From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 15:15:23 MDT
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Technotranscendence wrote:
> I'm glad someone here, aside from me, still thinks that guilt has to be
> proven before people are punished.
Daniel, you are entirely off the cliff here. I note that in the
message starting this thread you said "the Enron employee plead
guilty".
Knock, Knock. What part of "plead guilty" don't you understand?
The government doesn't have to try you and a jury doesn't have to
find you guilty if you "plead guilty"! Unless all those television
shows like Law and Order, Judge Judy, etc. are portraying some other
legal system.
Now, assuming the individual had reasonable consul, and my impression
is that he was far enough up in the Enron ladder to have someone other
than a public defender, that consul is not going to cop a plea unless
the evidence against the individual is so strong that the best
they think they can do is work out a plea agreement for a lesser
sentence if the individual provides evidence against the other
co-conspirators. That appears to be what is happening.
Now going from Enron to the Fed and interest rates -- what a hoot.
Enron existed, made its money, and crashed and burned on the
*deregulation* of the energy markets. I think you of all people
would be in favor of that. They had a bunch of people who
decided playing accounting games was necessary to keep Wall
Street happy and they proceeded to do that.
The new laws and regulations you are moaning and complaining
about do a couple of things -- (1) they increase the jail
sentences for fraudulent acts -- no more white collar
crimes with a 2-year slap on the wrist before you leave
to withdraw your ill-gotten gains from your Swiss bank
account and retire to the Carribean; (2) they clamp down
on loans companies can make to executives [gee if you are
worthy of a loan go to an indepdendent institution like
a bank and get one].
I'm sure there are more questionable practices they are
cutting back on but I'd have to go read the legislation
(as *you* would) to know for certain what they are.
Get a clue here -- people will act in their own self-interest.
If they can find a way to milk the system they generally will
use it if they think they can get away with it. Unless you
are proposing the privitization of the SEC and the entire
judicial system -- *and* have a concrete proposal for how
to do that and who should pay for it -- I think your
complaints are sound and fury signifying nothing.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:50 MST