Thomas Farrow Hubris

The Bank of the United States was designed to make money and build an economy. It was designed by men like Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris, but did not benefit the common citizen as much as wealthy investors. Why did a fledgling government need to borrow millions from overseas in order to invest in a “national” bank, to turn around and then borrow the same money back and pay interest on it? The banking system developed by Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris was prime pickings for speculators, and laid the groundwork for a history of unscrupulous activity regarding our nation’s money supply that continues to this day. The signatures on the Constitution were barely dry before corruption and

A Review of The Myth of the Robber Barons a book by Burton Folsom JR.

It's difficult not to be cynical about how “big business” treats the subject of ethics in today's world. In many corporations, where the

It's difficult not to be cynical about how “big business” treats the subject of ethics in today's world. In many corporations, where the

The First Security Bank (FSB) of Malta, Montana fall victim to a crime of credit card fraud, money laundering, and embezzlement. The crime stared a small city in Montano with a couple thousand, who was startled from the crime. The vice president of operation of the bank was a pillar of the community and the suspect of the bank’s crime. The scheme was committed over a long period of time. This crime weakens the foundation of the bank and possible may run it out of business. The committee was in a frenzy with the bank and the suspect about spending the community’s money. The shareholders gave the president “30 days to clean up the bank or pawn the bank off to another financial institution.” (Volz p.1) However, the bank pulls through the crisis and gains more customer as the business begins the recover period.

It is easy to understand Solomon’s argument that unethical practices destroy the business and its key people. This has been proven by so many companies, such as Enron case, whose scandals have been unveiled to the public and the people who used to amass great wealth out of unethical practices are now behind bars. Even if they get out of prison, it will be difficult to imagine how they can recover from the negative image that the public already has on them.

Thomas Farrow was a very smart man who had a great idea and followed through with it. He decided to start a bank and run things in his own way without much oversight from other banking professionals. His stubbornness and greed got in the way of what could have been a very successful venture. He would not be the first person to make a mistake while taking on a new venture. Mr. Farrow let early success cloud his vision of a long and success bank by not listening to those who knew better. He knew that he was providing services that were not available at other banks so he set out to capitalize on those endeavors. Mr. Farrow only saw money, and this is clearly why he failed where other banks succeeded. By ignoring simply and well established banking practices, Mr. Farrow set his bank up for failure. Thomas allowed his hubris to cloud his judgment and in the end he would listen to no one.

Hamilton’s creation of the first bank in the United States continues to exist in today’s economic environment. However, at that time Hamilton’s proposal was met with widespread resistance from individuals such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who considered the creation of a federal bank as unconstitutional. The analysis made by Gordon in his book is consistent with arguments made by to have a bank that would be effective in order to implement the powers authorized by the government as it was implied in the constitution

During the Jacksonian period of 1824-1848, America had great economic development that played a role in making this period known as the “common man,” live up to its expectations. The Bank War was one of Andrew Jackson's many attempts to lower the power of the federal government. The Bank of the United States was ran by Nicholas Biddle, and issued federal deposits, credit and bank notes. However, the main issue was that it restrained the power of state banks. The soft-money and hard-money were two groups, that opposed the Bank. The

The bank provided credit to growing enterprises, issued bank notes which served as a dependable medium of exchange throughout the country, and it exercised a restraining effect on the less well manages state banks. Nicholas Biddle, who ran the Bank, tried to put the institution on a sound and prosperous basis. But Andrew Jackson was always determined to destroy it (Brinkley, 249). The Bank had two opposition groups: the “soft-money” faction and the “hard-money” faction. Soft money advocates objected to the Bank of the United States because it restrained the state banks from issuing notes freely. Hard money advocates believed that coin was the only safe currency, and they condemned all banks that issued bank notes.

The validity of President Andrew Jackson’s response to the Bank War issue has been contradicted by many, but his reasoning was supported by fact and inevitably beneficial to the country. Jackson’s primary involvement with the Second Bank of the United States arose during the suggested governmental re-chartering of the institution. It was during this period that the necessity and value of the Bank’s services were questioned.

He felt the bank was only ruled by the rich and only

In the movie “Into The Wild” and the article “Death Of The Innocent” the character Chris portrays a great deal of Hubris. There are many reasons why he is very self confident. The first reason is when he takes a harder and longer route to Alaska. He suffered from hubris because he doesn’t think he will die; considering that many people died taking the route Chris wants to take. An example from the story is the time he canoed for hundreds of miles and crossed the Mexican international border.

As with much of Enron, their outward appearance did not match what was really going on inside the company. Enron ended up cultivating their own demise for bankruptcy by how they ran their company. This corrupt corporate culture was a place whose employees threw ethical responsibility to the wind if it meant financial gain. At Enron, the employees were motivated by a very “cut-throat” culture. If an employee didn’t perform well enough, they would simply be replaced by someone who could. “The company’s culture had profound effects on the ethics of its employees” (Sims, pg.243). Like a parent to their children, when the executives of a company pursue unethical financial means, it sets a certain tone for their employees and even the market of the company. As mentioned before, Enron had a very “cut-throat” attitude in regards to their employees. This also became one Enron’s main ethical falling points. According to the class text, “employees were rated every six months, with those ranked in the bottom 20 percent forced to leave” (Ferrell, 2017, pg. 287). This system which pits employees against each other rather than having them work together will create a workplace of dishonesty and a recipe of disaster for the company. This coupled with the objective of financial growth, creates a very dim opportunity for any ethical culture. “The entire cultural framework of Enron not only allowed unethical behavior to flourish,

The bank's main owner, Ramón Báez Figueroa, was accused of operating a secret “bank within the bank” by officials for more than ten years (Economist, 2003).