000 domestic migration so it has not reversed yer.

Anonymous said...

Well, as mention San Fran and Seattle and Denver pick up population, being expensive maybe less of a barrier in the future you just need a job market and I think those metro areas are doing better in the job market than other expensive areas. At the end of the decade see a surge toward Washington State and if Oregon can get its act together to Oregon as well.

TGGP said...

Rogozinski, don't be stupid. The "gay uncle" theory makes no evolutionary sense. Greg Cochran has explained this stuff rather thoroughly at his blog.