Ken Lay

farfromglorified wrote:

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...;)

Abuskedti wrote:

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.

It's a bit early.

inmytree wrote:

thanks for the laugh...keep up the good work...;)

*crickets*

likepilateihaveadog wrote:

dead

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.

"The haves have NOT A FU**ing CLUE!!!

even flow? wrote:

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.

And what promise do you make to them?

farfromglorified wrote:

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 mistaken again. Lay stole millions of dollars. The fact that he subsequently lost some of it doesn't change anything.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

How was your girlfriend "forced" to put money into the American company?



I will refrain from that.

Here are the papers to fill out and these are our rules. All mandatory. As simple as that.


And thank you.

farfromglorified wrote:

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

Abuskedti wrote:

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.