VoodooAce
Emperor
Lol.....yeah, I'm guilty. But prove it!
Enron
- Thread starter VoodooAce
- Start date
Lol.....yeah, I'm guilty. But prove it!
VoodooAce
Emperor
What I would like to see most of all are the minutes to the numerous meetings the Vice President had with Kenneth Lay while they were sculpting the nations energy plan.
But Dick Nixon, er, Cheney refuses to release the minutes and won't let anyone see them. Whatchya hiding behing your back, there, Dickie?
But Dick Nixon, er, Cheney refuses to release the minutes and won't let anyone see them. Whatchya hiding behing your back, there, Dickie?
Who's to say Dick's hiding anything self-incriminating? If statements were made with the understanding that the meeting minutes were never intended to be made public, then that would be a betrayal of trust on Dick's part to turn around and make them public. Which would make it unethical for him TO release them, even though it could potentially exonerate him.
ajohn505
Mr. Fahrenheit
Tetley,
Nonetheless, they were supoena'd by Congress before this incident, and they still haven't been given up. Numerous individuals and groups have tried to get them via the Freedom of Information Act, to no avail. John Ashcroft, on Oct. 12th, instructed federal agencies to deny FOIA requests if they conflicted with 'corporate, institutional, or personal privacy' interests. Ashcroft, do you mean the same kinds of things the FOIA was originally created to make available? He might as well come out and say "don't release anything that can incriminate anybody in close to this administration".
It's like we live in a Monarchy... the executive branch sure seems eager to use it's 'Executive Privilege' to hide everything. Bush has already hidden the Regan-Bush era documents by executive privilege.
I wonder if Congress will eventually passes a law limiting Executive privilge, like it can be vetoed with a 2/3 vote of Congress or something... then we'll see where Bush et. al stand on the Consitution.
If this was an energy policy making meeting, the minutes should be made public. Tetley, if there WAS an agreement to keep the minutes private, it was illegal. Private meetings with giant energy companies about energy policy? That's not legal, or ethical. But the relationship made Enron able to have this sort of meeting, to have the president sit quiet while California paid 3x the normal market amount for energy, which eventually netted Enron billions. One of Enron's private jets flew Bush senior and wife to Duh-bya's innaguration, for chrissakes.
They're quiet now, because they don't want to jump on this sinking ship. OF COURSE they're not going to exonerate themselves... The same documents that would exonerate them would also make a public showcase of the incredibly intimate relationship big business has with this administration.
It'll only be one term, thank god. Then we can start making progress again, instead of pillaging the environment, pillaging the poor, and pillaging democracy to make a few energy barons rich.
Nonetheless, they were supoena'd by Congress before this incident, and they still haven't been given up. Numerous individuals and groups have tried to get them via the Freedom of Information Act, to no avail. John Ashcroft, on Oct. 12th, instructed federal agencies to deny FOIA requests if they conflicted with 'corporate, institutional, or personal privacy' interests. Ashcroft, do you mean the same kinds of things the FOIA was originally created to make available? He might as well come out and say "don't release anything that can incriminate anybody in close to this administration".
It's like we live in a Monarchy... the executive branch sure seems eager to use it's 'Executive Privilege' to hide everything. Bush has already hidden the Regan-Bush era documents by executive privilege.
I wonder if Congress will eventually passes a law limiting Executive privilge, like it can be vetoed with a 2/3 vote of Congress or something... then we'll see where Bush et. al stand on the Consitution.
If this was an energy policy making meeting, the minutes should be made public. Tetley, if there WAS an agreement to keep the minutes private, it was illegal. Private meetings with giant energy companies about energy policy? That's not legal, or ethical. But the relationship made Enron able to have this sort of meeting, to have the president sit quiet while California paid 3x the normal market amount for energy, which eventually netted Enron billions. One of Enron's private jets flew Bush senior and wife to Duh-bya's innaguration, for chrissakes.
They're quiet now, because they don't want to jump on this sinking ship. OF COURSE they're not going to exonerate themselves... The same documents that would exonerate them would also make a public showcase of the incredibly intimate relationship big business has with this administration.
It'll only be one term, thank god. Then we can start making progress again, instead of pillaging the environment, pillaging the poor, and pillaging democracy to make a few energy barons rich.
Maj
Emperor
Sadly it's not just the energy barons who are milking the legal system, public ignorance & greed, and government corruption for all its worth.
Mega-corporations and banks are beginning to rule the world and you need not look far to find the evidence. With government the public can elect their representatives and rally for a leadership that satisfies their needs. With big business, the bottom line is profit, and nothing yet has been able to dent that surface.
Looking at how the Enron executives conducted themselves, the prospect of becoming "just another employee" scares the crap out of me. How many people here who work for major companies are actually loyal to their employer and not just the pay cheque that keeps their head above the rising water? What's the point of being loyal to your employer if their only priority is to be complacent with the demands of their wallets and investors? Capitalism gone wild, I say.
- Maj
ajohn505
Mr. Fahrenheit
Exactly... most people nowadays have scrapped any kind of personal ethics or code for 'free-market ethics'. If it's not illegal (or marginal), and you can make a profit, do it. Exploit low-income workers, leave your employees high and dry while giving yourselves bonuses... Hey: just because it makes you a profit doesn't mean it's good for humanity. I'm sure slave-traders made huge profits.
Who knows... I don't think the workers of the world will stand for being exploited for too long.
"Religion is the only think keeping the poor from murdering the rich" - Napoleon Bonaparte
Who knows... I don't think the workers of the world will stand for being exploited for too long.
"Religion is the only think keeping the poor from murdering the rich" - Napoleon Bonaparte
VoodooAce
Emperor
Enron is in the news again in California. Its becoming more and more apparent that they were involved in price fixing.
In the name of greed they've driven power companies here into the ground and robbed Californians of billions of dollars.
It was about a year ago that Gov. Davis was asking the Federal government for help. And what were we told?
We were told by the Bush Whitehouse that the problem was of our own making so we had to deal with it!!!!
Our own making? It appears not. Rather, it was the making of his buddy Ken Lay and the rest of the scum at Enron.
Personally, I'd like to see them drop the 'What did you know and when did you know it' thing on terrorism and start asking that question about California's robbery at the hand of corporate raiders.
Let them regulate themselves my @$$. I don't think so. Just another example that deregulation is an invitation for corrumption and thievery.
In the name of greed they've driven power companies here into the ground and robbed Californians of billions of dollars.
It was about a year ago that Gov. Davis was asking the Federal government for help. And what were we told?
We were told by the Bush Whitehouse that the problem was of our own making so we had to deal with it!!!!
Our own making? It appears not. Rather, it was the making of his buddy Ken Lay and the rest of the scum at Enron.
Personally, I'd like to see them drop the 'What did you know and when did you know it' thing on terrorism and start asking that question about California's robbery at the hand of corporate raiders.
Let them regulate themselves my @$$. I don't think so. Just another example that deregulation is an invitation for corrumption and thievery.
Greadius
:yeah:
Which both conflict with making money in the big picture. Corruption and thievery are not profitable exercises
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
VoodooAce, what's your proof that deregulation caused the collapse of Enron or the California price fixing?
Maybe if Davis just stopped following the East German model and trying to keep energy prices artificially low, there wouldn't be a problem. Someone needs to explain to Governor Grey-out that "free market" doesn't mean that everyone gets everything free.
Maybe if Davis just stopped following the East German model and trying to keep energy prices artificially low, there wouldn't be a problem. Someone needs to explain to Governor Grey-out that "free market" doesn't mean that everyone gets everything free.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Originally posted by Greadius
Which both conflict with making money in the big picture. Corruption and thievery are not profitable exercises
The big picture. The pressure to compete now, for positive financial results right now, means that businesses very ofton don't pay attention to the big picture, or long term reprecussions....lol, look at the fishing industry for an example.
And RM, I got good news for you. Well, good for me, really. Evidence is mounting that Enron played dirty and jacked up California's energy prices artificially.....just like all of us commie liberals were saying all along.
We cried and complained, we knew it....KNEW IT....but couldn't, until now, prove it. Republicans refused to believe that big business would possibly screw them over, but lookie here.....
Gotta jet right now, but I'll would be most pleased to post links to some of the stories later this evening. In fact, it will be my humble honor to continuously keep you posted as the story unfolds. No, no problem, really. It will be my pleasure.
Of course, loyal Republicans with blinders firmly in place will STILL deny that deregulation had anything to do with it. Its all a big coincidence. An abberation. Or, most laughable of all, its because of what regulation remains that this all happenecd.
Its like trying to convince my son that his scooter was stolen for one reason. That he left it outside. I warned him about it before it happened. He brushed me off. It happened. And now, I can't get him to admit that its his own fault for leaving it outside.
And George Walker Bush, you get in this house right NOW! Your're in trouble, young man. When California went to you for help while being bullied by your friends, you turned your back on them (retribution, perhaps, for the fact he got his heinie handed to him here?)! You told them it was their own fault. Well, I think you KNEW better, young man, and there will be consequences.
Greadius
:yeah:
The small picture too. Excessive amounts screwed over shareholders, whereas it is the primary responsibility of the company to make money for them. Instead they lost money. The company failed at its primary objective. Destruction immanent. :skull:
VoodooAce
Emperor
here's a question for you, RM, regarding regulation and such. Would you rather live below a dam that was built by a construction company that was forced to follow regulations and laws in place to make sure that such dam construction is done safely and solidly.
Or would you dare to live below a dam that was built by a construction company that was not regulated and left free to build as it saw fit....with an eye toward keeping construction costs as low as possible?
Now, I know, you might think that we can trust those with such responsibility to do the right thing. To not cut corners in the interest of profits.
But history has proven over and over and over again that this isn't the case. Humans with that ultra-capitalist instinct WILL screw over his fellow man....many will screw anyone over any chance they get, every single time, regardless of the cost to that other person.
Dams have been built that were death traps. Look at some of the construction that goes on in South America and SE Asia without regulations like we have here.
That is why I feel regulation is a good thing. Someone has to keep an eye on these guys, period.
Switch625
I don't care.
VoodooAce, the botched "deregulation" in California set the stage for corruption on both sides of the ticket. Forbidding the power distributors from entering into long term contracts with power producers forced the distributors to buy power on the spot market, where it is most expensive. After forcing the power distributors to buy power in the most expensive way possible, the state then did not deregulate the rates at which the power distributors could sell that power to customers. In effect, this system kept expenses artificially high while keeping income artificially low. This was a brain-dead combination which pretty much guaranteed the collapse of the power distribution companies. Even if Enron hadn't played games to jack up the prices, this artificially skewed market would have imploded anyway.
VoodooAce
Emperor
I don't think Enron caused the problem. They just appear to be opportunists that had no problem with snapping the law.
I also agree, to a point, with you switch as to the cause. The compromise that was in place, in retrospect, was destined to fail.
I'm no financial genius, but if we make a change that is supposed to save us money, why would certain parties demand that part of that change be a removal of price restrictions??
It just seems that we made some changes that resulted in higher prices. Then some people complained that that price incrfease couldn't be passed on to the customer.
We should have never made those changes in the first place it would seem to me.
I also agree, to a point, with you switch as to the cause. The compromise that was in place, in retrospect, was destined to fail.
I'm no financial genius, but if we make a change that is supposed to save us money, why would certain parties demand that part of that change be a removal of price restrictions??
It just seems that we made some changes that resulted in higher prices. Then some people complained that that price incrfease couldn't be passed on to the customer.
We should have never made those changes in the first place it would seem to me.
The Califonia derugulation show the worst results you can get with legislative politics and manuvers. The opponents of deregulation managed to loads it with amendmenst and provisions they KNEW would srew it up, trying to kill it. The proponents passed it anway, believe the opponents would not allow to stayed scred up and would agree to fix it, but it never was fixed.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
If they ever want to be in business again, they do a good job building the dam. The cost of future business is much greater than the cost of a few pounds of steel and concrete.
VoodooAce
Emperor
So, what you're saying is, the threat of having their business ruined wiill prevent anyone from constructing something in a shoddy way that ends up killing people.
What a nice little fantasy land you must live in.
So, it never happens, huh?
You are wrong again. Read a little. Explore history, my friend.
Without proper regulation, there will always be those willing to roll the dice for a few dollars more.....it HAS happened over and over again. Try reading the rest of what I write, rather than picking bits and pieces out to respond to.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Appropriate regulations, not excessive regulations.
What good would price controls do for the energy industry?
President Nixon put in price controls, and look what happened...
What good would price controls do for the energy industry?
President Nixon put in price controls, and look what happened...
VoodooAce
Emperor
Thank you.
EdwardTking
Deity
In a way it our (the Brits) fault.
We invented the concept of the limited liability company; but did not get it's implementation quite right.
Prior to limited liability law; partnership law applied which meant that each and every partner was liable for debts. Unfortunately this meant that when for example a speculative south american mining company went broke in the nineteenth century and the creditors could not find the directors; they'd sue the first solvent shareholder. If the shareholder was an elderly widow who had bought just one £1 share; they would be liable for the full debt. In theory that widow could recover from other shareholders; but it never worked out that way. They ended up losing all their savings and in finishing their days in dire poverty.
Limited liability company law was therefore introduced so as to enable small savers who don't meaningfully control the companies they invest in; to safely invest knowing that the worst that might happpen was that they would lose the entirety of their investment.
Unfortunately limited liability, intended for encouraging specific small investors in high risk projects, became the corporate norm and this has resulted in many abuses throughout the world.
My own view is that company law should be changed such that limited liability would only apply to small investors. I believe that controlling directors and owners and controlling companies and controlling owners should be personally liable in full.
People say this would result in a dearth of entrepreneurs.
I certainly think that it would limit the gambling with other people's money characteristic of Maxwell, Enrron & Marconi.
I note that if you want to borrow money, to set up your own small business, from a bank you soon find that there is no limited liability for the plumber or restauranteur in the UK. The banks insist that you guarantee the company's debts with your assets, your wife's share and Uncle Tom Cobbly's and all; before they will lend you a cent. I fail to see why this should be different in large companies like Enrron; why their directors should be be treated differently.
The Aztecs used to sacrifice and eat those who could not pay debts.
The Romans sold them into slavery.
Up to about 180 years ago; we sent them to debtor's prison.
Now we let the scoundrel's go scot free without either punishment or even having to account for their actions
("I plead the 4th amendment") so they can do defraud again.
We invented the concept of the limited liability company; but did not get it's implementation quite right.
Prior to limited liability law; partnership law applied which meant that each and every partner was liable for debts. Unfortunately this meant that when for example a speculative south american mining company went broke in the nineteenth century and the creditors could not find the directors; they'd sue the first solvent shareholder. If the shareholder was an elderly widow who had bought just one £1 share; they would be liable for the full debt. In theory that widow could recover from other shareholders; but it never worked out that way. They ended up losing all their savings and in finishing their days in dire poverty.
Limited liability company law was therefore introduced so as to enable small savers who don't meaningfully control the companies they invest in; to safely invest knowing that the worst that might happpen was that they would lose the entirety of their investment.
Unfortunately limited liability, intended for encouraging specific small investors in high risk projects, became the corporate norm and this has resulted in many abuses throughout the world.
My own view is that company law should be changed such that limited liability would only apply to small investors. I believe that controlling directors and owners and controlling companies and controlling owners should be personally liable in full.
People say this would result in a dearth of entrepreneurs.
I certainly think that it would limit the gambling with other people's money characteristic of Maxwell, Enrron & Marconi.
I note that if you want to borrow money, to set up your own small business, from a bank you soon find that there is no limited liability for the plumber or restauranteur in the UK. The banks insist that you guarantee the company's debts with your assets, your wife's share and Uncle Tom Cobbly's and all; before they will lend you a cent. I fail to see why this should be different in large companies like Enrron; why their directors should be be treated differently.
The Aztecs used to sacrifice and eat those who could not pay debts.
The Romans sold them into slavery.
Up to about 180 years ago; we sent them to debtor's prison.
Now we let the scoundrel's go scot free without either punishment or even having to account for their actions
("I plead the 4th amendment") so they can do defraud again.
