Jez

I never knew any of this. This looks horrible and strikes me as the sort of unnecessary exploitation that can lead to a population collapse.

Is anyone familiar with this, and could say more about it?

Biomedical labs bleed horseshoe crabs for vaccines with little accountability : NPR

Possibly ironically, like hypersonic aircraft before them after which it was named, it appears to be launched ballistically.

Before getting out the bunting and ticker tape, I'd like to know how far it actually 'flew', as in the period of time in which the conversion of its kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy into net vertical thrust (lift) was near unity.

To paraphrase Woody, is it flying, or falling with style?

Interesting question, I think it is more to do with how scientists engage with and rationalise theorems, some are 'rules', some are 'equations', some are 'effects', unclear what motivates the scientific community to designate a theorem as a 'law'.

I did a trawl for 20th century 'laws', in addition to those mentioned above, I found;

Marconi's law, ~1900

Umov's law, 1905

Hubble's law, 1922

Faxén's law, 1922

Zipf's law, 1932

Archie's law, 1942

Fitts's law, 1954

Heaps' law, 1960

Birch's law, 1960

Sérsic's law, 1963

Amdahl's law, 1967

Dermott's law, 1968

Byerlee's law, 1978

Metcalfe's law, 1980

Gustafson's law, 1988

Llinás's law, 1989

I'm not seeing anything in the 21st Century that is actually a real law describing phenomena in 'physical' equations.

Maybe that is precisely the reason, that the term has become abused generally and the scientific-ness of the expression has become over-copied by lay-pretenders?

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I reckon the best approach is to ignore Jez, accept that he’s not now nor ever will be an ally in this effort, and for the rest of us to just move along.

I'm trying to ask what effort that is. Am I allowed to know what you plan to do?

'Effort' means action, not thought.

What action do you plan? I am likely to agree with you if there's something positive and active you propose. I just prefer to have my own thoughts and not told to think a certain way about something, but actions are something I am sure we can find agreement on.

Just hasn't been clear so far.

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nothing happens next, you've washed your hands of it.

"Ask not for whom this bell tolls, it tolls for thee..."

Like I said, you're not putting forward any argument to actually dispute.

Very much like the link in the OP; you create the scenario where nothing that you say can be put to a logical test, and then criticise people for a 'straw man' argument who seek to construct a cogent discussion, in good faith, regarding what your thinking 'might be' because you've left them nothing about your thinking to actually discuss.

Given the OP story, that's heavy with irony!

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

Yeah, all those liberal white folks think alike, and in simplistic terms!

So many straw men here, my gardening needs are covered for the next 30 years.

 

Well, you have left me no choice. I have to refute arguments that haven't been made because you haven't made any arguments!!!! 🤣

I've just suggested legal aid and the reply was "Who do I call? And with what?".

Well, obviously, that would be for your Government to set up after you ask them for it.

It's no straw man, I have made absolutely clear that my solution would be to ensure the routes of remedy are made available, and the means to access them should be guaranteed.

You've offered no credible alternatives or explanations why that is wrong, you just seem to want to negate it without any specifics as to what you want done.

What do you want to see done, and why do you think it would help?

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Philosophy 101, lesson 1, if you know I mean a 'Parable', then why discuss it?

Because it is still meaningless in the subject material of the thread, you still are not making clear the outcome of this, and what happens next.

What do you want to see happen, to achieve (what I think are agreed) the aims of restitution?

I've made a concrete proposition, and your only objection is 'oh, yeah, right, and how are you going to make THAT happen', or something of that nature.

You haven't proposed any concrete actions.

All the people who have suffered injustices are going to love you for worrying and talking about them, I am sure. But then what?

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Some lessons get some people closer to the answer; like the second, third etc. year of a degree in philosophy is intended to do. 

I am sure people in disadvantaged black groups will welcome your 3rd year degree-level philosophy lessons, and find them a very valuable assistance to their existential struggles.

Meanwhile, may I suggest legal aid might be more useful?

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Absolutely, an eye for an eye is the simplicistic method of justice, but that just leads to the blind leading the blind; if you want a path to justice, someone has to see.

Parabol, it's a type of lesson...🙄

I've still no idea what relevance either of those observations have on the discussion.

Do you think either gets us closer to some sort of position? Even if it is one where we agree on the features of what we might disagree on?

I'd say it is more parabolic to the discussion than a parable (if that is the word you mean?).

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The Parabol of the bad Samaritan.

Jez'us was driving down the road, without a care in the world convinced of his goodness, in his brand new Prius, with "my sweet lord - george harrison" playing loud.

When he spies an alien in trouble, he pulls over and gets out,

Jez'us - are you ok, my friend?

Alien - I'm a victim of a hit and run, I think my legs broken, can you help?

Jez'us - you're in luck my friend, my village (culture) has built a hospital (which I helped pay for) that treats everyone, for free. It's about 100 miles that way, so glad I could help good luck, my friend.

Alien - can you give me a lift, please?

Jez'us - I'd love to, but I've got a thing. But don't worry just call an ambulance.

Alien - I don't have a phone, can I borrow yours?

Jez'us - Well, I'd love to but It's low on charge and I left the charger at home and... I might need it.

Alien - OK, thanks for stopping (dripping in sarcasm).

Jez'us - Well at least I stopped, I don't know, apathetic bloody alien's, the hospital's only an hour or two away.

 

 

Do you reckon that shit will stick @MigL?

I'm struggling to see any connection whatsoever to the tread discussion.

Could you please explain what are the key concepts in this post that are analogous in some way with the topic?

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps for you from your pompous privileged perch, but not for others…

I think you will find there are many 'people in the black group' who are arguing precisely what I am arguing here, so your critique and characterisation is unreasonable.

Do you want to see the youtube clips of "black folk" arguing what I am saying? If I am 'so wrong' then there would be none, wouldn't there? I have a right to hold this opinion, especially if many of those in the minority group also hold it.

Are they 'black people from a pompous privileged perch'?

What you are saying, the injustices that discriminated blacks, does apply to some members of that group. I completely agree.

That is not something I have refuted. My thesis here is that there is a group of liberal middle-class white people who seemingly all consider that they have to intervene to help ALL these poor black souls. It's white people patronising blacks, that seems wrong to me and comment-worthy.

I'm not saying that many would not appreciate, or even need, your particular help. What I am saying is that possibly all liberal American "white" people seem to suffer this belief (they are actively rejected from the group if they don't agree), whereas not all "black" people have actually suffered injustice.

You are discussing group identity, but the problem is that there is nothing that uniquely and exclusively distinguishes people who have suffered (for example) the redlining injustice.

Your thesis appears to be

B; set of all people called "black"

R; set of all people suffering social deprivations due to their ethnicity

You want to help a subset of B, but not all B.

To determine who you need to help, you look at whether they are a set of R but, for some reason, 'not necessarily' B.

So the people you say need help are [⊂B]∩R, but ⊂B is undefined until you define [⊂B]∩R. [⊂B] is not independent of R, so by what deterministic process do you tease those apart?

They are not independent because there exists [⊂B]⊄R.

If you just said 'I'm going to help set R', then that would make sense and be logically consistent and deterministic.

The other thing which seems to be well defined is the subset of white liberal Americans who believe all black people need their help, this appears to me to be the entire set, because none of them seem to realise that helping the black subset in R, but not the Hispanic, white, Jewish, or other various possible subsets, is making subordinate the issue of the injustice itself.

They are making 'something else' even more important than the injustice itself!? How is that!?

Have you ever watched 'Megamind', the basis of the plot is that there has to be both superlative good and superlative bad for things to happen, else everything sort of stops, there's no crime left to fight, etc.. This is much as my thesis here is about. For American racism to continue it needs the bigoted extremist white supremacists to manifest the injustices and then it also needs white liberal Americans trained and brought up to see racism in everything.

That is not at all to presuppose that it is wrong for white liberal Americans to fight for justice. I'm all for that, I am in that queue of helpers. So you can continue to do whatever it is you feel compelled to do, but it's your vision of racism that is keeping it alive.

This is the OP (fi you've read the links), and it goes to the heart of that piece that no objective rational argument can touch this way of thinking, it's been made 'not acceptable' to analyse it logically.

When someone commits some sort of injustice or crime, I'm saying deal with the injustice or crime. Don't subordinate the injustice itself beneath another concept. What exactly are you trying to fight for? The injustice? Or your concept of the injustice?

If you want me to link to youtube videos of black people saying what I am saying, just ask. I'll go see what I can find. It's not difficult to find for yourself, if you are prepared to have your world view challenged.

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You are decoupling the effect (fire) with the cause and create a strawman scenario where folks are fighting about semantics. While it is very on-brand about how we often talk about racism and its ongoing impact, it is not very helpful.

I don't agree that is what I am doing.

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Essentially the argument appears to be that talking about racism is the real issue, as it causes all the problems, therefore the only reasonable thing is to do what we do nothing and obfuscate matters.

I cannot agree with this, it is a false dichotomy and a fallacy

This false-dichotomy technique seems to be a chosen method here, I've seen it several times already, to me and others. Please don't do that, it's like listening to some salesman from the 1950's.

Talking about racism IS the real issue, yes, not because "it causes the problems" but that you guys have been talking about it all your lives and it programmes people to think about race. I've discussed that before. 

"therefore the only reasonable thing is to..." where did that come from? There are a hundred other things you could do after that. Whether someone has ever talked about a thing or not, doesn't stop them being an arse. If you are about to raise the subject, don't. If someone else raises the subject, don't engage. If someone victimises another, seek to have them punished and if you can help the victim to receive restorative justice then do so.

Not sure what's so confusing about that proposition.

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Is your argument that the issue is one of semantics without real life impact? If so, I feel you may have missed the point of the discussion. We have the discussion because the house is on fire/flooded (i.e. we see the impact) and it is about figuring out what to do about. Whatever we want to call the issue is mostly secondary.

My argument is that the issue is one of semantics that has been allowed to have a real life impact.

The house is on fire and builder 2 says to builder 1 'I shouldn't have let you install those ABS sockets, should I? Urea formaldehyde is tougher and would have resisted' and builder 1 says 'it might not be anything to do with that, maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe it was your wiring and you are just looking for something to blame'?.

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I feel the analogy does not really capture the systemic issue and it conflates fundamental with the proximate causes. 

Racism does not cause the leak, it is at least once (or more removed). To work with you analogy, racism would be more something ephemeral, like for example architectural thoughts on how houses are supposed to be built. Then derived from those more nebulous thoughts are specific building codes. For most those are fine. However, let's assume that due to water quality for a particular subset of homes the code facilitates or allows installations that are prone to leaking. So having a better building philosophy that ensures that everything works out would be great, but may not be very actionable.

Fixing the building code would be a more obvious longer-term solution. But in the short term, providing folks with means to fix the leak rather than waiting for the code to be fixed would be the immediate band-aid.

I like your analogy to building codes, but I think you've overcomplicated the analogy you have drawn with racism.

I feel a better proposition would be this;

• Builder 1; "The code says we have to install electrical sockets made of plastic. I bought some here, let's fit these."
• Builder 2; "No, no, this is wrong. What you have bought is urea formaldehyde, which is a thermoset, it is not a thermoplastic."
• Builder 1; "Really, it makes no difference, the code just says 'plastic' and this is plastic, right?"
• Builder 2; "Nope, THAT is a thermosetting resin, you need to go buy ABS electrical sockets, ABS is a thermoplastic."
• Builder 1; "There's really no issue, you don't have to overthink this. A plastic plug is a plastic plug!"
• Builder 2; "I agree, and THAT urea formaldehyde is NOT a plastic, it is a thermoset."

So, the analogy here is that in this situation I would be builder 2 because I have grown up around polymer science and my attention is finely tuned to the difference between different plastics. It is in my upbringing and formative experiences that I see a difference between urea formaldehyde electrical parts and ABS parts, which are the two common materials for electrical parts.

I can tell the difference between the two plastics looking at a part on a shelf at 2 metres! Whether it has moulding texture or smooth, whether it is a very bright white or slightly duller white, etc.. If you did not have my formative experience, you would be builder 1 without a clue what I am talking about and what the hell difference does it make, get on with the job and stop causing trouble!

The question is whether Builder 1 or Builder 2 is right. Does the code just mean 'something plasticy' in the lay person's understanding, or the fine-tuned recognition of someone brought up to see the difference?

One is pragmatic and wants to get on with the job, sees the other as making trouble for no good reason.

The other believes things need to be done right and to the letter, and whether or not it makes any difference at all by ignoring what plastic type the plug is, the rules that they have been brought up with say those two materials are different and only one is a plastic.

You American guys are builder 2 in terms of race, for sure it is a real difference but it is your choice whether to go out of your way to spot the difference and to decide to react to it.

Which builder is right? The job is to get on and build the house so everything gets done and everyone's happy. Or is it to fret about whether you have the "right sort" of sockets?

14 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Fast processes tend towards the isentropic. Efficiency and overall economics work hand in hand.

I've heard that said and sort of drawn the same conclusion. Is there some more formal explanation/definition of that principle?

Of course, that does not necessarily mean the isothermal phase would need to be fast too. If we take those two things together, the question would be how to construct a mechanism with fast isentropic phases and slow isothermal.

On 6/4/2023 at 3:09 PM, exchemist said:

You’d have thought some enterprising soul at Imperial College or MIT - or perhaps at one of the Grandes Ecoles in Paris - might have given it a go.

I think guys out of academic situations tend to try to work with new tech things, applying something new.

I mean, sure, there might be someting new tech to bring to that table, they like coming up with new solutions using new tech.

I'm just thinking that a solution would be more about putting the right lumps of existing known engineering together in a new way, and I think most of the time it's guys tinkering in their garage that tend to come up with new solutions using old tech.

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is a key mechanism of redlining. The government not only supported it, but created specific mechanisms that would encourage targeted lending by the banks

OK, I get that, and could have guessed to be honest, but that's missing my question.

There appears to be a legal route to remedy. 

So either

1. this particular issue has a solution so it's not necessary to keep digging here, or
2. you (others) don't feel this legal route is satisfactory?

If 1, then 'stop' #job done! (if not stop then why not), or

if 2, state why you don't feel these court cases/due compensations are satisfactory.

I trust that within the answer to 'why', we'll see a means to take some next step, either measure it and/or deal with it.

Just now, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Simple solution: don’t cite it, or any other unreliable source. It distracts from the conversation.

 

OK, understood.

Just now, CharonY said:

Well, I guess you just don't know much about the US history, which is fine. But the US government has a long history of providing funds for housing and education- but often only white folks were eligible. 

Is that a new matter to consider? We were discussing redlining.

Just now, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Chat GPT is known to give inaccurate information. It gives plausible-sounding results, not accurate results. 

It should never be used in this fashion. It is not a credible source.

 

That is accepted, and I assumed it was the case, but even the wiki page gave a few cases that were being solved.

The argument here seems to be that these cases haven't been happening. Prima facie that doesn't seem correct.

The proposition is simple, and Chat GPT does not need to be accurate for this to be demonstrated;

• is there a legal route forward to resolve losses from redlining, or
• is there no legal route.

Even the wiki page alone (that someone else linked to) confirms there IS a legal route.

I believe my question is pure, and reasonable; what do people want done about this, given the legal route to remedy is open and the law is already changed?

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is such a ridiculous premise that I no longer feel you're arguing in good faith. It's pretty easy to look up black groups that are petitioning for reparations for redlining practices, so I feel that you're just making me post more links you won't read. 

But this is MigL's thread about a specific instance, and I've helped blow it up into a full discussion about racism. If someone would like to discuss the subject in good faith, I'll happily join that discussion, but this one has suddenly become about something else. Enjoy.

You misunderstand my proposition.

Or maybe you do understand it?

• There is a route of redress through the courts, and this has been actively producing $billions in compensation.
• There is even a route of petition direct to US Government (1st Amendment right).
• The laws have been changed in response.

I'm just asking what more you want?

You all want to clear off out of the discussion, now?

Now that everything you 'think' you are asking for is available?

I am not suggesting it has been yet delivered in its entirety, but you all seem to want to stop contributing now that someone has pointed out that what you thought you were asking for is already happening?

It's a very simple question; what more do you want to see done to resolve the redlining issue, than isn't being done already? Of course, we all have concerns those processes are not yet complete, and all wish they will resolve soon. But what else are you asking for?

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

Also, Chat GPT is a language model, it is not source for data or information, especially as it is prone to make things up (aka hallucinations).

 

But in other words, folks not only consider it possible but also acceptable to have companies and governments pay up for past regressions. And if so, it then means that we can continue to examine what other elements have led to systematically disadvantage folks and compensate them, right?

OK, just to cover this again;

i) US Government did not lend anything, so any failure to lend can at best be a '3rd party issue'

ii) I accept the observation above (at face value) that US Government caused the lenders not to lend by declining underwriting the loans (I'll assume that is true for now), in which case law is very clear, the companies get sued and pay up, then the companies sue US Government. The victims do not get paid twice from the lenders and the US Government. They get paid once. It is for the lenders to pursue such cases if they are minded to.

iii) US Government did change the law so that would stop.

So my question to you, given that there is a legal route of redress which has been in progress and clearly delivers remedies, and US Government has changed the law...

.. what do you want done now? Why is this not enough? Surely recompense and a change of law covers it? What more are you after?

Are you content that this covers redlining now? Or not, if so why not? You want more money, or more laws, or what?

Now, on to the next issue .. which is...?

What's the negative click for?

Have I given misinformation, or used bad language at someone, or been illogical?

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I'm not declining to accept your list of data. I am asking if the list covers redlining done before the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Prior to 1968 redlining was legal, and the government is responsible, not the companies that legally redlined during that time. 

Companies should (and are) being sued for redlining after 1968. The government should (and is not) taking responsibility for compensating the people they harmed through redlining prior to 1968.

I'm tired of the attitude around here. It's getting old.

That would be for you to tell me. If you think there is an issue but you don't know if these cases do or do not address it, I'd say that is your lack of research, not mine.

Clearly, something has been going on to remedy this sort of thing.

I'm asking who is complaining.

'People from black groups'?

Or is it just 'people from white groups' complaining on behalf of 'people from black groups'?

Does it become tiring when we get down to discussing real things, rather than 'feelings'? Sorry about that, but reality is what it is. 

It's easier to discuss ideas and feelings, isn't it? No-one can really challenge you about it?

Funny, that, that's exactly the subject matter of the link in the OP, that APS refused to accept a 'scientific' comment about the paper in question because they argued the paper itself, the subject matter in discussion, wasn't scientific! Heh. That's full circle on this thread, then?

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because the US gov said they will not insure your loans if you make them to anyone in the redlined area. Therefore the lends did not make loans to people in the redlined areas. It is a direct connection. 

OK, I accept that connection you are making.

So, why are these companies paying out and not saying 'we're not liable it's the US gov what did it'?

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You did not provide a link to your list so I cannot check, so this is only a guess, but I suspect that you are referring to cases of redlining after the Fair Housing Act of 1968. At that point the government went from saying "redlining is legal" to saying "redlining is illegal", so anyone redlining after 1968 was no longer doing so under the protection of the US government.

Chat GPT gave me those figures after I asked for a list of cases settled for redlining.

Go argue with Chat GPT if you are declining to accept that list of data, but maybe YOU need to find your data first before accusing these companies of not fulfilling their liabilities already?

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Take responsibility for redlining practices prior to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and make whole the people they financially harmed.

It seems that this 'black group' have gone and done exactly what I said they'd done here in UK.

While the 'Very-offended-of-white-middle-class-America' has been wringing its hands and saying that they will do something, the 'black group' have got fed up with you waffling on about it and gone and sorted it out for themselves.

Name a black person who has not received their compensation from these legal cases, and we can move on to discuss 'that' and what to do next.

In the absence of you being able to name someone 'from the black group' that is asking for any recompense for redlining, can we at least for now put that aside and move on to some next injustice that you want to address?

Is that it? Anything else?

Here are some more cases, actually I think it's more than $4bn.

41. SunTrust Banks - $968 million (2020)
42. Regions Bank - $1 billion (2018)
43. Zions Bancorporation - $8 million (2018)
44. Cadence Bank - $2 million (2019)
45. Associated Bank - $200 million (2015)
46. Bank of the West - $16.3 million (2017)
47. Sterling Bancorp - $8 million (2018)
48. East West Bank - $3.3 million (2019)
49. Umpqua Holdings Corporation - $1.1 million (2019)
50. Trustmark Corporation - $3 million (2019)
51. Cathay Bank - $10 million (2019)
52. Iberiabank Corporation (now part of First Horizon Bank) - $11.7 million (2019)
53. Simmons Bank - $2 million (2019)
54. FirstBank (formerly FBOP Corporation) - $10.9 million (2018)
55. First Interstate BancSystem - $1.3 million (2019)
56. BankUnited - $7 million (2019)
57. First Midwest Bancorp - $1.7 million (2019)
58. United Bankshares - $2.85 million (2019)
59. BMO Harris Bank - $16 million (2020)
60. TCF Financial Corporation (now part of Huntington Bancshares) - $5 million (2021)

Is that enough?

Clearly, there exists a route to take this particular issue to court and win remedies.

So, now we've cleared that one up, what's next on the agenda to fix?

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Seventh paragraph...

 

And?

Why does that make US Gov liable for it?

Please explain, in language that 'someone rational' can understand, this is about mortgage lenders holding back mortgages, and US Government isn't a mortgage lender. What is the link? Where is the liability?

What more do you want them to do?

People are getting paid for their losses and the law has been changed.

Do you want to dig up the corpses of the now dead people responsible, put them in stocks and throw vegetables at them?

What do you WANT!?!

Oh, I did read your links and could see ZERO connection between the liabilities created and Government, as you appear to have falsely asserted, as far as I can tell.

I've done a check on this 'redlining' thing which is the issue you are looking to fix.

It seems there have already been hundreds of legal cases already to settle those particular damaged.

Thus, three things to note;

i) the remedies are already being argued in court, finalised, and the amounts disbursed,

ii) the totals are already in excess of $2bn. Are you thinking you need to press 'someone' for more than that?

iii) None are from US Government, because it wasn't them that were liable for the outcomes, so what do you want US Government to do about it now?

Here are some cases already;

1. Wells Fargo - $175 million (2012)
2. Bank of America - $335 million (2011)
3. JPMorgan Chase - $55 million (2017)
4. Countrywide Financial (acquired by Bank of America) - $335 million (2011)
5. Citigroup - $7.9 million (2002)
6. SunTrust Mortgage - $21 million (2011)
7. HSBC - $28 million (2012)
8. Hudson City Savings Bank (acquired by M&T Bank) - $33 million (2015)
9. First Tennessee Bank (now part of First Horizon Bank) - $1.9 million (2016)
10. BancorpSouth - $10.6 million (2016)
11. PNC Financial Services - $35 million (2013)
12. US Bancorp - $32 million (2012)
13. Fifth Third Bank - $25 million (2015)
14. Ally Financial (formerly GMAC Mortgage) - $80 million (2013)
15. Regions Financial Corporation - $52 million (2012)
16. M&T Bank - $64 million (2017)
17. Citizens Financial Group - $9.9 million (2017)
18. Union Bank (now part of MUFG Union Bank) - $15 million (2011)
19. BB&T Corporation (now Truist Financial Corporation) - $83 million (2012)
20. PHH Mortgage - $92 million (2017)
21. KeyBank - Unknown
22. Santander Bank - Unknown
23. Discover Financial Services - Unknown
24. Flagstar Bank - Unknown
25. Comerica Bank - Unknown
26. BBVA Compass - Unknown
27. City National Bank (now part of Royal Bank of Canada) - Unknown
28. Capital One Financial Corporation - Unknown
29. Zions Bancorporation - Unknown
30. Synovus Financial Corporation - Unknown
31. TD Bank, N.A. - Unknown
32. EverBank (now TIAA Bank) - Unknown
33. Webster Bank - Unknown
34. First Citizens Bank - Unknown
35. Huntington Bancshares - Unknown
36. Popular, Inc. - Unknown
37. U.S. Bank - Unknown
38. Citizens Bank - Unknown
39. Wilmington Trust (now part of M&T Bank) - Unknown
40. BBVA USA - Unknown
41.  

Why do you think there is anything for US Government to do about this?

What is it you are after?

More money?

New laws came in in 1968 to stop the practice.

What more do you want to see done?

Some angry jumping-up-and-down?

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I wasn't talking about "current" violations. Specifically, I've been referencing the FHA redlining practices which crippled a few generations of black Americans. Current transgressions seem to have been left vague because I wasn't talking about them.

Can you please clarify how this redlining is a FHA practice?

I don't think your Government lent mortgages, so what's the connection?