Do you understand the difference between a "gimmick" and a "crime"??? Do you understand the difference between "breaking a promise" and "fraud"??? I'm not the one who needs a dictionary.
A crime is an objective standard of behavior deemed unnacceptable by society. The problem with this entire case is that their "crime" is only a crime when people lose money. The true crime being tried in this case was the loss of money, and the trial was the process of finding someone to blame for the poor decisions of the investing public. And then those same people have the gall to complain about greed.
If you (or anyone else here) has a 401k or any stock that has made money in the past 4-5 years, odds are that the gains they achieved were based on similar "gimmicks" and "frauds". Yet nothing is done about it. People refuse to learn the lesson because no one thinks they're at fault for funding those gimmicks and sanctioning those frauds. And if you think the Enron fallout was bad, just wait until half of this country experiences much of the same with their 401ks.
But hey, believe what you want man. Hang anyone you'd like. Just don't be surprised when snake oil turns out to be exactly that.
However, I do agree that our entire economy stands on similar freud and misinformation. However, that is a completely different issue.
I guess this logic makes murderers less guilty because there are so many murders and killings
and of course the victims guilty for not doing something about it
I'm simply using the logic posted by a certain poster...research, prepare, research...simple as that...it's not that hard to read other peoples minds...
You're not using my logic, because I don't come to the same conclusion.
huh...?
By your logic, the CEO is supposed to envision how the bullshit partnerships will lead to the downfall of a business and the loss of millions.
oh, yes, really...
oh, yes, really....
I disagree.
exactly my point...everyone should know what others are doing everywhere at anytime....be a mindreader, soothsayer, and regular Nostradamus...if someone is going to lie to you, you should know about it ahead of time...
Your point appears to be that a muggie whose will to go to the store is connected to his being mugged is the same as an investor whose will to invest is connected to his being "stolen from". That makes no sense.
A man who goes to the store has a non-zero risk of being mugged on his way to the store, but he also has a non-zero risk of being mugged in his house. His act of going to the store is not linked in any way to being mugged in the context of his will.
A man who invests money has a significant risk of losing his money in that investment. He has no risk of losing his money in that investment if he doesn't invest. His act of investing is linked directly to his potential to lose that money in the context of his will.
The applicable "mugging" analogy is a man who drops all his money in the street, walks away, and expects it will be there 6 months later based on nothing more than his faith. In such a situation, would you not put some blame on the foolishness of that man?
Yes he does. He is participating by going on to the street. Just like investing money is a risk. Don't you even get your own logic. Sheesh!
That is not my logic. His mugging goes against his will: a mugger steals what is not his own by force against the will of the muggie. His losing money in an investment is a direct product of his will: a bad investment loses money that the "muggie" no longer owns, willfully handed over to the company by the muggie.
He is promised by the community leaders and police that he/she will be safe.
And by your logic doesn't that mean those community leaders and police should spend 20 years in prison every time someone gets mugged?
It's not a different issue to the men that are sent to prison by the very same people that sanction, fund, and demand fraud and misinformation.
No. It would only make murderers less guilty if the murdered where demanding to be killed.
:rolleyes:
Please attempt to think about what I'm saying for a minute. These analogies are completely off.
noone demanded to be misled by Ken Lay.. you insist on repeating that false statement. Earlier you made the same error with the asking to be robbed statement. Why do you keep this up?
Lay falsified official document in order to illegally move money from the possession of his employees and stockholders.
Hehe, no. Lay falsified statements and documents in order to conjure money that wasn't there. The money of the employees and stockholders was no longer in their possession -- it was in the possession of the market, handed over willingly. Enron didn't even have that money, other than the capital raised from their IPO and other offerings years before all of this started.
Enron was using quasi-legal but certainly unethical gimmicks to cover their losses....losses achieved in part by paying employees' salaries without the revenues required to back that money. Ironically, one could use your logic to then state the that employees were stealing from the company.
This in very similar to sneaking into their offices while they are at lunch and stealing money from their desk.
Do you understand how the market works? When an employee invests into a 401k, that money doesn't go to Enron (even if they're buying Enron stock). The vast majority of that money goes to other investors who already owned the stock.
They demanding nothing from Ken Lay except for him to turn a profit from selling nothing but promises. And they got what they paid for: promises.
you insist on repeating that false statement. Earlier you made the same error with the asking to be robbed statement. Why do you keep this up?
Because you fail to understand that an investment is a direct function of risk. When you invest money, you ask for risk with the hope that it turns out in your favor.
Your point appears to be that a muggie whose will to go to the store is connected to his being mugged is the same as an investor whose will to invest is connected to his being "stolen from". That makes no sense.
A man who invests money has a significant risk of losing his money in that investment. He has no risk of losing his money in that investment if he doesn't invest. His act of investing is linked directly to his potential to lose that money in the context of his will.
of course, but I've asked and you've avoided my question: does the prospectus say anything about fraud and lying...?
The applicable "mugging" analogy is a man who drops all his money in the street, walks away, and expects it will be there 6 months later based on nothing more than his faith. In such a situation, would you not put some blame on the foolishness of that man?
They demanding nothing from Ken Lay except for him to turn a profit from selling nothing but promises. And they got what they paid for: promises.
Because you fail to understand that an investment is a direct function of risk. When you invest money, you ask for risk with the hope that it turns out in your favor.
and investment involves risk.. Many factors effect your investment... supply, demand, changing technologies, and many many other factors.
the risk of freud also exists.. efforts are made to prevent this, but when groups get together and conspire as Lay and Anderson did, it is difficult to detect. However when it is uncovered, punishments and corrections are in order.
Lay and Anderson stole undetected for some time... as i could work a scheme to steal from the coffee fund undetected. the coffee fund may eventually fail and people have to make their own coffee.
of course the coffee fund will only net me a few dollars and making their own coffee is a somewhat similar consequence
Lay stole millions of dollars and people will be suffering the consequences for many many years.
he is simply a thief - no better no worse.. and those he stole from were the victims.
That is a very simple concept - that you wish to confuse with faulty logic that makes no sense and in addition i don't know what you feel is gained by your deliberate attemts to confuse this issue. I suppose some sort of positive feeling it gives you.
enjoy.. perhaps a beer would yield a similar false happiness.
thus, your logic is flawed...or you skew results it you favor...you pick...
You forgot the third and correct premise -- that you don't understand me.
a fish stinks from the head down, I would think a person making 431 times more than he average employee would have some responsibility...
Ken Lay has much responsibility for this event.
it does, you must not agree with your logic...
I'm explaining the logic that you're missing. A mugging is a crime because it goes against the will of the mugged. Losing money in an investment is not a crime because the will of the investor is to purchase risk. In short, your analogy is based on contradictory premises.
Zero-risk...?!!? what world do you live in...?
I see why this is happening....you don't even read my words.
Do you understand the difference between "zero risk" (your words) and "non-zero risk" (my words)?
so, if he did not go to the store, would he have been mugged...?
Perhaps, yes.
he willfully left the house without researching his route....he's at fault, right...?
No. Responsibility (or fault) requires will. Please read my words.
of course, but I've asked and you've avoided my question: does the prospectus say anything about fraud and lying...?
You've never asked that question. A typical prospectus does say lots about fraud and lying. It says that an investor has a right to recourse against a company if the prospectus contains mis-information.
not even in the same ballpark, nice try...
It's exactly the same ballpark, and your empty response above does much to demostrate that.
You forgot the third and correct premise -- that you don't understand me.
Ken Lay has much responsibility for this event.
I'm explaining the logic that you're missing. A mugging is a crime because it goes against the will of the mugged. Losing money in an investment is not a crime because the will of the investor is to purchase risk. In short, your analogy is based on contradictory premises.
I see why this is happening....you don't even read my words.
Do you understand the difference between "zero risk" (your words) and "non-zero risk" (my words)?
Perhaps, yes.
No. Responsibility (or fault) requires will. Please read my words.
You've never asked that question. A typical prospectus does say lots about fraud and lying. It says that an investor has a right to recourse against a company if the prospectus contains mis-information.
It's exactly the same ballpark, and your empty response above does much to demostrate that.
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!!
I may be wrong, but I was told at the end the employees were more or less forced to invest their retirement in Enron stock. Again, I may be wrong.
and investment involves risk.. Many factors effect your investment... supply, demand, changing technologies, and many many other factors.
Definitely.
the risk of freud also exists.. efforts are made to prevent this, but when groups get together and conspire as Lay and Anderson did, it is difficult to detect. However when it is uncovered, punishments and corrections are in order.
YES!!!! All participants in the conspiracy deserve "corrections", including those who fund it. That is all I'm saying.
Lay and Anderson stole undetected for some time... as i could work a scheme to steal from the coffee fund undetected. the coffee fund may eventually fail and people have to make their own coffee.
Ok.
of course the coffee fund will only net me a few dollars and making their own coffee is a somewhat similar consequence
Yes.
Lay stole millions of dollars and people will be suffering the consequences for many many years.
Lay didn't steal anything. Lay lost and lost big time in the game he was playing. Not even considering legal fees, the collapse of Enron left Lay with less money than he started with.
he is simply a thief - no better no worse.. and those he stole from were the victims.
But the "victims" you identifed had possession of no money stolen by Ken Lay.
That is a very simple concept - that you wish to confuse with faulty logic that makes no sense and in addition i don't know what you feel is gained by your deliberate attemts to confuse this issue. I suppose some sort of positive feeling it gives you.
The positive feeling will come from a day and age when investors hold themselves to the same standards of that which they invest in.
enjoy.. perhaps a beer would yield a similar false happiness.
That is not my logic. His mugging goes against his will: a mugger steals what is not his own by force against the will of the muggie. His losing money in an investment is a direct product of his will: a bad investment loses money that the "muggie" no longer owns, willfully handed over to the company by the muggie.
MY STATEMENT: So what was Lay doing? Stealing and skimming and not informing people properly. Those people he kept urging to invest more money. The person getting mugged obviously had the will to go out for a walk that day. Or was it already planned in his life from when he was born. As we know, nobody actually makes a choice in life it is all predetermined.
And by your logic doesn't that mean those community leaders and police should spend 20 years in prison every time someone gets mugged?
MY STATEMENT: Yes they should if they are promising me a safe venture to the store and back.
Was it really a heart attack? Perhaps they had him killed off because maybe Lay was hiding more disturbing news about Bush and his cronies? Seems fishy to me, shortly after going to prison all of a sudden dies.
You are wrong. No one was forced to invest their retirement in Enron stock. Any person that did so chose to do so.
Perhaps you missed the part that I put in this thread about my girlfriend's take over by an American company that they are forced to put money back in to.
And please refrain from the she can get another job bullshit. Must go for the other 3000 people they employ and just can't find something along the same paying line.
MY STATEMENT: So what was Lay doing? Stealing and skimming and not informing people properly. Those people he kept urging to invest more money. The person getting mugged obviously had the will to go out for a walk that day. Or was it already planned in his life from when he was born. As we know, nobody actually makes a choice in life it is all predetermined.
If no one makes a choice, how can anyone be guilty? Why don't you just throw fate into jail?
MY STATEMENT: Yes they should if they are promising me a safe venture to the store and back.
Perhaps you missed the part that I put in this thread about my girlfriend's take over by an American company that they are forced to put money back in to.
How was your girlfriend "forced" to put money into the American company?
And please refrain from the she can get another job bullshit. Must go for the other 3000 people they employ and just can't find something along the same paying line.
YES!!!! All participants in the conspiracy deserve "corrections", including those who fund it. That is all I'm saying.
Ok.
Yes.
Lay didn't steal anything. Lay lost and lost big time in the game he was playing. Not even considering legal fees, the collapse of Enron left Lay with less money than he started with.
But the "victims" you identifed had possession of no money stolen by Ken Lay.
The positive feeling will come from a day and age when investors hold themselves to the same standards of that which they invest in.
It's a bit early.
you are mistaken again. Lay stole millions of dollars. The fact that he subsequently lost some of it doesn't change anything.
we have long ago established that.. the stockholders.... the stockholders....
But Key Lay isn't paid by the stockholders. He's paid by revenue, derived primarily by the people who bought Enron's "products". Furthermore, much of Lay's compensation came in Enron stock....by your logic he's stealing from himself.
When someone buys a stock, that stock typically comes from someone else who owns it rather than the company itself. Should those people be in jail too?
for example employees who were given incentives to invest their retirements in the company.
There was no "incentive" to invest in Enron via a 401k that I'm aware of. Certainly it was encouraged, but it was not forced or given special privilege.
stock holders - you know the ones that rely on the perspectis and other financial documents and disclosures to decide whether to invest their money.
Anyone who relies on a potentially biased document to decide whether to invest their money is a moron. Which, at root, it my major point here and comes back to this statement I made at the very beginning:
"OMG. So in other words you expect trust, but you pass laws to penalize liars? Doesn't that seem a bit conflicting"
An investment made on faith is an investment in greed.
But Key Lay isn't paid by the stockholders. He's paid by revenue, derived primarily by the people who bought Enron's "products". Furthermore, much of Lay's compensation came in Enron stock....by your logic he's stealing from himself.
When someone buys a stock, that stock typically comes from someone else who owns it rather than the company itself. Should those people be in jail too?
There was no "incentive" to invest in Enron via a 401k that I'm aware of. Certainly it was encouraged, but it was not forced or given special privilege.
Anyone who relies on a potentially biased document to decide whether to invest their money is a moron. Which, at root, it my major point here and comes back to this statement I made at the very beginning:
"OMG. So in other words you expect trust, but you pass laws to penalize liars? Doesn't that seem a bit conflicting"
An investment made on faith is an investment in greed.
A. He inflated the stock with lies, then traded and sold it... that is stealing from the other stockholders... lets establish that he stole first - you are having a problem with that.
B. You and everyone else in the world must make investments based on potentially biased claims. For examply you may open a can of coke and drink its contents before having a complete chemical analysis conducted. You invest in Coke that way too.. You might purchase a pen before testing it based on an experience with a pen that looked the same made by a different company. We must rely on credibility and trust in this world because we have to share it. I imagine you drive on roads and feel somewhat secure that your car wheel wont fall off without first making sure someone didn't loosen a lug - or cut the break line - and you also must trust that you can go around a blind curve - that everyone else will drive in the right lane and not hit you head on.
We have laws - and rules and we live together. When someone betrays a trust - and breaks laws - people are hurt.. Ken Lay betrayed trust and people were hurt...
not really difficult to understand if only you care to understand
A. He inflated the stock with lies, then traded and sold it...
As did hundreds of other people, none of which are in jail nor do I hear you calling for their heads.
Ken Lay also purchased stock and lost millions in the process, which doesn't bode too well for your get-rich-quick theory.
Ken Lay was duped by his own stupidity and the stupidity of others. He thought what he was doing was good for the company and didn't anticipate the collapse. This doesn't absolve him of guilt, it just absolves him from a concocted conspiracy theory that says Lay was seeking to get rich by causing an eventual collapse.
that is stealing from the other stockholders... lets establish that he stole first - you are having a problem with that.
I'm having a problem with that because he didn't steal shit, and you can't trace a single dollar stonlen from a single person. No where did he force anyone to participate in anything against their will.
B. You and everyone else in the world must make investments based on potentially biased claims. For examply you may open a can of coke and drink its contents before having a complete chemical analysis conducted. You invest in Coke that way too.. You might purchase a pen before testing it based on an experience with a pen that looked the same made by a different company. We must rely on credibility and trust in this world because we have to share it.
What about trusting in our own judgment and blaming that when it fails, rather than pretending we were anything other than foolish???
I imagine you drive on roads and feel somewhat secure that your car wheel wont fall off without first making sure someone didn't loosen a lug - or cut the break line - and you also must trust that you can go around a blind curve - that everyone else will drive in the right lane and not hit you head on.
I don't "trust" in any of those things. I recognize the possibility and check my car accordingly. If they do happen, I'm not going to blame some CEO in Japan for something he played almost no part in.
We have laws - and rules and we live together. When someone betrays a trust - and breaks laws - people are hurt.. Ken Lay betrayed trust and people were hurt...
And that's the crux of this issue: people were hurt. None of this other bullshit about "trust" or "fraud" matters to you. If Enron's employees would have gotten rich, you wouldn't even be talking about it. And that's why your argument fails and that's why this will happen again, because the position you and so many take forces you to ignore how they got hurt.
not really difficult to understand if only you care to understand
It is very easy to understand. All I have to do is have faith in your statments. However, when I apply logic to them they all fall to pieces. You have your own little mental Enron put together here.
As did hundreds of other people, none of which are in jail nor do I hear you calling for their heads.
Ken Lay also purchased stock and lost millions in the process, which doesn't bode too well for your get-rich-quick theory.
Ken Lay was duped by his own stupidity and the stupidity of others. He thought what he was doing was good for the company and didn't anticipate the collapse. This doesn't absolve him of guilt, it just absolves him from a concocted conspiracy theory that says Lay was seeking to get rich by causing an eventual collapse.
I'm having a problem with that because he didn't steal shit, and you can't trace a single dollar stonlen from a single person. No where did he force anyone to participate in anything against their will.
What about trusting in our own judgment and blaming that when it fails, rather than pretending we were anything other than foolish???
I don't "trust" in any of those things. I recognize the possibility and check my car accordingly. If they do happen, I'm not going to blame some CEO in Japan for something he played almost no part in.
And that's the crux of this issue: people were hurt. None of this other bullshit about "trust" or "fraud" matters to you. If Enron's employees would have gotten rich, you wouldn't even be talking about it. And that's why your argument fails and that's why this will happen again, because the position you and so many take forces you to ignore how they got hurt.
It is very easy to understand. All I have to do is have faith in your statments. However, when I apply logic to them they all fall to pieces. You have your own little mental Enron put together here.
you are so skilled at confussing yourself.
lets see if you are capable of doing only one thing.
Did Ken take actions that would give a false impression of the value of the company that was being sold in the form of shares of stock?
Comments
However, I do agree that our entire economy stands on similar freud and misinformation. However, that is a completely different issue.
I guess this logic makes murderers less guilty because there are so many murders and killings
and of course the victims guilty for not doing something about it
You're not using my logic, because I don't come to the same conclusion.
By your logic, the CEO is supposed to envision how the bullshit partnerships will lead to the downfall of a business and the loss of millions.
I disagree.
Your point appears to be that a muggie whose will to go to the store is connected to his being mugged is the same as an investor whose will to invest is connected to his being "stolen from". That makes no sense.
A man who goes to the store has a non-zero risk of being mugged on his way to the store, but he also has a non-zero risk of being mugged in his house. His act of going to the store is not linked in any way to being mugged in the context of his will.
A man who invests money has a significant risk of losing his money in that investment. He has no risk of losing his money in that investment if he doesn't invest. His act of investing is linked directly to his potential to lose that money in the context of his will.
The applicable "mugging" analogy is a man who drops all his money in the street, walks away, and expects it will be there 6 months later based on nothing more than his faith. In such a situation, would you not put some blame on the foolishness of that man?
On what?
That is not my logic. His mugging goes against his will: a mugger steals what is not his own by force against the will of the muggie. His losing money in an investment is a direct product of his will: a bad investment loses money that the "muggie" no longer owns, willfully handed over to the company by the muggie.
And by your logic doesn't that mean those community leaders and police should spend 20 years in prison every time someone gets mugged?
It's not a different issue to the men that are sent to prison by the very same people that sanction, fund, and demand fraud and misinformation.
No. It would only make murderers less guilty if the murdered where demanding to be killed.
:rolleyes:
Please attempt to think about what I'm saying for a minute. These analogies are completely off.
noone demanded to be misled by Ken Lay.. you insist on repeating that false statement. Earlier you made the same error with the asking to be robbed statement. Why do you keep this up?
Hehe, no. Lay falsified statements and documents in order to conjure money that wasn't there. The money of the employees and stockholders was no longer in their possession -- it was in the possession of the market, handed over willingly. Enron didn't even have that money, other than the capital raised from their IPO and other offerings years before all of this started.
Enron was using quasi-legal but certainly unethical gimmicks to cover their losses....losses achieved in part by paying employees' salaries without the revenues required to back that money. Ironically, one could use your logic to then state the that employees were stealing from the company.
Do you understand how the market works? When an employee invests into a 401k, that money doesn't go to Enron (even if they're buying Enron stock). The vast majority of that money goes to other investors who already owned the stock.
I hear you loud and clear.
They demanding nothing from Ken Lay except for him to turn a profit from selling nothing but promises. And they got what they paid for: promises.
Because you fail to understand that an investment is a direct function of risk. When you invest money, you ask for risk with the hope that it turns out in your favor.
thus, your logic is flawed...or you skew results it you favor...you pick...
a fish stinks from the head down, I would think a person making 431 times more than he average employee would have some responsibility...
:eek:
it does, you must not agree with your logic...
Zero-risk...?!!? what world do you live in...?
what about on the way home...?
I have to give you this one, they are called home invasions...but I never said anything about mugging in the home...keep trying...
so, if he did not go to the store, would he have been mugged...? he willfully left the house without researching his route....he's at fault, right...?
of course, but I've asked and you've avoided my question: does the prospectus say anything about fraud and lying...?
not even in the same ballpark, nice try...
you tell me, mindreader....
and investment involves risk.. Many factors effect your investment... supply, demand, changing technologies, and many many other factors.
the risk of freud also exists.. efforts are made to prevent this, but when groups get together and conspire as Lay and Anderson did, it is difficult to detect. However when it is uncovered, punishments and corrections are in order.
Lay and Anderson stole undetected for some time... as i could work a scheme to steal from the coffee fund undetected. the coffee fund may eventually fail and people have to make their own coffee.
of course the coffee fund will only net me a few dollars and making their own coffee is a somewhat similar consequence
Lay stole millions of dollars and people will be suffering the consequences for many many years.
he is simply a thief - no better no worse.. and those he stole from were the victims.
That is a very simple concept - that you wish to confuse with faulty logic that makes no sense and in addition i don't know what you feel is gained by your deliberate attemts to confuse this issue. I suppose some sort of positive feeling it gives you.
enjoy.. perhaps a beer would yield a similar false happiness.
You forgot the third and correct premise -- that you don't understand me.
Ken Lay has much responsibility for this event.
I'm explaining the logic that you're missing. A mugging is a crime because it goes against the will of the mugged. Losing money in an investment is not a crime because the will of the investor is to purchase risk. In short, your analogy is based on contradictory premises.
I see why this is happening....you don't even read my words.
Do you understand the difference between "zero risk" (your words) and "non-zero risk" (my words)?
Perhaps, yes.
No. Responsibility (or fault) requires will. Please read my words.
You've never asked that question. A typical prospectus does say lots about fraud and lying. It says that an investor has a right to recourse against a company if the prospectus contains mis-information.
It's exactly the same ballpark, and your empty response above does much to demostrate that.
I don't read minds.
thanks for the laugh...keep up the good work...;)
I may be wrong, but I was told at the end the employees were more or less forced to invest their retirement in Enron stock. Again, I may be wrong.
Definitely.
YES!!!! All participants in the conspiracy deserve "corrections", including those who fund it. That is all I'm saying.
Ok.
Yes.
Lay didn't steal anything. Lay lost and lost big time in the game he was playing. Not even considering legal fees, the collapse of Enron left Lay with less money than he started with.
But the "victims" you identifed had possession of no money stolen by Ken Lay.
The positive feeling will come from a day and age when investors hold themselves to the same standards of that which they invest in.
It's a bit early.
You are wrong. No one was forced to invest their retirement in Enron stock. Any person that did so chose to do so.
*crickets*
"The haves have NOT A FU**ing CLUE!!!
Perhaps you missed the part that I put in this thread about my girlfriend's take over by an American company that they are forced to put money back in to.
And please refrain from the she can get another job bullshit. Must go for the other 3000 people they employ and just can't find something along the same paying line.
If no one makes a choice, how can anyone be guilty? Why don't you just throw fate into jail?
And what promise do you make to them?
How was your girlfriend "forced" to put money into the American company?
I will refrain from that.
you are mistaken again. Lay stole millions of dollars. The fact that he subsequently lost some of it doesn't change anything.
Whose millions did he steal?
we have long ago established that.. the stockholders.... the stockholders....
for example employees who were given incentives to invest their retirements in the company.
stock holders - you know the ones that rely on the perspectis and other financial documents and disclosures to decide whether to invest their money.
stock holders.
But Key Lay isn't paid by the stockholders. He's paid by revenue, derived primarily by the people who bought Enron's "products". Furthermore, much of Lay's compensation came in Enron stock....by your logic he's stealing from himself.
When someone buys a stock, that stock typically comes from someone else who owns it rather than the company itself. Should those people be in jail too?
There was no "incentive" to invest in Enron via a 401k that I'm aware of. Certainly it was encouraged, but it was not forced or given special privilege.
Anyone who relies on a potentially biased document to decide whether to invest their money is a moron. Which, at root, it my major point here and comes back to this statement I made at the very beginning:
"OMG. So in other words you expect trust, but you pass laws to penalize liars? Doesn't that seem a bit conflicting"
An investment made on faith is an investment in greed.
Here are the papers to fill out and these are our rules. All mandatory. As simple as that.
And thank you.
What were those "papers"? What was the "investment" and where did it come from? What was the punishment?
A. He inflated the stock with lies, then traded and sold it... that is stealing from the other stockholders... lets establish that he stole first - you are having a problem with that.
B. You and everyone else in the world must make investments based on potentially biased claims. For examply you may open a can of coke and drink its contents before having a complete chemical analysis conducted. You invest in Coke that way too.. You might purchase a pen before testing it based on an experience with a pen that looked the same made by a different company. We must rely on credibility and trust in this world because we have to share it. I imagine you drive on roads and feel somewhat secure that your car wheel wont fall off without first making sure someone didn't loosen a lug - or cut the break line - and you also must trust that you can go around a blind curve - that everyone else will drive in the right lane and not hit you head on.
We have laws - and rules and we live together. When someone betrays a trust - and breaks laws - people are hurt.. Ken Lay betrayed trust and people were hurt...
not really difficult to understand if only you care to understand
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
As did hundreds of other people, none of which are in jail nor do I hear you calling for their heads.
Ken Lay also purchased stock and lost millions in the process, which doesn't bode too well for your get-rich-quick theory.
Ken Lay was duped by his own stupidity and the stupidity of others. He thought what he was doing was good for the company and didn't anticipate the collapse. This doesn't absolve him of guilt, it just absolves him from a concocted conspiracy theory that says Lay was seeking to get rich by causing an eventual collapse.
I'm having a problem with that because he didn't steal shit, and you can't trace a single dollar stonlen from a single person. No where did he force anyone to participate in anything against their will.
What about trusting in our own judgment and blaming that when it fails, rather than pretending we were anything other than foolish???
I don't "trust" in any of those things. I recognize the possibility and check my car accordingly. If they do happen, I'm not going to blame some CEO in Japan for something he played almost no part in.
And that's the crux of this issue: people were hurt. None of this other bullshit about "trust" or "fraud" matters to you. If Enron's employees would have gotten rich, you wouldn't even be talking about it. And that's why your argument fails and that's why this will happen again, because the position you and so many take forces you to ignore how they got hurt.
It is very easy to understand. All I have to do is have faith in your statments. However, when I apply logic to them they all fall to pieces. You have your own little mental Enron put together here.
you are so skilled at confussing yourself.
lets see if you are capable of doing only one thing.
Did Ken take actions that would give a false impression of the value of the company that was being sold in the form of shares of stock?