I used ABC as a source for some stories. When I went in today to look for something interesting, my first look got me an obnoxious and loud commercial. There is no way to turn it off. I just wanted to read the articles. So, I carefully chose one without a camera sign by it. I got nailed again.
I’m not going to be treated that way. I’m not on the computer to get more television. I’m on the computer to avoid television.
There’s plenty of sources that aren’t ABC. I’ll be there.
James Pilant
The last name of Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney is misspelled as “Whitey” on electronic-voting machines in nearly two dozen wards — about half in predominantly African-American areas — and election officials said Wednesday the problem cannot be corrected by Election Day.
The misspelling turned up on touch-screen machines in 23 wards overall. Whitney’s name is spelled correctly on the machines’ initial screens showing all of the candidates’ names, but it is misspelled on review screens that later show a voter his or her choices, said Jim Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections.
This is the actual “Rich Whitney.”
This is a serious problem. The misspelling could endanger his chances of winning the election. However, since he is polling currently at 2%, the danger may be small.
(It might knock him down to 1.8% in the general election, a true landslide.)
James Pilant
Well, of course, it will. Massive wrong doing has consequences for the innocent. That is the nature of illegal acts. That is the nature of speculation and greed. People without fault are injured.
So, we have competing values here. Should the health of the economy and the suffering of the innocent be a bar on prosecuting thousands upon thousands of mortgages done outside the rules of the law.
I’m going to come down on the side of the rule of law.
I teach business ethics. You can’t have business ethics just through teaching and exhortation. They have to be backed up by penalties. If the suffering of the innocent is a bar to prosecution, it sends a clear signal that cutting corners, skirting the law, deliberately disobeying the law, have little or no consequences as long as the perpetrators can point at economic hostages and say, “Oh, but we can’t harm them.”
You cannot avoid prosecuting the guilty in the business community over and over again without them getting the message that there are no consequences. They will realize (or have realized) that the law does not apply to them.
Once they know this, what will happen to the rest of us?
Here’s the CBS News Story – Beware it has a commercial.
James Pilant
What’s the academic view point on this disaster you might ask. Well, one sign is this professor’s comments from the University of Georgia. It’s a brief comment and there are no commercials. Enjoy –
James Pilant
I exchanged e-mails with Alain Sherter and asked him what he thought about the amazing sense of entitlement among Wall Street executives. Although, he replied very politely and tactfully, there was a certain element of “What planet have you been on?” And he was right, I should have picked up on it a long time ago. Once I did, I encountered more and more examples of this phenomenon. It was astonishing. These individuals who had every advantage from birth could swear on a Bible that every last atom of their success had been earned through their hard labor. They knew that they were the important producers of value in this society and flew in unimaginable higher intellectual circles than the poor ingrates beneath them. They know that everyone who is not in their class is lazy and undeserving. They know that any, down to the tiniest amount, of taxation is a blow to their productive capability, totally unfair, and an unearned charity to the great mass of lazy, unmotivated citizenry.
Sonia Jaspal blogs on this mindset. It’s a fine article. She writes a blog from an extremely well educated background, not an assumed or pretentious academic style, but an educated approach as hard as stone. You know that her evidence is strong and her facts correct.
I recommend the article to your attention.
James Pilant
“The past is prologue?” Are we in the same place that America was in during the first years of the Depression? I worry that this economic downturn is just the beginning of long term destabilization of the economy.
(You should probably avoid my blog if you want to put a happy face on the economic situations because I find it hard to find things just to be content about.)
I found a wonderful set of history films about the early days of the Great Depression. They provide a lot of insight into how people thought and reacted to the events as they unfolded day by day. We look at what people were saying, what they were reading, what music they were listening to. We can wonder if we wouldn’t have done the same things. It’s a better way to understand history than the summaries in textbooks.
If you listen to the incredible confidence that the moneyed and political class had in the economy and the sureness they had in an immediate recovery, you have to wonder about those in out system today, who say we’ve turned the corner.
We have not.
Part 1 –
Part 2 –
Part 3 –
Part 4 –
Part 5 –
I want to be wrong about all this. I want the economy to thrive, everyone to have a job, and as much as possible for people to become prosperous.
We’ll see.
James Pilant
I’ve been saying this for several days. The public, the states, the courts, are all moving toward a consensus that a foreclosure freeze is necessary. The President does not think so and he has sent his minions to be sure we understand his position.
Andrew Leonard writing in Salon, an article entitled “Obama’s foreclosure nightmare,” describes the situation in terms very similar to mine.
Once again, the President lines up with the financial industry and the banks against the interest of middle class Americans.
Drawing on Leonard’s article and adding my own spin, the situation is like this. Now, generally speaking, I do not waste my time on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, but have heard a rumor that their take on this situation is that all this stuff about not having the proper documents is just a matter of procedure and is really not something to get that excited about.
This is the United States. In this country you cannot transfer any land whatsoever without a written contract, that’s LAW 101, the statute of frauds. If you can’t produce your paperwork, you don’t get the property. Why? Because in Western Civilization, land has been considered the primary measure of wealth and status for hundreds of years. Therefore, the law was made to protect those interests.
How come the banks don’t have good records of who owns the property? Well, that has to do with the enormous speculation(casino capitalism) of the latter part of this decade. The great wall street investment houses were buying and packaging mortgages into packages of securities. But if they followed careful procedures they wouldn’t have had as much as they wanted. So, they “cut some corners,” “skipped a few steps,” “overlooked a rule here or there,” to get those mortgages as quickly as possible. What was the result? Incomplete paperwork, missing documents, and general confusion were the result of that speculative era. So, the banks had a problem with foreclosures. If they followed proper procedures they were hit with a double whammy. First, there was no way they could process the number of mortgages they wanted foreclosed without hiring a lot more staff and spending a lot more time doing the work right. Second, if they examined the documents carefully they would run across all the problems bequeathed them by the previous financial speculators. So, they solved both problems. They processed the mortgages without looking at them. It was an elegant solution. It was thrifty, cost effective almost beyond belief, and not legal.
I am outraged. I’m not the only one. The general public is only at the edge of this issue. It’s only been running hot in the media for almost two weeks. This issue has built up power in a politically brief period of time. But it’s not hard to tell the direction that public opinion is going. On one side we have banks refusing to obey the rules, while on the other we have story after story of homeowners tossed from their homes without legal justification. How do you think it’s going to go? If this were a Western, who’s wearing the black hats and bushwhacking their enemies?
The President should declare a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures. It does not have to be a blanket ban. He could ban the ones where it is known that there have been problems with a provision to extend it to other firms if similar wrongdoing is found. That would be adequate. In my opinion, a full blanket ban is the smarter move politically but that’s really not important.
I know the President is worried that this will stall the recovery. Of course, if you follow my blog, you know that I believe this is a lull before more serious problems appear and not a recovery at all.
To the President I would say, “This nation can handle a steeper economic downturn better than the continued wrong doing by some of the most important and most influential people in the financial industry. At some point, justice has to take priority over economics.”
I might add.
“Mr. President, I can feel the anger out there. How much more can people take? The basic facts appear to be out. The financial industry breaks the rules and knows that nothing will be done. The money will continue to flow. Their stock will go up. The bonuses will get bigger. The great mass of American citizens do not believe that if they did these things that they would be handled so gently and rewarded so thoroughly.”
“So, what’s it gonna’ be. Are you going to confirm to the great majority of Americans that there are two kinds of law, one for them and another for the foreclosure industry?”
“At what point, will you decide to enforce the law, seek out the guilty and bring them to justice?”
James Pilant
I went to You Tube and ran the search, “robot trading.” I was looking for a journalistic take on the dangers of this kind of trading. I didn’t get it. There are innumerable sales pitches for just such trading mechanisms. I watched one and they are “exuberant.” They appear absolutely convinced that these things will make you rich. Apparently this is similar in the trading world to the “second coming.”
I found an actual news story by getting a link from a blog. I just couldn’t get one off You Tube. I have virtually never had difficulty finding an appropriate video for an economic comment. The sales pitches simply dominate the results of the search. I haven’t seen that before.
The CBS news program, Sixty Minutes, has a report on the subject. It is a daunting report on the implications of robot trading. It can be very dangerous to whole system. If one robot goes in one direction. It is possible that they will all go in that direction. You should hope that they are all buying because selling could be painful. I recommend you watch the program.
I warn you, there are commercials. However, the report is elegantly done and will maintain your interest.
Let me ask a question –
Is it ethical to use super computers to get a fraction of a second (sometimes, hundreds of a second or less) advantage over your competition?
I want you to understand that only a very few people can afford a “super” computer. Generally speaking, that is probably not you. If you, as a human, attempt to compete with one of these machines (and you’re not, you’re competing with dozens or hundreds of them), are you on a level playing field.
As a society, we might find the costs of this trading to be higher than the benefits, if one is willing to think of the interests of the nation as a whole, something currently not in fashion.
But it should be.
James Pilant
Mark Thoma is a distinguished academic. His take on the vital lessons the banking collapse and the poorly executed bailout are similar to my own.
The overarching lesson in all of this is that getting government out of the way isn’t always the best path to prosperity. The crisis should have taught us that government has an essential role to play in preventing problems from occurring in the economy, and in correcting problems when they occur despite our attempts to prevent them. But, unfortunately, due to poorly executed policy, political posturing, obstructionism in Congress, and ineffective rebuttal from the administration, that’s not the lesson that has been learned.
He maintains a largely academic web page, which is worth a read. He also has a Facebook page which I recommend you join.
This is an example of his rhetoric.
This man has full sized lectures available on You Tube. He is an expert on econometrics, but don’t worry he is not always that high on academic difficulty when he speaks or writes.
This is a Fox News item. Biden explains that as an Attorney General, his job is not to consider the economic impact of taking action against the mortgage foreclosure industry. His job is to make sure the banks follow the rules.
We’re not hearing this much. There is a duty on the part of public officials to enforce the law. These companies have failed to follow the rules for more than two years and they have caused real harm. They have abused the legal process and lied to the courts.
Here’s the video – I warn you that the Fox News people keep trying to get him to talk about the economic impact of taking on the banks. It becomes annoying after a while. To his credit Biden doesn’t give any ground.
Watch –
James Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.