Hello:

We're a nation of laws.. On their own, we DON'T think a person will be a good citizen, so we make RULES to insure that he WILL be. Oh, we believe the MAJORITY of people are good, but we STILL need rules for those who aren't.

So, there's this citizen who works as an executive. When he's out and about in society, he has RULES. When he wakes up in the morning, we don't TRUST that he didn't beat his wife during the night... There are RULES against that.. When he goes to work, we don't TRUST that he won't SPEED or drive drunk.. We have RULES against that. We don't trust that he'll be properly covered by insurance - yes we have RULES about that, too..

But, when he arrives at his corporate executive office, we think he'll NOW make ALL the RIGHT decisions, because it's in his interest to do so...

That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can some right winger explain it?

excon

You can't explain it Ex what you are asking is does this person have personal integrity? On the evidence I would say no, Society is compliant with the laws because they have agreed that certain things are necessary so there isn't chaos, it doesn't mean chaos can't happen.

But when you have person who believes he has a right to lie, cheat and steal, that it is even expected by the Corporation because the interests of the stockholders come first, natural laws aren't going to stop him and nor are rules. This situation will continue until capitalism is dead because it cannot be expected to regulate itself. Only when the society has an ethos that every persons basic rights are more important than making money will it be brought under control

Not quite sure where this question goes. There's hardly a law or regulation that doesn't govern most aspects of our lives ;regardless of whether it's a corporate exec ;or the janitor of the corporation. One thing we know is that the 4th branch of government in this Leviathan (the behometh bureaucracy) hardley ever rests crafting new code and regulations .
So unless there is some specifics I can address . Have a very Merry Christmas.

Rules in the office,

Sexual harassment, embezzlement, overtime laws, work hours, min pay, OSHA working conditions, EPA, and so on. No they don't trust him to make the right choice there either

Yeah, I can't imagine you missing the volumes of rules governing the corporate executive. By the way, has anyone seen Jon Corzine lately?

Hello again,

I shouldn't be surprised, but you wingers MISSED the point...

Yes, they regulate the size of the bathroom, but they LET him invest in economy crashing derivatives. The rules make sure he keeps good books, but they LET him invest in China moving jobs overseas... The rules (in THIS country) won't let him make anything with lead paint for example, but, they LET him manufacture them in Bangalore. They regulate the factories HERE, but they LET corporate leaders build them in Bangladesh where they don't have to concern themselves about their workers. Some of those workers burn up. They LET them buy credit default swaps, which are the things that brought us down ONCE, and are still out there, like that sword of Damocles.

So, you can talk about the tripe you're talking about, or you can address the issue I raise.

excon

They let Obama bundlers lose billions of customer investment dollars and walk away because he said he didn't know where it went.

Hello again, Steve:

I have NO idea what you said, but I'm sure it's important. But, it has NOTHING to do with my query. Do you NOT understand what I'm asking??

excon

We're a nation of laws as you said, I'm just wondering how a former Democrat governor and Obama bundler managed to get off the hook for losing billions of investor's dollars by just saying he didn't know where it went. I guess they trusted he did the right thing.

Hello again, Steve:

You seem unable to get beyond talking about PEOPLE, to talking about IDEAS.

Let me know when you want to take her up a notch.

excon

I though my first post addressed the OP quite well. "Yeah, I can't imagine you missing the volumes of rules governing the corporate executive. By the way, has anyone seen Jon Corzine lately?"

We have laws, lots of them. How many more do you want? And should they apply to every greedy low life or just those who aren't Democrat Obama campaign cash bundlers?

Corzine is still in court my friend, facing many charges. But the point is he is but one of many who have broken the law but have loot to pay a lawyer. What about the whole corporate idea of running a company in the ground and canceling pensions for workers, while keeping the stockholders and execs rich. Yeah that's legal because the corps made it legal by buying the lawmakers. Yeah that's okay.

For every Corzine there is a Bush who governed Texas and became president after he tanked many companies and got rich doing it. Or Mitt, your last great white hope who made loot by adding debt to companies and shifting costs to the government and running with the cash from the pensions and assets. All legal of course since corporation execs are the one who write the bankruptcy law.

Tell your crap to workers at Hostess, or Walmart or factories and plants that are shut down and moved overseas, and have become part of the 47% of lazy a$$es you have no respect for but kiss the butts of the ones who made them that way. Like there are no republicans doing dirt! PUH LESSE! Spare me your partisan prejudice.

What a disgusting attitude for a fellow that but for the grace of god that could be YOU!!

The Hostess workers sealed their own fate after both sides reached agreements. Of course the leftist nanny state had a role in it too.

Show me the facts behind your assertions. Facts, not straw arguments. Explain how you blame the workers and leftist nanny state and not poor management?

You want rules, these are the rules;
You will not willfully lie or decieve in order to avoid the consequences of misconduct or conceil that misconduct.
You will not act in a manner which could cause a customer to suffer loss that they are unaware of.
You will immediately bring to the attention of management any situation which could bring about a loss to the corporation.
You will not act so as to misstate the earnings, revenues, expenditures, assets or liabilities of the business you are employed in, or any business which your employer might be contracting or negotiating with
You will not use derivative financial products or any other exotic financial instrument to alter the true financial position of the business.

That will do for starters

You don't think it's OK to hedge your bets ? The only time derivatives are a problem is if the content or collateral, is fraudulent. Those of course are or should be criminal on that fact alone . But most are perfectly legitimate instruments .Fraud in the market needs to be controlled ;not the market itself .

Hmmmm
Congress cleared Corzine of any wrongdoing .
Hmmmmm
Corzine's MF Global retained Eric Holder's, and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer's law firm Covington & Burling.
Hmmmmm
The lawyer for MF Global Treasurer Edith O'Brien is Reid Weingarten; Eric Holder's best friend and own personal attorney.
What are the chances of Corzine being brought to justice ?
Does this constitute Corporate Governance ?
Hmmmm
Harry Reid has sponsored at least $47 million in earmarks that directly benefitted organizations that his son Key Reid either lobbies for, or is affiliated with.
Hmmmmm
Harry's other son Rory Reid, is helping Chinese energy company ENN Energy Group plan to build a $5 billion solar panel plant on 9,000 acres in Nevada. Harry Reid used his position to pressure “Nevada's largest power company, NV Energy, to sign up as ENN's first customer.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87U06D20120831
Some more Corporate Governance ?
Could it be that the problem lies primarily on who we elect ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you don't think it's OK to hedge your bets ? The only time derivatives are a problem is if the content or collateral, is fraudulent. Those of course are or should be criminal on that fact alone . But most are perfectly legitimate instruments .Fraud in the market needs to be controlled ;not the market itself .

---

Spoken like a person who doesn't understand financial markets, how many times have rogue traders lost billions, there was no problem with the collateral. The use of derivatives is at best a gamble. I believe that markets are manipulated so that the ordinary investor has little chance, and I know for a fact that prudential controls are avoided using derivatives

Quote:

---

Could it be that the problem lies primarily on who we elect ?

---

Finally we have come to the nub of the problem, but corporate governance has little to do with elected officials and a whole lot to do with internal control. If a market, an industry or any corporation cannot be relied upon to act in a proper manner then it is incumbent upon elected officials to provide laws to enforce rules of conduct. The GFC happened because banking corporations deliberately set out to decieve investors, a complete failure of corporate governance, but also a complete failure of regulation. You have found your scapegoat Tom, it is the politicians. You have given a free pass to the perpetrators

Quote:

---

The GFC happened because banking corporations deliberately set out to decieve investors, a complete failure of corporate governance, but also a complete failure of regulation.

---

Umm no... The GFC happened exactly because government regulation dictated the course of the industry. It was not the absence of regulation that created the economic crisis, but unwise regulation ;aka intervention in the market .FNMA aka Fanny Mae started receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities containing mortgages made to low-income borrowers. At the end of 2008 there were 26 million sub prime and other non-prime loans outstanding; about 60% were on the books of Fanny Mae , Freddie Mac or the FHA. Also government thrugh the FED played a role in aiding the rapid rise in housing prices and dramatic increase in mortgage lending through prolonged low interest rate policies .

You have your head in the sand Tom

GFC happened because the toys the rich guys used to make money were frauds, and the regulating agencies went along with it. Yes government has been for decade eroding the rules and regulations on the false promise of good behavior but all that loot corrupted the greedy bastards like it always does.

Corporate governance is about making money and not good deeds, or helping anyone but themselves. Any good derived from corporate behavior is a by product of the quest for profits or they wouldn't do it.