This reminds me of a hockey game. You need rigorous oversight by the referees, and a penalty box. If you don't, players are going to eventually get badly injured, or worse.
Banks and traders and investment houses cannot be trusted to police themselves.
Another thing that is missing in US capitalism as of 2008 is a keen aversion to embarrassment, especially in the legal arena. Earlier in the century, one of the most stressful and painful and unspeakable things that could happen to a family was to have one of its members be brought to court.
Nowadays, it's not that big of adeal.
Our shared ethics have relaxed -- even eroded.
I recall an anecdote by a man who went to an English prep school in the 40s. He said that the honor code was absolute. If a student was ordered to run ten laps after classes because of an infraction of the rules. he would never be checked on by his superiors. Beyond any question, those laps would be run.
From reading the autobiographies of several of the key members of the Beatles' support personnel, I ran into case after case of honor-bound and duty bound behaviors.
One example involved Brian Epstein, the Beatles' manager, who didn't even sign his contract with the Beatles because he wanted to have the Beatles feel free to back out if they so desired.
Very much, the dealing with the Beatles and their inner circle was done in the spirit of the agreement, on a handshake. The paperwork was a mere formality.
Epstein recounts how the Beatles, after their success supernova on the Ed Sullivan show, apteintly carried out their previous contractual obligations, regardless of how low paying and humble the venues were. Not only that, but Alistair Taylor, Epstein's assistant, wrote of the Beatles actually voluntarily taking one a series of three concerts at a very small club for 12 pounds per night (i.e., about $150 per night in 2008 dollars). Remember, this is an act that was capable of filling Shea Stadium in New York. The reason they voluntarily took on these dates at a loss was because they wanted to thank the club owner for breaks he had given them in the past. They had nothing to gain from this other than the satisfying the feeling that it was the right thing to do.
Frank Abnagale, a professional con artist, who wrote the book "Catch Me If You Can" told about how easy it was to con people in the early Sixties. I believe that was because there was a much more durable shared ethic in those days.
It takes very few bad apples to spoil the atmosphere of honesty in the whole country.
When that happens - and it has - the lawyers become a mandatory accompaniment to all sorts of business transactions, just as carrying a musket and a big handknife used to be in the early days of wilderness America. All sorts of nasty creatures were out there ready to have you for dinner.
The opinion rating of Muslims are at a very low ebb nowadays, but one concept they have right is zero tolerance for thievery and dishonesty. Their law stipulates cutting of the hands of a thief.
Really, there's a good bit of wisdom underlying that.
However, I don't recommend that in our society.
What is better is to emotionally shock wrongdoers with embarrassment and shame. Families are the ones best able to do this. I don't mean to make them die of embarrassment, but a few good strong shocks go a long way.
Overall, this is a better approach than throwing people in prison. It nips most problems in the bud before prison becomes necessary.
I remember reading an article about scanning living human brains. the article said that frequently the brains would register more pain over embarrassment and ostracism than from physical pain.
Embarrassment and ostracism is a very good deterrent.
Fixing the excesses of unbridled free market capitalism comes down to to better ethics, fostered in the home. Out of that, legal oversights will actually be adhered to when established. Without ethics in the home, legal oversights will be cleverly circumvented, or simply not enforced.
Another solution is a wise and very stern dictator.
Singapore had a transformation under Lee Kwan Yu —who as prime mister of Singapore (1959-1990) transformed it from a corrupt backwater into a rich modern state. He did this in large measure by "cleaning house" with regard to corruption. He greatly expended his powers, and wielded them wisely, with great effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment