The Characteristics of the Good Prince (Leader) Essay

The Characteristics of the Good Prince (Leader) - Essay Example As the word Machiavellian suggests, a modern prince needs to be cunning, deceitful and crude if need be (Niccolo, 2010). The Machiavellian claim answers the question of whether one should love or fear a leader. Machiavelli states that it would be better to be loved and feared, but the two cannot exist at ago (Niccolo, 2010). He says that it is, therefore, better to be feared because leaders need complete obedience from their people for them to completely govern. The vulnerability of the subject towards punishment makes him submit to the leader (Niccolo, 2010). With fear, people only reluctantly trust the leader hoping that the leader is concerned with their good. Some leaders prove their care for their people hence eventually gain trust and love whereas others are feared throughout their leadership. He says that love contains many rules, most of which may be broken by selfish men. Fear, on the other hand, lives long because people are afraid of punishment that would befall them when they rebel (Niccolo, 2010). This aspect of fear and love is important in todays politics whereby leaders tend to pursue either love or hatred especially during elections. Despite the fact that no leader is perfect, people fail to concentrate on the bad side of a good leader and only se his good side. A leader should however see to it that his people do not hate him. Hatred would only lead to the princes failure. He states that the peoples allegiance is a stronger shield than a fortress (Niccolo, 2010). The love of the people gradually grows to trust, which is of most advantage to the leader. Trust makes it easier for the prince to carry on executions without objection. The leader himself will feel less fear of being overthrown because of the mutual trust. A good leader should also ensure that he gains the support of his people. Unless he achieves this, it is easy for jealous competitors to overthrow the

Were agency problems responsible for the bankruptcy of Lehman brothers Dissertation

Were agency problems responsible for the bankruptcy of Lehman brothers in 2008 - Dissertation Example However, such event took place even after repeated assurances made by the chief executives of the company mentioning their claim that Lehman Brothers was financially sound, had high liquidity levels and the leverage was present at manageable levels. The fallout of this Wall Street financial institution resulted in shattering of the consumer confidence during a fragile time in the financial market. Soon after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a lot of decisions taken by it were found to be questionable. This study entails with finding the reasons behind the fallout of Lehman Brothers. This research study would try to find out the possible causes behind such a historic event that took place in United States which had a significant impact not only in the country but worldwide. Lehman Brothers was founded in the year 1850 and was headquartered at New York, United States. Lehman Brothers was considered to be one of the most prominent investment banks in the world and was engaged in the business of providing financial services to governments, municipalities and corporations worldwide. It became one of the largest underwriters of United States mortgage bonds (Onaran, 2008). Apart from offering services related to investment banking, Lehman Brothers was also involved in business activities corresponding to selling and buying of US treasuries and they were the primary dealers. It has been believed that the abolition of Glass-Steagall Act marked the beginning of Lehman Brothers’ demise. This landmark legislative act which was institutional since the Great Depression helped in separating the interests of commercial and investment banks and thus prevented it to have competition between them (Fox, 2009). It also helped to protect the balance sheets of the com mercial and investment banks to by allowing them to focus on the business transactions that they used to manage in the best possible way. The investment banks were typically meant to maintain highly liquid assets in their portfolios. On the other hand commercial banks were meant to handle the portfolios that were highly capital intensive in nature including corporate or real estate investments. In addition to this, the Glass-Steagall Act helped insulating the company from collapsing in case of the failure of one of the sectors by preventing similar