2019년 11월 28일 목요일

excerpts:// corporate governance and banks' roles in it, in Germany



­­­An even more widely noted and, at the same time, widely criticized, phenomenon of the German system of corporate governance is the role of the banks in the system.[주]36

German banks, in particular the 4 or 5 biggest, own sometimes quite large equity statkes in numerous public companies, they control the proxy machinery of most public companies where there are not otherwise controlling shareholders, and they are represented on the boards of most large German public companies.[주]37


다른 자료: https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/ces_wp180.pdf

( .. .. ) two main features distinguish the German system of corporate governance from systems of the Anglo-American type. The first is that it has several institutiona features which mean that banks are potentially capable of playing a major role in corporate governance. Banks hold equity stakes in large firms, and they also control equity voting rights because they exercise proxy votes on behalf of shareholders who have deposited their shares with the banks. In  Germany a public limited company, Aktiengesellschaft (AG), has to have a supervisory board, the main function of which is to monitor the board of senior managers who are responsible for the running of the company: banks are extensively represented on these supervisory boards. The provision of external finance to firms is dominated by banks, both as lenders and as arrangers and underwriters of new security issues. ...

다른 자료: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=247410

... ...

2019년 11월 5일 화요일

발췌:// some readings on The Righteous Mind by J. Haidt


1. Jonathan Haidt, https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/of-freedom-and-fairness/

Drawing on the work of many anthropologists (particularly Richard Shweder at the University of Chicago) and many evolutionary biologists and psychologists, my colleagues and I came to the conclusion that there are six best candidates for being the taste buds of the moral mind: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation.

Moral foundations theory helped to explain the differing responses to those harmless taboo violations (the dog-eating and flag-shredding). Those stories always violated the Loyalty, Authority, or Sanctity foundations in ways that were harmless. My educated American subjects (who, in retrospect, I realize were mostly liberal) generally rejected those three foundations and had a moral “cuisine” built entirely on the first three foundations; so if an action doesn’t harm anyone (Care/Harm), cheat anyone (Fairness/Cheating), or violate anyone’s freedom (Liberty/Oppression), then you can’t condemn someone for doing it. But in more traditional societies, the moral domain is broader. Moral “cuisines” are typically based on all six foundations (though often with much less reliance on Liberty), and it is perfectly sensible to condemn people for homosexual behavior among consenting adults, or other behaviors that challenge traditions or question authority.


2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-6-moral-foundations-of-politics/

(1) The Care/Harm Foundation

This foundation makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need. In order to maximize care and minimize harm, we enact laws that protect the vulnerable. We punish people who are cruel and we care for those in suffering. The left relies primarily on this foundation (and the next one), while the right positions it within a broader matrix of concerns.

(2) The Fairness/Cheating Foundation

This foundation leads us to seek out people who will be good collaborators in whatever project we are pursuing. It also leads us to punish people who cheat the system. People on both the right and the left believe in fairness, but they apply this foundation in different ways. Haidt explains:

“On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality – people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarantees unequal outcomes” (161).

(3) The Loyalty/Betrayal Foundation

All of us, whether on the right or left, are “tribal” in some sense. We love the people on our team, and loyalty makes our team more powerful and less susceptible to our failure. Likewise, we have a corresponding hatred for traitors. Those who betray our “team” for the other side are worse than those who were already on the other side.

Though Haidt sees both left and right as being tribal, he recognizes “the left tends toward universalism and away from nationalism, so it often has trouble connecting to voters who rely on the Loyalty foundation” (164).

(4) The Authority/Subversion Foundation

Authority plays a role in our moral considerations because it protects order and fends off chaos. Haidt explains:

“Everyone has a stake in supporting the existing order and in holding people accountable for fulfilling the obligations of their station” (168).

Not surprisingly, the right values this foundation, while the left defines itself by opposing hierarchy, inequality, and power.

(5) The Sanctity/Degradation Foundation

No matter the era, humans have always considered certain things “untouchable” for being dirty and polluted. The flipside is that we want to protect whatever is hallowed and sacred, whether objects, ideals, or institutions.

People on the right talk about the sanctity of life and marriage. People on the left may mock “True Love Waits” and purity rings, but they frequent New Age grocery stores, buy products that cleanse them of “toxins,” and warn against human degradation of the environment.

(6) The Liberty/Oppression Foundation

This foundation builds on Authority/Subversion because we all recognize there is such a thing as legitimate authority, but we don’t want authoritarians crossing the line into tyranny. Both the left and the right hate oppression and desire liberty, but for different reasons.


3. https://blog.12min.com/the-righteous-mind-summary/

( ... ... ) [C]ontrary to popular belief, morality is probably not founded on reason. Analyzing the reactions of people whose brain damage had petered out their emotional capacity, Antonio Damasio discovered that we may not be "thinking machines which feel," but "feeling machines which think."

[R]easoning makes no difference whatsoever in everyday life, as well. Amost every decision you make, you make it in few seconds, using your intuition, or "gut feeling." You use your reason not to rethink this--but to back it up.

In fact, many studies have shown that rational arguments have little effect. And that's because cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases are almost unbeatable ( ... ... )

In Scientific circles, "The Righteous Mind" is most famous as the book which popularized the Moral Foundation Theory. It was originally proposed by Haidt himself and Jesse Graham.

The idea is simple: morality everywhere is similar because it's based on at least five foundations, which are inherently human. And, which must have developed similarly through the process of evolution. These five foundations are:

(1) care (developed in opposition to [harm])
(2) fairness (vs. cheating),
(3) loyalty (vs. betrayal),
(4) authority (vs. subversion)
(5) sanctity (vs. degradation).

And, for most of the world's societies, they have developed in a fairly similar manner. There's just one small part of the world--the weird part--where morality is more individualized, more liberal, and more fragmentized concept.

And that weird part of the world is us. Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies. Or, WEIRD, for short.

( ... ... ) Based on a large-scale study, Haidt and Graham have deduced at least five foundations: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. All of these developed in opposition to some individualistically more appealing traits when early humans started living in communities. That way, care developed in opposition to harm, fairness to cheating, loyalty to betrayal, authority to subversion, and sanctity to degradation.


4. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-psychology-of-partisanship/

“Western philosophy has been worshipping reason and distrusting the passions for thousands of years ... There’s a direct line running from Plato through Immanuel Kant to Lawrence Kohlberg. I’ll refer to this worshipful attitude throughout this book as the ^rationalist delusion^.

Intellectuals confuse a more ideal state of affairs for the way things actually are—reason is more often than not rationalization, a justification for ideas developed not in the brain but in the gut. Haidt’s antecedent here is David Hume. Reason plays servant to man’s whims. Man forces the facts to fit his beliefs rather than the reverse. ...

( ... ) The Righteous Mind explains that the rationalist delusion is [:]

the idea that reasoning is our most noble attribute, one that makes us like the gods (for Plato) or that brings us beyond the ‘delusion’ of believing in gods (for the New Atheists). The rationalist delusion is not just a claim about human nature. It’s also a claim that the rational caste (philosophers or scientists) should have more power, and it usually comes along with a utopian program for raising more rational children.

Intelligence is a virtue. So are prudence, integrity, humility, and courage. People who possess the first trait, but lack the latter ones, tend to downplay the importance of their weaknesses and inflate the importance of their strength. The limitations of intelligence are never as glaring as when highbrains advocate intelligence as the panacea for everything. ( ... ... )

Haidt helped devise a questionnaire that gauged moral views by eliciting test-taker responses to statements in five category:


( ... ... ) They’re WEIRD—as in Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Weirdoes are more like weirdoes in other countries than they are like their fellow countrymen. The author notes of his subjects in Philadelphia and two Brazilian cities that “the effect of social class was much larger than the effect of city. In other words, well-educated people in all three cities were more similar to each other than they were to their lower-class neighbors.”

( ... ... ) They mistake the value system of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic peoples for the value systems of Third World, uneducated, agrarian, impoverished, oppressed peoples.


5. https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/02/jonathan-haidts-the-righteous-mind-part-one/


6. https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-a-new-science-of-morality-part-1