"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
Some think wealthy people should be held to a higher moral standard for a number of reasons
I understand what you are saying, but I think that people unfamiliar with Christian theology might misunderstand you. It's worth noting that the disciples responded to that with astonishment: "Who then can be saved?" -- even though none of them were rich! Crucially, Christ's response is that with God, _all things_ are possible.
Ultimately, the standard for the Christian is to become like Christ. To walk the path of the cross means to cover and take upon the sins of others, beholding all as worthy of the Kingdom and only oneself as deserving of Hell. This is what Christ did upon the cross for us, and it is what Christians are called to do for all. See the writings of St. Silouan the Athonite for more on this.
It's a bit more than that. That particular passage was also about eliminating anything that got in the way of following god. I believe Jesus also said if your hand causes you to steal, cut it off. You could also argue that this is a passage about trust as getting rid of everything to follow a god requires a lot of faith that a god will survive.
For those of us who are atheists, the messages would be to not place things above people and to take risks in aiding others. Usually the things we fear never materialize.
He donated 2 billion dollars of his wealth to advancement of science, technology, education, wildlife conservation, the arts, and community service. What standard are we talking about?
There are some crimes that are so blatant, public and obvious that the regulators _have_ to punish you, as any other option would make it look like the regulators were so ineffectual and weak there were effectively no rules.
Filing public charges requesting his removal as CEO even though they weren't seeking that in the settlement seems like a calculated move to maximize the impact to the share price and thereby force a quick settlement. It was evidently effective, but it was a hell of an expensive way to win if you're measuring winning in terms of protecting investors. Anyone who got stop loss'd out of their shares has a right to be displeased.
it was a hell of an expensive way to win
if you're measuring winning in terms of
protecting investors.
Not at all. The SEC is thinking not in terms of this one crime, but in terms of the hundred CEOs who will feel tempted to commit securities fraud in the future, and the hundreds of thousands of investors who will fear such fraud.
Will they think "Remember Elon Musk, he got his ass kicked at high cost to himself and his investors, nobody does it" or will they think "Remember Elon Musk, he did this and got away scot free, everyone does it" ?
That's the choice facing the SEC, and for obvious reasons they chose the former.
> Not at all. The SEC is thinking not in terms of this one crime, but in terms of the hundred CEOs who will feel tempted to commit securities fraud in the future, and the hundreds of thousands of investors who will fear such fraud.
The deterrence argument can be used to justify anything. Why don't we behead the entire families of petty thieves? Think of the millions of other thieves who would be deterred.
It's a false dichotomy. The choices aren't "scott free" or "nuclear option" -- if their case was as strong as is being assumed, all they would have had to do is ask for what they got in the settlement and then get that in the proceeding. It wouldn't even remove the incentive to settle since that would still allow them to avoid a determination of guilt.
They could also have just given the settlement negotiations more time before making a public charge to begin with. Give the other side's lawyers a chance to explain things to their client for a while first.
