Is this real?? God, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh come on it's funny. You'll note they apologized for it being racist, but not for it being incorrect or untrue.
Minorities were the ones that defaulted.
FUCK YOU r2. You're a fucking deluded asswipe.
I suppose you think it was minorities buying up million dollar homes in Nevada, AZ, and all over the country, then defaulting on their loans leaving entire suburb communities of houses empty like a fucking ghost town?
Furthermore, it was THE BANKS set up impossible loans schemes for people of ALL races. It was THE BANKS screwed millions of people over.
If you can't see that - you and your ilk burying their head in the sand and scapegoating minorities are the reason our economy is SHIT.
Where do these ingrates come from? R2 is a prime example of what is wrong with the USA.
As one critc said this is bad art and it's bad journalism.
That cover is disgusting and it completely scapegoats minorities while ignoring several glaring facts...
a) It was not just people of color who defaulted- many whites of [italic]ALL classes[/italic] have lost their homes
b) It ignores the fact that predatory lending schemes led to many people defaulting . [italic]People were flat out LIED to [/italic]about how their interest rates would sky rocket after a year or so.
c) Many [italic]RICH people[/italic] were buying up houses and trying to flip them. People who were buying homes did not bloat the market. People who bought "properties" to make a quick buck were bloating the market.
That cover is nothing more that nzai-era scapegoating trash.
They did it to get some cheap attention and ad dollars. This cover is going to be viral. It's shamefully hurtful to people who were buried by bad lending process.
Thinkprogress said it best....
To highlight a story about the return of dangerous, pre-crash practices to the housing market, Bloomberg Businessweek decided to publish a cover that didn’t just blame consumers rather than lenders for the rise of subprime lending and the treatment of mortgages as a way to get access to cash, but specifically portrayed consumers of color (and female consumers) for engaging in this behavior.
[bold]It’s awful as art, and as Ryan Chittum explains in a great piece at the Columbia Journalism Review, awful as journalism. “The narrative of the crash on the right has been the blame-minority-borrowers line, sometimes via dog whistle, often via bullhorn,” he writes. “Minority borrowers were disproportionately victimized in the bubble. But BusinessWeek here has them on the cover bathing in housing-ATM cash, implying that they’re going to create another bubble.”[/bold]
Predictably, Bloomberg Businessweek editor Josh Tyrangiel has apologized in a statement to Politico, saying “”Our cover illustration last week got strong reactions, which we regret. Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we’d do it differently.” It’s appropriate that they’ve apologized. But I’m fundamentally dissatisfied with these sorts of apologies, because they neither explain how the offending incident came to pass in the first place, nor the practices an organization will employ to make sure they don’t repeat the same errors in the future.
Does Bloomberg Businessweek have people of color or women on its design staff, who could be among the first people to filter out ideas that they’ll later present to the editors? And if they don’t, are the white people designing the magazine soliciting input from staffers of color, or from reporters who might be knowledgeable about the racial dynamics of an issue that’s turning into a cover story? Are there people of color on the editorial team that’s responsible from picking among the cover options? And if not, are the people in that position going to people who can give them a gut check? If neither of these things is happening, why not? What are the internal editorial standards regarding cartoons, caricature, and race? If those don’t exist, why don’t they? If Tyrangiel wants to answer these questions, I’m more inclined to listen. If you want to walk a line and publish edgy covers, you have a particular obligation to think about where the line is. And if you want forgiveness, you need to actually look at yourself and your practices in a systemic way.
r3 Thank you so much. Sometimes DL posts scare me.
R2 - not true at all. Here in AZ, banks were pushing mortgages way beyond the means of middle-class people.
My partner and I could have had a million-dollar house if we wanted it. Now it would be worth half that and we'd still be stuck with the mortgage. We're financially conservative and bought within our means. Many, many middle-class people did not. They thought they could move into McMansions. They thought they could endlessly flip houses. Didn't work out.
Bloomberg *used to be* my home page.
Sadly R2 is making a valid point, though crass.
The risky loans were handed out overwhelmingly to minorities and the working poor who could never afford those homes; they were easy targets by the banks so, yes, it was indeed massive default by large groups of minorities (as well as many non-minorities) who lead to the collapse.
You can attempt to spin that into race all you want, but it's true and it makes me sad.
..and in R3's mind, it's only and always white people (usually white men, right r3) who perpetuate stupidity and lawlessness.
Pointing out truths among racial demographics is not racist nor wrong.
No, r10, it was not a majority of the black default, you're an ill-informed asshat, at best.
So what are the proportional stats? Since you seem to know, r12.
Rich Republicans = lowlife racist pigs, who should be in prison. If I ruled the world, they would be...prison or strapped down over an ant hill.
FF the freepturds
Red Ants, I hope.
R12, I don't think anyone blamed black people alone?
It was a vast majority of financed minorities, which also included white women.
Yes, it's 100% true, only you're too righteous and stupid to admit that.
There was NOTHING "funny" about that cover.
It was shocking and wrong on more levels than one.
The majority of the defaults were clearly white folks.
r19, the concept of proportion eludes you, doesn't it?
Will they ever cartoon versions of money-grubbing Jews on their cover?
As the truth, obviously eludes you r20.. There is no defense for that cover. None. You can spin this any way your tiny brain may spin, but that cover INTENTIONALLY perpetuates the myth you are trying to feed. Which is wrong on so many levels.
Minorities were disproportionately targeted for adjustable rate mortgages. They were exploited by the lenders and not the other way around.
Anyone who blames the housing market collapse on minorities is an unabashed racist and a moron. And there is nothing "funny" about that cover. It's shocking that it was greenlit at all.
r22, it's interesting that you needed to invent fantasy positions and attach them to r20 when they were not in the post.
So.... Do you understand what "proportion" means, or not? If you do, explain it.
It's essentially what capitalism does.... it fucks over people who know less and rewards people who know more. The people who know more then conclude they are more deserving.
It stood out to me when I first saw it last week; looking at it a second time, I'm almost surprised there weren't speech bubbles with "Dollar dollar bill y'all."
You know exactly what was meant by that, R24.
The Housing Crisis was the result of Mortgage Securities Fraud, the bundling and re-selling of bad loans as if they were good ones. The people who took out mortgages they never should have been given were not the ones engaging in financial chicanery behind the scenes. The housing bubble was the handiwork of big mortgage lenders and big banks aided and abetted by both parties of the US Congress.
"meant" r27? You attacked r20 for things not in the post. Do you know what proportion means?
STFU about "proportion". The cover is racist as is the assertion that minorities are "to blame" for the housing collapse. Full stop.
The trolling is tiresome and no one is buying it. Shut up or go away. You have no power here.
"power" LOL. What do you have here? An assault weapon? BTW, r19 started this and you know it.
OK, let's look at how stupid people understand proportion:
Let's say there's a school with 200 boys and 20 girls. At the end of the year, 22 boys and 19 girls have failed math. 178 boys and 1 girl got an A in math.
Stupid fucktards (like r19) will self-righteously stamp their feet and proclaim, "See!!! more boys got F's than girls!!. Boys are worse at math!!!"
I'd like to know what kind of instructions the illustrator was given with regard to the skin of the characters in the drawing. And who gave them?
Can we have a cartoon drawing of the devils who authorized these fraudulent loans? Probably not.
Sometimes this kind of aggressive, ugly (and false) imagery seems to have an air of self-congratulation built into it. "Look who we ripped off!"
[quote]power" LOL. What do you have here? An assault weapon?
Yes, "power". Your words have none here. This is not free republic or aryan nation. It's Datalounge, so fuck off with your racist memes about "proportion" or your "golly gee! what did that mean?!?" schtick when someone speaks metaphorically.
Do you know what a metaphor is? Do you? DO YOU? Since you're so into quizzing other people about their vocabulary, yet so puzzled by simple language like "power". BTW, genius, "you have no power here" is a famous movie quote. Look it up.