When I was studying business methods in college there was an old joke that circulated in the halls outside the accounting classrooms. It seems that there were three experienced accountants applying for the job of controller for a major industrial conglomerate. At the end of their interviews, the director of Human Resources gave each of the three all of the raw financial data for one of the company’s subsidiaries with the instructions to prepare income statements, balance sheets and tax returns based on the data. The results were collected several hours later. The first candidate turned in a well-documented set of figures, strictly adhering to all relevant laws as well as all Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The director acknowledged the candidate’s knowledge and thoroughness. The second candidate produced a set of documents that pushed deductions to their extremes, playing fast and loose with the data, and producing a higher bottom-line return for the company. The HR director smiled at the second candidate’s resourcefulness and willingness to take a certain amount of risk. The third candidate turned in a set of blank pages.
The Human Resources director stared at them for a moment and then stated the obvious: “You haven’t written anything.”
The candidate gave him a clever smile then explained, “You haven’t yet told me what you want them to say.” Guess which candidate got the job?
There are some lessons that stick with you long after the mechanics taught in classrooms are forgotten or pushed aside by more relevant current procedures, and the above story is likely one of those things, based on what we observe in our society today. It is important to understand concepts like laws, or the principles of your chosen profession. However, there is one thing that trumps everything else. In order to succeed, to reach the very top, you must become adept at gaming the system.
The case of HSBC bank is a glaring example of how corporations have become adept at arraying things to go their way. Among the many sins uncovered in this worldwide banking conglomerate (and this probably wasn’t even close to being their worst), it was found that the bank’s Mexican subsidiary was laundering money for drug cartels. The U.S. government fined the bank a record $1.92 billion, but decided against prosecuting the bank based on the fear that it would harm worldwide financial markets. The bank is considered too big to fail. The fine is about equal to what the U.S. government has sent to the Mexican government since 2007 in the ongoing effort to eradicate the illegal drug trade. It also equals about four weeks of earnings for HSBC. They will likely weather this storm with ease.
The U.S. Justice Department also decided against prosecuting any of the individuals involved in the money laundering scandal, apparently reasoning that this too would undermine the global financial system. The officers of the bank are too important to prosecute. This is a dangerous precedent that goes against every concept of right and wrong that has ever been formulated, whether in religious doctrine, ethical teachings, or just plain common sense. I can understand it from the financial point of view, but it is very troubling from an ethical perspective.
Across the globe, our society is full of individuals who are both clever and resilient. Clearly some, their numbers apparently dwindling, are more kind-hearted than others. We say that we reserve our greatest rewards for our best and brightest, but the fact is that these rewards go most often to our most devious individuals, the ones who have learned how to best twist the system to their benefit.
The recently renewed debate on the issue of gun control is another example of how the system gets gamed. President Obama proposed a series of laws the other day aimed at reducing the chances of yet another tragedy like the recent Newtown school shootings or Aurora theater massacre taking place. No one, from the President on down, thinks these laws will completely prevent a future incident, but it is possible that the probability of occurrence could be reduced. One life saved would make the effort worthwhile, the President said. In addition, President Obama signed a series of executive orders, many dealing with mental health issues, which could also help reduce the chance.
As Obama predicted, the opposition was both immediate and vicious, with concerned citizens crying out that the President was trying to take away all of their guns. Of course, our right to own guns (which are statistically more likely to cause harm to ourselves or loved ones than phantom bad guys) was not only not mentioned, but it was explicitly stated that it was not the case. Our constitutionally protected rights to own firearms would remain in place under any version of legislation passed in this regard, however unlikely, despite widespread support by a majority of voters.
Let the gaming begin. Members of congress and NRA spokesmen cried out that there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books, and more effort should be made to enforce those laws. But those laws have already been gamed. The majority of the laws lost their teeth in an obscure amendment made to an unrelated spending bill several years ago. The amendment was proposed by a former Congressman who later received an award (what other reward was included is not available) from the NRA for his services. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has not had a director for over six years, because the job requires Senate approval, which continues to be withheld. Background check information must be destroyed within a day, preventing any chance to discern a pattern of purchases that may point to a future tragedy. Leaders of both parties in both houses of our legislature came out and said they doubt if the support could be found to pass anything like the proposed assault weapons ban. This is despite polls that indicate a majority of Americans favor such action.
There was a young man in the audience at the President’s announcement the other day. He was a survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 that left 32 dead victims (excluding the suicide of the mentally unstable perpetrator). The young man was shot four times and still carries three of the bullets in his body. He was present, as quoted by the President, not because of what happened to him, but because what happened to him continues to happen to others. It is a noble sentiment. He’s probably way too nice to make it to the top in a big bank.
To all of my friends and family members who have already loudly voiced their opposition to any type of gun control, I offer my apologies, because I think a ban on assault weapons is a good idea. It’s not perfect, but it just might help. President Reagan supported a ban on assault weapons and Supreme Court Justice Scalia said that it was constitutional. These guys aren’t exactly left-wing extremists. Expanding background checks to all gun buyers is also definitely a good idea. I personally don’t think either idea will infringe on our rights to own guns. My coworker, who is an avid hunter, agrees. No one uses assault weapons to hunt deer. Few people even consider that type of weapon to be the one of choice for home protection since it would be way too easy to cause collateral damage with one, such as injuring the family that you are trying to protect.
The sale of bulletproof backpacks and child-sized bulletproof vests has skyrocketed in recent weeks. The gun lobby has proposed arming teachers and other school officials, and putting armed police in every school. Is this the kind of traumatic future that we wish to bestow on our children? Who really thinks that a janitor with a pistol is the best person to protect our youngsters? Isn’t there a great deal of inherent danger in having loaded guns in our classrooms, even if they are in the hands of teachers who have been instructed in their use? Remember the law of unintended consequences. Whatever could possibly go wrong in that situation probably will go wrong.
Our founding fathers established our Second Amendment rights under the guise of allowing for a well-regulated militia, which was deemed necessary for the security of a free state. There was no significant standing army at the time. Protection of our country rested in the hands of an armed population that were prepared to go to war to protect our country. It will never be clear that the founders’ intent was for anyone to own a gun since at any time any individual could be called on to protect our rights. That issue will not be called into question here, although I think the founders might recoil at what passes for a militia these days (aside from our fine National Guard). We have the right to own firearms. No one is trying to change that. But many people are trying to game the system and make you think that you are in imminent danger of losing this sacred right. That is not the case.
Our democratic process is far too easily influenced by special interests that are based on personal greed rather than what is truly good for our people. Laws are passed and amendments are made to unrelated bills that have far reaching consequences that are given little thought at the time. The mere threat of filibusters can indefinitely postpone votes on people appointed to fulfill important executive positions in government agencies. It's the little things we need to focus on before we can address any important issue. Unfortunately, even those who would like to benefit their country are going to have to learn how to game the system.
In order to protect our troubled financial system, which was plunged into the Great Depression after the stock market crash of 1929, President Roosevelt nominated former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., to head the newly created Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). Kennedy was one of our nation’s wealthiest citizens with a fortune based in large part on his ability to manipulate the stock market. Observers at the time called it a case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but FDR reasoned correctly that he had to put someone in charge that knew what he was doing, someone who was an expert in gaming the system. Kennedy was considered mainly successful at his appointed job (he redirected many of his own investments into the real estate market after the financial markets became regulated). Only recently, as banking regulations have again become more relaxed, have we experienced problems in our financial markets, with significant risks in banks and other financial institutions deemed too massive to allow to fail.
It is time we face some hard truths about our government. It has become dysfunctional. We have let the little things, procedures, policies and influence peddlers, prevent us from achieving the goals we desire for our nation as a whole. Why not make our government less likely to be derailed by gamesmanship, and more responsive to the needs of everyone? Let’s do away with influence peddling. Let’s make it a requirement to have immediate votes on presidential appointments. We need to be a little less willing to succumb to the greed of a few individuals in control of way too much power, and prevent tragedy for many. Above all else, we need to protect our children.
No comments:
Post a Comment