The normal survival function ((the number of cases in a normal distribution that are more than x, one minus the cumulative distribution) approaches zero as x increases hyperexponentially, which is to say, very fast. This often makes it possible, under many common circumstances, to draw conclusions about individual cases, to infer a particular person’s character and or ability from his race or sex, and to infer a particular individual’s race or sex from his ability or character, to draw conclusions about particular identifiable people from average racial characteristics.

Normal distribution, probability density of cases having value x:

normal distribution

Normal Survival function, proportion of cases x or more:

normal survival function

This is the probability that a particular case will exceed x, for example the proportion of people in the population that exceed x, where x is some characteristic that is normally distributed, such as height or intelligence or criminality.

I have used the less common definition, integral from x to infinity, (normal survival function) rather than the more common definition, integral from minus infinity to x (cumulative normal distribution), since minus infinity is counter intuitive, and the fact that there are very few really smart people, and very few really violent people, is intuitive, so we want the function to approach zero, the number of people smarter than x, rather than unity, the proportion of people dumber than x.

Survival function at the extremes:

normal survival function at the extremes

For x more than one or two standard deviations above the mean, the following approximation to the normal survival function is good enough:

approximation for the normal survival function

Obviously any category that is likely to be of interest (such as the category of people competent enough to do such and such, or the category of people wicked enough to do so and so) is going to deviate from the mean by one or two standard deviations, so we can almost always use this approximation.

And now for today’s hate fact:

Notice that the normal survival function falls of hyperexponentially, in other words, very abruptly, falls off faster than exponentially.

This is what makes it possible to deduce facts about people’s characteristics from their race in particular individual cases, and their race from their characteristics in particular individual cases.

It follows from hyperexponential decay that if you select a subgroup from the population that meets some high standard, for example the entry requirements of a university course, or fails some low standard, for example performs an act that is both stupid and criminal, then the vast majority of those selected will only just meet the standard.

Hyperexponential decay means that if you have finite population of cases, you are going to hit zero mighty fast.

So if you have one standard for white students, and another standard for black students, there is a good chance that every single black student in a class will be inferior to any white student in that class, since the vast majority of blacks will be close to the their minimum, which is lower than the white minimum. Similarly for women in computer science classes.

Even though there is a lot of overlap in the population as a whole, in the selected category, very little overlap, so chances are that in any small group of the category, such as students at a class, every person who got in on his merits will be better than any single person who got in on affirmative action.

Thus for example: a class of fifty students, six of them are black. None of the white essays are plagiarized, all of the black essays are plagiarized.

If there are a thousand blacks in the university, there is going to be some overlap. If there are six blacks in the class, probably not.  Particularly as the likes of Michelle Obama are not in the class, because they probably got a luxury all expenses paid scholarship to grace Princeton with their presence.

Conversely, if you look at the work of a person who is a member of a group where they were selected for being good enough, and yet that work is is not good enough, you can be pretty sure he belongs to the category benefited by affirmative action. You can tell the skin color of first lady Michelle Obama from the fact that her Princeton University senior thesis is incoherent and full of has spelling and grammar errors. Obviously, you cannot conclude that someone is black from the fact that their essay is no good, but from the fact that it is senior thesis at an ivy league university, and nonetheless no good, you can tell that she is black.  Thanks to hyperexponential decay, even Princeton cannot find enough black women who can write decent essays.

The Ivy League are hard up for enough black men, hard up for enough females, and to make their quota of black female graduates, they have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel, first lady Michelle Obama being what they find at the bottom of the barrel.

If a crime is violent, you cannot necessarily know the perpetrator is black. If a crime is stupid, you cannot necessarily know the perpetrator is black. But if a crime is violent and stupid, you can be pretty sure the perpetrator was black, thanks to hyperexponential decay:

Two women attempt to pass a counterfeit $50 bill at McDonald’s. The cashier refuses it. One of them punches the cashier, a large male. He retreats. They jump the counter. He flees all the way to the corner. Then they attack him in the corner. He loses control, beats the crap out of both of them, damn near kills one of them. Guess the race.

Without thinking very hard, I can remember how Nick Griffin of the British National Party stood trial for having called Islam “a wicked vicious faith”. I can remember how a drunken student was arrested and fined for telling a policeman that his horse looked “gay”. I can remember how a man was arrested and charged and fined for standing beside the Cenotaph and reading out the names of the British war dead in Iraq. I remember a case from this year where a pacifist unfurled a banner outside an army cadet training base. “Stop training murderers”, it said. His home was promptly raided by police with dogs, while a helicopter hovered overhead.He was arrested and cautioned. If I started mentioning the cases where Christian street preachers have been arrested for quoting the Bible, or where Moslems have set the police on people for alleged words or displays, or if I even alluded to the Public Order Act or the various racial and sexual hate speech laws, this article would swell immensely. It is enough to say that anything said in public is now illegal if someone complains to the police, or if the police themselves take against it. And, when something is not illegal, we are all getting used to the idea – second nature in most other countries – that we should “watch ourselves”. Even I find that, if I discuss politics in a coffee bar, I sometimes drop my voice. A few weeks ago, I found myself looking round to see who might be within earshot.

That means there is currently a homeownership gap of over 25 points when comparing white households with African Americans and Hispanics. My friends, that gap is obviously far too wide.
…

One of the more obvious resolutions to the Money Gap is the elimination of down payment requirements for low-income and minority borrowers

….

the credit score bar dividing creditworthy from high-risk borrowers, must be substantially lowered by the GSEs, the secondary market in general, and with bank regulators.

These are all quotes from a publication of “The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University”, which endorsed all the actions the regulators took to destroy our financial system, and urged more of the same.

Please keep in mind that everything this wrecking crew did is still in place, still in force.  It became illegal to be an honest banker, that being raaaacist, and it still is illegal. Every single banker is a crook, is because no honest banker can make crooked loans, and the regulators require all bankers to make crooked loans. Undoing the damage would require an unthinkably radical transformation of our political system, something more akin to regime change and the collapse of democracy, than any mere election.  As I have said so many times before, to fix the financial system will require and result in a society where it is possible to laugh at the Nobel committee for giving Marie Curie two Nobel prizes that for work that was unexceptional when men did it, and laugh at Pierre Curie for pushing his wife into the lab, when he should have kept her in the bedroom and kitchen.

To fix the financial crisis, we have to revoke, or at least denounce and denigrate, Marie Curie’s Nobel prize.

When they gave a Nobel prize to Marie Curie for being female, that did not hurt anyone except more deserving potential Nobel prize winners.  But handing out phony Nobels on the basis of sex, race, and nationality necessitated handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex, and handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex necessarily led to a crisis where these phony degrees were being ignored by employers, so employers necessarily had to be forced to give out well paid phony jobs on the basis of race and sex.

But being given well paid phony jobs on the basis of race and sex failed to result in recipients living a middle class lifestyle, so lenders had to be forced to give out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex.

Which has led to our present financial crisis.  It all began with Marie Curie.  Each lie required a new and bigger lie.  We need to start by acknowledging that genders and races tend to have different abilities – that if you are looking for people that are the best at something, whether the fastest runners or the greatest mathematicians, they will almost all be of one particular race and gender, and some races will be completely absent, and if you are merely looking for people that are acceptably good at something, for example accountants, basketball players, or donut makers, they will be mostly of one particular race and gender.

We cannot end the crisis unless we admit who is defaulting on their mortgages, we cannot admit who is defaulting without admitting that they cannot perform their jobs either, we cannot admit they cannot perform their jobs without admitting that their degrees are phony, and we cannot admit their degrees are phony without admitting that many Nobel prizes, starting with Marie Curie, were phony.

The proximate cause of the international crisis is that the US$, the international reserve currency, lost much credibility.  The proximate cause of the US$ losing credibility was massive defaults by blacks and Hispanics, and the proximate cause of the massive defaults by blacks and Hispanics was affirmative action lending to people whom I could tell at a glance from twenty paces were highly unlikely to repay their debts.

In the last days before the crash, I saw in California a steady parade of people buying expensive houses no money down whose own mothers must have been reluctant to lend them ten dollars. Lax though credit standards were, not one of them would have been able to borrow money had he been non Hispanic white.

Laderman and Reid of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco have done the unthinkably politically incorrect, and though they do not directly reveal the proportion of defaults that were affirmative action, they tell us:

We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.

They also argue that CRA loans were just fine:

a CRA lender significantly decreases the likelihood of foreclosure

They obtained this contradictory result by controlling for race – in other words, they are not saying CRA loans were unlikely to default, but that a CRA loan made to a non hispanic white is (unsurprisingly) unlikely to default – in other words, affirmative action loans have no harmful effect, indeed beneficial effect, to the extent that they were not in fact affirmative action loans.

They do not directly tell us what proportion of defaulters were black and Hispanic, but since the great majority of defaulters were subprime, and 77% of subprime borrowers were black and Hispanic, and blacks and Hispanics three times more likely to default than whites …

In the Washington Post, Obama’s chief financial advisers explain their program:

In theory, securitization should serve to reduce credit risk by spreading it more widely. But by breaking the direct link between borrowers and lenders, securitization led to an erosion of lending standards, resulting in a market failure that fed the housing boom and deepened the housing bust.The administration’s plan will impose robust reporting requirements on the issuers of asset-backed securities; reduce investors’ and regulators’ reliance on credit-rating agencies; and, perhaps most significant, require the originator, sponsor or broker of a securitization to retain a financial interest in its performance.

“How big a financial interest?” I hear you ask.

Summers is a little bit vague, about this, but if you dig, the answer is five percent – enough to make a difference, but not enough to make a significant difference, not enough to deter banks from making irresponsible loans.

The fundamental problem is that the government wants banks to continue make loans to irresponsible borrowers in important voting blocks, borrowers who should not be able to borrow money, and therefore must maintain a regulatory structure that enables bad loans. A transfer of wealth from a concentrated interest group (financiers) to an important voting block (hispanics) is not politically feasible.  So instead, such dud loans must ultimately wind up being financed by the government.

The government issues regulations that require financiers to refrain from “discriminating against” a voting block – which seeming benefits the voting block at no cost to the government. But there is no such thing as free lunch.  Who will pay?

You can be sure a concentrated interest group is not going to pay.

The left claims authority to convict people for thought crimes committed in other people’s dreams.  The hearer can find an offensive meaning without concern for authorial intent, and the author is guilty regardless of his intended meaning.  This leads to conflict, Racefail 09 being part of that conflict.

Under Racefail 09 rules, you have no obligation to understand other people’s intended meaning, and if you cannot follow what they say, and so confabulate up an offensive meaning, you are superior, you win, they are inferior, and they lose.

The smart, and those fluent in words, often express themselves in ways that are subtle, which the stupid and ignorant find hard to follow. Reading words that are hard to follow, they feel offended.  Racefail 09 rules guarantee that if they feel offended, their offense must be justified.

Thus Racefail 09 rules tend to be popular with the stupid and incoherent, and unpopular with the clever and those good with words.  Since the reader has sole authority to decide the writers meaning, and the writer is at fault if the reader decides on an offensive meaning, Racefail 09  is a pretty good deal for people who have trouble following other people’s words.

This non statement, and non communication, caused intense outrage, resulting in massive attack on John Scalzi, since all good leftists have to enthusiastically agree with the correct line, and failure to join the chant about the badness of various people under attack is itself a great and terrible sin.

One of the posters on his blog explains why Scalzi is now under attack:

the reason you [John Scalzi] drew ire is your inability to follow proper protocol:

1. Acknowledge that you’re wrong, and guilty on all counts of whatever the other party accuses you, and
2. agree with the accuser on just how very, very wrong you are/were, while knowing that any level of self-debasement isn’t going to be enough to placate them.

Clearly, the only thing that would begin to set things right would be your ritual suicide, hurling yourself into a bonfire fueled by everything you’ve ever written on- or offline. Don’t forget to put it on YouTube, accompanied by a ten-page manifesto on the magnitude of your wrongness, and the corresponding rightness of the accuser.

In response, Scalzi apologized profusely, and proceeded piously to post a lot of politically correct piety about race in literature, indirectly demonizing all his friends, allies, and supporters, without, however, directly addressing the debate concerning the sinfulness of various actual writers and bloggers.

Come on.  That is not good enough.  In your repentance, you need to directly condemn as many people as possible.>

On the Livejournal science fiction blogs, there is, or recently was, a passionate debate called  Racefail 09, wherein lots of bloggers accuse other bloggers of being racists.

Those accused of racism are those that are very left wing and very politically correct – they are those least likely to be guilty, most likely to be devastated by the accusation, and least able to defend themselves against the accusations because any defense would itself be politically incorrect. No one is accusing the likes of John Ringo. Instead the accused are people who are constitutionally incapable of calling a spade a spade. The accused are people who are normally clever with words and therefore can normally lacerate, devastate, and dismiss critics with ease – but are paralyzed by politically correctness from defending themselves against this accusation.

Therefore, the accusations are not motivated by concerns about race, rather, “racism” is merely the standard accusation that left wingers make these days, especially against each other.

None of those making these charges are the brightest bulb in the batch. They are all from the shallow end of the gene pool, the wrong edge of the bell curve.

So this looks to me not like anti racists going after racists, or even people of color going after whites, but more like the stupid people going after the smart people. “Racist” is these days merely an epithet that stupid people use a lot, much like “fascist” used to be.

And when that epithet is hurled, all the good leftwingers must dutifully join in, explaining that they were never friends of so and so, just as in 1928, there was a sudden dearth of Trotskyists, and in 1956, an equally sudden dearth of Stalinists.

A long predicted consequence of political correctness is finally coming to pass. Forbid thought, and soon your movement will be governed by those unable to think.

The Khmer Rouge, a party of very smart people, proceeded to execute all the smart people. America’s left cannot execute all the smart people – yet. But it can cast them out of its ranks.

In 1999, people warned that CRA loans, affirmative action loans, racial quota loans, began to endanger the financial system

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people …

…These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, …

… “If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

1977 was the start of turning the finance industry into a political slush fund, and with each regulatory  intervention, the amount of money at risk increased  exponentially

How many CRA loans, affirmative actions loans, racial quota loans, were there?

Fortunately the data for new house loans by race is available, and from this data we can calculate that CRA loans, affirmative action loans, racial quota loans, for new house purchases, in the period 2000 to 2007 were at least  six hundred and thirteen billion dollars, which is pretty close to the total US bailout cost.

613 billion dollars.

So this was an affirmative action financial crisis, and we are for the most part bailing out financial institutions that were forced to lend to unqualified borrowers by race, and perhaps also bailing out the culture of corruption that results from rating mortgage securities AAA that were generated in the course of signing up people to vote democrat with a bottle of cheap whiskey and a million dollar mortgage – because rating them differently would be racist, much as Princeton was corrupted because when it graduated Obama’s wife, fearing that it would have been racist had it failed to pass her thesis merely because it was a barely literate rant against racism.  We are required to pretend Obama’s wife is educated, and we are required to pretend that these borrowers are credit worthy.  It corrupts the universities, and it corrupts the financiers.

There was a massive increase in the value of loans to black and hispanic borrowers.  To the extent that these loans grew much faster than loans to white people, this most likely represents affirmative action.  This is a conservative estimate, since affirmative action lending has been enforced by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) since 1977.  What was new in 1999 was not affirmative action lending, it was affirmative aciton lending on a scale that threatened the financial system.

In 1999, mortgages to black and hispanic new house borrowers were 10.4% of mortgages to white new house borrowers.

In 2006, mortgages to black and hispanic new house borrowers were 36.5% of mortgages to white new house borrowers.

I calculate what new home mortgages would have been had new home mortgages to black and hispanics remained 10.4% of new home mortgages to whites.

The excess, the difference between hypothetical mortgages and actual mortgages, is a conservative estimate of CRA loans, affirmative action loans, racial quota loans.

In this table, the first column is new housing loans to whites, the second column is new housing loans to blacks and hispanics. Estimated CRA loans are the difference between the actual and hypothetical loans, and at the bottom I total numbers.

The numbers for new house mortgages in billions of dollars come the government racial quota monitoring website.  The number for affirmative action loans is my estimate, calculated as new house mortgages to blacks and hispanics minus 10.4% of white new house mortgages

The numbers for new house mortgages in billions of dollars come the government racial quota monitoring website.  The value for affirmative action loans is my estimate, calculated as new house mortgages to
blacks and hispanics minus 10.4% of white new house mortgages

Home Purchase Mortgages in Billions of dollars

Unfortunately, no racial breakdown on default rate is available, but the Hispanics I saw buying houses in Sunnyvale in 2005 and 2006, looking at them from twenty paces, you could tell in two heartbeats that the chances of them making payments was very poor indeed.

Implicit government guarantees produce a vast river of easy credit to the too-big-to-fail beneficiary of that guarantee, and inevitably politicians are tempted to direct that river to political voting blocks – sometimes political voting blocks that are unlikely to repay the money.

It is a fundamental moral hazard problem in government regulation and intervention, which cannot be regulated away.  Instead of regulating, the beneficiaries of these guarantees must be shrunk – regulated to become small enough to fail, instead of regulated to benevolently hand out money to the politically favored.  Instead of sending that mighty river of money in the direction of desirable voting blocks, politicians must shrink it – which, like dieting, is hard for them to do.

The financial crisis in America was one of affirmative action and the community reinvestment act, of Black and Hispanic deadbeats robbing honest hardworking whites, but thinking of it in those terms of the particular voting blocks is not useful, will not get us to a financial system that moves savings from honest thrifty savers to honest hard working investors who can put the money to profitable use.  Such thinking, thinking in terms of voting blocks, will at best merely change the skin color of the deadbeats robbing the honest folk.  The financial crisis in the rest of the world had different beneficiaries with diverse skin colors, but the common factor was political favor sending funds to political voting blocks, rather than to people able to put the money to profitable use.  It is more useful to think in terms of moral hazard – that politicians cannot regulate, for they have perverse and dangerous incentives, and therefore corrupt financiers.

That politicians dispatched our money to cat eating wetbacks should enrage us, but we should be enraged at the politicians, rather than at migrants looking for work who have difficulty affording meat from a butcher, migrants who are prohibited from honest work by those politicians, and then offered welfare and a million dollar mortgage no money down by the same politicians.  The politicians corrupted Hispanics and financiers alike.