Fannie and Fredie spending $104 million on ex-executives (& we pay for it)

From Huffington Post: 

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must do a better job limiting legal expenses paid by the two mortgage giants to their former executives facing lawsuits, a new watchdog report says. A report issued Wednesday by the inspector general for the Federal Housing Finance Agency says Fannie and Freddie together have paid more than $109 million in legal expenses for former executives since 2004, with Fannie covering more than $99 million for just three top officials. Taxpayers are footing the bill: The bailouts of the two companies have so far cost about $150 billion and that figure continues to grow.

Abusive labor practices in China

File under "corporations": labor practices in China (via Meisel Vera).

Who's responsible for the BP gulf spill?

The case combines more than 500 lawsuits in one proceeding designed to determine who's responsible for what went wrong.

Confess the most unethical thing you ever did in business

Confess!

Homework: Chapter 5

1- Define "Corporate Moral Agency."
2- Can corporations make moral decisions. Explain "CID."
3- What's the difference between "narrow" and "broad" views corporate responsibility?
4- Debating corporate responsibility define the following: a) the invisible hand argument, b) the let-government-do-it argument, c) the business-can't-handle-argument.
5- Go over the 4 points on p. 242 on corporate responsibility expansion.
6- What's a corporate moral code?
7- What's corporate culture?

Is same sex marriage moral? unconstitutional?

Same sex marriage is in the news again!

A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.

What's the ruling? Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently.

There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex-couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,'the judge wrote, adding: "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California."

Let's take a closer look:

1. By majority vote, Prop 8 restricts marriage to the union of a man and a woman. 
2. But an individual has the right to marry the person of his or her choice.

So, there is a clash between peoples' rights and individual rights here.

Who wins? Well, inalienable rights seem to have priority (over majority rights) and should not be removed by any agency or government (including majority vote). Mind you, this is a libertarian view point (what I mean, closer to the right than you may think). Unless you're a moral conservative and think that the rights of the people in this case overturn the rights of the individual.

Philosophically speaking this is a fight between Locke on one side and Rousseau (and Burke) on the other. But same sex marriage is more contentious because of its religious connotation.     

The truth is that the majority of Americans seem to view homosexuality as morally wrong.  A recent study of 25 years of the General Social Survey indicates shifting attitudes about the perceived immorality of homosexuality, with growing negativity in the early 1990s and increasing liberalism more recently. Despite this liberalization in attitudes about some civil rights, only one third of the American public feel gay marriages should be recognized by law. Thus, we are at an unique moment of public ambivalence about attitudes toward the rights of gay men and lesbians to marry.

Yet, same-sex couples enjoy legal recognition in many countries outside the United States. They can marry in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa. They can register as partners in at least fourteen other countries, achieving many, most, or all of the benefits and obligations accorded married couples. Among Western countries, the United States stands largely alone in maintaining an inflexible line between married couples and everyone else. 

Some sociologists suggest a growing ambivalence in attitudes, with Americans demonstrating relatively high hostility, negativity, and disapproval about gay marriage, but more positive attitudes toward other gay civil liberties, arises from some basic conflicts over core values. People are conflicted over their core values surrounding the perceived sanctity of family and marriage and their own rising individualism and efforts to tailor their life experiences to their personal choice.

Those who feel more threatened by the perceived "cultural weakening of heterosexual marriage" are more likely to oppose gay marriage. Those who have a greater personal stake in the institution of marriage perhaps feel a greater need to "protect" marriage from "the threat" of gay marriage.

What are your thought on the subject?

I am closing this post next Tuesday & 11pm.

PHI 2604 Chapter 4: Homework

1. Provide a quick background of the historic phases of capitalism.
2. What are the key features of capitalism? Explain each one.
3. Addressing moral justifications for capitalism, defend:
a) The Natural Right to Property
b) Adam Smith's "invisible hand"
4. Addressing criticisms of under capitalism, articulate:
a) Inequality
b) Human nature and capitalism (economic creatures vs. moral creatures)
c) Capitalism breeds oligopolies
d) Competition is not a good.
e) Marx's "exploitation" and "alienation."
5. What are some ot today's economic challenges for capitalism?
6. Read Case 4.2, Hucksters in the Classroom and Case 4.5, One nation under Walmart and answer the questions.
_______
If we don't have time to do them all, we'll have leftovers.