Discussed that report at work. Consensus was 1) it's mainly PR and 2) that it will last until those execs miss their first earnings target and their stock price gets punished, with the caveat that some of them are stubborn so it might take a little longer.
Penn State News: “Gift will create Tarriff Center for Business Ethics and Social Responsibility”
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
Discussed that report at work. Consensus was 1) it's mainly PR and 2) that it will last until those execs miss their first earnings target and their stock price gets punished, with the caveat that some of them are stubborn so it might take a little longer.
Eh, I always viewed stuff like that as goodwill statements. We value our employees, the environment, etc. Everything has a dollar value associated with it. I am reminded of an incident almost 25 years ago, a corporate engineer told me he had once met with an actuary for the company's insurance provider. The engineer's task was to justify the costs of safety programs for the higher ups. The actuary said if you kill someone expect to pay about $3MM, if you merely incapacitate them for life its $6MM. We made a few jokes about the matter, but the lesson was that even the most basic of "principles" had to have a cost associated to it.
1. I am very much pro-ethics training, whether at work or at b-school. When I do internal investigations, I have a two-axis system for evaluating witnesses, with the x-axis being smart/stupid, and the y-axis being good/evil. It is remarkable the number of people (including ignorant people) who still show up in the stupid box.
2. Most training at work - particularly of the online variety -- is profoundly bad at really dealing with ethical decisionmaking. Yeah, you get a recitation of applicable laws, and hopefully enough that you think about them, but it's not really gonna help you identify anything but the most obvious noncompliance. It's a check the box exercise so the company can say it has a compliance program, so that it can argue for reduced corporate settlements if something goes sideways.
3. Good training should always highlight the potential consequences of noncompliance. But in the case of your certification, it sounds a little amateurish. The company itself generally has little to say regarding whether any employee will be criminally liable for anything.
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Thanks for re-focusing the discussion.Shouldn’t we be discussing how Penn State will piss away the $5 million leading to an EPIC. FAIL.?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is far and away the biggest lobbying group in America - and it's not close; I wouldn't call them evil. If you want to look at why pharmaceutical prices are high, know that a) you're paying for every drug that fails and b) there are a lot more 'hands in the honeypot' when it comes to cost drivers in America. In other countries with single payer systems, the companies negotiate directly with one entity - the government. Here, you have insurance companies, health care providers, Medicare, Medicaid, physicians, hospitals, pharmacists, etc. - everyone wants a cut.
Restricting the rights of private citizens is not the answer.
One can not buy what is not for sale. The only way to fix the problem is to take power away from Washington and give it back to the states where it originated. They can neither print money, nor run deficits.
Every time we allow government to expand its involvement in the economy, we create more and more cronysim.
Last edited:
Remember after Nov. 2011 all of the university employees and bot members were going to have background checks done, and then suddenly the bot was excluded after Dambly's criminal past came to light?
If you had heart problems like I did, you might be more thankful of the pharma industry.
Easy to say but drugs cost a fortune to develop and the government has to approve them and they are the biggest buyer.
Certainly there is reason to be skeptical of such things in action. But the fact remains that these were the results, and they were results that you wouldn't have seen thirty, or twenty, or ten years ago. I suspect that at a minimum, they reflect a recognition of the need to be perceived as walking the walk. And recognizing that need is, as a practical matter, likely to affect behavior at least in an incremental way.
You left out the executive. and the judicial.
No one thinks the Ninth Amendment is worth much of anything, nor have they for about 200 years.
In any event, we've been talking about the regulation of interstate commerce. I'm pretty sure the constitution speaks to that.
Oh how I wish that instead of Scott and Marcy the Tarriffs’ first names were Smoot and Hawley.
Let’s see, I take 7 different prescription medicines including two for my heart. My annual cost after Medicare and prescription coverage is about $10,000 a year. My wife’s costs are another $4,000.
Price gouging does have it's limits and can be addressed under anti-trust though our government has chosen not to do so in the past few years. Price gouging requiring a shortage is no different than a new prescription that meets a need with no competition and a price that is many times a fully apportioned cost resulting in an economic barrier. Economic barriers can be illegal also.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.asp
