This topic has been covered before, more comprehensively in a fine book by Molly Ivins (May the Good Lord bless her and keep her!)
I am familiar with the outlines as presented in the link. But I cannot recall ever hearing a point by point rebuttal. And, after all, “The American people deserve to know if thier President is a crook”.
So - for the purposes of debate, let us assume that Mr. Krugman has presented a primae facae case: that is to say, if the facts are as he has presented them, there is ample evidence to indicate that Bush ibn Bush is a crook, and that to deny that claim requires that the evidence be refuted.
I find it difficult to take anything Krugman says regarding Bush to be factual. Your entire presumption is ‘Lets pretend that what this far-left Democrat says about Bush is true’. That is a disingenuous basis for an argument.
Don’t forget, this is the same Krugman that claimed Bush owned the Astros (it was the Rangers), and that Enron was giving him $100 million for his new baseball field. (Again, it was the Astros that Enron bought the field-name right to). This is a pathetically simple fact for Krugman to have checked out, but in his haste to get a little Bush-bashing in, he eschewed good journalism.
This is the same Krugman that went ape-shit when the Enron scandal first came out, and like a hound on the trail, he vowed to find the freebies and fat contracts that Bush was sending his old buddy, Enron, to bail them out.
He then went equally ape-shit when he found that the Bush administration didn’t help out Enron. Hrmmmm. Schitzophrenic?
It seems that Krugman cares about one thing: Whining about Bush.
I place zero stock in Dowd, Krugman, and Friedman (who seems to know quite a bit about the middle east, but comes up with ass-backwards opinions). The Times is hardly an centrist, unbiased newpaper.
I can’t keep two windows open at the same time, so I’ll have to be selective as to how I reply to that article.
To answer the OP:
Yes. If the facts are as Krugman presents them, than Bush is a criminal.
But the facts are not as he presented them.
For example:
Merrill Lynch never made any such admission, and indeed the facts of the case suggest that the NY attorney general was trying to pull a Giuliani and campaign for public office by “cleaning up” the brokerage houses.
There are two emails that are in question
Both come from Henry Blodgett’s technology research group.
In the first a Junior analyst writes to an investment banker
“The whole idea that investment banking is seperate from research is a big lie.” The context of this statemtent was that the analyst was afraid of the consequences of a negative opinion on a company that had a relationship with Investment banking.
What the attorney general ignored was the Investment bankers reply.
“No. You are independant. Do what you want. I have no problem with it.”
(I’m doing this from memory, so the words might not be exact.)
The second series of emails in question are those in which members of Blodgetts group discuss stocks in strong terms.
Some stocks are referred to as “powderkegs” and “Pieces of shit,” among other things.
What again is not disclosed is the context or replies to those emails. The context of those emails was a group of analysts trying to decide what rating they were going to place on a stock. Some analysts like a particular stock. Others did not. The debates between them got heated, as they do here. They debated the stocks they followed that way until they came to a consensus. That’s the way Blodgett’s group worked. At the height of the '99 speculative bubble, Blodgett’s group came out and said that five years from now, 90% of these internet companies wouldn’t exist any more, that they were highly speculative, and only a few of them would make it. They cautioned investors to keep their exposure low. Some of the stocks they recommended did well others did not.
But, at times, analysts in Blodgett’s group were seen to wax enthusiastic about stocks that the group decided not to endorse.
That’s the way an investment decision is arrived at, and there’s nothing unusual or improper about it.
To date nobody has been able to show any credible evidence that would suggest that investment banking was influencing research. Indeed, the opposite would seem to be true. Merrill Lynch was notoriously behind the curve in the internet IPO sector, as was research throughout '99 and '00.
Furthermore, the research analysts received the bulk of their compensation based on their accuracy, and their ranking in Institutional Investor Magazine, and nothing from Investment banking. There is no motive for them to give advise that they know is false, and quite a lot of motivation for them to be as accurate as possible.
Merrill Lynch did not admit to any wrongdoing, what David Komansky (Merrill’s CEO) did apologize for was the unprofessional nature and language in those emails and for a failure to better supervise their use of the email.
Merrill settled with no admission of wrongdoing, as the alternative to a costly legal battle.
The worst thing that can happen to a firm like Merrill Lynch is to have its integrity questioned. The AG knew that, and suspected it would settle rather than continue to get pummeled in the public eye.
The scumbag here is the AG.
So, Klugman’s statement about an admission of guilt was simply false and shows a poor understanding of the events. Oxley was upset because as he saw it (and as the evidence suggests) Merrill got shellacked in the public eye, and had to settle for 100 million dollars, basically out of blackmail from the NY AG who could do some real damage with a baseless threat of continued litigation and negative publicity.
While I can’t go back and quote the next section without losing this part, Klugman seems to ignore the fact the the Bush family investments were managed by a blind trust at the time.
The problem with articles like this is that its very easy to make accusations in the public eye, but it takes a lot of time and effort to show why they are false and irresponsible.
In the end it doesn’t matter, because the goal is the same as it was for the NY AG.
The accusations don’t have to be true to have the desired effect, they just have to be loud and strident enough.
Scylla, you’re concentrating your ire on a passing set-up remark while ignoring the thrust of the column itself. Try this thesis statement:
Bolding added.
Not that it was a secret during the campaign, either, just that those who kept bringing it up were denounced by Bush supporters as partisanly-motivated mudslingers. The facts haven’t changed, though.
Lies, all of them. Or would you care to cite your slander of Krugman?
It’s all very well for you to whine about Krugman’s lack of credibility, but you have even less until you offer proof that he really does lie in his columns.
Krugman clearly has a bug up his ass about Bush, but he has ALSO done his homework, and has not (as of yet) told any lies about Bush or his policies. Also he’s not at all leftist, although he certain is anti-Bush.
Without comment on the rest of Krugman’s, um, “analysis,” this comment:
seriously misrepresents the scope of the 1995 PSLRA. And “misrepresents” is being generous. The 1995 law was also amended by the 1997 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. Arthur Levitt, IIRC, supported both of these laws.
The 1995 Act did not “block investor lawsuits”; it sought to limit fraudulent class action lawsuits brought by investors whenever a stock happened to slip a few points.
Right. In fact, the bill was quite mild. That’s why it was able to muster overwhelming bipartisan support. Krugman blames a single pubbie, but of course there had to be bi-partisan support in order to override the veto.
Clinton’s veto was a payoff to the sleazy attorneys who have been getting filthy rich by means of these bogus suits. They had given him a lot of money. It’s unpleasant to see Krugman implicitly praise the President when he was carrying water for his fat-cat supporters.
Does Krugman really believes this was a bad law? I wonder…
Ad hominem, and effectively an admission that he is substantively correct or you would have attacked the meat of the argument rather than this:
In other words, you admit the that what he says is correct, but don’t like the way he spins it. Or are you suggesting that only fradulent lawsuits were magically blocked? (an impossibility). Or perhaps you believe that all investor lawsuits are de facto fradulent? :rolleyes:
Tejota – The thrust of Krugman’s statement was total nonsense. Class action investor lawsuits remain very easy to file. I’m in the business of paying for them. You should see what Enron, etc. are costing us.
It’s just ludicrous to imagine corporate execs in 1995 thinking it was now OK to commit fraud, because of that mild reform.
Well, the Usual Suspects, December, Scylla, Pldennison have assembled. Oh, and Brutus.
Brutus: Krugman is an asshole!
Cogent. Determined. Quite irrelevant.
Scylla Merrill Lynch is innocent!
See above.
Pldennison offers the testament that the 1995 PSLA law is not a bad thing, despite what that buttmunch Krugman says. And finally, December chimes in to support that position.
Fascinating stuff, really. Closely reasoned, succinctly stated (for the most part).
I patiently await for the esteemed Suspects to demonstrate any relevence to the OP. Patiently.
Um, no, it means that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Bush/Harken situation to state an opinion on it either way; but that I am sufficiently acquainted with the 1995 PSLRA and its accompanying Safe Harbor provisions to have an opinion on that. So kindly refrain from telling me what I do and don’t admit to, if you don’t mind. It really ends up making you look dumb.
Krugman is a great economist, and is very effective at explaining complicated macroeconomic situations to a mass audience, but his social and policy analyses tend towards the shrill side and often rest on unfounded assumptions and spin so rough it makes one’s head swim, IMO. YMMV.
Pretty much. It appears that Krugman clearly meant to imply that the Act was intended to block legitimate suits, which it was not. There were weaknesses in the Act which did cause the Federal courts to reject out of hand some legitimate suits, and those weaknesses were addressed in the 1997 Act.
Yeah, because I always agree with december and Scylla so much. :rolleyes: Time to adjust your tinfoil.
In any case, if Krugman’s assessment of the facts regarding Harken and Bush’s involvement are accurate, then an investigation of Bush for securities fraud should be initiated. If that investigation should result in sufficient evidence for an indictment, then he should be charged and prosecuted. If.
I wonder what the Democrats’ thoughts on allowing a prosecution of a sitting President for securities fraud would be?
Sure. I’ll address that part as well. My point though is the work and effort involved in showing an accusation to be false, while the accusation itself is a simple and effective and easy weapon.
Well, first am I supposed to assume that this is an accurate statement? I see how badly he botched the Merrill Lynch issue and engaged in misrepresentations and got other facts flatly wrong. I don’t see why I should accept this at face value at all. I know little about this particular issue, and it would cost me quite a bit of effort to verify it. Usually the onus should be on the person making the accusation. Since the earlier facts were misrepresentations why should we assume this is correct?
So, the following would be subject to a verification of Klugman’s veracity in his statement.
That being said:
So what?
Was it Bush’s personal decision to make the sale or were the assets in the blind trust? If they were in the blind trust managed by an RIA (as they almost surely were,) than there should be no problem with the transaction unless one wishes to make the accusation that the blind trust was violated.
Secondly, it is also a criminal act to park your car and let the meter expire. What kind or criminal act is this reporting issue? How serious an issue was the delay. I suspect that we’re talking about a technicality here along the same lines as for the reporting required for rule 144 stock, or for filing your taxes late.
They don’t file charges if your car is five minutes past the meter. They don’t file charges if you are a week a month or even a year late with your 144 stock filing, and they don’t file charges if you send in your taxes three years late (which I once did.)
There is nothing unusual about the choice not to file charges in those cases. Klugman has not made the barest suggestion that there was anything untoward about the delay in filing, or in the decision not to file charges. And as for the last line, I guess “everyone” would include Klugman himself when he says that it had nothing to do with his dad being President.
The absence of an accusation is not an accusation.
Nor has there been the suggestion that there was anything wrong with the sale. Just that it happened.
It takes a lot of work to show what’s wrong with bullshit accusations. More than they deserve.
Did Bush do something wrong?
Maybe. I don’t have a clue. You sure as hell can’t tell from Klugman’s piece, though.
Clearly, if what Klugman says is true, than Bush is a crook.
By the same token if the Wizard of Oz is true than all he have to do is click our heels together and say “There’s no place like home.”
What point does that make?
The fact that Klugman has engaged in misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods seems highly relevant unless you are using the word in some fashion I was not aware existed.
Ahem. If I may, elucidator, I would like to point out that by the same logic of “guilty until proven innocent, always assume that the accuser has his facts straight, and claims to the contrary are irrelevant” that you seem to be using here, we could probably go back through history and find that just about anyone you care to name is a crook. In fact, here’s my proof that december and ElvisL1ves are crooks:
If we assume that it’s true that december murdered my brother, then december is a crook. Further, if ElvisL1ves was his accomplice and bought the murder weapon for december then ElvisL1ves is also a crook. I am patiently waiting for someone to prove me wrong. And since we can’t disprove these statements until we disprove the assumed facts and any claim that these “facts” are anything but would be irrelevant, I have hereby proven that december and ElvisL1ves are indeed crooks.
In other words, any claim that the facts as Kruggman stated are incorrect is certainly pertinent, even if unconvincing. Brutus is claiming that Kruggman is a liar. Relevant, albeit unsubstantiated and by no means proof of innocence. Scylla says that if the facts are as put, then Bush is a crook, but the facts are not known to be as stated. I fail to see why this is irrelevant. pldennison has ALSO said that if the facts are as stated, then an investigation should take place and Bush may in fact be a crook. Not irrelevant, although of course it does nothing whatsoever to disprove your claim.
In any event, I am quite happy to learn that we are henceforth to start with a presumption of guilt. It should make my plans of getting filthy rich by abuse of the judicial system much easier. And of course, in landing Bush with the crook label, we can do the same to Clinton, and the other Bush, and Reagan, and in fact any other politican you care to name, thus proving what I’ve long suspected: ALL politicians are crooks. Nice to know, isn’t it?
Can no one be bothered to spell the name of the person they are attacking?
—if Krugman’s assessment of the facts regarding Harken and Bush’s involvement are accurate, then an investigation of Bush for securities fraud should be initiated. If that investigation should result in sufficient evidence for an indictment, then he should be charged and prosecuted.—
There was an investigation. It concluded that Bush was probably guilty of criminal acts. And declined to prosecute, probably because the money and politics involved wouldn’t have been worth it.
Note that the real problem with the late report was not simply that it was late (a crime in itself because of various financial implications) but that the lateness concealed the fact that he dumped all his shares right before the company’s dirty accounting trick was discovered, torching it’s profits.
—And, don’t forget that Krugman was a $50,000 a year consultant for Enron – a position he doesn’t like to advertise.—
Why did open yourself up to be roundly pointed out as a liar? Krugman’s very first major editorial on Enron included the usual “full disclosure” bit about his work for them. He even wrote a whole article about it after Andrew Sullivan concoted the same bunch of lies you’re slinging. At least Sullivan had the dencency to apologize: do you?
