This is a particularly timely essay from The Business Ethics Blog.
(I have a confession to make. When I saw that Professor MacDonald had a post on this subject, I went to the site and immediately hit the reblog button. I hadn’t read it. I had complete confidence that MacDonald would write a good post. I have read it now and, of course, it’s excellent and I recommend it to you.)
James Pilant
P.S. I once owned a seven shot Glock, the thinner concealable version.
To promote professional ethics, many professions have requirments for admission that are not matters of academic degree or training. Such things as a good credit rating, no felonies, no violent misdemeanors, etc. This posting offers advice for the applicant to a profession with a ethics component.
I recommend it to your attention.
James Pilant
Does it seem at times as if the killer in a national tragedy gets far more attention than the victims? Does it seem at times, that the television is just screaming at you, telling you that if only you would go and do something really interesting with a major weapon, you too could be famous?
There are definitely more ethical ways to cover these unfortunate events. I would discuss them but it would interest you only a little and have no effect whatever on the media which is reaping billions of dollars of profit from their, “If It Bleeds It Leads,” philosophy.
There are people like me who are fed up and here is one of them –
I am delighted to quote Jacob Sandry from his blog, Jacob Sandry’s Gap Year Blog –
I hate the news media. HATE. The other night I was with some friends and CNN was on. Literally for an hour straight (and based on my extrapolations it was probably more while we weren’t watching) there was 5 minutes of information and pictures about Jared Loughner repetitively displayed on the screen. This disgusted me. SOMEONE WHO COMMITS A HORRIBLE ATROCITY DOES NOT DESERVE IMMENSE MEDIA COVERAGE EVEN IF IT IS FOR BEING EVIL. If anything, that media coverage should be devoted to the victims and their families. AND the heroic people who tackled Loughner and prevented him from doing any more harm. (I’m not naïve enough to not realize that CNN and all other major news networks are profit driven and shock news is more viscerally gripping than a memorial. And this is why I hate news media) Also, the Loughner family is probably facing as much pain and hardship as any family can possibly face right now, and it is incredibly crass of the media to be incessantly surrounding their house and trying to get interviews. That’s terrible, let them be.
(This is a good blog. He likes to write and you can tell he writes as his thought roll through his mind. It gives the writing a continuous motion that makes the reader feel that he and the author are sharing the same thoughts simultaneously.
Now, beware while Mr. Sandry can be funny, he chooses serious topics more than a little often.
For a visit, go here.)
James Pilant
From the web site, Thriven’s Blog.
The blog post is a review of the book, Nicholas Shaxson’s – Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens
Tax havens are the ultimate source of strength for our global elites. Just as European nobles once consolidated their unaccountable powers in fortified castles, to better subjugate and extract tribute from the surrounding peasantry, so financial capital has coalesced in their modern equivalent today: the tax havens. In these fortified nodes of secret, unaccountable political and economic power, financial and criminal interests have come together to capture local political systems and turn the havens into their own private law-making factories, protected against outside interference by the world’s most powerful countries – most especially Britain. Treasure Islands will, for the first time, show the blood and guts of just how they do it.
The nations of the world are harmed by the evasion of their laws and taxes made possible by tax havens. The tax money is important but more important is the ability to threaten governments to force actions that multinational corporations such as investment banks wish done.
These escape routes transform the merely powerful into the untouchable. “Don’t tax or regulate us or we will flee offshore!” the financiers cry, and elected politicians around the world crawl on their bellies and capitulate. And so tax havens lead a global race to the bottom to offer deeper secrecy, ever laxer financial regulations, and ever more sophisticated tax loopholes. They have become the silent battering rams of financial deregulation, forcing countries to remove financial regulations, to cut taxes and restraints on the wealthy, and to shift all the risks, costs and taxes onto the backs of the rest of us. In the process democracy unravels and the offshore system pushes ever further onshore. The world’s two most important tax havens today are United States and Britain.
But the world is not without means to remedy the situation. In the late 1700’s piracy flourished because nations found it advantageous to use them against their enemies. Pirates often employed as privateers fattened the treasury of the nations hiring them and did harm to their enemies.
But over time, it became obvious that the benefits of piracy were outweighed by the faults.
So, nations by treaty and policy ran the pirates out of business.
The United States in concert with the European Union, China and other nations could by agreement make this kind of tax haven impossible to maintain or at the very least difficult.
It has been a daunting task to motivate the government of the United States to act against the interests of these larger corporations particularly the financial ones, but the future of this nation may well depend on those tax dollars and enforcing the national interest.
James Pilant
I wish to thank homophilosophicus for calling my attention to Thriven’s Blog.
From the Independent.ie (Ireland), Anto Kerins writes –
Ireland has just experienced an ethics meltdown in the financial sector. I believe they are taking much stronger action than we have contemplated to solve the problem. I do not believe their anger is leaving any time soon. They have no beltway “wisdom” that is everything is okay except for those whiny unemployed. There is a determination for this to never happen again.
Read further –
James Pilant
Alain Sherter writes a column called Financial Folly. His latest essay is entitled – Barclays CEO: We Bankers Said We’re Sorry — Now Buzz Off.
New Barclays (BCS) CEO Bob Diamond is tired of apologizing for the economic damage big banks have wrought in recent years. As he told members of Britain’s Parliament during a hearing on possible restrictions on banker pay:
“There was a period of remorse and apology for banks. I think that period is over,” Diamond told the Treasury Select Committee.
“Frankly, the biggest issue is how do we put some of the blame game behind us? There’s been apologies and remorse, now we need to build some confidence,” he added.
Seems to me Diamond, who took over last fall as chief executive at the U.K. banking giant, is skipping a step between expressing regret and rebuilding confidence. Tip of my tongue…. Ah, yes: reform. That includes restricting the kind of compensation that inclines bankers to let it roll. And since we’re nitpicking here, I don’t remember many financial executives exactly hanging their heads in shame over their role in the meltdown.
I don’t recall any real apologies or confessions of wrong doing or regret for what happened.
The general perception of the financial community is that they were profitable before the disaster, they didn’t really need the bailout and what was all the fuss about in the first place?
You may think I am exaggerating or misinformed about that my analysis of the attitude of the banking community. I truly wish I was wrong.
We have a financial class that not only can do no wrong whatever, but have no responsibility for anyone in this country at any time, under any circumstances. In their minds, they are worthy, the rest are not.
Their sense of entitlement is beyond most American’s comprehension.
If I had not heard these things said myself, I would have difficulty believing them.
James Pilant
From the Huffington Post –
Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs generated at least 18 percent of its revenues last year through trading and investing for its own benefit, according to a regulatory filing made Tuesday detailing the first nine months, flatly contradicting the firm’s previous claims that such speculative activity made up a much smaller slice of its business.
In recent months, as Goldman has fended off widespread accusations that it has become the leading example of the gambling culture permeating Wall Street — placing bets for its own profit rather than engaging in old-fashioned banking services — the company has insisted that trading made up no more than one-tenth of its revenues.
During a conference call last year, the firm’s chief financial officer, David Viniar, described the company’s private trades as comprising “10-ish type of percent” of its total revenues.
But the company’s disclosures filed Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that trading and investing comprises almost twice that percentage.
Maybe in the minds at Goldman Sachs, “tenish percent” can go up to 18 or 19 percent. It’s just a little white lie, unless of course, you’re one of the biggest financial trading houses on earth; unless you’re trying to reassure your investors that you don’t spend most of your time and their money by playing them for fools.
The temptation to make incredible sums of money by using the inside knowledge of your clients investments is difficult to overcome. The temptation to deliberately damage your clients’ interests by betting against their investments is also difficult to overcome. These temptations are why the proportion of proprietary trading is so important. The more proprietary trading, the harder it is to believe that the investors are not getting stiffed.
So, this lie is significant. It tells us a lot about an investment company and its standards.
I get the impression that the long term has only a certain amount of importance. The level of proprietary trading would be lower if the firm were maximizing its long term postion by reassuring investors of the security of their investments. The numbers indicate a drive toward short term, quarterly and yearly, profits.
Business ethics, how much are we looking at?
James Pilant
(This article appeared originally in June of 2010. It wasn’t properly tagged and I am resubmitting it so Google can see it.)
An quite intelligent gentleman sent me an e-mail asking what I thought ethically about TV crews filming real cases up to and including surgery. He referred to two articles, Doctors on the Cutting Edge of Reality (The Boston Globe), and ABC’s ‘Boston Med’ shows the painful reality of surgery at the heart of 3 Massachusetts hospitals, (The New York Daily News).
The program is “Boston Med,” an eight part documentary filmed by ABC. The newspaper article from the Boston Globe quotes George Annas and Arthur L. Caplan. Both express ethical concerns about the program suggesting that the program is inappropriate and exploitative. Inappropriate because filming changes the acts of the filmed. Exploitative because these patients did not come to the hospital with the intent of being in a film.
Now, the tricky part, is this ethical or unethical based on my judgment? After all, that is what the gentleman asked me. I will discuss the two kinds of objects posed by the critics quoted by the Globe. Is the filming inappropriate or exploitative?
I do not believe such filming is inappropriate. Being filmed is rapidly becoming a constant. Cameras are located at businesses and parking areas. There are also cameras at public facilities likes parks and bridges. I could go on listing where business or government cameras might be found. In addition, personal cameras either individually or part of a another apparatus like a cell phone are also very common. So, my first claim is that being filmed is a cultural phenomenon. I believe that we are in a sea change period of cultural change in which it is rapidly becoming accepted behavior. That does not totally resolve the issue. We are not totally accustomed to being filmed yet. So, the next element is consent.
It is clear from the articles that the institutions, the professionals and the patients had signed waivers. It is entirely possible to improperly influence all of the different levels of personnel and patients to get their consent. However, a television network has enormous experience in these matters and with what can be only described as an alert and experienced legal department. My opinion is that no lawyer would allow the program to go forward with his strong participation and with all possible safeguards.
Does being filmed change human behavior? I would say almost certainly. We always do things differently if we are being observed. We care what other people think. We can become self-conscious. Strangely that really isn’t the ethical question here. The ethical question is, “Does this change technical competence or medical judgment for the worse?” I know of no such evidence. My personal experience is that when watched, I am more careful, take greater pains and think more about what I am doing. (If anyone reading this post has any study or data that suggests that being filmed is detrimental to performance, I want to know where to find that study. I want to read it and thoroughly understand it. That study would be vital and would undoubtedly change the procedures of knowingly filmed observations.)
Exploitation is more difficult. Where do you cross the line between objective reporting and using people? The network will make a great deal of money from these programs. The hospital and the doctors as part of the hospital are essentially participating in public relations program which will enhance the reputation and thus, the value of the institution.
The patients are not part of this. They do not profit and their stories, the intimate details of their medical records and and procedures, are used by the network to make money. This is exploitation. These patients are not a routine participants. The very nature of the television strongly suggests that the reason they would choose these particular stories is that they are not routine. And even if their stories are in some sense routine, they are still individual stories, critical elements of their life stories.
You could argue that in our strange celebrity culture, the very fact of appearing on television is in some sense compensation. “In some sense” doesn’t cut it. There are people who genuinely enjoy their jobs, they like what they do and many enjoy being seen doing it. They still expect to get paid. There is a difference between the urge to appear on Jerry Springer and having a serious medical problem brought before the public.
The patients should be paid or compensated in some other way. There should be some value given for the value that was taken. It is not the custom to share our medical problems, treatments and individual stories with millions of strangers. These stories are the personal property of the patients, not the hospital and not the doctors. As a society we have already acknowledged the vital nature of medical record privacy in the form of HIPAA, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
It is obvious from these accounts that the patients voluntarily signed away their rights and allowed the network access to their stories. What has been done here and is being done is legal. But being in compliance with the law is not the measure of ethical responsibility or, what is most important, what is right and wrong.
James Pilant
I read Chris MacDonald’s blog, The Business Ethics Blog, regularly but somehow I missed his definitions of business ethics and ethics. Mr. Olaghere spotted the definitions and kindly posted them. Thanks!
James Pilant
When foreclosing on mortgages the banks have been skipping the rule of law. They have not followed the rules for the transfer of property preferring to pretend that their electronic records are a viable substitute. I never believed the courts would go along with that and the Massachusetts court did not. Here’s the story from that excellent blog, Rortybomb.
From Rortybomb – Big Week in Foreclosure News –
The biggest news is the decision in Massachusetts’ “Ibanez case”, where the Massachusetts Supreme Court voided the seizures of two homes by Wells Fargo and US Bank based on their inability to show that they owned the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. Tracy Alloway walks you through the case, David Dayen has more including the PDF of the decision, and analysis from Yves Smith and Felix Salmon.
From the opinion: “Where, as here, mortgage loans are pooled together in a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities, the underlying promissory notes serve as financial instruments generating a potential income stream for investors, but the mortgages securing these notes are still legal title to someone’s home or farm and must be treated as such.”
They ruled through Massachusetts law instead of New York law, so no answers on looming New York trust law. Bank stocks are down. This is likely to have major implications down the road. We’ll have more on this opinion later.
I do not believe the ruling will stand. Congress will ride to the rescue of the banks legalizing their reckless disregard for state law and afflicting the suffering homeowners with even more pain. Congress will enact it. Obama will sign it. He will then explain it as a major legislative victory. Everything he does merits a press release and a couple of morning show appearances demonstrating his successful legislative record.
I wish there was someone somewhere who was as concerned with the rights and privileges of the American middle class and less concerned with the welfare of the banks.
James Pilant
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.