- In the “dot com bubble” phase, investment bankers took companies public even though the companies weren’t profitable. Was this action ethical? Looking back I think it’s easy for the general public to say “no” because the general public lost money; however, the fault partially lies with the general public because they were unwise enough to trust the advice of the bankers to buy the stock of these companies even though said companies weren’t profitable.
- Friends of Frank (a Wall Street banker in Silicone Valley) were given the opportunity to buy stocks that were about to go public. This wasn’t necessarily ethical (giving the stock or buying it) but it could be seen as a “wise business decision”. If someone offered you the chance to “legally” double/triple/quintuple your money in a day, would you take it? It’s possible I might, though I’d make sure it was a “sound” decision.
- The “Greater Fool” theory – if everyone keeps buying and the price keeps going up… what are we really paying for? At some point someone says “wait a minute this company has no value, so I’m not going to buy” then everyone starts selling. Is it ethical to participate in an activity where you’re counting on a “bigger fool” than yourself? I say yes, depending on the activity; though if one ruthlessly takes advantage of people it’s not.
- VCs told mortgage.com not to sell their company to Intuit. Is it ethical to give advice that might hurt someone in the long run, but if they follow it they’ll still profit? Is it ethical to give that advice if in giving it, you will also profit? I say it’s OK to give the advice, but give it only as that – advice. Don’t force or pressure the entity to whom you’re giving advice and be honest in your advice- make sure they know that you’re giving advice for partially selfish reasons.
Thursday 29 October 2015
- Sometimes white-hat hackers will send spam emails along the lines of “You’ve won $1,000,000. Simply pay $1,000 to claim your prize!” to employees of a company the hackers are targeting. The hackers will then target the people that respond to the email in an effort to obtain more information about the company. Are such actions ethical? I say they are. In this day and age, if you’re gullible enough to think one of those emails could lead to some sort of “big payday”, your company should be aware of your gullibility and be able to protect themselves appropriately.
- If you have a contract with a company saying something along the lines of “A 15% margin of error in cost estimates is acceptable” is it ethical to charge your customer 14.5% more than what you quoted them (even if it didn’t cost that much)? I say that unless it’s explicitly agreed upon that you’ll be doing that, it’s not ethical to charge more than what you quoted (especially if the cost you actually incurred was less that what you quoted). Perhaps an honest mistake in billing, or an erroneous quote every once in a while is acceptable, but consistently charging more than the amount quoted is the same as stealing.
- Certain banks during the "dot com bubble" were pushing companies to go public, even if the companies weren't profitable. Are such actions ethical? After all, if the company went public it would get money that could help it become profitable. I contend that in certain cases, helping a non-profitable company go public may be ethical (after all the whole point of an IPO is to raise money so that the company can "do more"); however, the banks in this situation were taking actions with the sole purpose of benefiting themselves. In the end the banks (and close friends of the people that ran the banks) were a lot richer and better off and many people in "the public" were a lot poorer and worse off due to the actions of the banks.
Tuesday 3 November 2015
- Postmann article:
- Culture always pays a price for technology
- There are always winners and losers in technological change
- The medium is the message
- Technological change is not additive, it is ecological
- Media become mythic (like the alphabet)
- Concerning “There are always winners and losers in technological change” – I agree; however, I do not agree wholeheartedly. This statement is constructed to appear that both winners and losers are equally prevalent. I contend that this is generally not the case. Sure, the invention of the assembly line may have put many blacksmiths out of business, but it created many more jobs for those working on the assembly line. Sure, the invention of computers may have made paper and pencil manufacturers a little more obsolete, but countless people have benefited from the advancements in nearly all aspects of life that a computer facilitates. In short, there may be losers, but generally speaking for any “advancement” the loss of the losers is generally insignificant when compared to the winnings of the winners (and sometimes the winners and the losers are the same individuals).
- Concerning "Culture always pays a price for technology" - I also agree with this statement; however, again, I don't agree wholeheartedly with what the statement implies. When I read it I get the feeling that the author was implying that the "price paid" for technology is almost so much that it doesn't justify the technological advancement. I feel that there are many advancements today that came at a price far less than the gain we experience each day. For example the prevalence of TV/movies today has "normalized" the dialects of English in the United States. To me, this "price" is well worth the information and entertainment afforded by the TV and movies.
- Concerning "Technological change is not additive, it is ecological" - I agree with this statement. When a technology is introduced into a society it rarely (if ever) will affect only a small portion of society and then cease to spread. As good as this sound, it does come with a downside. With the "ecological" changes technology has introduced into our society, we've become dependent on things that we, as a nation, didn't depend on in the past. For example, if for some reason the laws of physics suddenly changed preventing internal combustion engines from functioning, how many people would starve because they lived in a big city that depended on commercial transportation to bring food into the city? How many people would be out of a job simply because they lived too far away from their place of work to get to and from work each day (or even week) without the aid of some sort of engine? So, while I agree that the statement is true, society may be better off if the statement weren't true.
No comments:
Post a Comment