<<Last summer it seemed, briefly, as if the torrent of scandals � and the revelations about how closely some of our politicians were tied to scandal-ridden companies � would bring about a public backlash against corporate malfeasance. But then the topic largely vanished from the news, driven out by reports about Iraq's nuclear weapons program and all that. And after the midterm elections, which put apologists for corporate insiders back in control of all the relevant Congressional committees, we might as well have had the sirens sound the all-clear. Only Mr. Spitzer still has both the inclination and the power to make trouble.
I also wonder about the demonstration effect. I don't want to sound like those Clinton-haters who attributed every immoral act in America to the president's bad example: Bill Clinton didn't invent sex, and the Bush administration didn't invent greed. But when insiders at major corporations see top officials getting away with it � moving unscathed between stints as crony capitalists and high office or even, as in the case of Richard Perle, playing both roles at once � they have to feel that old rules no longer apply, and that they can get away with even more self-dealing than before.
In the end the corruption of our corporate system will bring retribution; even if political action never comes, investors will eventually lose faith and put their money elsewhere. But right now the bad guys, though they lose an occasional battle, are winning the war.��>>
Was away from reliable Internet connection during virtually all of the Iraq War 'festivities" . Returned to find this board nearly deserted. Haven't had time to investigate how that occurred but it's surely good to see you're posting here again. Trust you'll continue w/ more interesting links and insightful comments. We need to keep trying to keep 'em honest......Cheers, Will
It is amazing to me that investors believed advice coming from brokerage firms with investment banking relationships would be unbiased. I don't buy it. The world doesn't work that way. The next thing you'll tell me is that Hillary Clinton was a commodities expert. Yeah , right. It pays to be skeptical. Lambs get slaughtered.
In many of the less urban areas, people know their brokers - these brokers are simply salespeople that are armed with the latest, greatest, "unbiased" research. So, who bites? The hard-working people who don't have time to study the market as you do, who put some trust in relationships, believe in integrity, and aren't out to screw everyone out of their last nickel; people who are unaware of investment banking, market makers and the like. In short, most of the investment public.
Everyone knows what to expect from someone selling used cars or life insurance, but most people have (had) an elevated view of the financial industry and, believe it or not, many still trust them.
To conclude, imadeadcat, people believe quite a few things that you and others on this board know they shouldn't. Hope this answers your amazement. And you're right, it does pay to be skeptical.
So you think because it's an imperfect world that society should make no attempt to enforce the law and insure trust? Hard to see how any markets could survive with an anarchist philosophy like that.
Enron gravely injured uncountable Americans and wrecked a few honest companies in the process, and was able to cover up by shredding documents whyolesale and then shelter its top execs in the White House. Can someone explain what in the world Enron, WCOM, etc have to do with Hillary Clinton? We spent--literally--millions investigating her to no end. The woman may be a turkey, but Enron is one of the biggest bankruptcy/frauds in history. It does all investors a disservice to apologize for massive corporate crime.