SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46530)1/16/2002 11:46:39 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
New laws should prevent Enron II

The Chicago Sun-Times

January 15, 2002

Like a drowning man, the sinking Enron Corp. tried grabbing onto anything to keep above water, and the bankrupt energy giant pulled many down with it. The victims start with former employees like Charles Prestwood, who saw his retirement nest egg drop from a comfortable $1.3 million to a chilling zip. Thousands of others--at one time Enron, the nation's seventh- largest business, employed 21,000 people--had their life savings vanish as Enron stock slid from $90 a share to 61 cents in 15 months. Others, less innocent than the investors, will be identified as Congress and the SEC dig into the mess. Enron executives displayed an amazing dexterity at hiding debts and made sure to dump much of their own stock for hundreds of millions of dollars before it became worthless, an option they forbade many employees trapped in 401(k)s.

Expect ripples close to home. The foundering Enron had its fingers locked around the neck of Chicago-based Arthur Andersen LLP, which already has admitted urging its staffers to shred documents related to Enron, practically up until the arrival of the congressional subpoenas. One potential class of victims who, so far, seems on dry land, are politicians in general and the Bush administration in particular. Despite close ties to Enron--its CEO, Kenneth L. Lay, was a Bush confidant and 15 Bush officials held stock--it appears that when the firm started to collapse and reached out to the administration, it got the cold shoulder.

Of course, we haven't heard from Dick Cheney yet. The vice president has been mum so far as to his meetings on energy policy with his old pals. But increasing pressure will no doubt make him cough up the details. Frankly, we think Cheney's too smart to get caught in the vortex. Another difficulty for those trying to tie Enron to the Bush administration is that the power giant was cozying up with everyone, nearly; 250 politicians received the company's cash, including Democrats from Charles Schumer to Joseph Liebermann. And its deceptive practices began during the Clinton administration.

In the next few months, we'll be hearing a lot about Enron, as Congress asks the question: How can a $62 billion corporation--the nation's largest to go bankrupt--become a worthless shell in no time flat without anybody noticing until the moment it collapsed? The answer, of course, is that it can't. People certainly knew that Enron was falling apart, but the crux is--to revive the classic Watergate query--who knew, what did they know, and when did they know it? What we do know now is that if there are no laws forbidding the Enron practice of hiding losses by creating partner firms, there should be. Part of the problem appears to be be the dual role of Andersen. Its accounting arm audited, that is, vouched for, Enron's finances, while its consultant branch did business with Enron.

Politicians might be nervous, but they can take comfort: Their woes pale against those of the Charlie Prestwoods of the world, those who saw their life's savings wiped out, who had hoped for comfortable golden years and are cast back into a world that is colder and crueler than they imagined. Perhaps they can take some measure of comfort in the thought that they are not going to jail. Not everyone involved will be able to say that.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (46530)1/16/2002 11:58:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 65232
 
Cracks in the Rubble

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
January 16, 2002
The New York Times

<<When a minister has his favorite warlord's picture over his desk, and not that of the new president (who is a Pashtun), that's not a good sign.>>

nytimes.com

KABUL, Afghanistan -- I've got more good news and bad news from Kabul. The good news is that sporting events have returned to the city, even before electricity or law and order have been fully restored.

The bad news is that the sport is cockfighting.

A match took place last week at Babur's Gardens, a once beautiful, now decayed botanical park. About 100 Afghan men — captured in stunning photographs by The Times's Chang W. Lee — gathered to watch two huge fighting roosters go four rounds against each other, before the match was finally called a draw.

Unfortunately, these aren't the only fighting roosters strutting around the Afghan ruins. There's also the human variety — the Afghan warlords, and the neighboring powers that support them, who've been fighting over Afghanistan for two decades. The reason the Afghan war went so smoothly for the U.S. was because the geopolitical roosters — Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Russia — either overtly or tacitly cooperated with us to destroy the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, which was in each of their interests. And the local roosters — the key Tajik, Pashtun, Hazara and Uzbek warlords — did the same.

But now that the war is largely finished, the struggle over Afghanistan is resuming, and America has a big decision in front of it: Will it show the same resolve in winning the peace here as it did winning the war here? Will it support and join a multinational force to stay here and stabilize Afghanistan, and create some law and order, until the fledgling new government can get on its feet? This is the question of the day. If America hesitates, well, you can already see the roosters sharpening their claws.

I just met the new interior minister, Yunus Qanooni, in his office. Above his desk, where an American cabinet secretary would have a picture of President Bush, he had a photograph of Shah Massoud, the charismatic leader of the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance, who was killed by the Taliban just before Sept. 11. The foreign minister and defense minister, also Tajiks, also hang Shah Massoud's picture. The finance minister, an ethnic Pashtun, does not. I have a rule: When a minister has his favorite warlord's picture over his desk, and not that of the new president (who is a Pashtun), that's not a good sign.

Meanwhile, Afghan Ministry of Education officials have had their eyebrows raised by urgent approaches from Iran about acquiring land for Iranian-funded schools here. The Iranians have also been pumping money to their favorite Persian-speaking warlords, so their Afghan allies will be able to resist any orders of the central government that hard-liners in Iran don't like — such as Afghanistan becoming a close U.S. ally.

But here's what's also interesting: Every Afghan you stop tells you this country is so war-weary and starved for security that he would much rather have a multinational force police the whole place, over any ethnic militia or local rooster. One Special Forces officer told me he was ordered to poll local leaders about whom they would like as peacekeepers: Germans, Canadians, Turks? And they all answered, "We want you."

Sure, some will take potshots at us, but even those warlords who might think of challenging a U.S.-led peacekeeping force admit that they were wowed by the incredible power America displayed here. For all the talk about the vaunted Afghan fighters, this was a war between the Jetsons and the Flintstones — and the Jetsons won and the Flintstones know it. (There are Al Qaeda prisoners held near Bagram, guarded by U.S. Army M.P.'s, some of whom are women. Imagine going overnight from a society where you never see a woman's face to being guarded by one with an M-16. "At first some of them [make faces]," one woman M.P. told me, "but then they realize there's nothing they can do.")

The Taliban and Osama bin Laden lost the war because they mistakenly thought the Americans were the Russians, and could be defeated as easily. The Americans could lose the peace by also mistakenly thinking that they're the Russians — just another superpower that will automatically be resisted if it stays behind, so it better not even try.

It is by no means certain that even if we stay for a limited period to provide security while the Afghans rebuild, they will make it. They may just be too divided after 22 years of civil war. But if we don't try, it is absolutely certain that this whole country will become just one big cockfight again.