Here is a review of the book: Winner-Take-All Politics by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. I have addressed the issues of concentration of wealth and government inaction on several occasions most notably Can You Still Get Ahead in America , Casino Banking and Financial Rouletter: America Loses.
There are other reviews here, here and here.
James Pilant
Just like the writers at Rortybomb I have long believed that Elizabeth Warren was the best choice.
I have written about this before. You can read my July 26, 2010 post – Elizabeth Warren Should Be The Head Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the July 24th, 2010 post – Treasury Makes A Mistake – Claiming They Are Not Blocking Elizabeth Warren (via The Baseline Scenario).
Please read the post and add Rortybomb to your favorites.
James Pilant
via Rortybomb
There are few assaults upon our dignity as crushing as the theft of all of our possessions. It is not so much the large items like refrigerators and televisions that are missed. Humans attach value to the strangest things. Instead of the microwave they lament the loss of their wedding pictures. When logic would dictate the loss of the computer should be the first cause of regret, they think of the old worn chair that has sat in the living room for years. Considering the great value placed upon personal privacy and possessions, would it not seem logical and prudent that those entrusted with the safety of the public should investigate and seek to punish the guilty. But the investigators would only need a mirror to discover the perpetrator of this crime, law enforcement itself.
It seems unfair that the bank never has to worry about these mistakes in judgment. It seems unfair that the bank, should use so many public resources to serve its interests.
The victim is asking $500,000 dollars in damages.
That seems fair, first, to recompense her for damages and second, to discourage the sheriff and his deputies from any more random home raids.
James Pilant
via Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge
For almost two years banks have been foreclosing on homes and many times the only evidence of ownership was a notarized piece of paper with the signature of a “robo-signer,” often a person with no legal training whatever, often people who had no concept of the effects of the documents to which they attached their names.
In Deutche Bank v. Triplett, the banks were told, “No.” This is part of a chain of decisions where the courts have said to the banks, “You cannot foreclose without actual documents showing ownership (my interpretation).”
In other words, signing a notarized statement that your bank owns the property is not enough to foreclose on property.
With the MERS system in use by many of the big mortgage firms (Countrywide for example), there is an absence of proper paperwork in at least hundreds of thousands of cases. MERS only has computer records, no paperwork. This computer program run by a private company saved banks from the hassle of going through the process of changing ownership without bothering with that time-consuming paperwork like filing documents at the county court-house or paying the state mandated fees for transferring ownership.
Some judges believe that evading state law and taxes is illegal.
If you want to understand MERS, go to my article here –MERS And Ownership or here – Congress Leaps In To Protect The Banking Industry?
via DANNLAW
There was fraud in many home mortgages. We should see more of these cases but California is one of the few states where there have been prosecutions.
It is difficult to convince me that with Countrywide’s vast portfolio that this practice was uncommon. One of the best ways to defraud a homeowner is to sell him on the idea of cheap credit, lowering his monthly payments, knowing all along the loan will revert to a floating rate. That new interest rate produces a devastating increase in monthly payments forcing foreclosure. This is fraud. Conning people into home loans is what the great lecturers on personal responsibility claim was a rare event.
I don’t think so.
Here is one of my articles on this subject – Bank of America Sued Over Countrywide Mortgage Related Investments
James Pilant
Right!
This is how I feel as well. It’s a good read. Be warned, he’s really upset. But so am I when I’m dealing with this issue.
Here is my writing on the same subject. You can see that I get passionate about foreclosures too.
Robo-Signing Foreclosure Freeze Update (via Foreclosureblues)
Lots of Links on the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis (via Rortybomb)
Sheldon Whitehouse Weighs In On The Foreclosure Crisis
Third Way Comments on Foreclosure Fraud Policy in the Post-Ibanez Landscape (via Rortybomb)
Foreclosure Speed Made Loan Modifications Impossible
The Vast Majority Of Foreclosures Were Done Correctly?
In total, I have 46 posts about the mortgage crisis.
James Pilant
Is net neutrality important to you personally? How much data speed do you use? If you are like me and my family, you can only suspect that you might be a heavy user. That’s not good predictive power. If this policy is applied to you, it is probably going to be a surprise when your data speed is too slow for Netflix.
Read the opening of the post –
The Net Neutrality whistles are blowing and flags are flying this morning over buzz that Verizon Wireless will be throttling data speeds for its heaviest data users. The change, effective immediately, is believed to be part of Verizon’s efforts to ensure that its network is ready for the flood of iPhone users who will start powering up those devices next week.
In a nutshell, if you’re a heavy user – and you really have no way of knowing if that’s you or not – then Verizon Wireless “may reduce your data throughput speeds periodically for the remainder of your then current and immediately following billing cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and times of peak demand.”
I don’t think we should let private industry decide these policies. The FCC regulated television and radio for decades bringing order out of chaos. Why shouldn’t we have standard policies across the nation? We are at the mercy of a handful of suppliers due to consolidation allowed by the very same government that people believe shouldn’t be regulating this at all. If we received our Internet services whether wired or wireless from hundreds of sources, all this would have been solved by competition. But a limited number of suppliers have no reason to cut prices to compete when they simply own the lines alone.
More from the web site –
That’s like watching ESPN 24 hours a day and then having the programming cut in half for the last week of the month because other customers don’t watch it as much as I do. How is that right?
I think so too. Why should I be charged for something I can’t measure? And what can I do to fix it if I need that bandwidth? I teach online. This is not an academic exercise. This is my work, and I’m not the only one that uses their home computer for something besides World of Warcraft.
In a monopolistic system of suppliers, I have no say at all. At least with the FCC, I’ve got a chip on the table.
James Pilant
P.S. The web site, Between the Lines, was my source and I would like you to visit if this subject interesting.
This author has done a great job of breaking down a difficult subject into a straightforward narrative.
He wrote this little masterpiece of summary and I provide it to you.
Please visit his web site and thank him for his effort.
James Pilant
via Skuggi_Net
Does an attorney violate client confidentiality by using public broadband? It appears so. There are clear implications for any profession in which confidentiality is a responsibility. Is this the first shot in a dispute about using public Internet access for professionals or all of us?
Maybe we should all be more aware of the risks to our own data?
Read this fascinating article on using the web and an attorney’s fiduciary duty.
James Pilant
On my regular commentators, Andrew, would like to add his thought to my previous post, “Law Prohibiting Price Gouging In Oklahoma (via 40/29 tv.com).”
I like the spirit of this law. It prevents unethical businesses from profiting from the misfortune of others.
Here’s a hypothetical situation. If Company “A” and Company “B” are both hardware stores in the same town when an emergency hits. Company “A” is owned by an unethical man who ratchets up his prices to make a buck off of the emergency. Company “B” is owned by an ethical man who keeps his prices steady (perhaps out of a sense of duty to his community, who knows). Now say I am a resident of this town. In the aftermath of this emergency, if I hear that Company B’s prices are lower than Company A’s, then I will prefer to do business with Company B. Thus, ideally, ethics will win out over greed.
This hypothetical only applies to situations where healthy competition is established in each market. If you live in a small town where there is only one hardware store or one grocery store, then the residents are at the mercy of the store owner.
So it seems that this law will definitely help out the small town folks, and I see nothing wrong with it at all.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.