[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
They broke the law in numerous ways. They didn't discover ingenious loopholes, they didn't use ethically grey areas to give them an advantage over their competitors and they didn't ignorantly break some obscure laws that had hardly any effect on how thay ran their business. They committed fraud, they co-erced and bullied their workforce and other investors not in the know to keep their value artificially high by giving false information about the state of the company, they manipulated certain energy markets to give an impression that a commodity that was in fact in abundance was scarce and more valuble than it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still not sure what your point is. I'm not attempting to deny or excuse fraud.

[ QUOTE ]
They did this not simply by abusing government regulation because it was poorly planned and easy to abuse, they did it for money. They (and by they I mean the executives who didn't accidently but actively - and they did - persued this course of action) stole for greed and they got caught. If the law had not been in place to catch them as I think you would prefer they would all be at other companies in senior positions no doubt thinking how clever they are whilst their victims from Enron pick up the pieces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still not disputing anything.

[ QUOTE ]
The market would not have corrected this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Investors don't care about frauds? Please. The market put Enron out of business.

[ QUOTE ]
It would not have given Enron employees the difference in what they were told Enron shares were worth when they were railroaded into buying them and what they were really worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Markets don't award damages. Arbitration does.

[ QUOTE ]
The market did not as far as I am aware make any recompense to any customer whose energy supply suffered due to Enron's machinations and most importantly maybe the market certainly did not begin to evolve checks and balances to stop abuses such as this happening again. The law will, the market won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will? When? With what money? Again, you're conflating law and government. I do not advocate a system where thugs can escape responsibility for fraud. Those that are damaged by fraud should pursue damages and be compensated. Not by "the market" in general, but specifically by a free market in arbitration.

"The Market" in the general sense destroys companies that do not deliver. Arbitration decides damages. Don't fault one for not doing the job of the other.

Government, which you seem to think will "fix" this problem, firstly failed to prevent it, and secondly has not delivered any substantial compensation to those damaged. The system you are championing to "recompense" has not done so. The system which you say does not check and balance and stop abuse did exactly that. Enron is no longer pillaging, not because government stopped them, but because they went bankrupt.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But they are still seperate. There's nothing intrinsic about law that requires a government to create it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is. If the law isn't enforced it isn't law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Maintaining law and order requires effort.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether government is one chief or 10,000 minions in Washington matters not, they have the power to dictate and enforce what is illegal, not you or I.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where you're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The government gives itself a monopoly on it, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this as if there could be another way. I'd love to hear it. (The only way, I think, it could be otherwise is civil war which history teaches is a rather unstable and ultimately doomed form of society ordering).

[/ QUOTE ]

Civil war? You're going in the wrong direction. I want less violence, not more.

Law, just like any other service which people have a desire for can be provided by the market. Food, clothing, and shelter all all of utmost importance, but reasonable people know that these things can be provided without government interference. Why is the law any different?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the concept of law prevailed and outed thugs doesn't automatically validate government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is not the point I'm making. It validates the law. Laws you seem to wish were not in place because you think the market would compensate. But the point is they were broken, not because they were there, not because of some kind of dare, not because Mr Lay thought it would be a bit of a giggle, but for money. Now can you please tell me why leaving everything up to purely market driven forces somehow makes these crimes less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say I don't want laws in place? Fraud is a crime. When have I said otherwise? Justice, like all other services, can be efficiently provided without government interference.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppressing supply to increase demand is fine with me

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I take you seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I have a bunch of firewood, and the current market price is less than I'd like to sell the wood for, I should be compelled to sell anyway? I can't voluntarily withdraw my supply? If that's the case, then I don't really own the wood.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the market is truly free, this move will backfire and those that provide supply to meet demand will be rewarded

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just so naive

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These moves only work in markets that are restricted by government regulation. Such regulation encourages bribers and bribees. You get one and two or three more spring up to do the same thing. Get off the treadmill, remove the *source* of the problem - government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

These moves happen in markets where money is involved. It's as pure and simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Money is involvled in all markets. If there's no government regulation, then there's no regulator to bribe, regardless of how much money is at stake.