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.

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

To: Selectric II who wrote (47670)	2/14/2002 12:45:37 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 65232

I was thinking he had seen a few too many B grade - conspiracy/corrupt gov't flicks. Don't get me wrong. I know the gov't can & will break their own laws & regulations if they think it will get them the end result what they want to achieve........... even if it leaves a host of innocent victims in its' wake. However, I seriously doubt that Bush Admin officials would give Enron the go ahead to create off shore companies & break all manner of laws to fraudulently clean up their balance sheet; Knowing full well that solving California's energy crisis would cause Enron so much financial damage (per BirdDog's scenario) & a trail of evidence would lead back to their doorstep. Seems to me that would just be asking for trouble big time. Even a bumbling, greedy politician, who's pockets were filled with Enron donations, would know there would be hell to pay if Enron eventually went belly up. All things considered, why not just have the gov't disallow Enron's request for help, protect California & let Enron clean up their own mess........... which is probably what happened in reality anyway. I guess that scenario is simply too boring. It doesn't give the conspiracy theorists & left wingers anything to get all lathered up about. Ö¿Ö