Jan
31
“Walking away” not immoral, prof says
Arizona Republic - J. Craig AndersonTags: Business Ethics, Mortgages, Shame
Filed Under Articles | 1 Comment
Photo by respres“Strategic default” is the term used to describe the decision to walk away from an underwater mortgage. The terms of a mortgage contract spell out the responsibilities of all parties, and include a list of consequences for borrowers who fail to live up to their part of the bargain. Some homeowners, after looking at the terms of the contract, are concluding that they are willing to live with those consequences. But are there moral and ethical implications to this? Read the article here. You can download the discussion paper referred to in the article here.
Marketplace Money had an interesting piece, with Henry Blodget, CEO of the “Business Insider,” and Megan McArdle, of the “Atlantic” magazine debating the propriety of walking away. You can hear that piece and read the transcript here.
Excerpt from the Arizona Republic article:
Arizona law professor Brent White says the only thing standing between many “underwater” homeowners and a better financial future is a misguided sense that walking away from a loan commitment is morally wrong.White, an associate professor at University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law, has spent the past few months presenting his argument to other lawyers, real-estate professionals and the national media.
It started with a 50-page discussion paper he published in October, in which White argues that underwater homeowners, those whose unpaid loan balance exceeds the value of their home, are being manipulated into picking up the tab for a real-estate crash that borrowers and lenders created equally.
“I’m all for a society where people must take personal responsibility, but that should also apply to the banks and financial institutions,” he said.
Read more…
Jan
30
How Will the Citizens United Decision Affect Sustainable Business?
Triple Pundit - Editorial: Steve PumaTags: Corporate Governance, Corporate Personhood, Regulation, Transparency
Filed Under Articles | Leave a Comment
Photo by dbkingThis is a very good article, full of links and references, covering not only the Citizens United case but also the issue of corporate personhood. I’m somewhat surprised at the reaction to the court’s decision in this case. As noted in this article, the US Supreme Court has previously established that corporations are persons in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision of 1886 (yes, I know that there are disagreements about the implications of that decision, and I don’t like it, either). As a result, no one should be surprised that they have been afforded the protections of the Constitution. What we really need to be doing is to be rethinking the whole corporate personhood model.
Read the article here.
Excerpt:
News outlets and the blogosphere are abuzz with reactions to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision that will allow corporations to fund political campaigns. The ruling, which overturns decades of legal precedent and legislation limiting the ability of corporations to influence the outcome of elections, may have broad implications for the political process in the U.S. News of the decision has drawn criticism from both the right and the left, many voicing the opinion that dramatically increased rights for corporations will significantly diminish the ability for individual citizens to have their voices heard.Read more…
You may also find this article of mine to be of interest: “Capital” Punishment: For Corporations That Violate the Public Trust