Not false.  As we see, it was all too true.  In real estate, the 3 most important factors have nothing to do with race.  They are: Location, Location, Location.  Redlining has been outlawed, yet it was a very important tool for banks for the 3 important factors of real estate.  You may not like it, but it is a sad fact of life.  You dont buy in distressed neighborhoods and expect to see prices rise.  The case was looped back to racism, but the origins of it were redlining - an illegal practice, but smart business.

However the discusssion was about someone claiming that the lawsuit did not account for:

"Whether or not they could afford the loan didn't seem to be important."

So once again THE SUMMARY OF THE CASE PROVES THAT CLAIM TO BE FALSE.

Unfortunately we will never know if the banks were redlining since it was settled out of court. You are simply assuming that it is when more than likely you do not enough about the case to make such an assumption. How can you be so sure that they were in fact redlining? Do you know whether or not there were loans approved in the same neighborhoods to other ethic groups with the same or lower credit standings? That is one of the problems with partisan politics. You make assumptions and apply them to all cases without knowing the facts.

Its called flipping. You buy a home in anticipation that the value will rise either before your teaser rate expires, an ARM resets and so on and so forth. There were a lot of people doing this in the second home and condo markets.

Thats not flipping that is speculation.  Flipping is when you buy a property that is below market value because it need renovation. Perferably quick cheap fixes that add large amounts to the value to that peice of property. Flipping can also be done with cars, and isn't dependent on the rise of the price of whole group of properties as speculation is.

Flipping is a term used primarily in the United States to describe practice of buying an asset and quickly reselling (or "flipping") it for profit. Though flipping can apply to any asset, the term is most often applied to real estate and initial public offerings.

This is actually a really good explanation of what happened:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-overview.asp?Page=1

That is a bit vague lol... OK try to flip a property with out doing anything to it even in the next boom market... let us know how it goes.  While it is techniclly (highly not likely) possible to find a house you could flip without renovation, people who make money regularly on flipping houses look for property that is distressed.

No,that only proves the excuse used to bring the case.  But if you believe everything you are spoon fed, that does make life simpler.  Critical thinking is not easy.

I dont believe or assume anything in this particualr case and was only disproving what you and another were assuming.

You disproved nothing, nor were we Assuming.  But I am aware of the case and the particulars.

Which was settled out of court without the bank ever having to cough up records of loan applications that might have proven things one way or another.

People were doing it in the highest growth areas with newbuild condos and townhouses. Fla, Cal, Nev., Az. Some of these markets were going up 15-20 % annually. Unfortunately now that are falling just as fast...lol

I live in California and my uncle has flipped several houses and wouldnt touch a house he thought was only 15-20% mark up there are still other costs in selling a house.  Please try to flip a house in the next boom market without doing anything to it and see how profitable it is.

No need to.....I was simply pointing out something that other people were doing which helped fuel the current situation.  I'm more for buying during a dive and renting until they are paid for, then selling into a boom.

Whatever or whoever cause the financial crisis, we should still be more optimistic in gaining back the economy in it's good shape. Because honestly all of us are truly affected in many ways, not only financially but emotionally.

[junk html removed]

a cap on payday loans, or at least talking about it, has talked in many states in the U.S. Ohio and New Hemisphere were among the most recent to pass a cap on payday loans, which more or less are death sentences to the lenders in those states. It seems like the wrong move when the idea is that we need to boost the economy so it can recover. Getting rid of the lenders isn’t the smartest move, because the product is in demand, largely in thanks to the decline in purchasing power of the average citizen. Not to mention the fact that driving out a not only millions but multi-billion dollar a year industry of your state is never a great idea, which is why it benefits no one to put a cap of payday loans.