.........it was about Late 2001/early 2002, I mentioned that people like Sowell love to claim that a problem doesn't exist, yet, they'll benefit from those acknowledging its existence and working to fix it.

I used Loan Discrimination as an example.

YOU said that Sowell debunked Loan Discrimination a long time ago and that it doesn't matter as he's wealthy and elderly and won't need to buy another house.

I responded that Sowell must be rather ignorant of the loan industry, as at the time, I was re-engineering the software a Bank used to orginate loans.

You responded with your usual about Sowell's economic papers - which I retorted meant nothing, as I'm talking about a particular industry that Sowell had shown himself to be ignorant of.

Perhaps it's your perceptions that are "selective"

Perhaps you should come back with something cogent as opposed to "M2 read what he wants to read".

I'll dissect your "new story" as well:

If someone is trying to debunk a study as "flawed" that means that they're saying that it's conclusions are flawed as well.

Meaning that Sowell was trying to discount the phenomenon of Loan Discrimination.

Thing is - it's a fact that it's not at all uncommon for a Black Person with excellent credit and twice the income of a White person with a lower credit score, to only be able to qualify for the same loan (even if he has more collateral/a larger downpayment).

So even if Sowell did find a study that was flawed, others were dead on - so why was he focusing on the flawed ones, when the basic idea was still 100% true.

What was his objective?

Was he just in the business of pointing out flawed methodologies? If so, why not contrast with the ones that were acurrate?


Well?




M2