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.

Pastimes : MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Threshold who wrote (344)	6/13/2002 6:32:04 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 589

I think it is silly to let them bribe the government not to press criminal charges against them. ROFL!!! It's not about bribery; it's about coercion. The government, as the convening authority, can decide not to let them settle - but it'd rather have its' payday and the media hype that goes with it to soothe the weak minds crying for it to absolve them of their personal responsibility. How "silly" do you think it is that great portions of those particular settlement monies go to the treasuries of the states in question - while ostensibly the government acts on behalf of and serves the people? I mean, I wouldn't agree with this approach either, but doesn't it seem to make more sense that said settlement amounts should go to the "harmed" investors? Fat, rich crooks are now openly running this country. In times past, it was a somewhat hidden fact. Depending upon where you sit, fat rich crooks have always run the country. But from that same perspective, it's never been "hidden." In fact, it's evident from this absurd, sweeping statement that you not only have no understanding of financial markets, but of history: why don't you read about the turn of the century - in particular Ford, the Morgans, Carnegies, Vanderbuilts, et al. and their interaction with political figures at that time - and then reassess your laughable statement. Either we take very drastic action in Washington, or we are in for a very extended dead market. Do you believe that the regulators - whether at the state, federal, or SRO levels - are participants in whatever scandals you imagine are afoot? I sure don't want to see the markets killed just to let a bunch of Wall Street crooks, the energy overlords and a whole pile of CEOs get ridiculously wealthy. The equity markets have been in a downtrend since March of 2000. News of these scandals - real and imagined - have only reached a fever pitch over the past 60 days or so, though the first major one appeared in October or so. How are people getting wealthy, in this context, tied to the downturn in the markets? And what's wrong with CEO's becoming wealthy? Lastly: what is "ridiculous" wealth? At what point does one go from mere wealth to "ridiculous wealth"? Why do we have to suffer for their gross greed? If you're "suffer[ing]," it's not because of their greed - it's because of yours. Either you were overdiversified (i.e., owning a disproportionate percentage of your assets) in one stock that had the misfortune of being associated with real or perceived wrongdoing, or you have unrealistic expectations about how the equity markets work. They go up, and they go down. Couldn't they just settle for being very rich, marrying that mother figure and having affairs with that daughter figure? Huh? Got Oedipus? I have never seen anything so blatant, excessive and fundamentaly wrong. That's unfortunate, and part of the problem, at least for the first two points. Permitting, even encouraging, "blatant[...]excess" in the markets would be the first, and best, step toward making them truer. You may not understand it, but it's ironic that you'd complain about a "very extended dead market" and yet encourage the imposition of more regulatory structure within it. Adding to my disbelief is that no one is doing anything about it. Where there's fraud, more should be done about it than currently is. To that extent, I don't think the government should permit civil settlements - rather, that essentially all fraud should be treated (a) as a felony crime, and (b) at the state level. As for the rest of the absurd, misguidedly and unconstitutionally egalitarian pablum - the less done, the better. Unfortunately, we're seeing and probably will continue to see more of the latter and less of the former. The world is watching and quickly selling off US equities and dumping the dollar. There, too, after 27 months of down equities markets, attributing them to the recent scandals is a non sequitir, to say the least. Harvey Pitt leads the 2nd falling of Rome. LOL. We're Rome?