Ethical people can have conflicts of interest and still make good choices. They can have conflicts of interest and make bad choices, too. Unethical people can do the same. But we have, as a nation, tried to avoid allowing the appearance of conflict of interest from muddying our legal system. I do not object to allowing everyone the opportunity to invest in markets. But when traders do so, they are subject to rigorous review to insure that conflict of interest does not end up leading to undue profit (you know, that whole insider trading thing).
So when we are faced with the most disastrous oil spill in our nation's history, and the oil companies pose a legal challenge to the temporary ban while clean-up is ongoing, it seems reasonable to hold the judge hearing the case to a similar standard.
Judge Martin Feldman should have stepped aside. The appearance of fairness matters as much as actual fairness, and in a high profile case, all the more. In ruling against the Obama administration ban, Feldman claimed that the ban was not justified because there is no evidence that all deep-water drilling is as flawed as BPs. The problem is, Judge Feldman, that there is no evidence that it is safe. The prudent course of action is to wait until we have clarity on this disaster before allowing another to happen.
But when Transocean is putting dividends into your portfolio, I guess you don't wait for such evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment