Why thousands of homeowners are getting money for mortgage abuses they never suffered

A recent NYT article addresses a payout issue facing banks post housing bubble. Scores of homeowners are anticipated to receive cheques in the mail  to compensate them for foreclosure problems they never suffered. Is it too good to be true? What's going on here?

Neither EverBank or the OCC would explain how they arrived at these terms.

It makes sense that people who lost their homes while they were in bankruptcy, forbearance or still paying their mortgage received up to $125,000 — though that figure is arguably low, at least to lawmakers and consumer groups. But it's a bit of a head-scratcher that thousands of people whose foreclosures were not mismanaged will receive $1,050 simply because EverBank wanted to be done with its entire review.

It's also spit in the eyes of the millions of borrowers who received $300 from the 13 mortgage servicers that immediately signed the amended order. To make matters worse, some of the first checks bounced, while a later batch had the wrong amounts.

US consumer spending surged 0.9 percent in March

Voila! We are making progress. Follow the hyperlink for a short but informative article in the WP:

For last quarter overall, consumer spending did grow at a 3 percent annual rate. But that gain was dominated by a 4.4 percent rise in spending on services, reflecting in part higher utility bills during the unusually cold winter.

Economists say warmer weather likely encouraged people to make purchases last month that they had delayed because of snowstorms earlier this year.

“The weather-related rebound may now have run its course,” said Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics.

To what extent is this a temporary hike? What are the chances of consumer spending plunging now that it is spring?

Housing Market in 2014

This article is about what's going on in the housing market. It seems like people are hopeful of a balanced market.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/01/home-prices-2014-housing-starts/4181021/

This is a video about truth and reporting: fascinating to watch

▶ Woman Burned by McDonald's Hot Coffee, Then the News Media | Retro Report | The New York Times - YouTube

Seatte plans to raise minimum wage to $15

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/01/news/economy/seattle-minimum-wage/index.html?iid=SF_E_Lead

Seattle's Mayor plans to raise minimum wage to 15$ per hour. What type of effects will this have on the economy? On the equality/inequality of wealth distribution? Will corporations have to start doing things differently?

If the wage is raised, do workers actually benefit or will employers just cut down on workers to keep costs low?

Please share your thoughts...

WORLD BANK WANTS WATER PRIVATIZED, DESPITE RISKS

In a recent research heavy Al Jazeera article the discussion of privatization of water offers many critiques of the idea in terms of its associated cost and benefits. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Independent water advocates, from CAI to Anand’s group in India and others including the Focus on the Global South network, point to India today as evidence that privatized systems lead to underfunded infrastructure and unpredictable, often high prices. The IFC defends the private sector by claiming that these companies offer efficiency gains (PDF). But those gains come at the expense of lower-income households, advocates such as Naficy point out, as companies increase rates to subsidize their own profitability.  There’s a growing backlash against these projects. In 2000, headlines around the globe documented protests in Bolivia’s third-largest city in response to the privatization of the city’s municipal water supply and against the multinational water giant Bechtel, eventually pushing the company out of the country. The IFC’s own complaint mechanism reports that 40 percent of all global cases from last year were about water, even though water projects are only a small fraction of what the IFC funds. In 2013, CAI and 70 advocates from around the globe released an open letter (PDF) to the World Bank Group calling for “an end of all support for private water, beginning with IFC divestment from all equity positions in water corporations.”
“Corporations don’t have a social or development mission,” Naficy told me. “Right now we’re funding development to prop up private projects, instead of putting the decisions for funding in the hands of governments that are accountable to people.”  
Clean and affordable water is the basis of life. Skyrocketing water prices, unsafe supply, failing infrastructure — these problems fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable among us. This is why public institutions, not private corporations, must lead the development of water systems and delivery. The World Bank Group is uniquely positioned to increase access to clean water for the billions who need it. Instead of using its position to line the pockets of water companies, it should support what is most needed: affordable and clean — and public — water for all.

Does it make sense to privatize water, a scarce natural resource? Why or why not?

Apple is huge....

Mind-Blowing Facts About Apple - Business Insider