Is this a good idea?
September 18, 2002 3:46 PM   Subscribe

Is this a good idea? The SEC names an ex-Andersen partner to a top position regulating auditors. Why not have oil executives pick our energy policy while we're at it?
posted by spotmeter (11 comments total)

 
It must suck to be one of the thousands of partners who used to work at Andersen, considering that everyone naturally assumes you are personally corrupt and cannot be trusted.
posted by smackfu at 3:51 PM on September 18, 2002


call me a cynic, but I am sure with the current administration the oil executives have more than enough say when it comes to defining energy policy.
posted by canucklehead at 3:57 PM on September 18, 2002


Indicting the whole firm of Andersen was the Department of Justice's way of distracting us from the non-indictment of any Enron employees, the real architects of the fraud against shareholders, employees and the public. Do you really believe that all 80,000 Andersen employees deserve to lose their jobs for the behavior of a handful in Houston? [I'm not affiliated with any of these companies, by the way. I'm following the Halliburton/Cheney angle.]

Oil executives do determine energy policy in this administration. What was discussed in the several meetings between Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, and Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton (oil services and asbestos giant) have never been made public, thanks to Cheney's refusal to admit what happened: that disgraced, fraudulent companies shaped our current energy policy (not to mention the energy debacles in California).
posted by skimble at 4:00 PM on September 18, 2002


"Oil executives do determine energy policy in this administration."

skimble, we can boil that down even further:

"Oil executives do determine energy policy in are this administration."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:29 PM on September 18, 2002


Why not have oil executives pick our energy policy while we're at it?
Last I heard, Enron's oil side is still going. But that is another thread.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:37 PM on September 18, 2002


Good point, Smackfu, but Enron wasn't Andersen's only scandal. As this excellent Chicago Tribune special report points out, there were numerous failed audits. The "few bad apples" argument rings pretty hollow in the face of the repeated fraud.
posted by spotmeter at 6:03 PM on September 18, 2002


Maybe you'd rather have people making oil and audit policy that have no experience in either the oil or audit industry? Would that be better?
posted by schlyer at 6:08 PM on September 18, 2002


It worked With Joseph Kennedy, right?
posted by Bag Man at 6:21 PM on September 18, 2002


Maybe you'd rather have people making oil and audit policy that have no experience in either the oil or audit industry? Would that be better?

Dickie Boy????? Is that you?????

I'm posting under a fake name too!!!!!!

Liberals are loosers. (teehee!!!!!!!)

- W
posted by coolgeek at 8:14 PM on September 18, 2002


schyler brings up a good point. We do want people with industry experience to advise on policy (the way hackers are hired for insights into cybersecurity), but what we don't want is their unchecked authority and unbridled conflicts of interest.

Andersen was the symptom, not the problem. Eliminating Andersen did absolutely nothing to attack the conflicts of interest that run rampant between the worlds of earnings-driven business and contribution-seeking elected officials.

The Enron fraud was perpetrated by Enron upper management whose intimate affiliation with the present administration is well documented. Andersen just rubber-stamped the "audit" and cashed their enormous check. Who is more guilty? Enron. Who was indicted? Andersen.

Makes no sense at all.
posted by skimble at 8:25 AM on September 19, 2002


but what we don't want is their unchecked authority and unbridled conflicts of interest.

Who said these new regulators will have "unchecked" power? Just because you head an agency or division doesn't mean that you can do anything you want. If fact, being the head often cause conflicts with low level people. These conflicts often stall, modify or even derail the head’s "program". That's not to mention any internal checks on power that the SEC may have. Time will tell if this is a wise move. I for one am going to examine the facts that unfold and them make rational judgment. But of course, since when does anyone do that on MIFI?
posted by Bag Man at 3:46 PM on September 19, 2002


« Older   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments