Is the pain on "Mad Men" and what's going on in trials like "U.S. v Gupta" and trading losses at JPMorgan Chase because of over-reaching? And is the lesson to be learned: Stop. Cherish what you have and think long and hard before chasing after more.
Not that Don is any great man to have in one's life. But his wife Megan could blow any chance at a relationship with a bright, creative, sensitive guy because of her determination to be a star in modeling or acting.
The hot mess that he is, Don is back pursuing women, reaching beyond his marriage for something, anything. The agency is finally doing well but its partners could lose it all because they are preoccupied with what they think they should have. Pete could follow Lane into suicide. Joan has some kind of fantasy of what life should bring her. Roger, freed from domestic misery, hasn't even matured to the point of grandiose fantasies.
In "U.S. v Gupta" and the description of how business is conducted in JPMorgan Chase we bump into the same human myopia of the need for more - and more. A crafty guy like Raj Rajaratnam probably could have still made a bundle without insider trading. Led by a survivor like Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase could have maintained leadership in investment banking without what seems like recklessness in risk-taping. And why did a classy guy like Rajat Gupta hang out with thugs such as All the King's Men at Galleon hedge fund?