My father, DH, DD and I were in Walmart a few months ago. I put shampoo in the basket.

A while later, I noticed the shampoo was leaking out because DD accidentally sat on it. I cleaned it up and said, "Oh well." We then went and paid, and I bought the shampoo that had leaked.

Later that day, my dad told me he was impressed that I had not simply put the not-full bottle back on the shelf and grabbed a full one. I said, that would not be right, and would not be fair to the next shopper who may buy it.

Dad told me he was very proud of me, and I told him that throughout life he had set a good example of ethics for my brother and I. I'm far from perfect, but I can't bear to think something I do might do harm to others.

So I'd say one of my role models in life is my Dad.

So I guess my litmus is
a) the law of the country you reside in
b) whether something might do harm to another person (even if it is legal).

As a former WCOM employee who quit last year because I didn't like Bernie's ethics even then, I don't see how he can sit back and see nothing wrong with collecting his $1.7mil/year pension when I know of too many people his greed harmed (including myself and my pension/401k).

I'll quote Tally Sue's favorite quote (sorry TS!! for stealing this!)
"First, do no harm."

Too bad Bernie didn't think that way.

AKgardenboy, that article was certainly worth the search for it. I think it sums up the differences in the way DH and I think. Little things don't bother me because I'm more worried about making my life matter. Every little thing gets on his nerves because he's worried about living for the day. I hope we balance this out for our kids, and that they develop a sense of spontinaiety (sp??) from Dad and responsibility from Mom. I'm trying my hardest to instill it into them.

I think I take a cynical view of human nature, although I never thought of myself as a cynic, because when I read about worldcom, enron and the rest, I don't even bother getting angry about the executives who perpetrated the outrages. I get mad at the politicians and govt. administrators who created a system where this was allowed to happen. Maybe it came from majoring in economics; I just figure people are greedy and will do what they can to get money. The whole discipline is based on that premise - and no one has disproven it. Put together greed and brains and you get Ken Lay. Put together Ken Lay and the US political system and you get Enron. Greed and brains you can't change in strangers - at least not in most of them. The political system, you can change. The political system was built to be changed.
If some crazy person murdered my friend, I would be angry with him. If the judicial system told me that it was not illegal for him to murder, and they wouldn't do anything to stop him from murdering again, I would be more angry with the system.

Here is a direct link to the article:

Here is a link that might be useful: http://kosassoc.com/corpchar.htm

I enjoyed reading the following article. Let us know what you think...Another thing that works for the good of all.....

Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.knology.net/~hopechurch/sermons/clothedintegrity.htm

Thanks Anita...... What did you do to get to the article? I must have had something wrong....

Anita,
Politics is part of it, and greed is a big part of it. (as well as a lack of caring as to whether they are stepping on little people along the way).
But when MCI was bought by WCOM, I knew Bernie was a crook. Just policy changes, things that I was hearing from execs, etc. MCI wasn't crooked, on its own, to any visible extent. The leaders at that time may have been a little less frugal than I would have liked, but they were at least up-front about the money they were spending (wasting). They didn't hide it.
Bernie just did one thing after another that made me worry. And these changes were coming directly from him. So I left a little over a year ago in disgust. So yes, politics, greed and one crook can add up to disaster!

On another note, I read an interesting editorial this week. The writer said that what uncovered the shenanigans at WCOM was a switch in auditors. He had an idea that it should be mandatory for companies to switch auditors every couple of years, just to keep these things from going undiscovered.

And an interesting quote from Alan Greenspan this week sums up recent times effectively:
From: New York Times Article

"It is not," he added, "that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously." Stock options meant that executives could get rich if they faked profits, and fake them they did.