Before Debacle, Enron Insiders Cashed in $1.1 Billion in Shares

The New York Times ^ | January 13, 2001 | LESLIE WAYNE

[_Jim]

I know the employees were screwed by the 401k lockup

How long did this 'screwing' take place?

[_Jim]

Not all laws create a bigger government, and that one certainly wouldn't.

Of course not. All laws enforce themselves. When you're governing angels pehaps.

Like double-white lines painted on the road - you know, those lines you're *not* supposed to cross?

They enforce themselves too ...

[okie01]

"That aspect (cutting the blood-letting), although down and dirty and looking VERY ominous in the eyes of the public - could turn out to be true and entirely legitimate."

Maybe. Maybe not. But an investigation is warranted and correspondence files might reveal what the real motive was. If they haven't been destroyed...

[Dog Gone]

Oh, I get it. All laws are bad.

I used to think you were a deeper thinker than that.

[_Jim]

I couldn't do a darn thing with the stock they had contributed to the plan. It consistently underperformed the market, and I didn't think it was particularly fair. The stock was mine. The company couldn't take it back if I quit. But I couldn't sell it and put the money into a different financial investment.

So, what you're saying is, you want gov't involvement between you and the company that employs you - in the matter of a private contract ... WONDERFUL.

What if that company just dropped that progam? Who mandates that they CONTRIBUTE anything anyway (the Free Market maybe - in an attempt to attract able, competant employess)?

Ever thought of working for a compnay in a growing field whose stock value actually appreciates?

No. You want the gov't to serve as your protector and overseer.

Fine. Beware of what you *wish* for though - and forget those words of Ben Franklin (about 'security') while you're at it.

[_Jim]

Oh, I get it. All laws are bad.

I used to think you were a deeper thinker than that.

I'll bet the time is ripe for a National Uniform Employers Act -

- a bill that will define not only the wages that should be paid to employees - but the manner in which all manner of compensation (as well as retirement) is handled ..

Wanna bet that Daschle and the whole cadre of Dems (and not just a a few Repubs) would jump at that opportunity?

See, this is the problem I see - we are all too willing to run towards the gov't for the solution of some of these perceived problems - rather than through some work, effort and better choices on our part.

[Dog Gone]

I guess there shouldn't be any civil laws at all? Everything should be a matter of contract between individuals or businesses, and the government shouldn't get involved. No regulation, no oversight, just let 'er rip and let the chips fall where they may. Is that it?

[_Jim]

I guess there shouldn't be any civil laws at all?

Eventually, with all other things being equal - yes.

It *really* is in the best interest of everyone that no one cheat, lie, fabricate, employ hyperbole, obfuscate the facts, et cetra.

But, we live in world where not every one behaves honestly. Therefore, we establish 'rules' with penalties.

I Still believe that better choices - exercised by a LOT more people - would eventually expose those employers that cheat, those businesses that swindle, those organizations seek to dishonestly do business.

At heart - I am a Libertarian. In practice, however, I will see enacted that legislation that allows our society to 'function' ...

[Dog Gone]

In most cases I think that the free market does enact its own penalties, and leads to better choices. The company I work for today does allow me to sell its stock contributions, for example, and no law requires them to do so.

But a law requiring them to do so wouldn't cost the company a cent, and it would prevent someone from having a sizeable portion of their retirement savings locked into a single stock, something which is universally regarded as imprudent.

Laws which require people or companies to behave in ways that we would expect them to if they were good citizens are NOT bad laws.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

see post 8

[Fury]

In most cases I think that the free market does enact its own penalties, and leads to better choices. The company I work for today does allow me to sell its stock contributions, for example, and no law requires them to do so.

But a law requiring them to do so wouldn't cost the company a cent, and it would prevent someone from having a sizeable portion of their retirement savings locked into a single stock, something which is universally regarded as imprudent.

Laws which require people or companies to behave in ways that we would expect them to if they were good citizens are NOT bad laws.

Then, this would be a law aimed at preventing "dumbness"?

[Dog Gone]

In some sense, yes. Sometimes you have to require people not to be dumb, or they will hurt others. If such a law works, then great.