Kakki said >> I've said for 20 years that corporate, accounting and stock dealer malfeasance is criminal and I think those who are convicted should go to jail for a long time. My use of the word "dismal" today stems from my sadness at hearing of so many personal stories lately of the innocent employees of these corporations and accounting firms who, after years of being conscientious and ethical, are losing everything they worked for because of a few rotten eggs in their midst.<<
I accept your use of 'dismal' and your explanation of why you used it. My comment about such practices being, in my opinion, criminal was just to state my opinion, not to undermine your chosen adjective. I agree that what's been happening is a tragedy. My question; 'is that fair?' refers to the lack of correct financial information that for some people lined their pockets and for some people ripped off their future. Your use of 'Absolutely' in response to my restating of the original question makes clear that we think the same on this matter. My problem with this lack of financial clarity is NOT that, to take your personal case as an example, some people have earned a lot/a little in some areas of investments and lost a lot/a little in others, i.e. taking the rough with the smooth, and generally breaking even. I am concerned about the different effects and results pertaining to those with the nous, or the smart advisors, or the insider connections to invest and cash-in at the right time, and who are generally happy with the way the system has worked for them, and those pertaining to the people in the mutual funds and pensions who were not privy to insider deals and therefore not able to cash in their chips before the casino roof fell in. My question "is it fair?" was directed at this rich/poor, insider/outsider divide, although it could arguably be applied to people who gained a lot of money through the artificial buoyancy of the market and who now, after suffering a little, or a lot, are saying that the system needs changing. >> you cannot compare a criminal act of murder to someone being questioned about a minor stock sale issue which was already investigated twice by the SEC and dismissed.<< Perhaps not, but I was trying to make the point that not all investigations are handled well and in the interests of justice. You say that the SEC you worked with seemed to be 'hardcore' and I accept that, but it is obvious that there are serious deficiencies in the financial regulation system, apart from any further, hypothetical Bush-related investigations. >> People shouldn't waste the system's time and dime to keep re-trying and re-trying minor junk just to wishfully hope (generally) for a politically based different outcome.<< Here I think you treat me unfairly. My motivation is not to get a different politically-based outcome to any hypothetical Bush investigation, but to express my wish that investigations in general (be they Police or SEC or whatever) be carried out on the basis of truth, independence, justice and equity, and in public. Mike in Barcelona ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click Here
