The truth about deception.

[Code Name D]

Note: Normally I try not to post stuff on my blog that I didn't create, or that I do not contribute or comment on the ideas being expressed. However, I am going to make an exception for this one, as I don't really know where else to put it. I found it too interesting not to share.

He makes some provocative ideas, one of which is to let bankers off the hook in order to discourage dishonesty. Yay, that's what I said.

[Andrea]

Except you left out that they first need to ask forgiveness, which they will never do. That would involve admitting wrongdoing, and I just don't see them ever doing that. I think his theory would work with small time embezzlers, though it would require repeating fairly often.

[Code Name D]

(09-14-2012 09:17 PM)Andrea Wrote:  Except you left out that they first need to ask forgiveness, which they will never do. That would involve admitting wrongdoing, and I just don't see them ever doing that. I think his theory would work with small time embezzlers, though it would require repeating fairly often.

I always thought there was a certain degree of logic to this idea. It's remarkably easy to get into trouble. First, you start taking drugs, but buying them with your own money at first. That is until you run out of money, you then steel money to support your habit.

The fact that you have to steel finally convinces you that you need help. So if you come forward and admit to your crimes and your reasons for doing so, the law should rightful be generous.

But instead, there is the "you have to be punished" mentality.

[Andrea]

(09-14-2012 09:25 PM)Code Name D Wrote:  

(09-14-2012 09:17 PM)Andrea Wrote:  Except you left out that they first need to ask forgiveness, which they will never do. That would involve admitting wrongdoing, and I just don't see them ever doing that. I think his theory would work with small time embezzlers, though it would require repeating fairly often.

I always thought there was a certain degree of logic to this idea. It's remarkably easy to get into trouble. First, you start taking drugs, but buying them with your own money at first. That is until you run out of money, you then steel money to support your habit.

The fact that you have to steel finally convinces you that you need help. So if you come forward and admit to your crimes and your reasons for doing so, the law should rightful be generous.

But instead, there is the "you have to be punished" mentality.

You make a very good point there. That is a lot of the philosophy behind AA and other 12 step programs. You admit your wrongdoings, you make amends, and you can go forward without thinking of yourself as a _______ (whatever your offenses might have been). It works.

There are now drug courts in some jurisdictions which focus on rehabilitating rather than punishing. I hope those become much more common.

[Enthusiast]

How about we just throw the fucking bankers in a fucking prison cell somewhere so they can learn the error of their ways after they destroyed millions of lives.

These bankers are the same assholes that are all in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that don't come close to those in the Wall Street example. They always talk about the "deterrent" effect of long prison sentences or the death penalty for "others".

Fuck them sunzabitches sideways!

[Code Name D]

(09-16-2012 03:23 AM)Enthusiast Wrote:  How about we just throw the fucking bankers in a fucking prison cell somewhere so they can learn the error of their ways after they destroyed millions of lives.

These bankers are the same assholes that are all in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that don't come close to those in the Wall Street example. They always talk about the "deterrent" effect of long prison sentences or the death penalty for "others".

Fuck them sunzabitches sideways!

Are they? Or are you just making the assertion that they do?

First off, we already have a system very similar this. It's call turning state's evidence. It's getting a lighter sense for your own crimes if you rat our on your superiors. The FAA also has a kind of confession system where technicians and supervisors can come forward noting safety deficiencies. They do seem to work.

You have the right to be skeptical. Now lets see if we can get you to defend your skepticism.

[Enthusiast]

(09-16-2012 08:11 AM)Code Name D Wrote:  

(09-16-2012 03:23 AM)Enthusiast Wrote:  How about we just throw the fucking bankers in a fucking prison cell somewhere so they can learn the error of their ways after they destroyed millions of lives.

These bankers are the same assholes that are all in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that don't come close to those in the Wall Street example. They always talk about the "deterrent" effect of long prison sentences or the death penalty for "others".

Fuck them sunzabitches sideways!

Are they? Or are you just making the assertion that they do?

First off, we already have a system very similar this. It's call turning state's evidence. It's getting a lighter sense for your own crimes if you rat our on your superiors. The FAA also has a kind of confession system where technicians and supervisors can come forward noting safety deficiencies. They do seem to work.

You have the right to be skeptical. Now lets see if we can get you to defend your skepticism.

They don't work! Over the past decade there has been wholesale fraud and it has gone completely unpunished. There is no need to turn state's evidence if there is no ongoing investigation into the fraud that caused the destruction of the world economy. Few are in any danger of prosecution.

[Andrea]

(09-16-2012 05:07 PM)Enthusiast Wrote:  

(09-16-2012 08:11 AM)Code Name D Wrote:  

(09-16-2012 03:23 AM)Enthusiast Wrote:  How about we just throw the fucking bankers in a fucking prison cell somewhere so they can learn the error of their ways after they destroyed millions of lives.

These bankers are the same assholes that are all in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that don't come close to those in the Wall Street example. They always talk about the "deterrent" effect of long prison sentences or the death penalty for "others".

Fuck them sunzabitches sideways!

Are they? Or are you just making the assertion that they do?

First off, we already have a system very similar this. It's call turning state's evidence. It's getting a lighter sense for your own crimes if you rat our on your superiors. The FAA also has a kind of confession system where technicians and supervisors can come forward noting safety deficiencies. They do seem to work.

You have the right to be skeptical. Now lets see if we can get you to defend your skepticism.

They don't work! Over the past decade there has been wholesale fraud and it has gone completely unpunished. There is no need to turn state's evidence if there is no ongoing investigation into the fraud that caused the destruction of the world economy. Few are in any danger of prosecution.

That is the bottom line. These bankers are in no danger of any punishment whatsoever. If I understand the video's point, it is that if we throw the bankers in prison, new bankers will come along and do the same thing. Therefore, it is better to give these bankers a kind of absolution so they will go forth thinking of themselves as good guys who wouldn't do such things. As I said, this might work for small scale embezzlers if repeated often. That's based on my actual experience with small scale embezzlers. It works in 12 Step programs, where the behavior held very little if any reward. I don't see it working with these bankers because the rewards were so great. They would offend again, regardless. The best thing to do with these bankers is try them and if convicted, imprison them. Also, we need to set up a system where this could not happen again. We could start by reinstating Glass-Steagle.

[Code Name D]

(09-16-2012 05:07 PM)Enthusiast Wrote:  

(09-16-2012 08:11 AM)Code Name D Wrote:  

(09-16-2012 03:23 AM)Enthusiast Wrote:  How about we just throw the fucking bankers in a fucking prison cell somewhere so they can learn the error of their ways after they destroyed millions of lives.

These bankers are the same assholes that are all in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for crimes that don't come close to those in the Wall Street example. They always talk about the "deterrent" effect of long prison sentences or the death penalty for "others".

Fuck them sunzabitches sideways!

Are they? Or are you just making the assertion that they do?

First off, we already have a system very similar this. It's call turning state's evidence. It's getting a lighter sense for your own crimes if you rat our on your superiors. The FAA also has a kind of confession system where technicians and supervisors can come forward noting safety deficiencies. They do seem to work.

You have the right to be skeptical. Now lets see if we can get you to defend your skepticism.

They don't work! Over the past decade there has been wholesale fraud and it has gone completely unpunished. There is no need to turn state's evidence if there is no ongoing investigation into the fraud that caused the destruction of the world economy. Few are in any danger of prosecution.

First off, you need to relax. This is what science does, it challenges conventional wisdom, even that which we hold to be true. No on here, not even Dan Ariely, is advocating that we let the bankers off the hook. And you should know me well enough that I am very pro-frog-march.

What Ariely is actually saying is that it may not be quite as simple as that. As Andrea noted, the type of confessional system is only intended, and may only work for small stuff, but that this may be a way of preventing or at the very least discouraging larger and far more destructive activities from taking place.

This is probably one of Ariely’s more provocative ideas, but it’s not his only observation.

Interestingly enough, he argues that there is evidence to suggest that the quality of intellectual work is not proportional to the amount of compensation. This files in the face of common Liberian notions that CEO’s are worth being paid hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, this could suggest that the more we pay them, the more corrupt they become.

Common sense would say this of course, but Ariely is arguing that there is scientific evidence to support this. This also helps to shed light on why the income gap is so damaging to this economy as well as economies in the past that suffered from similar disparities.

He also makes some observations regarding the likely justifications these bankers use for their actions. He notes that no one will steel dimes from a box intended to buy pencils, but have no problem taking pencils. The bankers aren’t actually “steeling” any thing; they just kind of manage all of that money into their own bank accounts, the too-big-to-fail-banking equivalent of taking pencils. And as they write the rules, it should come as no surprise to us that they only legislated against the obviously amoral acts, while writing in legal protections from what they see as perfectly moral activity.

Dose this let them off the hook? No. But it dose give us some insight into there way of thinking, and that can be useful.

But he also makes some other observations that might answer why the CEO bankers are not being frog marched.

He makes the arguments between give cheaters and small cheaters. There are a few big cheaters, and a lot of smaller cheaters. The big ones (like Enron) are very visible, but the real damage is done by the small cheaters, simply because there are so many of them.

And there is good reason to believe that the problems with the banking sectors, industry, and the economy in general, is not with the few big cheaters that can be frog marched, but rather because the entire system is populated by small cheaters who each cheat a little bit, but accumulatively end up doing so much damage.

Investigators end up like predators trying to run down herds. A heard when running away from a predator will often mix them selves together, forcing the pray to constantly switch targets. There are so many to chose from, that some how all of them managed to slip away, leaving the predator with nothing. Investigators are probably spoiled for choice of corruption to investigate. So much so that they can not adequately investigate any of them, let alone prosecute.

This also suggests that you can’t fix the system simply by frog-marching the bad bankers. There are simply too many of them. The system itself needs to be changed to discourage and disincentives such cheating. Currently however, we have a system that actually encourages such behaviors in the name of economic growth.

[Enthusiast]

Frog marching the bad actors would give millions of cheated consumers at least some small degree of satisfaction. It also might discourage such fraudulent behavior in the future. Regardless of what Ariely believes.