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.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (9081)	3/21/2004 12:11:52 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

it started in the 2000 period, not before. Prior to 2000, there was no need for wcom to act fraudulently. Most of these corporate corruption cases, worldcom included, came down to delusional CEOs who drank their own koolaid in the 90s and were facing margin calls if their stock crashed. It was only when the stock had a chance of crashing (NOT 99) that the fraud occurred. This was the situation with Sam Waksal too, he faced a margin call which (I believe) was the principal reason he traded on insider info. I'm just pointing this out to people that claim CLINTON was responsible for all this fraud. Nobody was responsible (except for the Enron Bush connections which were unique). There is no crime in irrational exuberance which is what the 90s were full of. Bush was president during the decline. I would prefer to have an economy like the 90s vs. what we have now, and I believe if Bush was responsible for creating a climate like the 90s, the same fraud would occur when that period declined. But Bush is not capable of creating a worldwide economic boom.