The Wages Of Sin

Have you ever had a thought follow you? You begin to see a pattern or trend or idea reoccur to you. Sometimes you are just making connections, because of your own musing, but at other times I wonder. I had such a feeling reading the New York Times on Sunday. The persistent belief came down that the wages of sin are quite tolerated in our society.

We do not accept this idea when blatantly confronted with it, but I started to see this theme in my readings from the paper. People in the financial and real estate industry are losing their jobs because of the financial crisis. The majority of them did nothing wrong, but their employers want to save payroll dollars. On the bright side, greed is good, although a sin. If you were an executive who oversaw aspects of your firm that became involved with subprime lending, you came out well. One article reported on how these individuals are being sought after for even higher paying jobs at other firms. It reminds me of how Robert Nardelli landed on his feet, after making such a mess at Home Depot.

Following the investigation from the AG office in New York, you see a trail of bad business decisions which were fueled by the desire of those firms to increase profits. If you want it, here it is, come and get it. It started with executives desiring increased profits, so pressure was placed on the system which would have prevented many of these loans from being granted. Each firm in the line did its job under newly defined guidelines of laxity. No firm spoke up to any perceived problem. Each firm is now proclaiming no responsibility. A needed stance in the face of the lawsuits to come.

In one article, a suggestion was made to how this financial crisis could be resolved. A new institution in the mold of the SEC. The idea being that there will be an advocate for the public to stave off firms that would follow their own desire for wealth which could lead to a crisis, as we are now facing (remember, we cannot know if we are in a recession until after it has occurred, by definition). This agency would be geared to looking at the mortgage and connecting industries.I do not see the SEC as a model to imitate though. Being a shareholder in several companies, I am well aware of my rights as an owner. The SEC is charged with protecting the shareholder rights, but if you survey the decisions in this regard, you will see that CEOs have been the ones protected. (Maybe a slight change in terminology would benefit us. Instead of using the word shareholder to the more proper owner would suffice to change attitudes). Would a new regulatory agency do much better? It could, but it appears that it may not.

This election cycle has caught our attention, so you are more than likely going to vote. As lenders shut down their investment side, or at least pull it back, to focus on the retail side of their profit making equation, we could easily forget about those practices that lead to our current state. The economy is destined to play a role this November. Let it stay on your mind a bit longer. Voice your opinion to your representatives, and keep voting in other elections for the candidate who best represents what you feel needs to be done. I do not care if you vote Republican or Democrat, but I do wish you to exercise your right to have a voice. If you do not use it, you could let such poor executives continue on their path. You may think that I am anti-corporate with this post, but indeed I am not. I wish for their to be a good balance between the needs of business and the community, and that can be accomplished by us.