I hate when ppl bitterly complain over "greedy corporat

Post Reply New Topic

The British FSA was just as bad with the NatWest Three, sorry re the Enron scandal am only fomiler with it as a case study of a grand f**k up of corporate governance.

You haven't stopped to consider either of these have you.

You can STFU now. You're the jackass who'd be bitching about the SEC all day had they actually done their job on this matter and you're the one cheerleading their lack of oversight. So do us all a favor and shut up in the political and economic arena, you're a destructive element that contributes no good to the conversation.

Speaking of schizophrenia, you should watch how many people change their politics as a matter of convenience like INU is doing. King of deregulation until the s**t hits the fan then it's the government's fault for not enough regulation.

If you actually did some digging you would know about the scandal concerning the SEC which is supposed to be enforcing the regulations. It wasn't a lack of regulations that caused the problem it was people looking at porn instead of doing their jobs.

We in the UK fire people for do doing that s**t, if your claim is true then the SEC needs to get there HR policies out of the cesspit.

I'm against adding new regulations that just make it harder for people that try to follow rules, while those that don't care about the rules will simply ignore them. The issue was the agency that was supposed to enforce the regulations didn't do their jobs. It wasn't a lack of regulations, it was due to negligence (at best) on the part of the SEC.

I saw the film. Very eye opening. People don't often to consider that corporations are simply entities and not people acting on moral and ethical principles. The corporation's sole purpose of existence is to generate profit. It has no care or concern for the benefit of the consumer unless it improves the bottom line.

A bunch of slackers watching porn and a small handfull of families buying starter homes hardly factor in at all. You simply operate on an anti-government everything agenda ("radical left" government of course, not anything republicans support). It's always left v. right, Obama's out to ruin America, blah, blah, blah. It would be nice if you were able to think more critically about things.

For instance, you often complain about the Feds just printing money. It's a valid concern, I think. However, what the banks did was at least 10 times worse. The credit default swaps were the banks way of printing money - only they knew this money was counterfeit. They knowingly gambled with bad debts and the effects were catastrophic.

They were forced to make loans to individuals that couldn't afford them, and it caused the bubble. The banks were also afraid of Government doing predatory audits.

Nope, never forced and I love how you like to come down hard on the SEC for not doing their jobs, but then when the government tries to investigate it's suddenly a "predatory audit."

And that's what you have lower level advisers and workers who regularly get killed volatile regions are for.

Many Corporate CEOs take advantage of the fact that they appoint the board and that most shareholders are short-termers who'll sell the stock very quickly after being paid lucrative dividends. This short-term greed has replaced the previous long-term greed present in corporate bureaucracies and is a reason why so many of these institutions are much more fragile and threaten the economy as a whole.

And screw your crazy advice. I wouldn't join the Nazis ("run with the wolves") even if they won WWII. Moral integrity matter.

I rather liked it. Since corporations are legal persons they should be held accountable as persons. The way I see it, they are the only 'people' in America benefiting from universal health care, if the bail outs are used as an analogy (rather accurately)

The Corporation goes on to state that theses legal persons have psychotic personalities

They compete against each other, then they have to keep looking good if not consistently better to keep the shareholders around.

The way that Enron/Arthur Anderson got funky was the relaxation of accounting laws and, for Arthur Anderson, no law against public accounting firms allowing anciliary services (other consulting) to SEC audit clients. This meant that Arthur Anderson often made 1 1/2 to 2 times as much on its ancilliary services and, if they had to give an unfavorable audit report or declare disclaimer, they risked losing all that other income. Enron was able to dump the bulk of its liabilities into a 'sister' company, Arthur Anderson was willing to keep giving them a great report for the SEC and as long as they were happy to allow bad behavior aside Enron was willing to push the envelope as far as they felt they could.

I would argue not that corporations are good or evil, they're technically good for the economy, but - they're essentially mathematical, like a glass of water if you tip it it spills, and like water spilling out of a cup, a company staying on the right path or going down the wrong one, especially a very large company, is nearly as physics based. If a company has strong moral leadership and does refuse to cave in to demands created by cheating or crooked practices by competitors, they may see their industry going too far downhill and find the need to change industries, if that happens good for them but - more companies will gladly take their market share and cancel out the value of the decision aside from... well.... they looked out for the future of their employees as well as their own good name.

My suggestion - don't tamper with accounting laws. We have SOX now - great, keep it. We had a perfectly good act on the books called Glass–Steagall, why on earth did we repeal it? Another lesson we've learned recently; publicly traded quasi-government entities are a time bomb by design. Good laws make good business, bad laws or lack thereof means shady stuff and lots of nasty boom-bust cycle in the economy which scares investors anyway.

I think you're missing the point.

Corporations are profit-seeking entities, selfish maximizers as sociologists would put it, so greedy behavior is expected.

The amplifying factor isn't so much the greed of the corporation as it is the greed of the shareholders and the irrational logic of the masses.

I wonder if mass irrationality is ever taken into account in economics?