> If you're a manager, you are responsible for the people reporting to you. You're the adult in the room.

> This is not about consent. It's a different set of concerns than e.g. Russel Brand.

My point was the president who has brought about an expensive war is an example of this times 1000. I think all we can infer from this is he is unfaithful to his wife, the inference you make about his commitment to his fiduciary responsibility is incorrect to me. They are different things and he has not shown he has been a highly effective CEO who actually has technical knowledge.

Perhaps I am overly cynical but I think a lot of CEO's (and other's for that matter) will engage in dishonesty.

Consider Aquinas on merchants (possibly quoting Chrysostom possibly mistaken)

> “He that buys a thing in order that he may sell it, entire and unchanged, at a profit, is the trader who is cast out of God’s temple.”

My claim is not that this practice is wrong per-say but even in this kind of business of arbitrage you can see at guile and cunning, that is hard to deny. Maybe he only lacked the ability to hide it.

I would ask you who would run a business better a man who is unable to use cunning, guile and manipulation (marketing) or one who does not. Their is times when the sort of morality you talk about is important and times where it is a hindrance and most people are evil, if you want the good Aristocratic souls you would do well not to look for it in the world of commerce.