Black-Owned Businesses Received Less Than 2% of PPP Loans, White-Owned Got 83%

The correct base rate to use to determine 'effective' discrimintation (as intended or unintended consequence) is the general population.

the US Treasury controls the IRS, funds the US govenrment and is in charge of all money printing in the US. Every man (and woman) is equal before the law/govt. Hence it makes sense to analyze how the activity of the US Treasury benefits one group over another.

You have no basis for linking those two instances. You have no basis to claim there was any intent of any discrimination in the loan program. You have no basis to claim there even was discrimination in the loan program. All those assumptions need evidence, and you just asserted that conclusion.

This is very similar reasoning to alien conspiracy theorists, who look at something in the night sky and assert "It can't be A, it can't be B, it can't be C, therefore it must be Aliens"

The author was also dishonest. They purposely framed their blog post in a way that would you lead you to this.

You can't do that because there could be alternative explanations in this specific case (like in every case), even in a world where, as you claim, certain minorities are discriminated against by banks and loans[1]. In such a world you need even more evidence because your biases are pushing in a specific direction and so it takes more work to be objective.

You do nobody any good by claiming racism where there is none. In fact you do damage, the same way that hate crime hoaxes and false sexual assault allegations do damage to real hate crime and sexual assault victims.

It's the responsible thing to do.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't look for an explanation. The null-hypothesis is that these loans are allocated proportionally, so a deviation does require an explanation, which will probably be interesting, most likely multi-variate, and may include a component of discrimination. The nature of that discrimination may be different than what you assumed - so how are you supposed to fix it, if you were too lazy to actually dig to find the actual problem.

Why is that controversial?

[1] Truth be told, I actually see debt in a negative light. I haven't seen a lot of small business survive when starting with a bank loan - it's like you're setting yourself to fail because not only do you have business expenses, and not only did you way overestimate the sales you were going to do (a common trait of entrepreneurs), but also you have loan payments that drain your revenues. And those loans are usually personally guaranteed, so if your business tanks, you are still responsible for them. I wish debt was harder to come by across the board.

>The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the PPP program is somehow magically immune to that discrimination.

Come on. You can't do to that. That's not how it works. The burden of proof is always on a positive claim. General negative claims are intrinsically unprovable. This is because for one, you've begged the question, and there is no level of evidence that you would accept or even list what you would accept as evidence that your conclusion is wrong.

More importantly, it is impossible to list every factor and modality of this discrimination (and you have to do that to prove a universal negative claim that there is no racial discrimination), because there is an infinite number of possibilities of this manifestation (i.e. what is the nature of this racist discrimination you're claiming?).

Here are some potential modalities for this 'racist discrimination'.

1) The program was designed with the intent to discriminate against certain minorities (and not others). 2) The program was not designed with the intent to discriminate, but certain factors had as a side-effect discriminating against certain minorities (and not others). 3) The program was not designed with the intent to discriminate and does not intrinsically discriminate, but the executors of this program intentionally discriminated against certain minorities (but not others) 4) The program was not designed with the intent to discriminate and does not intrinsically discriminate, and the executors of this program did not intentionally discriminated against certain minorities (but not others), but certain factors had a side-effect of discrimination. 5) The program and execution was not intrinsically discriminatory, but other structural factors led to discrimination. Factors such as the claim that minorities are discriminated in banking, or certain minorities being turned away from entrepreneurship by lack of role-models, or ... etc.

I can go on ... but each one is different and independent of the next and even within each one you have countless of potential mechanism. For example, if the claim is the program was intentionally designed to be discriminatory, you have unpack that and provide the mechanism for that. Is it Congress that did that? Is the White House? Which statue was discriminatory, etc.. And there are countless other potential avenues for discrimination. Each kind of discrimination calls for different approach to a solution. You're not honest when you shift the burden of proof like you did.