So, it’s a “reach” to invoke the words of one of the most respected authorities on American financial matters when they agree with what one’s been asserting?
Not that the quote was meant as anything more than corroboration of my opinion that systemic flaws exist, even if I used it to support an argument, it would at least be argumentum ad Chairman-of-the-freaking-Fed. But if you want to ridicule my buddy Alan G., go right ahead.
Sorry, it was the blazingly obvious sarcasm.
xen, you’re a decent chap, and you, kabbes, andelstam, and Kimstu have done much in the way of convincing me about “liberal” notions. But this thread is retarded. It should have ended on page one.
Please, for me, if we’re going to change the topics seventeen times in one thread, consider the possibility that we should open a new one. Is Bush a crook? We don’t have enough evidence, IMO, to say, nor to open another investigation into the matter. You want to offer us other reasons for probing, fine. I’ll listen. Somewhere else devoid of catfish and wry remarks about invisible hands.
Xeno:
No. I think it was a reach to think that that quote was supporting what you were saying. The context of it was pretty directly meant at incentive stock options, and short term ones at that.
I’ll try to limit the sarcasm, erislover, 'cuz I like you. (But if you wind up with irony-poor blood, it’s your own fault.) As far as the changing subjects goes, well, I don’t think we’ve really strayed very far afield. The admission came pretty early that this is a political issue even more than it’s a legal one. Discussions about the flaws in corporate oversight, Bush’s involvement in them, and what that means in terms of consumer confidence are quite germaine, I think.
(BTW, who’s andelstam?)
Tell you what, Scylla. I won’t beat this drum for the rest of the day. If other people besides you (and possibly erl) agree that the Greenspan quote is not supportive of my assertion re “corporate culture”, I’ll consider retracting the assertion. From here, it looks like he meant exactly what I meant.
Xeno:
I don’t think a retraction is warranted. I can understand what you are saying, and I think we have a difference of opinion.
A retraction would only be warranted if you had changed your mind, or if we were discussing a matter of fact, and not opinion.
We can disagree on this small point amicably, I think.
Oh, I’ll still hold the opinion, even if everyone tells me that’s not what Greenspan was talking about! I guess I should’ve said “let the horse die quietly” instead of “retract”, but the gist is I’ll shadduppaboudit without the gravitas of the Federal Reserve to back it up.
…so to speak.
Yes, the incentives were present. Hence, Bush is a crook. Or, is it, hence, Bush cannot oversee corporate reform. Or is it, hence, Bush should be re-investigated.
erl:
…hence, the opportunities for executives to “express greed” as Greenspan puts it, and the incentives for executives, including the Harken Executive Committee (of which we’re agreed Bush was not a member) to “artificially inflate reported earnings” both existed.
You may remember my assertion that a corporate culture exists, of which Aloha is symptomatic, which encourages personal avarice to the ultimate detriment of the stock holder. This assertion was offered as part of my reply to Scylla’s request for leadership ideas. I thought it might be a good idea for Bush to discuss the Aloha deal and the current problems with corporate oversight and with some executive incentive structures.
So,as you might have discovered had you bothered to read it in context, my assertion was intended to address Bush’s credibility as a corporate reformer, and what he might do his own damn self to improve it.
erislover, next time you lose the thread of discussion here, might I suggest you avail yourself of the scrollbar to the right of your screen in combination with your browser’s “Back” button.
Mr. Krugman ain’t done with Bush yet. In his most recent column, he explains how Bush got rich.
This investment eventually paid off to the tune of $14.9 million. How? The city of Arlington built a new ballpark, paid for by tax money; in fact, it became necessary to raise taxes to pay for it (they increased the sales tax by a half-cent). The syndicate Bush belonged to was, in other words, subsidized by a government, and to the tune of $150,000,000.
What Bush did was not illegal. but it certainly was hypocritical.
But Bush didn’t really turn a profit till the syndicate sold the team to a fellow named Tom Hicks. That’s when he made that $14,900,000 referred to earlier. Seems okay, till you learn what Bush did for Hicks later.
so that all its investments (made with public money, mind you) would be made in secret. UT no longer had to disclose how it invested its endowments nor even whether they paid off or not! Its investments were handled by a nonprofit entity called Utimco. Who was the chairman of Utimco?
Tom Hicks.
No one outside Utimco knew this. An employee of Utimco alerted U.T. officials and was summarily fired. The investments seemed to have turned out badly, though it’s difficult to find out because of the Bush-ordered secrecy. There was a furor over it and Hicks decided to leave Utimco when his term expired in 1999.
BTW: Bush should have earned only $2,300,000 from the sale of the Rangers. How did he get the additional $12,600,000? Some of the other members of the syndicate voluntarily gave their shares to him, businessmen who would like to be on the governor’s good side.
I always thought governors were not supposed to accept large gifts while in office, since they look so much like bribes.
Anyway, Krugman says this shows that Bush’s notion that the people have no right to know everything its government is doing is typical (Homeland Security is intended to be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act); that it’s typical of him to re-structure government institutions for the benefit of his friends in business; that he’s apparently oblivious to the concept of conflict of interest.
Thoughts?
I reread the entire thread, xen, and half of the posts don’t make any sense, many of them completely misconstrue what Scylla has said, and now we are on page 8 not even talking about whether Bush is a crook, and Krugman was abandoned years ago.
So, you can take your context and, well, forget it. I don’t care anymore. I think Scylla made all the points necessary, this thread has been in serious hijack mode where everyone says, “Yeah, but…!” to any new idea that comes down the line, and I’m going to damn well complain about it.
So 
Um, eris? I hate to say this, but… look up. :smack:
Grr, of course someone would bring up Krugman after I just complained about it. [pouts in corner]
Actually, just before you complained about it. 
Would you like some cheese to nibble on while you sit in that corner?
Seriously, you’re quite incorrect about the “hijack mode”. (Particularly since the OP walked right along with us to this point.) The thread is still about Bush, crookedness and whether what Krugman has to say has relevance. Scylla’s position, all along, has been that nothing illegal was committed, and even if it was the statute of limitations has run out so it doesn’t matter. It’s the “doesn’t matter” part that I disagree with, but despite Scylla’s inspired defense, there’s also genuine cause for continued suspicion of Bush’s business history.
I’m so sorry the thread frustrates you so. I can understand this; I’ve found many of your philosophy threads absolutely unreadable after the first page. But y’know what? I stayed out of them.
Let’s toss another factoid into the mix:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=536&e=6&cid=536&u=/ap/20020716/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_harken_4
(Apologies if this has already been covered here. This thread has gotten rather mind-numbing)
Squink, that’s an interesting article, but it doesn’t look as if the “lockup” letter is significant or unusual. (I’d like to see confirmation of that from a corporate-savvy Doper…) The point made in the article about Bush’s over-divestiture (he sold more than he needed to if the intent was only to pay off the loans) isn’t IMO very strong, either, as Bush was selling other stock in the same period.
But it’s frustrating to remember the lack of press attention the Rangers story (see jab1’s post for Krugman column) received in 2000. That sweet deal for George was very very ugly (but apparently quite legal). Guess it wasn’t as important a character issue as Gore’s comments about the internet were.
Actually, I complained about it right after you posted it, it didn’t take, I had a ton of work to do, and I just hit submit without previewing when I returned.
I hate this thread even more now, lol.
I’m enjoyin’ the heck out of it!
No, that isn’t what Scylla was saying. He was saying it just wasn’t obvious that Bush was a criminal, or that a shoddy investigation was run by the SEC. In other words, Scylla does not seem to feel that it is so patently obvious that Bush is a crook. He has admitted truthfully that it is possible he is a crook with respect to this matter of insider trading.
And by the way, Elucidator hijacks his own posts. I mean, catfish? Quite frankly, if it wasn’t for you being here (and Tejota and others) I don’t think I would have even understood what was going on.