Rug Burn Junky on 7/8/2011 at 04:52
Quote Posted by dethtoll
It's a conflict of interest. He wrote that article
while working for Enron, and he paints Enron in a positive light to use as an example of how corporations and markets are changing. Of course, he gives full disclosure but the collapse of Enron two years later taints that, because Enron's practices went back years. He can argue he was just another "brick in the wall" but that doesn't mean much.
That's underwear-gnome logic: "Sure, he disclosed it, but .... taint"
There's no connection between the two. None. Period. End of story. If an outside consultant, advising on economic (not accounting) issues, had any inkling of what was going on,
it wouldn't have taken another two years for it to become public. The fraud was well hidden, and it defies belief to think he had any knowledge of it whatsoever. You don't let that sort of thing slip to any old outside contractor, and still manage to keep it from regulators and investors for years.
Edit: full disclosure, I worked on the Enron defaults for the first 5 years of my career. That gives me MORE credibility on this, not less. ;)
In fact, your position would be far more credible if you said that "the collapse of Enron two years later had nothing to do with it." The fact that you don't is why it's hard to take your criticism at face value. The supposed conflict doesn't stand up.
And to give context, he was hired by Enron to give advice based on his expertise. He was hired by Fortune to write for the same reason, not because he was an independent journalist - but because he had real world experience which he was expected to bring to the table and that's exactly what he was writing about. "Hey, I'm an economist, and I've got this interesting take on the modern corporate marketplace, because I've had a chance to view and consider it. So I should write about that."
It's not like he went on a massive public relations campaign, he used them as an example in one column, and pontificated about them based on a reasonable interpretation of the perceived facts at their company at the time. We know better now, but he had no reason to know differently then.
Look, it's your opinion, feel free to have it. Just be honest with yourself: you don't like the dude, but if that's what you're holding against him, it's a petty grudge that you're using as an excuse and not a reason. I can give you the benefit of the doubt because I know you're self-aware enough to be able to own up to this.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I've repeatedly stated that those types are little more than shills for the "corporate exec" class.
Yeah, you can say that all you want, but when you parrot 90% of the same shit, you're part of that following. And the only reason you think Glenn Greenwald "represents your views" is because you don't understand what he writes either. Run along.
Rug Burn Junky on 7/8/2011 at 15:28
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
(
http://nyti.ms/qAnvRb) Ken Rogoff says U.S. And Europe are finally realizing they can't grow their way back to economic health.
Be careful, because that's not exactly what he says: replace "can't" with "won't." It's a subtle but important distinction.
SeriousCallersOnly on 7/8/2011 at 15:39
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Jesus Christ can't you keep your bullshit in one post please?
It's all true though.
A republican president.
CCCToad on 7/8/2011 at 16:02
Quote:
Yeah, you can say that all you want, but when you parrot 90% of the same shit, you're part of that following.
Prove it. Or it would be easier if I go line by line with each view of theirs that is bullshit? I hate those guys enough that I might actually break character for it. Though, I will admit to having done the opposite and aggressively quoted Michael Moore and Al Franken on a conservative leaning forum. Their histrionics were even more amusing than the obama-fanboy responses you get here.
Here's a freebie: all of the names you dropped actively advocated questions asked extension of the Patriot Act every time the question has come up.
edit: 2nd freebie. All of them are virulently against any form of taxes increases, whereas I advocate at least a repeal of the Bush tax cuts(with the categories adjusted for inflation) and an aggressive campaign to close corporate tax loopholes.
Rug Burn Junky on 7/8/2011 at 17:41
Yes, I'm sure you can point to things you don't like about the standard party line. And yet, every time you pipe up, you're spewing the same shit they are, without even the benefit of understanding it in the slightest.
If you're going to make the ludicrous argument that Obama is merely a continuation of Bush, then suck it up and realize that there's less daylight between you and Malkin than there is between W and O.
CCCToad on 7/8/2011 at 19:37
What is this same shit I spew? re-affirming that I spew the same shit in different words isn't going to prove your point.
Rug Burn Junky on 7/8/2011 at 21:17
Nothing I say is going to lead you into the self-enlightenment that you so obviously need, but it's fairly self-evident that every time you engage in one of these embarrassment-fests armed only with the conservative-arguments-du-jour that you have little else at your mental disposal.
Just fucking go away.
CCCToad on 8/8/2011 at 13:42
So basically, you can't name any positions I have in common with Glenn Beck so you're overcompensating by screaming back.
I expected better than this. Have you ever actually listened to Hannity? Whenever he gets posed a question he can't answer he reacts exactly the same way. He starts screaming about how whoever he's arguing with is unpatriotic, stupid, evil, and so on. Kind of like how you're reacting to me posing a question you can't answer.
Aerothorn on 8/8/2011 at 14:47
While I can certainly understand your lack of love for RBJ, equating him to Hannity is just ridiculous. Hannity isn't just a tool, he's downright dim.
demagogue on 8/8/2011 at 15:24
Yes, if you're posting just for style points at this point then the judges want to see a little more.
Edit: Meanwhile it's Monday, the markets have opened since S&P downgraded the US gov't's credit rating and it's already a shitstorm, or more of it since it was already that last week.
