Ken Lay
Comments
-
inmytree wrote:exactly...people have a choice...good paying jobs are everywhere and people can leave at any time, just check your local paper. So what if one has bills and a family...hey, if another company takes over, the employee should have researched the situation, forseen the takeover, and been prepared...simple as that...
Are you suggesting that a company owes a job in perpetuity to the employee?just the other day, a fella was mugged in broad daylight, while walking to the store...I place blame on the muggie, since he should have been perpared for the random mugger to jump him...he should have taken a different route, or drove a car, a taxi perhaps...or he should have not been so greedy for wanting a gallon of milk....what a dumbass, I say...
This analogy makes no sense. A muggie doesn't participate willfully in his mugging. These investors did. They handed over their money willingly based on nothing more than empty promises.0 -
Well the logical progression would require your to acknowledge the fault of your possition that those swindled by ENRON.
they were swindled.... robbed.. and you say its their fault.0 -
Abuskedti wrote:Well the logical progression would require your to acknowledge the fault of your possition that those swindled by ENRON.
Why don't you start from the beginning?they were swindled.... robbed.. and you say its their fault.
I don't say its their fault. I say it's partly their fault. Don't you understand that not everything is us vs them???0 -
farfromglorified wrote:Are you suggesting that a company owes a job in perpetuity to the employee?
not at all, the employee is fully to blame for not researching the possibility the company they work for may be taken over and they may be forced into changes by their new company leaders...an employee should and must be perpaired...why should an employee, who shows up each day, completes their assigned job duties, and works hard, expect anything...I was agreeing with you...they are to blame for not seeing into the future...farfromglorified wrote:This analogy makes no sense. A muggie doesn't participate willfully in his mugging. These investors did. They handed over their money willingly based on nothing more than empty promises.
oh, it does make sense...the muggie should have known a mugger was going to steal from them...the muggie should have researched his route, and had the forsight to see a potential problem...therefore, he willfully walked to the store...how hard is it to understand this...geez...0 -
inmytree wrote:not at all, the employee is fully to blame for not researching the possibility the company they work for may be taken over and they may be forced into changes by their new company leaders...an employee should and must be perpaired...why should an employee, who shows up each day, completes their assigned job duties, and works hard, expect anything...I was agreeing with you...
No, you're being sarcastic, which is quite your right.they are to blame for not seeing into the future...
But aren't you saying that a CEO is???oh, it does make sense...the muggie should have known a mugger was going to steal from them...
Not really, no.the muggie should have researched his route, and had the forsight to see a potential problem...
Not really, no.therefore, he willfully walked to the store...
YES!!! He did willfully walk to the store. Enron's employees willfully invested their money.how hard is it to understand this...geez...
That's what I'm asking.0 -
farfromglorified wrote:No, he was convicted of securities fraud and making false statements to a bank. He was convicted not of doctoring financial records, but of participating in a "conspiracy". From the government's own mouth:
"As a part of the alleged scheme, unrealistic and unattainable earnings goals were set for Enron, based on analysts’ expectations rather than on actual or reasonably achievable business results. When, as expected within the company, Enron consistently fell short of those goals, Lay, Skilling, Causey and others allegedly orchestrated a series of accounting gimmicks designed to make up the shortfall between actual and predicted results. Enron then announced publicly that it had met or exceeded analysts’ expectations when, as Lay, Skilling and Causey allegedly knew, it made its numbers only by engaging in fraud. The indictment also alleges that Lay, Skilling and Causey made false and misleading representations about Enron’s finances and business operations to analysts, at press conferences, in SEC filings and elsewhere."
None of those things are illegal when investors are making money. They happen every day in America so that people's 401k's, employee pensions, CEO's bank accounts everyone else gets rich. However, when those schemes fall apart, then they become illegal.
Unless of course you're not a CEO, then it doesn't matter, right?
I am sorry - it says he was convicted of fraud, making false statements and orchestrating accounting gimmicks.
and yet you use, even bolden, these statements to show that he did not falsify. Do you need a dictionary?0 -
farfromglorified wrote:
This analogy makes no sense. A muggie doesn't participate willfully in his mugging. These investors did. They handed over their money willingly based on nothing more than empty promises.
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!
He is promised by the community leaders and police that he/she will be safe.You've changed your place in this world!0 -
Abuskedti wrote:I am sorry - it says he was convicted of fraud, making false statements and orchestrating accounting gimmicks.
and yet you use, even bolden, these statements to show that he did not falsify. Do you need a dictionary?
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.0 -
farfromglorified wrote: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.
Lay falsified official document in order to illegally move money from the possession of his employees and stockholders. This in very similar to sneaking into their offices while they are at lunch and stealing money from their desk.
That is stealing.
as I said, you won't hear.0 -
farfromglorified wrote:No, you're being sarcastic, which is quite your right.
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...farfromglorified wrote:But aren't you saying that a CEO is???
huh...?farfromglorified wrote:Not really, no.
oh, yes, really...farfromglorified wrote:Not really, no.
oh, yes, really....farfromglorified wrote:YES!!! He did willfully walk to the store. Enron's employees willfully invested their money.
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...farfromglorified wrote:That's what I'm asking.
perhaps you should do some more research...0 -
farfromglorified wrote: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 it0 -
inmytree wrote: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?perhaps you should do some more research...
On what?0 -
even flow? wrote: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?0 -
Abuskedti wrote:However, I do agree that our entire economy stands on similar freud and misinformation. However, that is a completely different issue.
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.I guess this logic makes murderers less guilty because there are so many murders and killings
No. It would only make murderers less guilty if the murdered where demanding to be killed.and of course the victims guilty for not doing something about it
:rolleyes:
Please attempt to think about what I'm saying for a minute. These analogies are completely off.0 -
farfromglorified wrote: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?0 -
Abuskedti wrote: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.as I said, you won't hear.
I hear you loud and clear.0 -
Abuskedti wrote:noone demanded to be misled by Ken Lay..
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.0 -
farfromglorified wrote:You're not using my logic, because I don't come to the same conclusion.
thus, your logic is flawed...or you skew results it you favor...you pick...farfromglorified wrote: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.
a fish stinks from the head down, I would think a person making 431 times more than he average employee would have some responsibility...farfromglorified wrote:I disagree.
:eek:farfromglorified wrote: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.
it does, you must not agree with your logic...farfromglorified wrote:A man who goes to the store has a non-zero risk of being mugged on his way to the store
Zero-risk...?!!? what world do you live in...?
what about on the way home...?farfromglorified wrote:but he also has a non-zero risk of being mugged in his house.
I have to give you this one, they are called home invasions...but I never said anything about mugging in the home...keep trying...farfromglorified wrote:His act of going to the store is not linked in any way to being mugged in the context of his will.
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...?farfromglorified wrote: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...?farfromglorified wrote: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?
not even in the same ballpark, nice try...farfromglorified wrote:On what?
you tell me, mindreader....0 -
farfromglorified wrote: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.0 -
inmytree wrote: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 tell me, mindreader....
I don't read minds.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help