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.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (143)	1/12/2002 12:38:59 AM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

It was the Democrats that encouraged and fought for the rise in the minimum wage and they also fight for union benefits. The rise in union benefits and wages is what has propelled this country into economic booms. When more people have more money then everyone benefits cause more people have more money to spend on goods and services. The cash flow increases. Republicans represent corporate America more heavily than unions. If Democrats favored individual welfare than the Republicans favored corporate welfare. The turning of Democrats into "almost Republicans" is a stretch. I am a moderate Democrat and always have been moderate. I strongly believe in strong labor unions. civil liberties, women's rights, the protection of the environment, gov't regulation,etc............just to name a few. I know that some of those words are considered "dirty" in the Republican party. I am a far cry from a Republican. Pat

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (143)	1/12/2002 1:20:26 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5185

Well, I don't agree that the democrats provide more for the working class. They learned from conservative election victories that their favorite giveaway welfare programs to buy votes would no longer be tolerated by the electorate. It's been shown time and time again that the people more likely to vote have a higher income and more education. Welfare recipients are typically neither. You can't buy their vote, because as a group they don't vote. That's the reason term limits make so much sense. After a few yrs, someone with fresh ideas gets a chance to make a difference. That doesn't seem to be what the Framers thought. We had term limits under the Articles of Confederation and they were dropped when the Constitution was drafted. [Personnally, I shy away from making statements that imply that the Framers didn't know what they were doing.] The voters have every opportunity to vote someone else into office. If they decide the individual in question best represents that State or district, why should they be excluded from voting the individual into office? IMO, term limits is the ultimate denial of the responsibility of the voter. If the voters can't determine what's in their best interests then why give them a vote at all? jttmab

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (143)	1/12/2002 10:35:26 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

Biz School Blindness Sank Enron By JOHN LEBOUTILLIER From: News and Views \| Opinion \| The Daily News Wednesday, January 09, 2002 Harvard Business School: It's called the West Point of capitalism. In fact, the school's bottom-line-only philosophy has had a poisonous effect on American business practices. The Enron disaster is the most recent — and spectacular — manifestation. To illustrate my point, let me take you back to a classroom at the school in the late winter of 1978. The course was productions and operation management, taught by Chip Bupp, a thoughtful and serious man. On this particular day, the case study involved a company that manufactured a product that might be harmful, even fatal, to the consumer. The question was, what should you do, if you were the company's CEO, in such an ambiguous but potentially dangerous situation? Several students offered suggestions, none of which galvanized the class. Then a hand shot up, and Bupp said, "Jeff, what would you do?" Jeff, with his thinning blond hair, wire-rim spectacles and slight Southern drawl, was one of the brightest members of the class and a natural leader. When he talked, as the commercial used to say, everyone listened. "I'd keep making and selling the product," Jeff said. "My job as a businessman is to be a profit center and to maximize return to the shareholders. It's the government's job to step in if a product is dangerous." Several heads nodded. Neither Jeff nor those who agreed with him seemed to care about the potential effects of their cavalier attitude. What if the product really did harm consumers? How about the company's employees? Were they in danger during the manufacture of the product? What would happen to the company if the CEO's decision was wrong? Few in the classroom that day dared to raise these questions. At Harvard Business School — and business schools nationwide — you're considered soft, a wuss, if you dwell on morality or scruples. As the years went by, Jeff had a meteoric career. He became a partner in the McKinsey consulting firm. From there he joined Enron and was soon promoted to president and chief executive officer. Jeff is Jeffrey Skilling, who resigned under unexplained circumstances in August after only six months on the job. In two stock sales before and after his departure, he cashed out $30.6 million worth of Enron stock. Skilling and other senior managers encouraged employees to buy and keep Enron stock, even when things started to sour, while they were hurriedly selling huge blocks of their own stock. And now Enron has collapsed, "the largest bankruptcy case in American history," according to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). One analyst told CNBC, "It's the biggest insider trading scandal ever." Another observer said, "Enron was run to benefit the top executives. They literally looted the company." Yet Skilling proclaims total ignorance of any problems. "I had no idea the company was in anything but excellent shape," he has said. Articles about Skilling written since the demise of his company cite his arrogance and cold-heartedness. But as I witnessed sitting in that Harvard Business School classroom nearly 24 years ago, the seeds of his destruction grew out of a gross misunderstanding about the role of a business leader in our society. In his view, it is to be "a profit center" and to "maximize return for the shareholder," no matter the peril to consumers or employees. Harvard and other business schools must pay more than lip service to the gross ethical blind spots that the Enron case has exposed. Starting with an admissions policy that selects potential students for ethics and character as well as brains, these institutions need to return to the goal of teaching their students to be good citizens first and moneymakers second. America can't afford many more Enrons — or Jeffrey Skilling-like CEOs. _________________________________________ LeBoutillier graduated from Harvard Business School in 1979. He is the author of "Harvard Hates America."