Ken Lay

2456789

Comments

  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    blackredyellow wrote:
    Enron founder Ken Lay dies
    64-year-old former energy executive dead.
    July 5 2006: 10:06 AM EDT

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Enron founder Kenneth Lay died early Wednesday in Aspen, a family spokeswoman said. He was 64.

    In a statement, spokeswoman Kelly Kimberly said, "The Lays have a very large family with whom they need to communicate, and out of respect for the family we will release further details at a later time."

    In May, Lay was found guilty of nine counts of fraud and conspiracy related to the collapse of Enron, the company he founded that grew into the seventh largest company before it imploded after an accounting scandal.
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/05/news/newsmakers/lay_death/index.htm?cnn=yes

    how convienent he dies and gets off easy

    or

    can you smell something fishy?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So someone being "screwed" is incapable of "screwing" another?



    Ok. But that wasn't the rule then and it's not the rule now. How about something a little wiser: if you don't have access to all the information, don't invest.



    If the normal Enron worker would have followed the simple standard I named above, they wouldn't have been investing in the company (nor would any of the other investors).

    The people who invested their funds with Enron were guilty of the same vague crime so many on the left constantly decry: greed. Greed is the lust for money in the absence of reason. Lay, Skilling, Fortune Magazine, Arthur Andersen, many of Enron's employees....all victims of their own greed.


    um...are you arguing theory or facts....?

    It was my understanding that stocks may be purchased to make a profit to help fund a persons retirement...

    am I and others guilty of greed...?

    I broke this response down save you time, so you don't have to split it up yourself...;)
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    another life wasted
  • flywallyfly
    flywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    inmytree wrote:
    I broke this response down save you time, so you don't have to split it up yourself...;)


    LMAO !!
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    I feel sorry for his friends and family, but I definetly will not loose any sleep over his passing.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • MLC2006
    MLC2006 Posts: 861
    farfromglorified wrote:

    Ok. But that wasn't the rule then and it's not the rule now. How about something a little wiser: if you don't have access to all the information, don't invest.
    .

    you have never heard of anti-trust laws? it most certainly is the rule that publicly owned companies can't deceive their shareholders as a means of keeping the money rolling in, only to have the higher ups sellout and leave everyone else to lose it all. your arguments aren't even making sense. how could the workers "research" to know whether or not to invest when Lay was purposefully keeping the info that the company was failing secret?
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Suicide.
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    um...are you arguing theory or facts....?

    Both.
    It was my understanding that stocks may be purchased to make a profit to help fund a persons retirement...

    Certainly! Stocks may also be purchased to fail miserably and wipe out a person's retirement.
    am I and others guilty of greed...?

    If you sacrifice reason for money, yes.
    I broke this response down save you time, so you don't have to split it up yourself...;)

    Ok.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    MLC2006 wrote:
    you have never heard of anti-trust laws? it most certainly is the rule that publicly owned companies can't deceive their shareholders as a means of keeping the money rolling in, only to have the higher ups sellout and leave everyone else to lose it all. your arguments aren't even making sense.

    I have heard of anti-trust laws, thanks.
    how could the workers "research" to know whether or not to invest when Lay was purposefully keeping the info that the company was failing secret?

    The same way anyone researches anything...by asking questions rather than avoiding them.
  • MLC2006
    MLC2006 Posts: 861
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I have heard of anti-trust laws, thanks.



    The same way anyone researches anything...by asking questions rather than avoiding them.

    lmao, the argument appears to be very much over your head, so no use to go on. the Enron workers were defrauded by the Enron elite. period, nothing more to discuss.
  • Meatwagon
    Meatwagon Posts: 108
    Counts his money every morning...The only thing that keeps him horney:)
    Axis of justice.com
  • Lizard
    Lizard So Cal Posts: 12,091
    Meatwagon wrote:
    Counts his money every morning...The only thing that keeps him horney:)

    Not anymore!!

    DOH!!!
    So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
    Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    MLC2006 wrote:
    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.
  • Meatwagon
    Meatwagon Posts: 108
    Lizard wrote:
    Not anymore!!

    DOH!!!
    AMEN BROTHER !!!
    Axis of justice.com
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    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.
  • Drowned Out
    Drowned Out Posts: 6,056
    Ericastrada wrote:
    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 ;)
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.

    Is that not a picture of reality?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Both.

    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..

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Certainly! Stocks may also be purchased to fail miserably and wipe out a person's retirement.

    right-o!!

    farfromglorified wrote:
    If you sacrifice reason for money, yes.

    um...ok...can you expand on this subjective and unclear statement...give an example, perhaps...?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok.

    my pleasure...
  • even flow?
    even flow? Posts: 8,066
    I wonder if he was nice enough to drop the Gate's Foundation a couple of bills.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    perhaps this is where the confusion is...

    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.

Categories