Ken Lay

1234568

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    You are getting dizzy..
    in your first statement - there are estimates.. projections.. they are not expected to match when the actuals come in. they are based upon factual information available at the time of the projection. There is no fraud there.

    There's not??? See this is what I'm talking about. Because the company profits and no one gets hurt, you immediately rule out the possibility of fraud in those statements. Reread your own statement above.

    This is where Enron, its employees and investors went wrong. They assumed that when everyone is making money, nothing can be going wrong!
    so Enron was not a publically traded company? I was not aware of that. but no matter. they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly.

    Enron was definitely traded on the public market.

    Regardless, the second part of your statement is mostly true and very important. Let's look at it again:

    "they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly."

    Again, that's mostly true. Some employees and investors were aware, at least in part, of the culture of fraud. But most were not. If they would have known, they never would have invested. Now let's ask ourselves why they didn't know. The information was out there. Enron's stock had fallen nearly 75% during the months leading up to the collapse. Many top-level executives and other shareholders were frantically selling Enron's stock because they knew what they were dealing with. The Enron execs knew they were running a house of cards and other investors knew where their profit was coming from: the confidence of the public, engineered by Lay, Skilling, the media, foolish analysts, institutional investors and the acceptance by the public investors and employees. But that confidence was dwindling and those investors were getting out. Why was the confidence dwindling? Because Enron's profits were getting tighter and tighter, its numbers looking more and more suspicious, and legal insider trading was rising.

    If one examines the trail of purchasing and deceit, one discovers something quite interesting. Enron's stock price was based on no objective value for nearly 10 years. Any "gains" anyone made from Enron's stock were gains made via fraud. It's not as if Enron's stock price hit $89 legitimately and then hit $90 via fraud. The objective value of a share of Enron was $0 for years...the market price was based on nothing more than confidence. And every single investor in Enron willingly paid for that confidence based on their own confidence. There was not a single objective piece of evidence that said Enron was a healthy entity. There was only earnings reports showing profit, which as you indicate above, could never mean fraud. It was only when Enron released a report that showed a massive loss that the investigations started, that the labels of "fraud" and "promises" and "lies" were thrown around.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    are they greedy..? where is the line crossed..?

    When one sacrifices reason for money. That is the fine line.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    There's not??? See this is what I'm talking about. Because the company profits and no one gets hurt, you immediately rule out the possibility of fraud in those statements. Reread your own statement above.

    This is where Enron, its employees and investors went wrong. They assumed that when everyone is making money, nothing can be going wrong!



    Enron was definitely traded on the public market.

    Regardless, the second part of your statement is mostly true and very important. Let's look at it again:

    "they were sold to people that did not know that Ken Lay labelled the value of the company and its shares dishonestly."

    Again, that's mostly true. Some employees and investors were aware, at least in part, of the culture of fraud. But most were not. If they would have known, they never would have invested. Now let's ask ourselves why they didn't know. The information was out there. Enron's stock had fallen nearly 75% during the months leading up to the collapse. Many top-level executives and other shareholders were frantically selling Enron's stock because they knew what they were dealing with. The Enron execs knew they were running a house of cards and other investors knew where their profit was coming from: the confidence of the public, engineered by Lay, Skilling, the media, foolish analysts, institutional investors and the acceptance by the public investors and employees. But that confidence was dwindling and those investors were getting out. Why was the confidence dwindling? Because Enron's profits were getting tighter and tighter, its numbers looking more and more suspicious, and legal insider trading was rising.

    If one examines the trail of purchasing and deceit, one discovers something quite interesting. Enron's stock price was based on no objective value for nearly 10 years. Any "gains" anyone made from Enron's stock were gains made via fraud. It's not as if Enron's stock price hit $89 legitimately and then hit $90 via fraud. The objective value of a share of Enron was $0 for years...the market price was based on nothing more than confidence. And every single investor in Enron willingly paid for that confidence based on their own confidence. There was not a single objective piece of evidence that said Enron was a healthy entity. There was only earnings reports showing profit, which as you indicate above, could never mean fraud. It was only when Enron released a report that showed a massive loss that the investigations started, that the labels of "fraud" and "promises" and "lies" were thrown around.


    sigh.. once again I have to sort through all your excuses and rationalizations for your incorrect statements.. I am growing tired.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    sigh.. once again I have to sort through all your excuses and rationalizations for your incorrect statements.. I am growing tired.

    Thought is hard. It certainly is easier to find a handful of men and lynch them for mistakes they only paid a part in.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    inmytree wrote:
    It makes you wonder why we even have laws...;)

    as you said, everything is a choice...and if a person chooses to become a victim of a crime because they did not research, then that's on them...

    welcome to thunderdome...two enter, one comes out....I'm glad our modern society has finally adopted this line of thinking....:cool:

    However, I reserve the right to think and say that both Lay and the drunk drivers are ass holes!
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    When one sacrifices reason for money. That is the fine line.

    how about addressing the entire post, rather than cherry-picking...?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Abuskedti wrote:
    However, I reserve the right to think and say that both Lay and the drunk drivers are ass holes!

    that, my friend, is quite reasonable....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    how about addressing the entire post, rather than cherry-picking...?

    I wasn't trying to cherry pick. The post was directed at another poster and that one question stuck out to me. But if you want my opinion to the rest of the post, here it is:
    first: if they were compensated (i.e. payed) is stock, in lieu of cash, then I feel they did put something in, they worked...

    Agreed. They deserve compensation from their work. And they received it in money and in stock. Money is paper whose value is not tied to a company which those people were free to do with as they pleased. Stock is paper whose value is tied to a company's performance. If you receive one share of stock and the company tanks, you still have one share of stock.
    second: I would agree if nothing illegal was done...

    But the objective value upon receipt of those shares was $0, realized some time later. Without Enron's malfeasance, that share would have been worth less than $1 (and likely $0) at any point in Enron's modern existence.
    third: I notice the word "if"...perhaps "if" they did so, they had there reasons..as for assuming greed was a factor is just that, assuming...

    But the whole issue hinges on that "if". Enron employees and investors that did not invest in Enron lost nothing.
    I wonder, are those who work for a paycheck greedy...?

    No. Those who expect a paycheck without reason are greedy.
    how about those who invest...are they greedy..?

    No. Those who invest without reason are greedy.
    where is the line crossed..?

    When one sacrifices reason for money.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I wasn't trying to cherry pick. The post was directed at another poster and that one question stuck out to me. But if you want my opinion to the rest of the post, here it is:



    Agreed. They deserve compensation from their work. And they received it in money and in stock. Money is paper whose value is not tied to a company which those people were free to do with as they pleased. Stock is paper whose value is tied to a company's performance. If you receive one share of stock and the company tanks, you still have one share of stock.



    But the objective value upon receipt of those shares was $0, realized some time later. Without Enron's malfeasance, that share would have been worth less than $1 (and likely $0) at any point in Enron's modern existence.



    But the whole issue hinges on that "if". Enron employees and investors that did not invest in Enron lost nothing.



    No. Those who expect a paycheck without reason are greedy.



    No. Those who invest without reason are greedy.



    When one sacrifices reason for money.


    I'm sorry I asked...;)

    you keep discussing "reason"...is that not a term that is nearly impossible to define...? Honestly, I don't understand what you mean by "without reason"....and what it has do with Lay duping his employees...
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Thought is hard. It certainly is easier to find a handful of men and lynch them for mistakes they only paid a part in.

    its easier if you are sincere and only say things that are true. and only strive for the truth, rahter that proving some point you feel needs to be made about society.

    I don't disagree with your contention that we allow this kind of thing too often and that all large companies use similar tactics to make themselves look better - and imporve their portfolios. In fact i believe our whole economy is built on a foundation of deceipt.

    That is a separate issue. The bottom line is that Lay stole from many investers as well as other debtors, suppliers, distributors and anyone else Enron owed money to.

    As a whole we do a pretty good job of providing a nice quality of live for many people. We balance many things that allows these billions of people to share the planet. We can not just abandon it - we have to look at it more honestly and make adjustments slowly and continue to analyze honestly and at the same time find a goal that can be agreed upon by many.

    being emotional and pretending that what Lay did is OK just because others are worse and still getting away with it, only serves to cloud the issue and perpetuates it.

    Lay was a theif, and he hurt many honest hard working people that did their part in good faith - If doing your part in good faith is not enough - then clearly things need to change - but that is not the fault of the people that did their part in good faith.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    you keep discussing "reason"...is that not a term that is nearly impossible to define...?

    Reason: man's ability to think logically.
    Honestly, I don't understand what you mean by "without reason"....and what it has do with Lay duping his employees...

    You don't understand how reason relates to duping? Interesting.

    Let's run through some examples.

    You asked if a person who works for a paycheck is greedy. Since greed is the sacrifice of reason for money, there are conditions under which a person who works for a paycheck can be greedy. For example, if the person expects the value of that paycheck to exceed the value of his labor, that person becomes unreasonable and therefore greedy. Why? Because someone else must then provide the gap between the value of that paycheck and the value of that labor. And since the other person involved may simply refuse or be rendered unable to fill that gap, the paycheck cannot be expected. Similarly, if a person expects their paycheck to be provided regardless of outside factors or the value of their labor, that person is also unreasonable since the fact remains that a paycheck requires someone to pay it and possession of a value to back that check.

    Similarly, an investor who invests on nothing more than a feeling of confidence is unreasonable (assuming that they want a return on that investment). A feeling of confidence is not related to the performance of a stock, unless the stock price is based on nothing more than the combined confidence of thousands of investors. Confidence cannot create profit.

    A resonable investor, for example, would never have invested in Enron. Reasonable investors consider products, markets and direction long before they consider last quarter's earnings ratio. Enron's products were largely vapor. Their market was slight and they had little to no competitve advantage within that space. Their direction was haphazard and often contradictory. Furthermore, Enron's financials weren't good. Their quarterly increases looked great and were swallowed by the analyst community, but the numbers themselves never added up. Their ratios were terrible and their overall liabilities kept rising. They were obviously using profit reserves to fund their quarterly growth. But none of that mattered as long as the quarterly numbers were good and the stock price kept rising.

    When you boil everything down, Enron was in the confidence business and everything that went on reflected that. Their business was nothing more than a fucking church. "Have faith, don't ask questions" should have been their motto. And just like Jim Jones wasn't the only fool at Jonestown, Ken Lay wasn't the only fool at Enron. But people bought into his bullshit lock, stock, and barrel. And it takes two to tango in that kind of relationship. This isn't a mugger holding a gun to your head. This is a salesman that allows you to hold onto your wallet. But if you're going to pay a man to turn iron into gold, don't be surprised when you find out he's nothing more than a mystic.

    Other companies continue to operate this way. An excellent example is Overstock.com. They're guilty of many of the same "crimes", but no one cares yet because the company is still operating, employing people, and making short and long sellers money. Microsoft has also done many of the same things as Enron and again, no one is going after Bill Gates or Steve Balmer.

    Was Ken Lay a liar? Hell yes. Was Ken Lay a dirtbag? Of course. But if you're going to string him up you need to string up every liar and dirtbag in town. And if you're going to go after those who profited from Enron's malfaesance, why aren't you going after the employees whose salaries were paid for by that malfeasance?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    its easier if you are sincere and only say things that are true. and only strive for the truth, rahter that proving some point you feel needs to be made about society.

    But the Enron situation stems from a problem with society, not just a problem with one moron.
    I don't disagree with your contention that we allow this kind of thing too often and that all large companies use similar tactics to make themselves look better - and imporve their portfolios. In fact i believe our whole economy is built on a foundation of deceipt.

    Much of it, yes. And for any act of deceipt to work, one must lie and one must believe. I'd prefer to tackle both parts of that equation, rather than just one.
    That is a separate issue. The bottom line is that Lay stole from many investers as well as other debtors, suppliers, distributors and anyone else Enron owed money to.

    Again, you can't trace a single dollar that was stolen. All you can point to is stock owned by the market that decreased in value. A decrease in the value of a stock isn't theft since you don't own the value of a stock, you only own a claim on that value. People are still free to claim that value. The problem is that the value is $0.
    As a whole we do a pretty good job of providing a nice quality of live for many people. We balance many things that allows these billions of people to share the planet. We can not just abandon it - we have to look at it more honestly and make adjustments slowly and continue to analyze honestly and at the same time find a goal that can be agreed upon by many.

    I'm certainly not suggesting anyone abandon the planet. I'm suggesting people abandon what is destroying that planet: faith.
    being emotional and pretending that what Lay did is OK just because others are worse and still getting away with it, only serves to cloud the issue and perpetuates it.

    Please stop it. I'm not saying what Lay did is OK. It was wrong. But it was not the only wrong committed. It's not a matter of Lay being bad or the employees/investors/media/etc being bad. It's both.
    Lay was a theif, and he hurt many honest hard working people that did their part in good faith - If doing your part in good faith is not enough - then clearly things need to change - but that is not the fault of the people that did their part in good faith.

    Faith, both good and bad, is what is destroying this world my friend. The rejection of faith is the only thing that will save it.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But the Enron situation stems from a problem with society, not just a problem with one moron.



    Much of it, yes. And for any act of deceipt to work, one must lie and one must believe. I'd prefer to tackle both parts of that equation, rather than just one.



    Again, you can't trace a single dollar that was stolen. All you can point to is stock owned by the market that decreased in value. A decrease in the value of a stock isn't theft since you don't own the value of a stock, you only own a claim on that value. People are still free to claim that value. The problem is that the value is $0.



    I'm certainly not suggesting anyone abandon the planet. I'm suggesting people abandon what is destroying that planet: faith.



    Please stop it. I'm not saying what Lay did is OK. It was wrong. But it was not the only wrong committed. It's not a matter of Lay being bad or the employees/investors/media/etc being bad. It's both.



    Faith, both good and bad, is what is destroying this world my friend. The rejection of faith is the only thing that will save it.

    You go ahead and abandon faith.. hope that works for ya.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Reason: man's ability to think logically.



    You don't understand how reason relates to duping? Interesting.

    Let's run through some examples.

    You asked if a person who works for a paycheck is greedy. Since greed is the sacrifice of reason for money, there are conditions under which a person who works for a paycheck can be greedy. For example, if the person expects the value of that paycheck to exceed the value of his labor, that person becomes unreasonable and therefore greedy. Why? Because someone else must then provide the gap between the value of that paycheck and the value of that labor. And since the other person involved may simply refuse or be rendered unable to fill that gap, the paycheck cannot be expected. Similarly, if a person expects their paycheck to be provided regardless of outside factors or the value of their labor, that person is also unreasonable since the fact remains that a paycheck requires someone to pay it and possession of a value to back that check.

    Similarly, an investor who invests on nothing more than a feeling of confidence is unreasonable (assuming that they want a return on that investment). A feeling of confidence is not related to the performance of a stock, unless the stock price is based on nothing more than the combined confidence of thousands of investors. Confidence cannot create profit.

    A resonable investor, for example, would never have invested in Enron. Reasonable investors consider products, markets and direction long before they consider last quarter's earnings ratio. Enron's products were largely vapor. Their market was slight and they had little to no competitve advantage within that space. Their direction was haphazard and often contradictory. Furthermore, Enron's financials weren't good. Their quarterly increases looked great and were swallowed by the analyst community, but the numbers themselves never added up. Their ratios were terrible and their overall liabilities kept rising. They were obviously using profit reserves to fund their quarterly growth. But none of that mattered as long as the quarterly numbers were good and the stock price kept rising.

    When you boil everything down, Enron was in the confidence business and everything that went on reflected that. Their business was nothing more than a fucking church. "Have faith, don't ask questions" should have been their motto. And just like Jim Jones wasn't the only fool at Jonestown, Ken Lay wasn't the only fool at Enron. But people bought into his bullshit lock, stock, and barrel. And it takes two to tango in that kind of relationship. This isn't a mugger holding a gun to your head. This is a salesman that allows you to hold onto your wallet. But if you're going to pay a man to turn iron into gold, don't be surprised when you find out he's nothing more than a mystic.

    Other companies continue to operate this way. An excellent example is Overstock.com. They're guilty of many of the same "crimes", but no one cares yet because the company is still operating, employing people, and making short and long sellers money. Microsoft has also done many of the same things as Enron and again, no one is going after Bill Gates or Steve Balmer.

    Was Ken Lay a liar? Hell yes. Was Ken Lay a dirtbag? Of course. But if you're going to string him up you need to string up every liar and dirtbag in town. And if you're going to go after those who profited from Enron's malfaesance, why aren't you going after the employees whose salaries were paid for by that malfeasance?

    again with the subjective terms...nice change to "unreasonable"...

    let me ask...who determines the "value" of a persons job...today, for example, as part of my job duties and requirements, I had to explain to a mother her child fell on the Autistic Spectrum...perhaps one of the hardest things I've ever done...what's that worth...? for the record, I expect nothing more or less for my days work, but I know for sure that not many people in this world would want that job...however, I have to wonder should I get more for that...?

    how about a CEO...what the does that person do that's worth more that anyone else..they delegate, tell others what to do, and sit back and get big cash...they do pretty much the same thing a manager of Burger King does, without the cash...

    as for Jim Jones...my response: what the hell are you talking about know...

    I have no idea what Overstock does, nor do I care...

    in your last paragraph you say something about Lay being a liar and dirtbag...you forgot Felon...that is why he should have been strung up...plain and simple...well, at least for some...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abuskedti wrote:
    You go ahead and abandon faith.. hope that works for ya.

    Ummm....so far it has worked quite well for me.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    again with the subjective terms...nice change to "unreasonable"...

    I use both terms. A "reasonable" action is one consistent with logic. An "unreasonable" action is one in violation of logic.
    let me ask...who determines the "value" of a persons job...today, for example, as part of my job duties and requirements, I had to explain to a mother her child fell on the Autistic Spectrum...perhaps one of the hardest things I've ever done...what's that worth...? for the record, I expect nothing more or less for my days work, but I know for sure that not many people in this world would want that job...however, I have to wonder should I get more for that...?

    It's worth whatever the mother was willing to pay for it, minus whatever costs went into the effort.
    how about a CEO...what the does that person do that's worth more that anyone else..they delegate, tell others what to do, and sit back and get big cash...they do pretty much the same thing a manager of Burger King does, without the cash...

    Not quite. Why don't you try being CEO of a hospital and making a decision about how much money goes into research and how much money goes into practical application and grapple with how many lives that saves?

    Why don't you try being CEO of my company (we measure employee satisfcation and performance) and know that if a single piece of bad information gets out of this office someone might be unjustly fired, or someone might be unjustly compensated at the cost of another?

    You think CEOs just "sit back and get big cash"??? Tell me, what do you think of those who accuse the poor of being "lazy and stupid"?
    as for Jim Jones...my response: what the hell are you talking about know...

    Jim Jones was a man who sold faith. His followers bought it.

    Ken Lay was a man who sold faith. His employees and investors bought it.
    I have no idea what Overstock does, nor do I care...

    Yet when they collapse and people lose their jobs in scandal, then you will.
    in your last paragraph you say something about Lay being a liar and dirtbag...you forgot Felon...that is why he should have been strung up...plain and simple...well, at least for some...

    But he was indicted for being a liar and a dirtbag: no different than any other liar or dirtbag except his lies and his dirt cost people money. That's what his conviction was based on.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Not quite. Why don't you try being CEO of a hospital and making a decision about how much money goes into research and how much money goes into practical application and grapple with how many lives that saves?

    come on, now, it's not that hard...a CEO simply delegates and bitches when it doesn't get done...when a problem happens, they blame the blind followers, oops, I mean employees...you push some paper, read some reports written by others, and take credit when the company does well...
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why don't you try being CEO of my company (we measure employee satisfcation and performance) and know that if a single piece of bad information gets out of this office someone might be unjustly fired, or someone might be unjustly compensated at the cost of another?

    oh my...do you trust your employees...? or do you research each finding or report they deliver...? I really don't understand what your company does...do you read the surveys and report it back to the company while insuring they stay anonymus...? tough stuff...I've filled that crap out and often wondered what happend to it...I always thought they flushed it...and now I find out they outsource the reading for these things...what a waste...

    news flash: if the Manager at Burger King doesn't insure the employees get the food out fresh and on time, they will be fired...so, a CEO and a BK manager pretty much do the same thing...However, being manager at Burger King is harder...

    farfromglorified wrote:
    You think CEOs just "sit back and get big cash"??? Tell me, what do you think of those who accuse the poor of being "lazy and stupid"?

    yes and I don't...


    farfromglorified wrote:
    But he was indicted for being a liar and a dirtbag: no different than any other liar or dirtbag except his lies and his dirt cost people money. That's what his conviction was based on.

    um...Felon...you forgot it again....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    come on, now, it's not that hard...a CEO simply delegates and bitches when it doesn't get done...when a problem happens, they blame the blind followers, oops, I mean employees...you push some paper, read some reports written by others, and take credit when the company does well...

    Wow. I've been running companies for nearly 10 years now and I can't remember the last time I bitched when something didn't get done, blamed any "blind followers", or pushed a paper. I certainly have delegated. I certainly have read a lot of reports. I've also worked. I've also written lots of reports. I've also given people jobs, raises and bonuses. I've also had to fire people. I've also engineered systems that cut my business's costs by 75%.
    oh my...do you trust your employees...?

    If they've earned that trust, certainly. If not, certainly not.
    or do you research each finding or report they deliver...?

    If I'm going to use those findings and reports to make decisions, definitely.
    I really don't understand what your company does...do you read the surveys and report it back to the company while insuring they stay anonymus...?

    Yes.
    tough stuff...I've filled that crap out and often wondered what happend to it...I always thought they flushed it...and now I find out they outsource the reading for these things...what a waste...

    They "outsource" it for lots of good reasons. First, you already mentioned one: anonymity. Second, we can do it cheaper than they can. Third, we have systems in place to produce reports and measure indices that they don't know how to produce. Fourth, we have an immense amount of experience and knowledge on how to conduct these surveys that they do not have.
    news flash: if the Manager at Burger King doesn't insure the employees get the food out fresh and on time, they will be fired...so, a CEO and a BK manager pretty much do the same thing...

    Just because they both have responsibilities, you assume they "do the same thing"? That's ridiculous. You might as well suggest that being a father is no different than be a BK manager.
    However, being manager at Burger King is harder...

    Ok.
    yes and I don't...

    Yet I don't just "sit back and get big cash". If I just sat back, that cash would dry up quite quickly. But if you want to hold on to unreasonable generalizations because that's easier than actually thinking about something, knock yourself out.
    um...Felon...you forgot it again....

    I haven't forgotten his conviction. I haven't forgotten those who weren't convicted either.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Wow. I've been running companies for nearly 10 years now and I can't remember the last time I bitched when something didn't get done, blamed any "blind followers", or pushed a paper. I certainly have delegated. I certainly have read a lot of reports. I've also worked. I've also written lots of reports. I've also given people jobs, raises and bonuses. I've also had to fire people. I've also engineered systems that cut my business's costs by 75%.


    so does a burger king manager...they delegate, read and write reports, fire and hire, and look to cut costs...the similarities are eery...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    so does a burger king manager...they delegate, read and write reports, fire and hire, and look to cut costs...the similarities are eery...

    The difference is that I could do the burger king manager's job tomorrow. The burger king manager would have no idea how to do mine.

Categories