PEN-L:

Greetings.  Here's one question that PK doesn’t consider.  How will GWB's 
spin on the current wave of "white collar" crime in corporate America play 
on Main Street?  A recent news report cited a poll that found Americans’ 
confidence in corporations is dropping faster than the price of WorldCom 
Inc. shares.  It would appear that the credibility of market ideology is 
facing a big test.  At any rate, that’s what I said yesterday on Common 
Dreams < http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0706-04.htm >.  Any thoughts on 
this?

Seth

Succeeding in Business

July 7, 2002
By PAUL KRUGMAN

On Tuesday, George W. Bush is scheduled to give a speech
intended to put him in front of the growing national
outrage over corporate malfeasance. He will sternly lecture
Wall Street executives about ethics and will doubtless
portray himself as a believer in old-fashioned business
probity.

Yet this pose is surreal, given the way top officials like
Secretary of the Army Thomas White, Dick Cheney and Mr.
Bush himself acquired their wealth. As Joshua Green says in
The Washington Monthly, in a must-read article written just
before the administration suddenly became such an exponent
of corporate ethics: "The `new tone' that George W. Bush
brought to Washington isn't one of integrity, but of
permissiveness. . . . In this administration, enriching
oneself while one's business goes bust isn't necessarily
frowned upon."

Unfortunately, the administration has so far gotten the
press to focus on the least important question about Mr.
Bush's business dealings: his failure to obey the law by
promptly reporting his insider stock sales. It's true that
Mr. Bush's story about that failure has suddenly changed,
from "the dog ate my homework" to "my lawyer ate my
homework - four times." But the administration hopes that a
narrow focus on the reporting lapses will divert attention
from the larger point: Mr. Bush profited personally from
aggressive accounting identical to the recent scams that
have shocked the nation.

In 1986, one would have had to consider Mr. Bush a failed
businessman. He had run through millions of dollars of
other people's money, with nothing to show for it but a
company losing money and heavily burdened with debt. But he
was rescued from failure when Harken Energy bought his
company at an astonishingly high price. There is no
question that Harken was basically paying for Mr. Bush's
connections.

Despite these connections, Harken did badly. But for a time
it concealed its failure - sustaining its stock price, as
it turned out, just long enough for Mr. Bush to sell most
of his stake at a large profit - with an accounting trick
identical to one of the main ploys used by Enron a decade
later. (Yes, Arthur Andersen was the accountant.) As I
explained in my previous column, the ploy works as follows:
corporate insiders create a front organization that seems
independent but is really under their control. This front
buys some of the firm's assets at unrealistically high
prices, creating a phantom profit that inflates the stock
price, allowing the executives to cash in their stock.

That's exactly what happened at Harken. A group of
insiders, using money borrowed from Harken itself, paid an
exorbitant price for a Harken subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum.
That created a $10 million phantom profit, which hid
three-quarters of the company's losses in 1989. White House
aides have played down the significance of this maneuver,
saying $10 million isn't much, compared with recent
scandals. Indeed, it's a small fraction of the apparent
profits Halliburton created through a sudden change in
accounting procedures during Dick Cheney's tenure as chief
executive. But for Harken's stock price - and hence for Mr.
Bush's personal wealth - this accounting trickery made all
the difference.

Oh, and Harken's fake profits were several dozen times as
large as the Whitewater land deal - though only about
one-seventh the cost of the Whitewater investigation.

Mr. Bush was on the company's audit committee, as well as
on a special restructuring committee; back in 1994, another
member of both committees, E. Stuart Watson, assured
reporters that he and Mr. Bush were constantly made aware
of the company's finances. If Mr. Bush didn't know about
the Aloha maneuver, he was a very negligent director.

In any case, Mr. Bush certainly found out what his company
had been up to when the Securities and Exchange Commission
ordered it to restate its earnings. So he can't really be
shocked over recent corporate scams. His own company pulled
exactly the same tricks, to his considerable benefit. Of
course, what really made Mr. Bush a rich man was the
investment of his proceeds from Harken in the Texas Rangers
- a step that is another, equally strange story.

The point is the contrast between image and reality. Mr.
Bush portrays himself as a regular guy, someone ordinary
Americans can identify with. But his personal fortune was
built on privilege and insider dealings - and after his
Harken sale, on large-scale corporate welfare. Some people
have it easy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/opinion/07KRUG.html?ex=1027046555&ei=1&en=4754857de2c9f73b










_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Reply via email to