As I read through the laws that govern the securities industry, I asked myself the question of “ Why do we regulate the financial systems? Besides the basic understanding of having laws to better the efficiency of the investment and banking industry, why must we have laws and ethics that lay out the information of what is good and what is bad in the world of money, shouldn’t it already be known? In class we mentioned the issue with Goldman Sachs, ENRON, and some others companies who disobeyed specific laws in order to better the companies own economic benefit. When we study their thought process we notice that some of the problems are rather ethical, how come even with the regulations in place do firms and people not follow the specifics.
…show more content…
We all know the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. The grasshopper spends all his summer partying while the ant toils to store up for winter. The result is income inequality and one starving insect, in the scenario there has not been any injustice done. Nothing the ant did caused the grasshopper 's demise. The grasshopper 's rights were never trampled on. He was free to use his time as he pleased and so he did, as did the ant. That they fared differently during winter is a direct result of the free and voluntary decisions they made during the summer. So it is in a free society. People are different in many ways —in their values, their work ethic, their talent, their choices, etc. Why is it that we expect them to get the same results? People get paid for the amount of work they decide to put in and what they choose to do. The question of whether or not highly compensated executives should get paid the amount they get paid, is they should get paid what their contract offered them to get paid. Executives bring in enough to justify their cost, If we go back to my first example of the grasshopper and the ant the concept is simple. Each person that works in a company or anyplace has different ways of producing their cost and wage. We have the ability to choose to be the grasshopper or the ant, but some have gone through stages. They started off as grasshoppers and worked their way up, and in some cases that means being a big shot executive. Sure some are not honest in there doing, but in everything there is good and bad, and this is where we can add regulations and examples of firms who have failed because of dishonest conduct. Yet in the end the ones who don’t follow the rules end up losing much of what they gain. Most of the executives benefit from having a great company; therefore their pay is justified. I guess what I am trying to say is, we can 't state that someone is getting paid too much
We all know the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. The grasshopper spends all his summer partying while the ant toils to store up for winter. The result is income inequality and one starving insect, in the scenario there has not been any injustice done. Nothing the ant did caused the grasshopper 's demise. The grasshopper 's rights were never trampled on. He was free to use his time as he pleased and so he did, as did the ant. That they fared differently during winter is a direct result of the free and voluntary decisions they made during the summer. So it is in a free society. People are different in many ways —in their values, their work ethic, their talent, their choices, etc. Why is it that we expect them to get the same results? People get paid for the amount of work they decide to put in and what they choose to do. The question of whether or not highly compensated executives should get paid the amount they get paid, is they should get paid what their contract offered them to get paid. Executives bring in enough to justify their cost, If we go back to my first example of the grasshopper and the ant the concept is simple. Each person that works in a company or anyplace has different ways of producing their cost and wage. We have the ability to choose to be the grasshopper or the ant, but some have gone through stages. They started off as grasshoppers and worked their way up, and in some cases that means being a big shot executive. Sure some are not honest in there doing, but in everything there is good and bad, and this is where we can add regulations and examples of firms who have failed because of dishonest conduct. Yet in the end the ones who don’t follow the rules end up losing much of what they gain. Most of the executives benefit from having a great company; therefore their pay is justified. I guess what I am trying to say is, we can 't state that someone is getting paid too much