It would have been nice if he could have spent some time in a cell with Moussaoui and the Unabomber. Forget the whole “pound me in the ass” aspect of it, just having to spend a long period of time listening to people who hate everything you stand for and everything you ever did for completely irrational reasons would be a fitting punishment.
… and in that small way Moussaoui and Kazinsky could perform a public service.
I’m curious: what caused you to change your mind? Did you a) find God, b) have a brush with mortality, c) grow up or d) something else? How fast did the transition occur? Do you consider this to be a significant shift in attitude?
I’m not trying to be a wise guy: it’s possible that this is merely the difference between a 12 and 22 year old perspective (for example). It’s just that shifts in POV are somewhat interesting.
“Evil” itself is a relative term. Nietzsche put it like this: A hawk flies over a rabbit. The hawk looks at the rabbit and thinks, “Eating rabbit is good.” The rabbit looks up at the hawk and says, “Oh, no. Eating rabbit is evil!” It’s all about perspective – anything that’s antithetical to your own best interests, is evil. Purity has nothing to do with it – it’s all about self-preservation.
What an ironically judgemental statement. 
It’s not about judgement, anyway. It’s about making things right. If someone stole your car and drove it off a cliff, wouldn’t you demand restitution?
I reserve the “evil” label for people who commit acts of violence solely for their own desires or ambitions - serial killers, murderous dictators, that sort of thing. Ken Lay was a heartless bastard, but I don’t think he rises to the level of “evil”.
Because of him, thousands will live out their golden years in poverty. But in my book, once you’re dead you’re square with the house and it isn’t up to the living to judge the man any further. It’s in poor taste to rejoice in another’s passing, spend that energy in going after his cronies.
This isn’t even remotely a representation of the facts.
Lay didn’t make a mistake; everything worked as planned…it’s just that some of the folks who were expected to lay down and let it happen didn’t.
He did not show “poor business behavior”. Enron was evisioned not to provide a product nor service, but to manipulate energy supplies and siphon off cash at the fringes of the law. It was no more a “business” than a three-card-monte dealer preyting on rubes at the bus station.
He very much deliberately set out to harm people – or was willing to permit it to get what he wanted. You’ve seen the transcripts where the executives laughed about Grandma’s life savings?
Lost more than anyone else? Are you reading the same news we are? He died wealthy in his vacation home; many others are bankrupted and have no retirement, AND have lost all sense of trust in the system. I can’t think of anyone but a relative – and not a very honest relative, at that – who would consider his loss to be worse than anyone else’s. If you’re referring to dollar amount, I have shocking news – that’s not really HIS money. He STOLE it. We don’t feel sorry for bank robbers, or let them go, because “they’ve already lost millions” when the money they stole was recovered.
Yeesh.
Sailboat
Do some more research. Enron execs switched the administrators of the company’s 401K plan when the stock was tanking, which froze all the employees out of making any changes or selling their stock. At the same time, the executives were dumping their stock because they knew how bad things were. Lay was also pimping how great the stock was to the employees at the same time he was unloading his holdings. There was a conscious and calculated effort by the executives, Lay very much included, to keep the employees in the company stock (and get them to buy more) when they knew the whole house of cards was coming down.
I was responding to KGS’s statement that “Enron employees who were required to invest all their 401(k) money in Enron stock.” I don’t think that was true, but would appreciate it if 5que can tell me otherwise.
The more I think about this the more pissed I am: he died while he was in Aspen with his family, awaiting sentencing in August or September. What’s with this awaiting sentencing nonsense. He was found guilty! And the first thing they do is let him out to go to Aspen? Why not hold in in jail until sentencing. It’s not like the sentence was gong to be three weeks, Sheesh.
Bricker, other lawyers, what’s the deal with this being released pending sentencing?
And I must say, I becooming more and more suspicious of a self-induced heart attack.
That comment concerned me too and I’d also appreciate confirmation. As sad as I was for the Enron employees who lost substantial portions of the retirement savings, I also remember thinking at the time Gee, how dedgum unwise is it to have put all your eggs in one basket? I figured that their decision to do so was simply a result of the company stock doing so incredibly well and outpacing other available investment vehicles that they abandoned prudent judgement. If that was wrong I’d sure like to know.
“The evil that men do lives on after them, the good is oft interred with their bones”. Shakespeare was right-ken lay ruined countless lives, and his company affects in ways still yet to be known. The guy never seemed to realize the harm he had caused…and now he is dead. perhaps 9like Jacob marley) he will be given a unique punishment.
Well, if it’s a very good basket, it’s not necessarily a bad idea. Trouble is, how can you tell if it’s a good basket when you’re sold a bill of goods the likes of which the American economy has scarecely seen, if ever? I would never blame the poor folks working for Enron for having been robbed blind. They trusted the regulatory system, and they trusted their leadership. Both failed them miserably. Now I guess we know: Don’t trust anybody. Diversify and pray like a motherfuck they’re not all crooked.
When I saw the CNN alert about this yesterday, I knew that as soon as the boards were back up this thread would be here. Thanks for not disappointing me, KGS. Very, very poor form.
I am of the opinion that dancing on anyone’s grave is in poor taste. I wouldn’t even dance on Bin Laden’s grave. I’d be happy that he could no longer orchestrate any more terrorist attacks, and I think the world would be a better place without him in it.
He was going to go to prison soon, and I would’ve liked to have seen him spend a long time there making license plates and ladies’ dresses. But I do not celebrate his death.
Just my $0.02.
So, what you’re saying is, any moral imperfection on my behalf, renders me incapable of judging the moral character of another person?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
You do some research.
As Eichenwald notes, the lockout was a previously scheduled administrative change (with all Enron 401(k) participants affected) that was announced 2 months prior to the actual lockdown.
When the lockdown began, Enron stock had already sank to $13.50/share. When it was lifted twenty days early on November 12th, Enron employees were net buyers of a stock that had plummeted another 30% to $9.50.
Sorry, but the version you recant, while the populist version, is just plain wrong. The actual events really displays how the average investor is completely incapable of managing their retirement assets.
As far as the granting of stock in 401(k)'s: There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not as if Enron gave options that took time to vest, they matched in stock which could have been sold the day they granted it. So it’s really irrelevant if ENE matched in stock or cash, because they employees had the right to sell that stock immediately.
I have. My employer was and is involved in legal aspects of the collapse. I also believe Bethany McLean had a different timeline but I would have to go back and review it.
Yes, because Lay & company were pimping the stock.
No argument there, but it doesn’t help when management is giving them a song and dance about what a good deal the stock was while knowing the company was going downhill and selling their own stock not in the 401K.
Oh, and speaking of dancing on the grave:
NY Post Cover: “Before they put Cheato Lay’s coffin in the grave, CHECK HE’S IN IT”
and the article title: " LAY HIM LOW: ENRON’S CHIEF CROOK DUCKS BIG HOUSE BY DROPPING DEAD"
Ok, now that I think about it, they weren’t required to invest in Enron stock – however, they were very strongly encouraged to do so. And it didn’t seem like a bad idea at the time; Enron stock was soaring, even as the “Tech Bubble” was starting to show cracks. From the outside, Enron looked like the perfect investment for anyone – a strong, profitable, multinational corporation that markets a commodity that everyone has a use for. Everyone needs energy, and we always will; it’s not like they were selling pet food over the Internet.
Problem is, it was all a lie. A great big scam. And when the house of cards began to crumble, the people who dutifully invested their money as instructed, were locked out of their 401(k) portfolios, as the stock price plummetted from 32 dollars to 9 cents a share. That, in itself, is illegal.
Why limit it to violence? That’s just prejudice. Frankly, I can think of no more evil act than this: projecting the image of TRUST, and then abusing that trust. That’s what Enron did – thousands of employees & stockholders had their life savings destroyed, and millions of California taxpayers are still paying for the damage Enron did to our economy. It’s flat out ECONOMIC RAPE, on a massive, global scale.
Unless you’re psychic, this anti-diversification is always a bad idea. It’s bad enough to have too much of your retirement money with one company, but when it’s the company that employs you, any downturn kills both your current income and your savings at the same time. Risky, risky, risky. That outrageous level of risk might give you a good return, but it’s only the right decision in hindsight.
I damn well hope our high schools provide some sort of fundamental Finance education, because most of us will wind up managing our own retirement, hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, people need to know what the fuck they’re doing.
not a lawyer, but work w/offenders for a living. It’s not at all unusual for a non violent offender to be out on bond until sentencing. IME, they are often, however, under a form of supervision, having to report in to a probation agent (typically) every now and then. What I do find unusual is that he was vacationing in a different state. IME, travel to other states under those circumstances is only allowed w/specific permission. I also wonder why his assets weren’t frozen because of the pending litigation. so there (to me) should have been two different sources of “no, you can’t do that”
I do not dance on his grave, am pissed that he never had to spend a day in jail. morally bankrupt.
but, I must admit, I did admire their entry in the cow parade