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.

Technology Stocks : Semi-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Douglas who wrote (10256)	3/5/2002 2:00:42 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 10921

instead of posting separately, here is my answer to all three of you. (1) There are two types of courts: civil and criminal. I never said which of these the board and the top management of Enron belong to. That is for someone else to decide. And as it has already been pointed out, people are already taken to courts for bad driving and malpractice. In some cases, the bad driver is charged with man slaughter or reckless endangerment which do carry jail sentences. And the driver does not have to be intoxicated for that to happen. I don't see why the standard should be any more lax for the management. Ask the Enron employees which do they prefer, to be hit by a truck and spend a year in hospital, or to lose their jobs and life savings. The damaged caused has been more than that of a reckless driver, as should be the punishment. (2) We all make mistakes. I encourage an environment in which people can take chances. I do that every day in the stock market and I've been wrong plenty. But I also face the consequences of my mistakes. Nor do I take the same kind of chances with my parents retirement money that I take with my trading portfolio. What does this have to do with Enron? They took chances that was reckless and they took it with the lives of others. There is a difference between making one or two or even ten bad decisions and making only one bad decision that destroys everything. The latter is reckless unless forced. (3) The Enron structures were so flawed, that the off-shore firm that set it up for them made them sign a letter saying that Enron understood the firm is advising against this and that there is a conflict of interest between the entity and Enron (under the control of the CFO). It was only after Enron signed such a paper that they set it up. If this doesn't scream reckless, I don't know what does. (4) The law can never be as precise as you seem indicate. And if it was, it would be useless. Real life does not fit into little digitized compartments of behavior. This is why the main standard in law is "what would a reasonable man do". It is also why sometimes you are judged by a joury of your peers. And why we have judges instead of a computer program. Now I haven't said what the punishment for the Enron board and top management should be. I am only saying that it is very reasonable to expect them to explain their actions in a court of law. Who knows, may be they are not as guilty as some think. But that is for the joury to decide. ST