That is the fault of our legislature and our presidents (former and current) for supporting them, not Wall Street. If you chastise people for taking free money, then may natural selection take its course and morons can run our top companies. BTW- rollingstone, huffingtonpost, politico, foxnews, etc. should be banned hosts from links as far as I'm concerned, if the intent of HN is to limit politicking.
Are you willfully ignoring the massive role that lobbying (and other forms of corporate money in politics) plays in all of this, or are you just that naive?
Lobbying is legal and means others get their input to the legislators but ultimately the buck still stops with Congress and the President.
If you have a problem with lobbying, again...that is still the fault of the politicians, not those doing the lobbying. They're acting within the bounds of the law.
Summary: Yes, it’s great to find fault with the political system, but that doesn’t absolve Wall Street or anybody else of the obligation to act ethically. In fact, the definition of ethics is pretty much Doing the right thing when not compelled to do so by consequences, legal or otherwise.
This strikes me as a non-sequitur.
There's a lot of bad stuff you can do without actually committing a crime. Especially if you have enough money to influence the law.
I like that the final defense of the financial sector's misdeeds is to stammer "Well, it's not strictly illegal!"
And it's the Government's job to make sure that "bad stuff" (ie stuff that actively and deliberately hurts people, not just standard non-optimal stuff) is illegal.
If a legal moneymaking niche exists, somebody will fill it. Even if it's immoral, because... hey, people are extremely good at convincing themselves that anything is moral if it happens to be in their own interests. The government's job is to prevent any harmful yet legal niches from arising, and the job of the people is to make sure that pressure is put on the government to eradicate said niches... even when they'd much rather take campaign contributions from the people in 'em.
This comment is free of examples, because I don't feel like discussing any specific cases.
The phrase "if you have enough money to influence the law" indicates not that the corporations did something illegal/unethical (why wouldn't they spend money to get their input heard?), but rather indicates corrupt politicians who would make decisions and laws based on who spent the most money.
What the founders could not have predicted was that one day, that feebleness could allow the country to be hijacked by powers that make kings look cute by comparison.
Our system isn't built to withstand the manipulation of corporate interests. There's not a lot I can do about that from where I'm sitting. But the fact that the store was left unlocked by a shady employee doesn't exonerate the thieves who made off with its contents.
There's often no distinction between those who spend money and those who make the decisions. The revolving door between Washington and big financial interests is absurd. Healthcare and finance are both in a state of regulatory capture that would be comical were it not so tragic.
Incidentally, I don't know if you realize this, but the biggest lobbyists are primarily labor unions (e.g., the NEA, who donate more money than Goldman Sachs) and professional groups (realtors, trial lawyers), not corporations.
If you look at people counts, the NEA has about 3.2 million people. Goldman has about 36,000 employees. Two orders of magnitude more contribution per person.
As a smaller business, their interests in the law are more targeted. And their lobbying is also very effective.
You can speak freely to politicians, but getting them to listen is not free. You buy their ear with campaign contributions and you hold the hammer of future contributions as you make polite suggestions about how the law should be changed in your favor.
I don't think it's fair to put politicians under that pressure. There's clear evidence that our system has failed in that way and we need to change it to move forward.
If someone offers you a lot of money to do something unethical and you accept it, how is it the fault of the other person? You're the one doing something unethical.
Lobbyists are just doing their job. If people don't like politicians who are swayed by lobbyists, vote them out of office and elect someone who won't accept lobbyist money. That's one of the benefits of a democratic republic.
sigh.
Assuming you aren't joking...
"If someone offers you a lot of money to do something unethical and you accept it, how is it the fault of the other person?"
So if I offer you $1 million to kill someone, I have no fault when it comes to the murder? I mean, it isn't like I killed someone, right?