There are so many things wrong with that one comment, it’s hard to know where to start.

- PAUL KRUGMAN of the New York Times was a key adviser to Enron, and several Democratic politicians were in bed with Enron. Is that a good place to start?

- Enron’s philosophy of “If we create a ‘narrative’ that we are good, and simply get the world on board with it, that will make it true, because narrative is reality” is an example of Post Modern philosophy as taught by today’s Left-dominated universities. There. Moving right along.

But there are still several more things wrong. Oops, this could take awhile.

The way Capitalism (or a free-market, de-regulated economy) is supposed to work, is this: People vote with their dollars – in the stock market, as in anything else – and thus punish bad companies. The market itself imposes regulation.

Did it happen in Enron’s case? YES.

Remember, Enron’s shenanigans were discovered and exposed by analysts in the market – Not by government. And the stock went from $92 to under $1, as the shenanigans were exposed. Now that’s punishment.

So, the market did the job. The SEC investigates stuff after the fact. Government almost never detects or exposes a Worldcom or Enron.

But the larger point is: Capitalism does NOT promise that there will be no bad companies, or for that matter, no bad people – no criminals. The idea that “Well the existence of 4-5 bad companies like Enron or Worldcom, out of thousands, proves that Capitalism is a failure” is fatuous Leftism.

OK, well, was Enron punished by the market fast enough? Arguably yes. Arguably no. (i.e., it’s arguable) The key concept to understand here, though, is that government regulation drives out self-regulation.

In other words, the more heavily government regulates how companies conduct themselves, the more “relaxed” investors and analysts are about bad companies – the less vigilant they are – it’s just part of human nature – and the longer it takes for the badness to be exposed.

The net tragedy is that government regulation delays, not hastens, the market’s discovery / exposure of Worldcoms and Enrons. Enron would have been exposed (by the market, again – Government had nothing to do with it) that much faster in Singapore, a less regulated, more free-wheeling Capitalist economy.

Now let’s look at WHY Enron, etc. engaged in the behavior they did.

Everything Enron did (that was fraudulent or illegitimate in some way) had to do with trying to game a complicated, punishing tax code. That should be an important clue for you.

Another aspect of how Capitalism is supposed to work, is that companies are supposed to be “free to be good” – not taxed to death on everything they create, produce, or do. Heavy, complicated taxes provide the overwhelming financial incentives that sooner or later create an Enron.

Yet we are told – by comment 26, by Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. – that more government control and interference in companies is somehow the answer!

It’s like, Hey America – are you suffering from heroin? Have more heroin. Suffering from poison? Here is more of the poison. That’ll fix yer.

So, to summarize:

(1) Government action – accumulated layers of regulation and taxation – created Enron (i.e., drove ambitious, but philosophically weak people to do what they did there).

(2) Government regulation, if anything, served to delay the market’s discovery, exposure and punishment of Enron.

(3) Yet the market still discovered, exposed and punished Enron anyway, while Government did nothing.

(4) Yet we now are told that we must “prevent” future Enrons with MORE government regulation.

Such is the world we live in. Such is the crazy, frequently monstrous world the Left has made.

If I may add, you have to spend money to recupe from liberals in office. For example, repairing a vandalized White House, raises for the military, funding for the military so they can (at the very least) have bullets that they couldn’t afford previously, etc.

Oh, and cleaning up after the lib’s buddies al-Qaeda comes to town ain’t cheap either.

Meanwhile, while I enjoy manipulations created by Democrats, what you conveniently overlook is the assumption used in your link that Presidents are responsible for economic conditions 3- 5 years after they leave office. That lie allows Democrats like you to ditch Carter’s abysmal economic performance, but is exposed when you try to blame the Clinton-created recession on Bush. Furthermore, if you were to apply that rule to Clinton, the first President Bush would then be responsible for the economic expansion under Clinton all the way through 1997.

Also, the selectiveness of your information is blatantly obvious even on the first thing cited.Why was Democrat Harry Truman excluded, even though the cited data source was for all postwar Presidents? Because his numbers dragged Democrats down and ruined the preconceived judgment that Democrats were better than Republicans.

Let’s not forget that Kerry benefitted from a former rich wife and is now benefitting off the wife of a dead Republican.

The guy was never a great shake at business on his own.

I’d like to see just one liberal tool back that up without the worn out lies.
I DARE you, Kevin.

The Rockefellers – a wealthy Republican MADE his money (in the best, most legitimate sense – see here, and also here); then left it to increasingly liberal generations of politicians, the most recent ones being outright loony Democrats.

Of course, Kevin. Why else do you and your fellow Democrats demand that these inheritances or bequests be taxed so heavily?

Come on, where exactly are the figures that show wealthy democrats mainly inherit money and republicans mainly make the money on their own?

John Kerry. Teddy Kennedy. Nancy Pelosi. Mark Dayton. Care to tell me from where their money comes? What companies have they headed, or businesses have they worked for?

Does that mean that wealthy republicans are therefore breeding democrats to whom they leave their money?

If those Republicans are careless enough to give their children a sense of entitlement, of course. However, it rarely if ever falls that way.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/04/the_republican_pork_barrel/

Links in the article go to the line items for each state. My favorite is the mile-long bridge that would serve 50 people and cost $223M.

Is it possible you could make a comment on here without name-calling?

I just calls ‘em as I sees ‘em. How long did you cry over it before you got the nerve to reply?

So, why don’t you explain how we’re supposed to get out of this budget mess if we continue on this course.

Well, for one, you could support folks like Rep. Pence who are working to cut a lot of the pork, then again, that’s like holding up a cross to a vampire. Or a liberal in this case.

Then again, maybe a Democratic President will be at the helm to fix it like last time.

See. You fit the mindless tool label perfectly. A liberal president didn’t “fix it like last time”. The last liberal president screwed it up, just like everything else he touched, last time. Claiming credit for a recovering economy, inflating it based on .coms and then flushing it down the toilet for the next guy is NOT “fixing it”.

Perhaps if you came out of your hiding place, you’d be able to grasp reality. Maybe. I promise. You won’t be seized and placed in a gay death camp. Then again, MorOn.org might dispatch Michael Moore to your house to kick you until your dead for daring to take your lips off of their tit.

BTW, is it possible you could make a comment on here and be able to back it up for a change?

One must always remember that Democrats, by and large, inherited their wealth from others; Republicans earned it. Thus, Republicans know that one can make money through wise investment and business growth; Democrats think one gets money only through stealing it from others.

Just doesn’t make any sense.

I’m sure it doesn’t. I can’t imagine how hard it must be for a mindless liberal tool.

#14
So you think the rich pay less in taxes. Why is it then that the top 1% of taxpayers pay over 1/3 of the of the total federal tax burden. Obviously all those tax accountants aren’t doing them much good. There is a large percentage of Americans who pay no tax at all and still get a refund when they file through the Earned Income Credit. If you are saying they pay less as a percentage of total income, I’m more than willing to debate the “fairness” of progessivity in taxation.