From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 12:13:29 MDT
On Saturday 07 September 2002 10:30, Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Saturday, September 07, 2002 12:29 PM Harvey Newstrom
>
> mail@HarveyNewstrom.com wrote:
> >> The War on Business
> >> by William L. Anderson
> >>
> >> With the recent guilty plea of former Enron executive Michael Kopper,
>
> it
>
> >> seems that the floodgates are now officially open in the government's
> >> war against American business.
> >
> > I don't understand this position. These executives
> > faked results. Their companies did not produce
> > value or make results. The shareholders lost all
> > their money while the fake reports said they were
> > making money. What little real money came in
> > was secretly diverted to the executives so the
> > shareholders did not even get that. As these
> > businesses collapse, the shareholders are left with
> > nothing. They were duped out of their investments
> > on deals that were known to be fraudulent.
>
> Actually, in most these cases it remains to be proved that people
> knowingly committed fraud. Accusations aren't enough here. Intent must
> be proved.
Truth.
>
> However, yes, if you are right about this, then, yes, these people
> should be prosecuted. And there's no need for new laws or a vigorous
> prosecutorial campaign. Also, this should be a basically civil not
> criminal action. The goal should be to get the money back -- as much as
> possible -- from the executives found guilty of fraud.
>
Fraud, conspiracy to comit fraud, grand theft, et multitudinous cetera.
> > The executives took their money and gave them lies
> > instead of real opportunity. No shareholder who lost
> > their life savings would consider this to be "American
> > Business".
>
> Actually, a lot of novice investors think just that. They think that
> this is how business works. Given the calls for jail time and the
What is the evidence that they are wrong? That's the way a lot of business
appears to operate. And given the difficulty of obtaining evidence, we can
be certain that a much larger number of crimes are comitted than are ever
convicted.
> like -- which won't refund any investor money and actually will costs
> investors more, since they'll be paying for the trials and the prison
> cells -- I think basically this has turned into a class warfare issue.
Do you honestly think that there's any way the investors would be repaid?
They have essentially no power and no leverage at this point in time. They
were lied to, hoodwinked (or sometimes coerced) into these investments. And
they have no current recourse. Is it your position that we should trust the
government to handle things properly? Perhaps we should, but that's because
it's the only choice available.
>
> > The government is trying to prosecute crooks. There is
> > no war on American Business. Legitimate companies
> > producing real products and making real money have
> > nothing to fear.
>
> No exactly true. First, the government did not prove wrong doing before
> the arrests. Since these guys are not likely to flee and also not
??? Evidence for this? I know of many cases in the past where (on a lesser
scope) people who have comitted similar crimes have then fled the country,
taking their profits with them.
> violent criminals, the arrests and parading before the media was purely
> a political stunt aimed at giving the masses circuses when no bread is
> forthcoming.
Causing people to loose their homes and jobs. Purely a stunt, yeah!
>
> Second, with more government intrusions into the market -- proffered by
> the myth that somehow before last summer we had total laissez faire
> capitalism (each new episode of government intervention is always
> predicated that we had economic anarchy until the new interventions are
> in place). In this area, there will restrictions on how people can
> invest, e.g., in 401 (k)s.
The laissez faire market is a myth. The government intervenes constantly on
the side of large businesses and against the customers and the smaller
businesses. Also against foreign businesses, and that's sometimes used as an
excuse to justify the former actions.
>
> New disclosures, too, only add to the myth that a government approval is
> a substitute for good judgment -- as when people die from FDA approved
> medication. This only lessens the likelihood that people will use
> common sense and develop a degree of skepticism when making investments.
I'd like them to give convincing proof that the government isn't owned lock,
stock, and barrel by whoever buys the politicians. Because I sure can't
afford to. Even though they are appearantly much cheaper than I had
expected. A recent story showed that one corp. bought my governor's vote in
a move clearly against both his prior pronouncements and the interests of the
citizenry for a mere $200,000 (approx. I don't remember the exact figure).
> I.e., it increases the likelihood of more risk taking in the future --
> after all, the government has approved XYZ, Inc.'s statements, so they
> must be a good risk -- and further interventions when these go awry.
>
> As I said earlier, none of this excuses true cases of fraud, but fraud
> enforcement does not require any new laws or new government agencies.
> Likewise for avoiding fraud. (Fraud wasn't invented by Enron and Arthur
> Andersen, you know?:)
That's true, but do you really have any belief that this is about cracking
down on fraud. This is about increasing government control, and improving
PR. You don't see the VP being hailed into court, do you? But there's
certainly clear evidence that implicates him. (And, interestingly enough,
congress is also being quiet about this... probably afraid of
cross-complaints.)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dan
> See "Form and Content in Poetry: A Reply to Jackie van Oostrom" at:
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Poetry.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:49 MST