lmao, the argument appears to be very much over your head, so no use to go on.
What am I missing? How are you able to philosophically, theoretically, or practically whitewash the complicity of those who choose to involve themselves in such a ridiculous situation?
the Enron workers were defrauded by the Enron elite. period, nothing more to discuss.
This sounds like an argument for the tooth fairty.
Every dime of his estate should be given to the people he defrauded.
But basically, unless it's given to you free....never never never never rely completely on your own companies stock for your retirement. It's a retarded way to invest.
Spread out and diversify. You can keep some company stock if you have a good steady company, but if they start making reckless moves (Enron, MIRANT) GET OUT NOW!!
This is good advice, but unfortunately it requires knowledge, research and work. I think it's preferrable to simply invest all of your savings into your company, help run that company into the ground, and then sue whomever you can in order to fund your retirement.
Anypne think he is still alive? He had some powerful friends you know, and he was supposed to be doing jail time. Maybe he faked his death to get out of the country.
Sorry, I like to make up conspiracy theories every now and then.
I knew of a guy who owed LOTS of money to shady people, and had many, many people trying to find him.....he died suddenly of a heart attack about a year ago. Since then, a bunch of evidence that he is still alive has started to surface. This guy was a pretty major criminal, but could not possibly have had the same connections that Lay did. It is def. possible.....but then I like conspiracies too
What am I missing? How are you able to philosophically, theoretically, or practically whitewash the complicity of those who choose to involve themselves in such a ridiculous situation?
This sounds like an argument for the tooth fairty.
I'm must admit I'm a little confused here. The workers of Enron...their 401k's, their retirement plans, their stock options...all went from being worth something one day to being absolutely worthless the next.
So you got people working their 10 years...and suddenly they have nothing, no retirement bnonus, no stocks worht anything, no 401ks-nothing.
Yet the minority running the show knew exactly what was about to happen and sold all their stocks, cashed out basically, hanging their employees out to dry.
facts: Lay Lied...employees bought stock based on those lies...
theory: One should know everything there is to know about stocks they purchase and read the prospectus carefully because money can be lost or gained at any time, however this theory is based on the fact those in charge are not lying..
facts: Lay Lied...employees bought stock based on those lies...
Certainly! Yet this happens every single day in America. Why are you not going after journalists, marketing agencies, accounting firms, market analysts, Enron employees, and every one else involved that also told lies or repeated the lies told by others then and today??? Why only the CEOs and heads of corporations, particularly considering that you haven't really even proven that they in fact concocted those lies?
The case of Enron is specifically telling. The government's case against Ley hinged on the "fact" that Ley was selling stock while telling others to buy it. Yet that "fact" ignores the fact that Lay bought and borrowed against Enron stock as well and lost millions along with everybody else when Enron went bust.
theory: One should know everything there is to know about stocks they purchase and read the prospectus carefully because money can be lost or gained at any time, however this theory is based on the fact those in charge are not lying..
The theory of being informed doesn't require that those in charge not lie. It requires that you don't accept lies as fact. Many of Enron's employees were well aware of the misdeeds and culture of corruption at Enron and participated directly in it. Many in the media and the analyst community understood that Enron's numbers simply didn't add up, but they touted the company anyway. Many people within the purchasing community simply accepted Enron's promises as facts, believing for absolutely no valid reason that Enron was fit to run power supply networks in California and elsewhere.
In short, if you buy snake oil at the next state fair that comes through your town, I'm not going to be too sympathetic if you lose your money. Furthermore, if you sell snake oil at the next state fair that comes through my town, don't expect me to buy it.
right-o!!
Then why does your argument seem to hinge on an non-existant guarantee that stocks bought for retirement will ensure a healthy retirement???
um...ok...can you expand on this subjective and unclear statement...give an example, perhaps...?
If, for example, someone tells you that IBM's stock is about to triple and you invest your retirement money for the sole purpose of tripling that money, you have sacrificed reason for money. Reason would tell you to research the claim, to understand how IBM's stock is about to triple and what unrealized value will cause that rise. Reason would tell you that nothing in the market is guaranteed and that you have a non-zero risk of losing everything. Reason would tell you to be conservative with that money, using the law of compound interest to secure your retirement rather than the law of chance.
Certainly! Yet this happens every single day in America. Why are you not going after journalists, marketing agencies, accounting firms, market analysts, Enron employees, and every one else involved that also told lies or repeated the lies told by others then and today??? Why only the CEOs and heads of corporations, particularly considering that you haven't really even proven that they in fact concocted those lies?
The case of Enron is specifically telling. The government's case against Ley hinged on the "fact" that Ley was selling stock while telling others to buy it. Yet that "fact" ignores the fact that Lay bought and borrowed against Enron stock as well and lost millions along with everybody else when Enron went bust.
The theory of being informed doesn't require that those in charge not lie. It requires that you don't accept lies as fact. Many of Enron's employees were well aware of the misdeeds and culture of corruption at Enron and participated directly in it. Many in the media and the analyst community understood that Enron's numbers simply didn't add up, but they touted the company anyway. Many people within the purchasing community simply accepted Enron's promises as facts, believing for absolutely no valid reason that Enron was fit to run power supply networks in California and elsewhere.
In short, if you buy snake oil at the next state fair that comes through your town, I'm not going to be too sympathetic if you lose your money. Furthermore, if you sell snake oil at the next state fair that comes through my town, don't expect me to buy it.
Then why does your argument seem to hinge on an non-existant guarantee that stocks bought for retirement will ensure a healthy retirement???
If, for example, someone tells you that IBM's stock is about to triple and you invest your retirement money for the sole purpose of tripling that money, you have sacrificed reason for money. Reason would tell you to research the claim, to understand how IBM's stock is about to triple and what unrealized value will cause that rise. Reason would tell you that nothing in the market is guaranteed and that you have a non-zero risk of losing everything. Reason would tell you to be conservative with that money, using the law of compound interest to secure your retirement rather than the law of chance.
whoa...my head suddenly hurts...
let me ask you this: if you go out for dinner and you order a hamburger...how do you know it's not really a shitburger...? did you investigate..? do your research...?
how about this: do you work and if so, do you receive your paycheck and the end of the day or do you wait a couple of weeks...? if you wait, how do you know you will get paid...? do you research your companies financial records on a daily basis to insure you receive a paycheck...?
my point: there is something called trust...yes, I know, I know..a silly notion...right up there with the tooth fairy....you see, I expect people will be telling me the truth...even CEO's and those who sell stocks and bonds...call me old fashion, but I like to think that when someone tells me something, that it's truthful...honestly, I don't have time to research the expiration date on the milk to see if the milk will really expire on the July 8, 2006...
also, I have to say, you are clearly monday-morning-quarterbacking....judging Enron's employees as if they did something wrong by purchasing stock in what appeared to be a wildly successful company...things were going great, they were making money, the american dream...if things are going well, people aren't going to research....
then again, my car started right up and got me to work today...hmmm..should I go and research the reasons why it started and got me to work...? perhaps something wasn't right...I should be worried...right...?
let me ask you this: if you go out for dinner and you order a hamburger...how do you know it's not really a shitburger...? did you investigate..? do your research...?
Yes....you picked a bad example.
Do I research everything I buy? No. But am I responsible for what I purchase? Certainly.
I can't just throw my hands up and say "it's someone else's fault" when the true cause comes from my decision.
how about this: do you work and if so, do you receive your paycheck and the end of the day or do you wait a couple of weeks...?
I get paid once every 3 months.
if you wait, how do you know you will get paid...?
Because I'm writing checks to myself, and I have much confidence in myself.
do you research your companies financial records on a daily basis to insure you receive a paycheck...?
Yes, since I run the company.
my point: there is something called trust...yes, I know, I know..a silly notion...right up there with the tooth fairy....you see, I expect people will be telling me the truth...even CEO's and those who sell stocks and bonds...call me old fashion, but I like to think that when someone tells me something, that it's truthful...honestly, I don't have time to research the expiration date on the milk to see if the milk will really expire on the July 8, 2006...
OMG. So in other words you expect trust, but you pass laws to penalize liars? Doesn't that seem a bit conflicting?
also, I have to say, you are clearly monday-morning-quarterbacking....judging Enron's employees as if they did something wrong by purchasing stock in what appeared to be a wildly successful company...things were going great, they were making money, the american dream...if things are going well, people aren't going to research....
You said it yourself my friend:
"what appeared to be"
David Copperfield "appears to be" making buildings disappear, but I can tell you that he's not.
then again, my car started right up and got me to work today...hmmm..should I go and research the reasons why it started and got me to work...? perhaps something wasn't right...I should be worried...right...?
OMG. So in other words you expect trust, but you pass laws to penalize liars? Doesn't that seem a bit conflicting?
damn, I thought I was a cynic...
for the record, I don't pass laws for shit...I have no power to pass laws..I can't even enforce laws...therefore, no conflict for me...
listen, if you're ok with Mr. Lay and his way of doing things, great, that's you...but then again, you must have done your research since you know everything that occured in every meeting...so you must be right...or assuming...I trust it's the latter...
for the record, I don't pass laws for shit...I have no power to pass laws..I can't even enforce laws...therefore, no conflict for me...
Ok. Do you support laws that penalize liars while demanding nothing but truthfulness?
listen, if you're ok with Mr. Lay and his way of doing things, great, that's you...but then again, you must have done your research since you know everything that occured in every meeting...so you must be right...or assuming...I trust it's the latter...
Who in God's name said that I'm ok with Mr. Lay??? You seem to be misunderstanding me. To suggest that the Enron debacle is not only Lay and Skilling's fault is not to remove blame from them.
Who in God's name said that I'm ok with Mr. Lay??? You seem to be misunderstanding me. To suggest that the Enron debacle is not only Lay and Skilling's fault is not to remove blame from them.
Certainly. Within this thread I've referred to Lay as both a liar, a fool, and a snake oil salesman. I find it hard to construe as being "ok with Mr. Lay".
Certainly. Within this thread I've referred to Lay as both a liar, a fool, and a snake oil salesman. I find it hard to construe as being "ok with Mr. Lay".
perhaps the fragmented and broken responses threw me off...what was your point again...?
My point was the Ken Lay is responsible for his own idiocy, not the idiocy of people who bought into it.
He is responsible for the downfall of his function at Enron, and his loss is the appropriate justice for it.
Enron employees are responsible for their investments, and their losses are the appropriate justice for their decisions.
Ken Lay forced nothing on anyone but himself.
oh...you shoud have said that to begin with...
I do have to disagree with placing blame on employees who purchased stock...while I understand how the market works, it goes up, it goes down...however, the lying varible is not factored in to this equation...I'd be willing to bet "lying" was not mentioned in the prospectus....
My point was the Ken Lay is responsible for his own idiocy, not the idiocy of people who bought into it.
He is responsible for the downfall of his function at Enron, and his loss is the appropriate justice for it.
Enron employees are responsible for their investments, and their losses are the appropriate justice for their decisions.
Ken Lay forced nothing on anyone but himself.
so, If I find a way to break into your house and steal stuff and break stuff and start a fire.. well, yeah, I am a bad guy but its your fault for having a house that was flamable with windows that break allowing me to get in?
Do I research everything I buy? No. But am I responsible for what I purchase? Certainly.
]
see, this is the whole faulty logic that you're basing your argument on...you are absolutely not responsible for buying a shitburger if you're told it's a hamburger, there's appropriate action for you to take once you realize you got duped. just like there's laws in place for the workers of Enron who were duped by Lay. they were sold shitburgers and told it was hamburgers. just like the Neil Young line, "they give you this but you paid for that". sorry you can't seem to grasp it.....what Lay did to the Enron workers was criminal, what don't you understand about that?
that's one more time around, there is not a sound
he's lying dead clutching benjamins, never put the money down
he's stiffening, we're all whistling
a man we'll soon forget
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
so, If I find a way to break into your house and steal stuff and break stuff and start a fire.. well, yeah, I am a bad guy but its your fault for having a house that was flamable with windows that break allowing me to get in?
Not really, no. However, if I was to go work for you, make your matches, buy your kerosene and then pay you to burn my house down, yeah.
Comments
Not anymore!!
DOH!!!
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
What am I missing? How are you able to philosophically, theoretically, or practically whitewash the complicity of those who choose to involve themselves in such a ridiculous situation?
This sounds like an argument for the tooth fairty.
This is good advice, but unfortunately it requires knowledge, research and work. I think it's preferrable to simply invest all of your savings into your company, help run that company into the ground, and then sue whomever you can in order to fund your retirement.
I knew of a guy who owed LOTS of money to shady people, and had many, many people trying to find him.....he died suddenly of a heart attack about a year ago. Since then, a bunch of evidence that he is still alive has started to surface. This guy was a pretty major criminal, but could not possibly have had the same connections that Lay did. It is def. possible.....but then I like conspiracies too
I'm must admit I'm a little confused here. The workers of Enron...their 401k's, their retirement plans, their stock options...all went from being worth something one day to being absolutely worthless the next.
So you got people working their 10 years...and suddenly they have nothing, no retirement bnonus, no stocks worht anything, no 401ks-nothing.
Yet the minority running the show knew exactly what was about to happen and sold all their stocks, cashed out basically, hanging their employees out to dry.
Is that not a picture of reality?
perhaps this is where the confusion is...
facts: Lay Lied...employees bought stock based on those lies...
theory: One should know everything there is to know about stocks they purchase and read the prospectus carefully because money can be lost or gained at any time, however this theory is based on the fact those in charge are not lying..
right-o!!
um...ok...can you expand on this subjective and unclear statement...give an example, perhaps...?
my pleasure...
Certainly! Yet this happens every single day in America. Why are you not going after journalists, marketing agencies, accounting firms, market analysts, Enron employees, and every one else involved that also told lies or repeated the lies told by others then and today??? Why only the CEOs and heads of corporations, particularly considering that you haven't really even proven that they in fact concocted those lies?
The case of Enron is specifically telling. The government's case against Ley hinged on the "fact" that Ley was selling stock while telling others to buy it. Yet that "fact" ignores the fact that Lay bought and borrowed against Enron stock as well and lost millions along with everybody else when Enron went bust.
The theory of being informed doesn't require that those in charge not lie. It requires that you don't accept lies as fact. Many of Enron's employees were well aware of the misdeeds and culture of corruption at Enron and participated directly in it. Many in the media and the analyst community understood that Enron's numbers simply didn't add up, but they touted the company anyway. Many people within the purchasing community simply accepted Enron's promises as facts, believing for absolutely no valid reason that Enron was fit to run power supply networks in California and elsewhere.
In short, if you buy snake oil at the next state fair that comes through your town, I'm not going to be too sympathetic if you lose your money. Furthermore, if you sell snake oil at the next state fair that comes through my town, don't expect me to buy it.
Then why does your argument seem to hinge on an non-existant guarantee that stocks bought for retirement will ensure a healthy retirement???
If, for example, someone tells you that IBM's stock is about to triple and you invest your retirement money for the sole purpose of tripling that money, you have sacrificed reason for money. Reason would tell you to research the claim, to understand how IBM's stock is about to triple and what unrealized value will cause that rise. Reason would tell you that nothing in the market is guaranteed and that you have a non-zero risk of losing everything. Reason would tell you to be conservative with that money, using the law of compound interest to secure your retirement rather than the law of chance.
whoa...my head suddenly hurts...
let me ask you this: if you go out for dinner and you order a hamburger...how do you know it's not really a shitburger...? did you investigate..? do your research...?
how about this: do you work and if so, do you receive your paycheck and the end of the day or do you wait a couple of weeks...? if you wait, how do you know you will get paid...? do you research your companies financial records on a daily basis to insure you receive a paycheck...?
my point: there is something called trust...yes, I know, I know..a silly notion...right up there with the tooth fairy....you see, I expect people will be telling me the truth...even CEO's and those who sell stocks and bonds...call me old fashion, but I like to think that when someone tells me something, that it's truthful...honestly, I don't have time to research the expiration date on the milk to see if the milk will really expire on the July 8, 2006...
also, I have to say, you are clearly monday-morning-quarterbacking....judging Enron's employees as if they did something wrong by purchasing stock in what appeared to be a wildly successful company...things were going great, they were making money, the american dream...if things are going well, people aren't going to research....
then again, my car started right up and got me to work today...hmmm..should I go and research the reasons why it started and got me to work...? perhaps something wasn't right...I should be worried...right...?
Yes....you picked a bad example.
Do I research everything I buy? No. But am I responsible for what I purchase? Certainly.
I can't just throw my hands up and say "it's someone else's fault" when the true cause comes from my decision.
I get paid once every 3 months.
Because I'm writing checks to myself, and I have much confidence in myself.
Yes, since I run the company.
OMG. So in other words you expect trust, but you pass laws to penalize liars? Doesn't that seem a bit conflicting?
You said it yourself my friend:
"what appeared to be"
David Copperfield "appears to be" making buildings disappear, but I can tell you that he's not.
No, not worried. Prepared.
yeah, I don't think people were prepared for the company to be bogus. it was kind of between the lines - it was all a scam, but...
damn, I thought I was a cynic...
for the record, I don't pass laws for shit...I have no power to pass laws..I can't even enforce laws...therefore, no conflict for me...
listen, if you're ok with Mr. Lay and his way of doing things, great, that's you...but then again, you must have done your research since you know everything that occured in every meeting...so you must be right...or assuming...I trust it's the latter...
enjoy your shit burger....
Ok. Do you support laws that penalize liars while demanding nothing but truthfulness?
Who in God's name said that I'm ok with Mr. Lay??? You seem to be misunderstanding me. To suggest that the Enron debacle is not only Lay and Skilling's fault is not to remove blame from them.
I'll pass, thanks.
do you...?
do you read what you write...?
No. I see no link between trust and law.
Certainly. Within this thread I've referred to Lay as both a liar, a fool, and a snake oil salesman. I find it hard to construe as being "ok with Mr. Lay".
perhaps the fragmented and broken responses threw me off...what was your point again...?
My point was the Ken Lay is responsible for his own idiocy, not the idiocy of people who bought into it.
He is responsible for the downfall of his function at Enron, and his loss is the appropriate justice for it.
Enron employees are responsible for their investments, and their losses are the appropriate justice for their decisions.
Ken Lay forced nothing on anyone but himself.
oh...you shoud have said that to begin with...
I do have to disagree with placing blame on employees who purchased stock...while I understand how the market works, it goes up, it goes down...however, the lying varible is not factored in to this equation...I'd be willing to bet "lying" was not mentioned in the prospectus....
so, If I find a way to break into your house and steal stuff and break stuff and start a fire.. well, yeah, I am a bad guy but its your fault for having a house that was flamable with windows that break allowing me to get in?
see, this is the whole faulty logic that you're basing your argument on...you are absolutely not responsible for buying a shitburger if you're told it's a hamburger, there's appropriate action for you to take once you realize you got duped. just like there's laws in place for the workers of Enron who were duped by Lay. they were sold shitburgers and told it was hamburgers. just like the Neil Young line, "they give you this but you paid for that". sorry you can't seem to grasp it.....what Lay did to the Enron workers was criminal, what don't you understand about that?
...the rich are different than you and I
G-R-E-E-D
G-R-E-E-D
that's one more time around, there is not a sound
he's lying dead clutching benjamins, never put the money down
he's stiffening, we're all whistling
a man we'll soon forget
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Instead, it was faked and he is away on an island somewhere.
Really being serious here.
i feel sorrow for his family, but joy for the american public.
Not really, no. However, if I was to go work for you, make your matches, buy your kerosene and then pay you to burn my house down, yeah.