The last article of the four-page Goldman Sachs’s “Code of Business Conduct and Ethics” stipulates that “From time to time, the firm may waive certain provisions of this Code.”
Really?
Marketplace’s Kai Ryssdal spoke with Greg Unruh, director of the Lincoln Center for Ethics, about that ‘safety valve’ provision:
RYSSDAL: Rising once more to Goldman’s defense, Sarbanes-Oxley — the financial reform bill that came in after Enron — said listen, everybody’s got to have a code of ethics, and Goldman says, “You know what? Everybody’s got this waiver in there. Everybody’s doing it, so, gee mom, why can’t I?”
UNRUH: Well, it’s interesting. I don’t know the full history of how the legislation was written, but I expect that that clause allowing that waiver is in there because a lot of corporations lobbied heavily to have it in there. So, it’s curious they can point to a clause that probably companies have a lot of impact getting into the legislation as the defense for putting those clauses into their own code of ethics.
Emphasis mine. That’s the real collusional corruption of corporate money in Washington. The pol can go home saying an ethics code is required and enforced. And the company, or, er, in this case, the firm, can do as it pleases. Ethically.
Above, a MarketPlace infographic produced by importing the entire four-page document, Goldman Sachs’s “Code of Business Conduct and Ethics,” into a word map. You see that the most frequently mentioned word is not “ethics” or “morality” or “honesty” or “integrity.” It’s “firm.” And that clear emphasis says it all.
Another example from this morning’s GMA, from a report that San Francisco is requiring cell phone retailers to post exactly how much radiation is emitted by every cellphone they sell. Said John Walls, VP CTIAA, The Wireless Association:
The FCC sets standards, very stringent standards for what’s called specific absorption rate. And every device in the United States has to operate at or below that level.
Ever heard of regulatory capture? Want to bet the CTIAA had a say in setting that level? And if it’s good and reasonable and established, why not let consumers know the emission levels?
For the record, I believe in regulation. And the regulatory capture is a government failing. From a recent Planet Money on Sex, Drugs And Regulatory Capture:
One solution is to come up with clear, bright lines that are hard to manipulate, and don’t require much discretion on the part of regulators.
But the world is often too complicated for that sort of thing. And besides, Congress seems fond of breaking up failed regulators.
After the S&L crisis, the regulator in charge was broken up — and re-made as the Office of Thrift Supervision.
OTS was in charge of overseeing Washington Mutual, Countrywide and AIG, among others. Ouch.
So as part of the finance-reform bill now moving through Congress, OTS will likely be merged into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Problem solved!
Need I say… NOT!
You can find me @jwindish, at my Public Notebook, or email me at joe-AT-joewindish-DOT-com.