Q: You make a case that too much individualism in the 60's and 70's combined with "extreme capitalism" in the 80's and 90's has led to the development of unique moral codes based on perceptions of legitimacy. How has this social metamorphosis increased the level of cheating in America?
A: It's long been observed that the United States is a society where personal wealth is so intensely respected that little attention is paid to the "means" by which one attains that wealth. As Charles Dickens noted 150 years ago, Americans are always ready to forgive rogues—as long as they're rich. Thanks to the trends of the past quarter century, this national trait has become ever more pronounced. If you mix the values of the "me" generation with the notion that "greed is good," you get lots of cheating.

Q: You also state that economic inequality in the class structure of America has created a feeling of injustice among "ordinary, moral" people and that these same people cheat for what they consider to be "personal entitlements." Does this legitimize the "everybody does it" syndrome seen in business today?
A: Ordinary people do often justify their cheating by pointing to the unfairness of a system that is stacked against them. You see this with people who cheat on their taxes and justify it by saying that the "rich don't pay their fair share so why should I?" Or people who steal from the company where they work and justify it by pointing to their lousy salary. Cheating in business often has a different dynamic: some business people believe they have to cheat because the competition is cheating and that is just the way the game is played. We saw some of this with accounting firms, who felt that they needed to go along with cooked books in order to not lose business with their biggest clients.

Q: Please explain the difference in motivation for cheating between the Anxious Class and the Winning Class.
A: The Winning Class cheats because it can—because it has the political and social clout to get away with cheating, or evade punishment if caught cheating. The investment banker Frank Quattrone, who engaged in shady dealings during the economic boom, walked away unconvicted when the federal government brought him to trial. Indeed, many of today's corporate crooks have not have even been charged with any crimes, including the two top leaders of Enron. The Winning Class also cheats because the rewards for winners are so much bigger today then they were ten or twenty years ago. Top baseball sluggers get paid $15 million these days as opposed to $5 million ten years ago. This provides a greater incentive to use steroids—that is, to cheat. The very top CEOs, lawyers, accountants, and journalists all get paid more today than in the past and are also more prone to cheating.

The Anxious Class cheats for different reasons: to get a toehold in the Winning Class, to ease their financial insecurities, and because they think the system is stacked against them.

Q: The Napster-type file swapping programs that have allowed millions to freely download copyrighted music on the Internet have been touted—by users—as a justifiable alternative to paying usurious prices for CDs. In a free-market system the consumer has the right and responsibility to refuse to pay noncompetitive prices for products, and to seek alternatives. In the Napster-type cases consumers chose a low quality free product instead of the high quality expensive CDs. Is this cheating or is it a natural free-market behavior which forces price adjustments and/or new product competition?
A: That's cheating. Music and other artistic products are protected by copyright provisions, which are designed to ensure that those who created these products are compensated for their work. Yes, the record companies are taking a hit from music piracy, but so are artists, and that's unfair. If consumers don't like the prices of new CDs, their legitimate alternative is to listen to the radio, see live music, or buy used CDS.

Q: A student in a focus group is quoted as saying, "The world isn't fair and sometimes to get where you want you have to sacrifice some integrity." In The Cheating Culture you generally agree with this statement, but you still call for people to rise above "fairness" and stand on integrity. How easy is this to do, and how successful will Americans be at rising above personal gain for the greater social good?
A: I think much cheating in America is driven by structural economic conditions and broad cultural forces that are beyond any one person's control. In the long run, we need to change society to reduce cheating, and I recommend a number of ways to do this in the book. We need to start by creating a "new social contract" and strengthening watchdogs in the public and private sectors. That said, I think individuals have a personal responsibility to live by the highest standards of ethics. Just because others are doing something wrong doesn't mean you should too. And, in fact, if each individual works harder to live ethically, than the argument that "everybody does it" will carry a little less weight.

Q: Largely due to 401K and similar investment plans, more Americans than ever have retirement dreams at risk in the the stock market, and public pressure on companies to deliver positive gains on share values has increased proportionately. This has generated a "lean and mean" corporate environment—lowering costs, cutting jobs, and raising prices, and cheating to increase profits. How does this affect the "ordinary, moral" person?
A: Americans are getting hit from two directions when it comes to retirement plans. On the one hand, lean-and-mean corporations are getting rid of pension systems that guaranteed certain benefits to retirees and forcing people into "defined contribution" plans like 401Ks where you're on your own in the stock market. On the other hand, cheats on Wall Street have been misleading investors on a grand scale about what stocks are safe bets and also cheating investors through things like hidden fees, unnecessary trading commissions, and the like. The financial security of tens of millions of Americans is being compromised as a result. This is not a pretty picture, and certainly doesn't jibe with rosy promises about how everyone can now strike it rich in the stock market.

Q: When corporations and individuals lie about company performance and share values, everyone loses except those individuals who cheated, cashed out, and got away (thus maintaining our 1% population of "the rich"). And yet you document that the penalties for this type of cheating are nearly nonexistent. How is this possible in a democratic society—where the good of the many outweighs the good of the few?
A: American society has defined crime very narrowly over the past decades. We've imposed draconian punishments for wrongdoers in the lower classes—like drug dealers—while largely ignoring the white collar crime wave. My hope is that the corporate scandals of recent years, as well as growing revelations on middle class crime will help right the balances of justice in this country. Everyone should play by the same rules. And everyone who breaks the rules should be treated the same way regardless of whether they are a billionaire or a homeless person. Unless we have this basic fairness, the social contract will lose its legitimacy.

Q: If you were to immediately implement one of your solutions to change our cheating culture, which would it be?
A: The swiftest path toward less cheating is to give government enforcement agencies more legal authority and more resources to do their job. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Agency, and many other government agencies that enforce laws large and small have been badly weakened by ideological attacks on government over the past quarter century. We need to understand that a strong government is a prerequisite for fair economic competition, and a foundation for an ethical society.