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.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (225993)2/7/2002 1:16:16 PM
From: Zoltan!  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
You have no cogent arguments. You have opinions which divert from what caused the Enron problem:

"My opinion is that the consulting contracts vs. auditing conflict of interest is the more serious problem... and one that needs new laws passed to correct."

"ICA waivers can be reversed administratively, that's an easier fix (to a lesser problem)."
-------------------

"My point was that accounting conflicts of interest affect THE ENTIRE ECONOMY (because the accountants can have lucrative 'consulting contracts' which compromise their objectivity at the same time they are auditing the books of ANY NUMBER of companies, across ANY NUMBER of industries.)"

"By definition this problem must be larger than any one-time only waiver of a rule that affects only one company, in only one industry."

"Witness that Tyco is also caught up into this panic now, and Imclone, and others...."
--------------

"I still say that the Congressional refusal to tighten accounting regulations which Levitt wanted (indeed, campaigned for over several years) will prove to be the largest structural failure which allowed this - and other - messes to occur."


None of those opinions address how Enron got where it did. Enron got there because of the Clinton SEC ruing.

You can try to fit the Dem spin into an argument but it doesn't work. You try to ignore the facts, but I wouldn't let you.