Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans….
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

But your over-intellectualized jabber attempts to disguise your basic belief that blacks lack the ability to recognize a good thing when they see it. Unfortunately, your view is widely held.

Okay, let me drop any intellectual pretense. You are an ignorant fool who is incapable of reading and understanding plain English. In fact, you are not able to follow the thread of an argument and respond directly to the substance of it and the points raised. There is nothing in what I wrote that suggests that I believe that black folk are incapable of making decisions about anything at all. Your discussion about the real estate market clearly reveals that when I write about apples you believe that I am writing about oranges.

The unfortunate and primary element of your analysis is your statement that blacks were “told” to buy homes in formerly white neighborhoods, as well as being “told” to do other things.

This concept of blacks being led like sheep is always present in explanations for black misfortune. Clearly you must think blacks are too stupid to think for themselves. </>

I'm sorry but i did not write that black folk were “told” to buy homes anywhere. The word I used was “encouraged.” There is no equivalency between the word “encouraged” and the command to do as one is told.

Nice jabber on the reasons for low black home ownership and sidestepping the impact of an Obama presidency. Of course if it becomes harder to buy a home due to increased demands for downpayments, blacks will feel it first.

The unfortunate and primary element of your analysis is your statement that blacks were “told” to buy homes in formerly white neighborhoods, as well as being “told” to do other things.

This concept of blacks being led like sheep is always present in explanations for black misfortune. Clearly you must think blacks are too stupid to think for themselves.

For the last decade housing prices have risen in formerly black neighborhoods in New York City. Harlem (Manhattan) and Fort Greene (Brooklyn) have seen big price increases. But the cause can be traced to white buyers returning to these neighborhoods after a long absence.

Some black residents understood the meaning of the growing numbers of white buyers and they jumped in and bought homes. Meanwhile, the realtors in NY City want buyers. They don't discriminate. One of Harlem's most successful realtors is a black woman who has been beating the bushes for black buyers for years and years. She holds seminars to educate buyers. But a lot of sales are made to whites.

Meanwhile, it's easy to know if a house is worth buying. If it costs more to own it than rent it, buying may be a bad idea. Thus, anyone who needs a gift of downpayment money AND a low “teaser-rate” to afford a piece of real estate is over-leveraged from the start.

But your over-intellectualized jabber attempts to disguise your basic belief that blacks lack the ability to recognize a good thing when they see it. Unfortunately, your view is widely held.

Stop plagiarizing, you didn't even TRY to paraphrase. The article, Wise Words from Brian Wesbury found here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/09/wise_words...

Still you must remember that official figures for GDP growth are inflation-adjusted.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis' inflation deflator number used on the GDP (the one that adjusts for the increase in GDP that results from inflation) doesn't appear to reflect reality. They used 2.6%, I'd say it's at least 4.2% because the government usually under reports inflation.

Also they are using annualized quarterly figures instead of per-capita figures. The population is growing in a 1.0-1.5% band annually, so anything less than that on real GDP means that real per capita income is contracting.

The final fourth quarter of 2007 may have stabilized at +0.6% at the annualized rate but the domestic segments of the economy if you take away foreign trade really declined at a 0.4% annual rate.

When the 2008 inflation number reflects reality and the numbers are adjusted correctly in November or December, the GDP annualized growth number will be revised downward. Dramatically.

Stop plagiarizing, you didn't even TRY to paraphrase. The article, Wise Words from Brian Wesbury found here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/09/wise_words...

Still you must remember that official figures for GDP growth are inflation-adjusted.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis' inflation deflator number used on the GDP (the one that adjusts for the increase in GDP that results from inflation) doesn't appear to reflect reality. They used 2.6%, I'd say it's at least 4.2% because the government usually under reports inflation.

Also they are using annualized quarterly figures instead of per-capita figures. The population is growing in a 1.0-1.5% band annually, so anything less than that on real GDP means that real per capita income is contracting.

The final fourth quarter of 2007 may have stabilized at +0.6% at the annualized rate but the domestic segments of the economy if you take away foreign trade really declined at a 0.4% annual rate.

When the 2008 inflation number reflects reality and the numbers are adjusted correctly in November or December, the GDP annualized growth number will be revised downward. Dramatically.

Stop plagiarizing, you didn't even TRY to paraphrase. The article, Wise Words from Brian Wesbury found here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/09/wise_words...

Still you must remember that official figures for GDP growth are inflation-adjusted.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis' inflation deflator number used on the GDP (the one that adjusts for the increase in GDP that results from inflation) doesn't appear to reflect reality. They used 2.6%, I'd say it's at least 4.2% because the government usually under reports inflation.

Also they are using annualized quarterly figures instead of per-capita figures. The population is growing in a 1.0-1.5% band annually, so anything less than that on real GDP means that real per capita income is contracting.

The final fourth quarter of 2007 may have stabilized at +0.6% at the annualized rate but the domestic segments of the economy if you take away foreign trade really declined at a 0.4% annual rate.

When the 2008 inflation number reflects reality and the numbers are adjusted correctly in November or December, the GDP annualized growth number will be revised downward. Dramatically.

Stop plagiarizing, you didn't even TRY to paraphrase. The article, Wise Words from Brian Wesbury found here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/09/wise_words...

Still you must remember that official figures for GDP growth are inflation-adjusted.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis' inflation deflator number used on the GDP (the one that adjusts for the increase in GDP that results from inflation) doesn't appear to reflect reality. They used 2.6%, I'd say it's at least 4.2% because the government usually under reports inflation.

Also they are using annualized quarterly figures instead of per-capita figures. The population is growing in a 1.0-1.5% band annually, so anything less than that on real GDP means that real per capita income is contracting.

The final fourth quarter of 2007 may have stabilized at +0.6% at the annualized rate but the domestic segments of the economy if you take away foreign trade really declined at a 0.4% annual rate.

When the 2008 inflation number reflects reality and the numbers are adjusted correctly in November or December, the GDP annualized growth number will be revised downward. Dramatically.