1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by printdust, Jul 13, 2011.

Page 139 of 214
  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    To me, high regulation would mean additional rules and reporting.

    I'm not sure why additional rules would have changed anything when Enron was willing to breadk the most basic rules.

    What you need is regulators who know what they're doing. Madoff, Enron, Refco. They all should have been exposed much earlier.

    You also need the people they do business with to do their own due diligence. But too many people wanted to believe and didn't do their homework.

    But, if you can tell me what additional "regulations" would have exposed these frauds earlier, have at it. What do you propose?
     
    YankeeFan, Aug 4, 2011
    #1657
  2. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    No-good government regulators and dupes. That's why Enron was as corrupt as it was. Good spin.

    As for your not-really-serious proposal, we'll start here: Mandatory and harsh minimum, no-judge-wiggle jail federal sentences for a variety book-cooking and financial fraud crimes.
     
    Alma, Aug 4, 2011
    #1658
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

    OK. I'm for this too.

    But, did the Enron, WorldCom, Refco, Madoff, Adelphia, etc., execs not get enough time?

    They're doing pretty serious time as far as i can tell.
     
    YankeeFan, Aug 4, 2011
    #1659
  4. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Starman resisted the AAU bait? Now I am stocking up on gold and canned foods.

    I think most of us agree there is an unhealthy addiction to debt. The debate is whether to do the methadone clinic or scared straight.
     
    dixiehack, Aug 4, 2011
    #1660
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You brought up Bernie Madoff.

    We already have all the laws necessary against fraud and rackateering, and that is not what people typically are endorsing when they call for "more regulation!"

    But in the case of Bernie Madoff, he broke the law for years, while the primary "regulatory agency" with oversight of his business didn't do shit.

    Fraud (and rackateering) are already against the law.

    By regulation, people usually mean governmental agencies that create arcane obstacles that arbitrarily promote some people's business interests (those connected), while making it harder for others to operate (those who didn't contribute to the right political campaign).

    They don't mean policing the simple laws: fraud, embezzelement, rackateering, theft. Harry Markopolos begged the SEC to investigate Bernie Madoff, but they were too intimidated by his political influence, and even when the time came that they had to take a look, they were too inept to do a proper investigation (and spare some people who lost money) because they didn't have experienced people on staff with the financial backgrounds to really figure out what was going on. Our securities "regulatory agency" was staffed by a bunch of 20-something lawyers.

    The lawyer industry loves regulation. They are great at creating arcane obstacles to doing business--usually for politicized reasons; to help one area that is connected at the expense of another that isn't--but they suck at enforcing the simple things like fraud -- WHICH IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW WITHOUT MORE REGULATION.
     
    The Big Ragu, Aug 4, 2011
    #1661
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    This is my point.
     
    YankeeFan, Aug 4, 2011
    #1662
  7. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    So the deregulation of certain kinds of financial products in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 had nothing to do with Enron?
     
    Azrael, Aug 4, 2011
    #1663
  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, or just trying to get me to contradict Boom, but...

    It allowed them to get into other lines of business. It did not permit them to commit fraud.

    So, I'm going to say no.
     
    YankeeFan, Aug 4, 2011
    #1664
  9. Greenhorn

    Greenhorn Active Member

    And the hits keep on coming: ie the troubling FAA funding debacle. Welcome to the Age of Austerity aka Gilded Age II.
     
    Greenhorn, Aug 4, 2011
    #1665
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I thought they just got that fixed -- for now -- today.
     
    YankeeFan, Aug 4, 2011
    #1666
  11. Greenhorn

    Greenhorn Active Member

    Yes YF. Just saw it on Chicago Trib's site.
     
    Greenhorn, Aug 4, 2011
    #1667
  12. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Not being sarcastic at all.

    I'm honestly asking if deregulation - and the lax enforcement it encourages - helped create the Enron debacle.
     
    Azrael, Aug 4, 2011
    #1668
Page 139 of 214
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page