Comment Community Reinvestment Act, pt 3 (Score 1) 2
Corporations have a duty even under this act to respond responsibly and have a greater breadth and depth of resources. Any leader not willing to work under a set of rules can still leave the post. The little guy has no control.
Additionally a lot of the customers with these loans are finding it impossible to reason with these lenders when trouble hits. This further makes it impossible to help them get out of the trouble.
And I personally know of people who had loans given to them without full disclosure and even what 'variable' rate loans where what they were offering was not disclosed until the moment of signing. And without the understanding by common folk it is criminal in my opinion.
And this couple lost their job as the worst in 2008 started. They tried to renegotiate once they realized what was happening. Only to be ignored.
But a signed document becomes not criminal once signed no matter if it was fully understood.
When these corporations had the information, the knowledge, and ability to change it did not. There is nothing there to stop a loan giver from taking charge when things go wrong, plan for when they go wrong, and nothing stopping them from taking that money they profit from and not waste it on bonuses. You do not have to take the executive 'bonus'.....
As long as common people can work a honest day's job they can produce the commodities we use. When they can not we enter a dark age.
I can see rewarding good work, but the 'bragging rights' of the amount of reward is getting out of control. It seriously needs to be moderated.
There is a reason smart people are often some of the lowest income people in the world. They see the responsibility, and maybe they are more aware of how unfair the system has become.
There is also the theory those with the brains are usually not awarded for their work, it is often signed away to those with money.
I cite Microsoft, Bill Gates bringing in DOS to IBM.
He did not create DOS, in fact he bought the rights to it for about $1000 from one programmer. A flat amount. (If only full disclosure was required.... maybe they would be different, maybe they could write good code for once... )
Then he sold it with per unit revenue back to him. (now remember Bill did not create this program/OS.)
Did Bill get rewarded for good work? No, just well worded agreements. The guy who helped create the computer revolution was not allowed to help any further.
The smart guy, the hard working guy, the guy who created was not correctly rewarded in any way.
The reward system is geared to those already in control to allow them to 'exploit' control of the rewards further. We need people more humble and truthful about reward.
And my point is the common man in the field of work and day to day grunt work has little chance to see what their leaders should be seeing.
We need someone who is not afraid to look, act, take responsibility in charge no matter the position. Not to come in with preconceived notions and not to be self-centric.
(If case in point Bill Gates was a good leader he would have turned back to the guy who came up with DOS and said, hey here is some extra cash based off the profits of your invention. Plus a thought maybe to CONTINUE to add to our knowledge..... To my knowledge it took a court action, and even then it was a little to little a little to late....)
