Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill C. who wrote (21218)	9/24/2000 7:53:26 PM
From: NOW	Respond to of 436258

Excuse me, but how do you define relative? <G> "I think it's very lamentable that you or the NY Times or anyone employ such moral relativism in this matter"

To: Bill C. who wrote (21218)	9/24/2000 8:02:03 PM
From: Bill C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

My comment about Jonathon's father may be a bit harsh and uncalled for since I don't know the delails and have no evidence to justify going so far as to say he is "no better".

To: Bill C. who wrote (21218)	9/24/2000 8:46:05 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Bill...I think you missed my point (or else I misread the article). Certainly Jonathan is guilty, what he did is wrong and he deserves to be punished. I don't disagree with any of that. However, in the last few years, the SEC has developed a pattern of only prosecuting the smallest, least well protected frauds, such as this kid. They've allowed the much bigger problem, that of front-running brokerages, venture capitalists, and investment bankers to get away with equivalent tactics. For example, in February, Lehman was reiterating a strong buy on VerticalNet, while their investment banking side was unloading most of their position. Show me where I'm wrong, what is the moral distinction between Lehman and this kid. IMO, this whole sick "get-rich-quick-with-no-risk" environment has been fostered by the Fed (with the SEC a willing accomplice). They've been determined to bail out the market and every large investor with unlimited ClownBux anytime the market looks pale since the bubble began in earnest in 1995, on to the infamous LTCM bailout, up to the massive airdrops this year during market downdrafts. Even the SPR release yesterday had its origin in bailing out investors (it obviously has NOTHING to do with making heating oil more affordable). In other words, they have fostered moral hazard on a scale unprecedented in economic history. Why should we then be surprised when a kid appears to get the message (ie, that "anything goes" in the relentless quest for ClownBucks), but is too unsophisticated to execute the caper legally. I'm in favor of stepped up enforcement by the SEC, against brokers and investment banks as well as the small fry. Untill that happens, we'll see ever-more egregious examples of youngsters having their moral compasses demagnetized by the media, the markets, the Clinton/Gore administration and the Fed. Regards, Patron