Proponents of the rule of law were cheered last week by the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision that banks had to prove they held a mortgage to foreclose on it, one of the niceties that has seemed to have gone by the wayside in the housing crisis.
Never fear, banksters, the Third Way has jumped in with a proposal [pdf] in response to the US Bank v. Ibanez decision in Massachusetts. Yves Smith takes a comprehensive look at the proposal.
Their proposal, not surprisingly, is yet another bailout.
The big difference between the original and the new, improved version of the bailout model is that the payouts to the banks were at least in part visible the first time around. This is an effort yet again to spare the banks any pain, not only at the cost of the rule of law but also of investor rights.
This proposal guts state control of their own real estate law when the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that "dirt law" is not a Federal matter. It strips homeowners of their right to their day in court to preserve their contractual rights, namely, that only the proven mortgagee, and not a gangster, or in this case, bankster, can take possession of their home.
This sort of protection is fundamental to the operation of capitalism, so it’s astonishing to see neoliberals so willing to throw it under the bus to preserve the balance sheets of the TBTF banks. Readers may recall how we came to have this sort of legal protection in the first place. England learned the hard way in the 17th century what happens with low documentation requirements: abuse of court procedures, perjury and corruption become the norm. Parliament enacted the 1677 Statute of Fraudsto establish higher standards for contracts, such as witnessing by a third party, to stop the widespread theft of property that was underway.
The memo completely ignores the harm to investors from the bank mistakes and lacks any provisions for damage to investors to be remedied. Moreover, denying borrower rights removes their leverage to obtain deep principal mortgage modifications, which for viable borrowers produces lower losses than costly foreclosures and sales of distressed property. Thus this shredding of contractual protections in mortgages not only hurts borrowers but also harms investors.
So to save the banks from their own, colossal abuses of contracts that they devised, the Third Way document advocates Congressional intervention into well established, well functioning state law. This is a case where these matters can and should be left to the courts and ultimately state AGs to coordinate the template of a more broadbased solution.
But this proposal is this memo is a direct result of the banks losing in court and the fear that they will continue to lose. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ibanez decision is clearly the trigger for the release of this plan. The SJC said its decision was merely articulating well established law. Consistent application of these principles will mean more losses for the banks. This memo is clearly an attempt to stop this as soon as possible. The real message of this document is clear: we can’t permit justice to prevail if it will hurt bank profits and balance sheets.
Why worry about what a bunch of wankers at Third Way propose? Because those wankers have emerged, particularly now with Third Way board of trustees member Bill Daley on his way to the White House (once he sells his $7.6 million worth of JP Morgan Chase stock). Yves writes, "These people sit at the nexus of politics and finance, and are conduits for big bank friendly information flow into the administration and Congress." When it comes to economic policy, they are frighteningly influential.
And as Marcy convincingly argues, they think there should not be any consequences for the banksters who have been illegally seizing people's homes. For the Third Way, the rule of law just doesn't apply to everybody.
I generally agree with yoru statement, all the tricks the FED did to print hosuing dollars are done now, now people have to bring real money, and that means wages. However I disagree with statement "businesses competing with foreign wages CANNOT pay higher wages to American workers". Businesses overpay their CEOs and upper management all the time (boards are made up of cronies, not directors working in best interest of stockowners) and big US businesses are generally making high profits and have record cash reserves. So businesses CAN afford to pay workers high wages, but rather, they simply WON'T because they do not have to (no laws, unions etc to force them) and the WON'T because unlike the waste of over-priced salaries at high-end of coroporate ladders, business are not so stupid and wasteful and low-end and they keep low and middle workers wages as low as they can or they outsource.
But just so you know in real world there is an alternative ( not one you will ever see in US due to our politics and people assumptions like yours) look at Germany. They are an exporting machine. Their companies are very competitive in world market AND their worker wages and benefits are much higher than US. They have higher horuly salaries, their workers get 6 weeks vacation from get go, etc.. Also, they are fairly heavily regulated, their companies are held to high safety standards, high worker fairness standards, and tough environmental standards and also their companies do a lot with expensive alternative energy.
So in my mind there are at least two ways to for a countries companies to be competitve on world market, China or Germany, the only option is NOT China and depressed wages and weak currency.
Again and again, I see smart people assuming we must just do a China to compete, low wages, weak currency, trash the environment, peel back regulations that keep workers safe and keep work place fair. Its like Germany's example does not enter our consciousness. No way we can have a strong social safety net, treat enviroment well, have a strong currency, pay workers well, regulate businesses to ensure fairness and still compete, pay not attention to Germany.
It may not be easy for US to replicate what is working for Germany, primarily simply because most in US media and culture has it so we don't even know it that at least one coutnry is already proven it is possible, but it is crazy not to at least look at what they are doing and see if maybe we could strive for something closer to them. Germany competes and grows and German workers benefit. Germans model is very good for the common wealth, and yet, all we can fixate on is China.
We see same phenomen in business. There are some companies that are very successful and treat their workers much better than average, while other companies see their only way to success is to treat low end workers as badly as possible and to overcompensate upper management. See simply Costco vs. Sam's club.
Stop self-limiting, we can be a globally competitive country and have a solid middle class and have clean air and water, safe workplaces. But we won't if we let crony upper management of US companies decide everything in their interest, because clearly, sh%^ting on workers and over-compensating themselves and their friends, corrupting our government for their purposes is what they will keep doing unless we fight for something better.
Source:http://removeripoffreports.net/
Small Business <b>News</b>: Social Entrepreneurship on the Rise
In recognition of Martin Luther King Day, we present a roundup about an important new trend, the rise of social entrepreneurship. Instead of profit, the.
Pitchfork: The Strokes Confirm Release Date for New Record
TwentyFourBit points out that the Strokes' bassist Nikolai Fraiture has confirmed a recently speculated rumor concerning the release date of ...
Probably Bad <b>News</b>: Feline Jury Duty - Epic Fail Funny Videos and <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Feline Jury Duty.
No comments:
Post a Comment