The Shamelessness of Bankers
It’s  not easy to maintain a civil tone while describing the magnitude of the  misbehavior among executives at Wall Street’s largest institutions. To  criticize bankers is to describe large-scale wrongdoing, mass-produced  outrages that lead to widespread misery. It can’t be done without  routinely deploying words like “perjury,” “forgery,” “fraud,” “deceit,”  “corruption” and “rapaciousness.”
Unfortunately, the  forms of speech that adequately convey big-banker behavior also make it  easy for insiders in politics, government and the media to dismiss that  same speech as excessive.
William Dudley , chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
That’s one reason why some recent remarks by William Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, are  so important. He’s no outsider and he’s no extremist. And yet, after  exploring potential solutions to the “too big to fail” problem in a  speech to Global Economic Policy Forum last week, Dudley went on to  discuss what he called “the apparent lack of respect for law, regulation  and the public trust.”
Added Dudley: “There is evidence of deep-seated cultural and ethical failures at many large financial institutions.”
Two phrases in  particular bear repeating: “the apparent lack of respect for law,  regulation and the public trust,” and “deep-seated cultural and ethical  failures.”
Mr. Dudley is using the  language of courtesy and civility, but his language is blunt and even  cutting. He’s speaking of individuals he knows well and with whom he  interacts daily. That doesn’t prevent him from saying that bank  executives have displayed disrespect for both law and regulation, that  they are not worthy of the public’s trust, and that they are culturally  and ethnically impaired at a profound level.
And yet, remarkably enough, House members from both parties are nevertheless supporting a Republican-backed initiative which would unwind some of the already-inadequate provisions of the  Dodd-Frank financial reform law. There’s very little chance that  President Obama will sign their bills, since he considers Dodd-Frank a  signature achievement. But his administration retains its cozy  relationship with major banks – a relationship that includes  revolving-door appointees and a reluctant attitude toward the criminal  prosecution of bankers.
That’s no surprise. How  can legal safeguards be maintained when the money these institutions  spend taints the political process from beginning to end? How can bank  executives learn “respect for law, regulation and the public trust” when  they are subject to the flattery of journalists, rather than the scrutiny of journalists? (See Roger Lowenstein’s puff piece about bank CEO Jamie Dimon in the New York Times Magazine for a classic example of that genre.)
And how can the society  of big bank executives heal from its “deep-seated cultural and ethical  failures” when those executives are treated as founts of economic  wisdom, worthy of demanding sacrifices from others through political  lobbying groups like Fix the Debt, and still believe that their names  lend credibility to their efforts rather than casting shame on all of  them.
“When pride cometh,”  says the Bible in Proverbs, “then cometh shame.” Maybe that word should  form the collective noun for members of that profession. Like “a pride  of lions”: a “shame of bankers.”
But where is that shame, already? Big-bank executives have been insulated from it by sycophants in the media and politics.
In quoting Proverbs,  I’m not suggesting that a religious renewal could clean up Wall Street.  Too many crooks have done their stealing in the name of God. But something has to restrain these runaway bankers. Social “shaming” might help. But  instead of ostracizing them for their contemptuous attitude toward  legality and fair play, too much of society lionizes them instead.
Our society worships  wealth and consumption, and that slavish devotion has reached massive  proportions. Along with that worship, our society seems to have rejected  the idea that there is any dignity in the life of ordinary, law-abiding  working people. In a survey conducted last year by a whistleblowers’ defense law firm, nearly half of the senior  bankers polled acknowledged a willingness to break the law to make  money. (Presumably there were a number of others who also would, but  weren’t willing to admit it to a stranger.)
Proverbs goes on to say  that “riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness  delivereth from death.” But who believes that anymore? Absent some  resurgence of prophetic outrage, our banker problem will continue.
However tragic the  consequences, it’s easy to understand the subservient behavior that  politicians and senior government officials display toward big-bank  executives. The politicians want campaign contributions. The senior  government officials want to follow the revolving-door route followed by  the likes of Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Peter Orszag, also have  become wealthy as employees, consultants or speech-givers to the largest  Wall Street institutions.
Nam ego illum periisse duco, cui quidem periit pudor, wrote the ancient Roman playwright Plautus. It means, “I count him lost  who is lost to shame.” By that standard, Jamie Dimon and his ilk may  sadly be counted as lost among civilized human beings.
But the rest of us still need to be protected from them.  Some of that protection will come with better law enforcement, so that  they are discouraged from acting out their worst impulses. And part of  it will come through shaming them publicly, since most of them are human  beings with enormous egos.
“He that troubleth his  own house shall inherit the wind,” said the same passage in Proverbs. We  can’t depend on a higher power to make those words reality. We need to  use the tools we have been given – tools that include the law, our  social norms, and moral clarity – to protect ourselves from the  shamelessness of bankers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment