As we used this forum to talk about Merck, I figure we can use it for this news story.

First some background:

I'll add the verdict when it is announced, which should be a few mins.

Edit:

Thoughts?

It's a victory for the good guys. Unfortunately, I still don't think government's ability to detect and prosecute this kind of market manipulations is strong enough to really stop it, which is a serious problem.

Did you see any of the trial? I found it interesting.

Anywas, I agree with you, about gov't detection. But how would you, or anyone for that matter, recommend the gov't be able to monitor businesses such as this without getting to heavily involved in the business itself.

No I didn't, watching legal proceedings bores me.

I don't know that there is a better way to do it. Ideally, they'd hire an even better team of watchdogs with even better training, but that would, unfortunately, require that their watchdogs be paid a lot more; and unfortunately governments have never really been good about competing for the best-of-the-best in the lawyer market.

I wish they would have listened to Greenspan and O'Neils advice and changed the rules to make CEOs responsible for all actions the corporation makes.

Make the guy at top responsible and the rest will fall in line.

Bastard got off easy.

Well, he got off. Easy, I am not just so sure about. And, beyond the potential for some serious, and Eternal, "hotfoot" time, what do you think this means for Skilling?

Conspiracy theorists reign in Pitkin County. I can pretty much assure you (having lived there for over 10 years) that the Sheriff isn't one to be paid off just to hide someone, or allow someone to create a new identity.

I wonder if they are gonna throw the book at him twice, just to have a sense of retribution. Most of the people inside the controversy loved Lay, and despised Skilling anyway. I'm thinkin' shotguns at five paces. What do you think?

I'm not sure. The feeling for the whole "I want blood" think will come down on him hard.

Interestingly, Lay died before he was offically sentanced, and by US law as it is now, it can be effectivly argued that he cannot be sentanced to anything, including the return of money he stole. Obviously this is only a bump in the road, and doubtless the government needs to just go after his estate (that is, after they go after it the first time.)

Ugh, there are times that my total distain for the death penalty comes into question. I'll give everyone a clue as to when:
Its not when a dude robs a 7-11 at knife point and gets away with 20 dollars. Its closer to the end of the spectrum that Skilling and Lay are (and were, respectivly) on.

Or you'll make corporations completely ineffective, and scare off all potential CEOs. It depends on how strong that law is and how you enforce it.

The oft used line "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't really have to worry" comes to mind here.

But it doesn't apply in this case: where we'd be imposing a law making the guy at the top responsible for any wrongdoings of his underlings. Most of the times corporate heads use that defense, they're full of shit, but sometimes it does happen, and it's certainly a possibility. I don't think anyone should be legally responsible for the crimes of others. Financially responsible, yes, and that's the case already, CEOs that allow their corporations to get screwed up tend to catch hell and a pink slip from the shareholders.

They are the Cheif Executive Officer, and that should come with a very high level of responsiblity. Making 100% or so more than the people below them should come with the job.

Telling the CEO and his office to sign off on things such as ALL finiancial statements or the like, and making them responisble for what they put their signature on is perfectly fine. Its not quite the "Someone in the mailroom messes up and the CEO gets thrown in prison" that most people who are against it tend to paint the picture as.