Category: ethics

Vote For A Hero Today!

On By southwerkIn Capitalism, ethics

CNN is currently holding voting for heroes. They have created a panel which has selected ten people who have distinguished themselves.

You go here to vote and assess the candidates.

This is part of the story of one of the candidates –

Magnus MacFarlane-Barrow was enjoying a pint at his local pub in the Scottish Highlands when he got an idea that would change his life — and the lives of thousands of others.

It was 1992, and MacFarlane-Barrow and his brother Fergus had just seen a news report about refugee camps in Bosnia. The images of people suffering in the war-torn country shocked the two salmon farmers, who’d visited there as teenagers and remembered the warmth of the Bosnian people.

“We began saying ‘Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could just do one small thing to help?’ ” MacFarlane-Barrow says.

After talking it over, the two men took a week off work and collected food, clothing, medicine and blankets. They loaded everything into an old Land Rover, drove to Bosnia to deliver it and returned to Scotland.

“I came back here thinking that I did my one good deed and it would be back to work, but it [didn’t work] out like that, ” he says.

When they arrived home, the brothers found an avalanche of goods that people had continued to donate while they were away.

I won’t spoil the rest of it by giving away too much. Go see the kind of people we can be when we’re not trying to live by money values.

James Pilant

Set Up A Trust For Your Pet?

On By southwerkIn ethics

From the Sacramento Bee

With an estimated 71.4 million U.S. households home to at least one bird, fish, reptile, cat, dog or bunny, pets are definitely our beloved companions in life. But what happens to them after we’re gone?

Some wind up in animal shelters, some are put to sleep. Others are farmed out to willing family or friends.

But to ensure there’s no uncertainty, it appears more Americans are specifying exactly what happens to Fido and Fluffy when they’re gone. That arrangement can be as casual as a friendly agreement with a grown child, a sibling or friend, or as concrete as a legally drafted trust.

Considering the number of cats I have, there may not be enough money in the world (at least my world) but others are taking of their pets after their death. I consider it a positive thing. Americans care enough about their pets that when Katrina forced evacuations there were pet owners who refused to leave without the beloved animals.

It’s not a sign of a sentimental people, it’s a sign of a great people, a great people with big hearts.

From further down in the article –

In California, pet trusts – which are part of estate planning documents and typically drafted by an attorney – were made legally enforceable by legislation signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008.

Some 43 states and the District of Columbia now have statutory pet trust laws on their books, according to attorney Dan Meeks, who runs a Florida website, http://www.pettrustlawblog.com.

Maybe you are in such financial shape that you can afford a trust for your pets. More likely, you have a trusted relative who will take care of your pets. That’s nice. (But if you have any extra cats, don’t leave them to me.)

James Pilant

Bank Agrees To Modify Your Mortgage – Then Kicks You Out – Standard Practice!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

From the Washington Post –

Across the country, struggling homeowners are increasingly tripped up by mortgage lenders that press ahead with foreclosures regardless of any effort they make to provide borrowers with relief on unaffordable mortgages.

Amid the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, mortgage companies have established a dual-track approach toward troubled homeowners, negotiating with them over loan modifications while trying to seize their homes.

Top government officials have been urging lenders to redouble their efforts at modifying burdensome loans and have barred lenders from foreclosing on homeowners who are seeking to rework their mortgages under a federal program. Mortgage companies, however, have continued to pursue this two-track strategy, with a widening toll especially on those homeowners who have been trying to resolve their mortgage difficulties before they snowball, according to federal and state officials and consumer advocates.

During the last month, several major lenders have temporarily halted thousands of foreclosure cases amid reports that fraudulent court documents and improper procedures have been used to evict people from their homes. But disarray within the mortgage industry goes much further. And the foreclosure pause has done little to address the common industry practice of taking homes from people who’d been led to believe they could save them.

“It’s still happening everywhere,” said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who has tried to bar the dual-track process in his state, one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. “It’s one of the largest complaints I get. . . . The lenders need to make a choice. What do they want: a foreclosure or a loan modification?”

The banks are playing it both ways. They foreclose on you when you are delinquent on payments and they foreclose on you when you get your payments modified with them since you’re not paying the full amount. Confused? Think how you would feel after reaching an agreement with the bank to lower your payments and your house is auctioned!

Take a look at the case of Mr. Roberts.

In Centreville, Woodrow Roberts III said he enrolled last October in a loan modification program with Bank of America. At the time, he was still current on his $3,000-a-month payments but wanted some relief until he could find a second job. The bank agreed to trim the monthly payment by $600 for a three-month trial period and consider Roberts for a permanent modification, he recalled.

After three months, he said, he heard nothing from the bank. “I called in every week to see the status of my loan,” Roberts said. “After a year of phone calls and no real information, I received a letter in the mail.” It said he had been rejected for a modification and that he owed more than $8,800 – the total he’d thought his payments had been reduced over the course of the year plus fees. If he didn’t pay, the letter warned, his home would be sold at a foreclosure auction Nov. 12.

“If I knew this type of program could risk everything, I would have never entered into this program,” Roberts said. He explained he can’t afford to pay the sum demanded all at once and hasn’t been allowed to spread it out over time.

In response to a reporter’s question about the case, Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said Roberts was turned down for a permanent loan modification under the federal program because his income was too high to qualify. But she said the bank is now reviewing whether he is eligible for alternative relief.

Sounds like he had a deal to me. But he didn’t. The deals only work one way. If the bank wants to go with the deal, it’s fine. If they don’t, your home is auctioned and they don’t feel obligated to talk to you about it.

Here’s some more –

The Mortgage Bankers Association said lenders often file initial foreclosure paperwork as they work to modify a loan. John Mechem, an MBA spokesman, said they want to make sure that if the modification effort fails, they can promptly move forward with the foreclosure, which can take up to three years to complete depending on the state. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration impose deadlines for filings on loans these agencies guarantee or own, he said.

But Phillip Robinson, a lawyer at the nonprofit law firm Civil Justice Inc. in Baltimore said, “Attorneys and housing counselors here and all over the country complain every day about this kind of thing.”

I don’t understand. I thought if you called and talked to someone at a bank, a loan office, etc., and they said they would take the payment late, they would take a buyout, they would accept a lower payment over a longer time, etc, etc, that we had a deal.

Apparently not. If you’re negotiating a mortgage with a bank, and they agree to modify it, you need to get it in writing. What’s the catch? I don’t see why they should let you have any such evidence of their intent. When they can decide to foreclose or not regardless of the arrangements they have made with you, why should they put anything on paper?

If you have a mortgage, and you have made arrangements with a bank, have a backup plan in case foreclosure is pushed through anyway.

James Pilant

Mortgage Companies Get Public Money For Properties They Don’t Own?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

Mortgage companies enrolled in the Obama administration’s signature foreclosure-prevention initiative may be receiving taxpayer funds despite not having a legal right to the home or to the mortgage, a top Treasury Department official revealed Wednesday.

But despite faulty or missing paperwork, the Obama administration allows mortgage companies to boot homeowners from the program, sticking the borrowers with massive bills that often leave them worse off.

During an oversight hearing, Phyllis Caldwell, Treasury’s housing rescue chief, acknowledged during questioning that Treasury doesn’t know whether mortgage companies and the owners of mortgages are receiving public money under “false pretenses.” Treasury is investigating, she said.

The contradiction highlights what many critics of the past two administrations’ policies have claimed for some time: they exert overwhelming force when it comes to saving financial institutions, but merely modest assistance when it comes to distressed homeowners.

So, let me get this straight, the federal government in this case the Treasury Department, has been kicking hundreds of thousands of people out of their program (HAMP) to keep their homes but the mortgage companies have been getting the money whether or not they owned the homes?

Actual human beings have had to fill out tons of paperwork (my understanding is that the initial application is a seventy page document), provide endless reams of evidence of income, etc., get relatively little aid and more often than not get kicked out of the program.

On the other hand, the banks who have been receiving federal funds (HAMP funds), have not had to prove they owned the property to collect benefits?

At what point, did the phrase, double standard, become the Administration’s sole approach for mortgage foreclosures?

They can’t be troubled to find obvious bank problems but happily squish homeowners for the smallest application fault? Thanks a lot, White House, for lining up with the little guys!

James Pilant

How Arrogant Are Foreclosure Firms?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

This arrogant! – (from Money Talks News) –

How many people didn’t get an attorney and thought they were safe because they made all their payments?

James Pilant

Why False Affidavits Matter

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

I found this video today. It’s short and precise. I recommend you watch it. It explains (generally speaking) the affidavit’s importance in law.

Good Stuff!

Stay tuned. I spend hours a day reading about the foreclosure mess from major news sources, internet sites, legals sources and the foreign press.

I’ll keep you up to date.

James Pilant

Just For Fun – Aqua!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics

Aqua had a major hit some years ago with a novelty song called “Barbie Girl.” Less said the better.

Occasionally (okay, that’s a lie, regularly) I prowl the internet looking for music. One of my most favorite pieces of music is the Association’s intro music to the film, Goodbye Columbus. It’s almost impossible to find but I keep at it.

Anyway, I find Aqua’s novelty song and find a large number of other songs they have done. They are pretty good.

I think I’ve gotten so outraged over the many things that seem so unfair to me, that for a moment I’ve lost perspective. There are nice days. There are people trying to do the right thing. There is hope. But sometimes when confronted with walls and walls of information showing the pain of people in this country and the indifference of Washington and the sense of the entitlement of the financial elites, it’s hard to see the light.

Let’s listen to a little Aqua and relax for a minute (or in this case, 3:23).

or (3:32).

As always, I very much appreciate your kindness in reading my stuff.

James Alan Pilant

Charlie LeDuff On What An American Male Is Supposed To Be

On By southwerkIn ethics2 Comments

I often discuss the strange set of demands made upon the American male in this society. Take a look at this. I ran across this quote in my internet meanderings. It’s delicious.

The following to the end of the last quote is from wikipedia.

The preface of US Guys includes this quote on Leduff’s view of the American male:

The American man has been taught that while it is better to avoid a fight; that honor cannot always be defended with reason. He should never admit fear. He should always strive to put the blade in his adversary’s chest, not his back. An American man should know how to load and fire a gun. He should know how to ride a horse, bet on a horse, bet on the stock market, and bet on the cards. A good man should know a woman’s body and know how to please her. His woman, in turn, should never speak anything but well of him in public. An American man should have been raised in the church, rejected the church and eventually found virtue in the church.

The American man should be educated. He should work. He should honor his debts and live within his means. He should be able to recite poetry and have bits of true philosophy at his fingertips. He should be able to play an instrument and know how to help a rose grow. An American man should know how to dress and speak his language well. He should be handy and mechanically inclined and yet his nails must be clean. A man should have children, and at some point his children should reject him. And in the course of his life, a man’s children should return and find virtue in him.

This is what an American man should be. Of course, no such man has ever existed, and no man probably ever will.

Here’s Charlie LeDuff talking about “Greed.” (It’s a documentary.)

Givers and Takers (via noshtradamus)

On By southwerkIn ethics2 Comments

I’ve been writing extensively and intensively about the mortgage foreclosure crisis. I continually draw comparisons between the families losing their homes and the foreclosure industry in terms of their ethics. (I don’t believe that the foreclosure industry could recognize an ethical dilemma if it hit them across the nose with an aluminum baseball bat.)
So, I found this article by the blogger who goes by the alias of “Noshtradamus.”

I think a discussion of givers and takers is appropriate for my blog just now.

Good writing.

James Pilant

Givers and Takers In life there are two broad kind of people: Givers, and Takers. And you will come across them in both your personal and professional lives. While this is the obvious/visible definition/observation, you will find there are two subsets to these as well – kind of like wolves in sheep's clothing, and also sheep in wolves clothing. What? Yes, allow me to elaborate. First with the two main types: The Givers: People who do things for other people. Provi … Read More

via noshtradamus

Woman Fired For Having Bad Credit

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Philosophy of Business1 Comment

Four weeks after starting a temporary accounting position at Seattle Bank, Kristin Meaux, 36, says she received a call from the human resources director informing her that the bank had mistakenly forgotten to run a credit check on her before allowing her to work there. Meaux says she agreed to a new credit check, but explained to the bank that she had been laid off from her last full-time job in March 2008 and was still trying to pay off several medical bills from a few pregnancy complications that cropped up after she lost her health insurance.

When the results of the credit report came in several days later, Meaux says she was promptly fired and escorted off the premises.

The last few days have seen a number of articles written about the effects of credit checks on employment. When unemployment last a few weeks, the financial drain can seriously damage a credit rating. When the kind of unemployment we have now is the norm, people are often unemployed for months or years. That is devastating to a credit rating.

So, allowing businesses to use credit ratings as a screening technique rules out the unemployed as potential hires.

Wasn’t that a great idea! What don’t we look at their DNA and see if they might have long term problems? Why don’t we go look at their kids grades? Isn’t that a sign of how good a person is? What about relatives? political beliefs? voting habits?

Why do we as a people allow credit ratings (run by three major companies) to determine so much about our lives?

Tell me something. Is it worse to have a criminal record or a bad credit rating?

You can get a criminal record expunged.

It’s time to stop the practice of background credit checks for employment.

(And for that matter, allowing employers to require you provide your medical records, is another thing that should disappear.)

James Pilant