Yeah, that also struck me as more of arising from an "antagonistic, competitive" culture vs a collaborative/cooperative one.
And as Facebook shows, "everyone shouting and whoever gets the loudest wins[1]" definitely sucks too. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least some lessons from the creation / history of RRoO that could actually translate.
> I presume one would have recourse under contract for such a foul up?
Possibly, but delays in construction are what kill you. You can't really FedEx overnight new structural steel framing components, so now you're blocked until they can get
The name of this index is like clickbait gone awry... Couldn't they have gone for something more like the Perception of Integrity Index since being #1 means "least corrupt"?
But again, in practice banks will loan more money more easily to those with a verified identity that has recourse beyond simple "loss of creditworthiness", so those loans will always be more appealing to those who can get them, and so nonrecourse loans never become a thing for normal citizens who can avoid them.
And those who can't get shunted down into the "Payday Loan" tier of finance and they have to dig themselves back out with the equivalent of deposit-backed credit cards.
But few people will choose a deposit-backed card when they have the option of trading identity for better pricing / convenience. If the online ad industry has taught us anything it is that mainstream consumers will trade their data for even the smallest of considerations.
Even if decentralized financial identity would be an improvement (and it is not clear that it would be), a vision with no practical incentive to get there from here is just the basis for another startup destined for whatever is the spiritual successor to f*ckedcompany.com.
> But again, in practice banks will loan more money more easily to those with a verified identity that has recourse beyond simple "loss of creditworthiness"
The normal recourse is foreclosure of the asset (e.g. house) that the loan was made to purchase, which they don't need your name to do at all, only a way to identify the property they're taking as collateral.
> And those who can't get shunted down into the "Payday Loan" tier of finance and they have to dig themselves back out with the equivalent of deposit-backed credit cards.
That's where everybody starts anyway. You make a hundred bucks mowing lawns in high school or whatever and get a credit card like that. By the time you have the down payment for a house you have a credit history to go with it. Or you start out getting cosigned with your parents' credit history.
> But few people will choose a deposit-backed card when they have the option of trading identity for better pricing / convenience.
You're ignoring the benefit -- it's the equivalent of corporate limited liability. If you get a car loan and then some idiot totals your new car, that's the bank's problem now and they're the ones who have to deal with the insurance company instead of you. If you lose your job and your life gets messed up temporarily then you don't have to wait 7 years to start over.
And that's not even counting the privacy benefit.
Also, the best version is for centralized identity to cease to exist whatsoever (e.g. stop issuing people social security numbers or prohibit their use for anything but social security) and then people can't give up their centralized identity in exchange for magic beans because they haven't got one.
Assuming you aren't trying to intentionally throw shade on CA rent control:
Rent SUBSIDIES are a hidden redistribution as you discuss.
Rent CONTROL forces recent transplants to subsidize longtime residents
Ie. gov prevents raising rents to market levels for longtime tenants. They are less likely to move, driving up demand for the remaining housing, which is the only stock available for newer residents.
This then costs newcomers more, while longtime residents avoid paying the market rate on their housing - effectively subsidizing the in-place tenants.
