I always thought it a bit unfair to target a minority group, usually of lower income, for special taxation when everyone else is unwilling to chip in, but it may be for the best.
I suppose this same effect occurs when someone publically supports a politician. They have to keep supporting them because otherwise they must admit they were wrong about the person previously. Does this explain insane arguments by self-proclaimed libertarians that the Bush Administration spying on US citizens illegally is no big deal? Or does it explain why I think Bush is evil, an idiot, or an evil idiot, when in reality he is a lovable manly man, fighting for The American Way? I am going to have to go with the former.
But this is hard to square with Levitt and Fryer's conclusion that there is no negative relationship between having a distinctively Black name and later life outcomes after controlling for a child's circumstances at birth.
A South African lender of short-term cash loans sent out tens of thousands of offers to prior customers with random changes in interest rates along with changes in the offer letter. Listing one payment plan, rather than three, significantly increased the applications for credit (equal to lowering the interest rate 2.3%). And for men, having a picture of woman on the letter, rather than a man, significantly increased the number of applications (equal to 4% change in the interest rate). A promotional giveaway can actually reduce the number of (attentive) people applying for credit.