Wall Street ethics like Rules of War?

Start from the basics: what does the author wish to be true?

Whose morals? Whose standards? Who is the arbiter of these standards? Why should I trust that arbiter to choose morals and ethics? Why am I being encouraged to surrender my freedom to a person with the “right morals”?

I understand the feeling, I really do, but it’s misplaced. A “moral economy” is a religious idea. It is pure Puritanism, pure Christianity. It is a direct and suspicious form of control and power and I do not like it one bit. No, sir. It’s not that I “hold fast to the justifications that amount to the invisible hand theory,” as the article says. Morality in commerce is the imposition of control, nothing more. The business world is no place for morals. It is amoral, and that’s a good thing for everybody.

In the business world, if a company says it is being “moral” or “ethical” it is lying. But it is lying for a specific reason: to get you to buy more, to pick your pocket. Yes, this goes for the “green” movement as well. Companies exist to make profit. When there is no market pressure to change their ways, they won’t. When there is, they will. And when there is talk of regulations or agreements, it must be seen as a method for a strong player to artificially constrain a weaker player.

Consider the climate agreements. For two hundred years the Europeans and Americans pumped out enormous amounts of carbon dioxide/monoxide without a care in the world. Every day they built their economies and pulled the energy from far-flung places without bothering to build up those economies in return.

But the moment China and India appear to challenge the US for dominance in their respective geopolitical “patches,” the US ramps up the climate change debate and begs every country to “think of the children” and sign it, forcing the developing countries to take a more difficult and expensive route to build their economies. The US, meanwhile, and the rest of the developed world, stays in the dominant position thinking up new ways to maintain the lead. None of this is immoral. It is simply the form of geopolitics. And if the tables were turned and China invented the Industrial Revolution, it would have followed the same path against the US.

In some distant and strange universe, there may be a possibility of morals governing the market, but who will supply those morals? No one has been able to organise an objective and universal structure in the history of humankind. Those who claim to have succeeded are only operating from the position of hegemony anyway (their ideas are best because everyone else has been beaten down). There’s even a philosophical argument that an objective morality is impossible because science cannot separate an ‘is’ from an ‘ought,’ which makes me even more suspicious of this story.

Consider another example in strange world of climate change. Notice how scientists refuse to use the word "proof." They'll say the evidence suggests humans are a causal factor or that the majority of scientists agree with the reality of global warming. They're very careful not to use the “fact” or “proof” though. They do this because for their entire careers they were told proofs only come in the form of mathematics. There is no truth or proof in science.

And they know the public knows this too, everyone went to the same schools. So to convince everyone climate change is real, they use in its place the term "consensus." As in, “97% of scientists think global warming is true.” They leave a margin of error because they have to (not all scientists agree) but the propaganda effect is the same: people hear “consensus” and interpret “proof” because most people don't understand that an argument from majority is actually a fallacy. The public demands truth because that’s what it has been trained to expect from the government and science.

In order to change people’s minds – which is the entire goal of a government-funded project such as climate change responses – scientists replaced “proof” with “consensus” but retained the meaning. This is the classic bait and switch operating within the rules of the system, in the service of the message. This is precisely what will happen with the suggestion of morality in markets.

In warfare, rules exist to the extent they can be enforced. If a nation state obviates the Geneva Convention and it loses the fight, the victorious nation will send the enemy command to the docks. Both sides know this. It was the same in Roman times (except the loser would be sold into slavery). Attacking civilians indiscriminately will result in a vicious response by enemy forces. Respectable warfare over the control of resources (which is all high-level warfare) imposes rules based on ethics because there are weapons involved.

Some say being kind to prisoners of war is an incentive for enemy soldiers to surrender rather than fight, thereby ending the war earlier and with less killing. And that’s true. But its existence only continues because the possibility of loss in combat results in real, actual, physical death for the loser. And at the outset of a war, either side could be the loser, so both better play by the rules.

In business, that same loss doesn’t exist. Sure, you might lose a few assets and cash, but all of it can be earned back. Even if you burn money or bury it in a field, the government will simply print more. In business, there are always ways of winning, for any side. So many ways in fact that losses are felt to be temporary by everyone. Loss in combat is anything but temporary for those at the receiving end of an MLRS system. How can morals and ethics enter an environment where the only incentive is to try different paths until you reach success?

There are rules in business, but they facilitate the earning of money, not stifle it. Think about it: any set of rules that making it harder for business to make profit will be replaced. And what is a set of morals in business but an artificial and unacceptable restriction on making profit? Why else would strong companies insist their competitor “play fair” if it didn’t mean their competitor was being constrained by “playing fair"? After all, if you’re not cheating, you’re not playing hard enough.

And boo hoo for unfair taxes and business rule lobbying! None of that is secret. It’s not hiding in some cold safe deep in the Department of Commerce or whatever. It’s all online open to anyone with the time and inclination to read and understand it. If one company pushes the government to change laws in its favour, then rather than crying about it, go read the law and see how you can benefit from it too. Think creatively. The tools and machinery to make millions of dollars are sitting right there.

Forcing everyone else to comport to some arbitrary morals just because you don’t want to do the work to figure out how to win is the mark of a weak and scared person, and someone who doesn’t understand business. At a country level it is the mark of control by a scared nation.

/r/incomeinequality Thread Link - nytimes.com