Batshit Insane 2012

[Aabidano]

I consider myself an intellectual conservative

So is Romney.

Except that those labels don't mean a lot in popular discourse. And neither one of you has any chance of moving forward in the wacko world of republican politics right now. The WalMart\Nascar crowd has won that battle.

A few years ago I considered myself conservative, today? Libertarian maybe? Suppose I'm still conservative, our "conservatives" aren't though. Bible wielding liberal plutocrats maybe?

[masteen]

I used to be conservative, but apparently believing 30 years of empirical data over dogma regarding "trickle-down" economics means I'm a Godless, heathen liberal who is possibly gay, Muslim, and/or black.

[Leonaerd]

Ron Paul is debating tonight, with Wolf Blitzer as question overlord.

I'm not buying into the Ron Paul fanaticism, though I understand why others find comfort in his doesn't-play-by-the-rules mantra. His consistent voting record and eagerness to remove troops from overseas is obviously great, as well. He is absolutely the most rational of all the Republican hopefuls, and I love that he has a growing block of supporters / hasn't been assassinated.

He won't get the nomination. They won't allow it.

I just hope that when this comes to pass and some fucko like Perry ( ) gets the nod, people get really pissed off. The angrier the mob, the better.

[kyoukan]

The Republicans would nominate Hitler if they thought he had a chance vs. Obama. Ron Paul's economics are disastrously misinformed and even he most fervent supporters think he is a total nutjob when it comes to money, but he's also consistent in his ideologies and opinions and (like Mccain used to be before he completely sold out) and has a lot of common sense policies that I agree with. Despite the fact the media has colluded to deliberately write him off as a candidate, they will also jump back on him if they think he's a story (it will only take one major newscorp to focus on him to make the others scramble to play catch up). He is not completely out of the race; if he keeps slowly building his base while nutjobs like Parry and Bachmann continue to alienate moderates and split the rabid evangelical right, he can slip in without much trouble.

[Avestan]

You vote for a political party that supports taxing you to death so billionaires and massive megacorps that don't give a shit about you hardly have to pay and and you consider yourself an intellectual? Really?

Not really. I have always said here that I think the right solution is a mix of spending cuts and overall tax increases. Romney's proposal makes a lot of sense. Remove loopholes that only the wealthy enjoy and then normalize tax rates based on a zero deduction world. 3 or 4 tax brackets should do the trick. Broaden the tax base and get rid of the sneakiness at the top.

I was actually surprised at how reasonable Gingrich came off last night. Almost zero chance of him getting nominated, but I liked him in the debate.

I want to vote for the party that provides as many incentives as are possible for me to start a new business and create jobs. That means upside to investors who I need to put money into my venture. That means low capital gains even if that is a boon to the rich. That cash has already been taxed once anyway.

[masteen]

That means low capital gains even if that is a boon to the rich. That cash has already been taxed once anyway.

This pretty much encapsulates your naivety. No rational investor will pass up a chance to make profit because they'll have to pay taxes on it.

[Aabidano]

That means low capital gains even if that is a boon to the rich. That cash has already been taxed once anyway.

This pretty much encapsulates your naivety. No rational investor will pass up a chance to make profit because they'll have to pay taxes on it.

That's the lie that's worked so well as it seems to make sense. In reality you've a billionaire or corporation paying $500k in "taxes" directly to a PAC to be able to make $1.3 billion instead of $1 billion on investment income.

One of the other legs of their platform, smaller, govt seems attractive as well. In theory I agree completely. In practice the one thing that definitely happens is someone with a lobbyist gets rich. Follow on items are govt employees get fired, quality drops and we spend even more money on legal fees, getting a new contractor, etc... I've watched that one first hand numerous times, frequently the people actually doing the work never change, they just get screwed a little more at each iteration and taxpayer costs go up.

*Edit - Could give lots of examples, latest one is my county outsourced grass cutting in some areas to save money. Now we're having accidents as motorists can't see past the grass on the divided highway median to make a safe turn. County can't do a lot, takes 90 days to rebid, same people may get the contact back and then there's legal costs. Where is the savings?

Our teabagging governor is pushing for deregulation (among other typical things] to spur business, again in theory it makes sense. If you used sense when doing it. In practice we end up with environmental damage in the taxpayers lap, junk bonds and the financial meltdown, higher gas prices, food prices, and on and on.

[Zaelath]

For capital gains; you have an investment that's (historically) so low risk, people have been willing to run it at a loss to reduce income tax this year even though they have to pay the full income tax rate on the asset when they eventually sell it (in Australia).

I can understand teabaggers wanting to reduce small business tax rates to stimulate the economy, but capital gains is not productive business for anyone and is an excellent tool for turning income into assets while reducing your tax. Which is where the real driving force for the teabaggers come in; they want, perhaps need, to feel righteous about being a pack of self-interested, greedy scumbags, whose philosophy boils down to "fuck everyone else and fuck the common good", until they want a cop to save them from the poor man with a gun and the same philosophy.

If they want to know where the US is headed without welfare, they should take their next holiday in Jo-burg.

[Aabidano]

I can understand teabaggers wanting to reduce small business tax rates to stimulate the economy...

No problem with that either, it's when you step back and look at what they bundle with it that the problems come in.

For the RNC and especially the tea party, I'm truly curious what percentage of their stance is driven by ignorance and how much is deliberate deception. What they're preaching just doesn't hold up.

"They've already taxed that money once" - Is a good argument as well until you consider it's no different than directly investing in your business and then never being taxed again on the proceeds from that investment.

[Avestan]

That means low capital gains even if that is a boon to the rich. That cash has already been taxed once anyway.

This pretty much encapsulates your naivety. No rational investor will pass up a chance to make profit because they'll have to pay taxes on it.

Dude - I am an investor and I do this all the time. The tax rate I have to pay on an investment is a critical part of the ROI calculation that I make.

Right now, investment firms are holding on to more money than they might otherwise because no one knows if capital gains are going to go up by 10 percent in the next few years. 10 percent is a huge number if you are a fund promising a certain expected return.

Investors have tons of options about where to put their money. They are not simply saying "I can make a profit so I will invest!" - they are looking at dozens of different options (China, US, Bonds, Dividends, Equities, etc). When you raise capital gains, you are taxing the US equity markets and making those investments less appealing compared to the alternatives. If you think that tax rate is not a fundamentally primary piece of that equation, you are the one living in lala land.

[masteen]

Right now, investment firms are hoarding cash because there's no stable, growing markets to dump it into. That has very little to do with tax.

Somalia has NO TAXES. I bet you've got a fuckload of cash in Somali industries, right?

[*~*stragi*~*]

I used to be conservative, but apparently believing 30 years of empirical data over dogma regarding "trickle-down" economics means I'm a Godless, heathen liberal who is possibly gay, Muslim, and/or black.

masteen the gay black terrorist you heard it here folks
-foxnews.com

[Avestan]

Right now, investment firms are hoarding cash because there's no stable, growing markets to dump it into. That has very little to do with tax.

Somalia has NO TAXES. I bet you've got a fuckload of cash in Somali industries, right?

The risk profiles of investments in Somalia are absurdly high. The risk profiles of investments in China are much more reasonable. We are not competing with Somalia for investment dollars and investments. We are competing with China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia.

That said, you are right. The US is no longer a STABLE, growing market. One reason, and there are surely others, that we are not seen as stable is that people like me are worried about the government changing the tax rules on my investments in the next few years.

I will assume that you are smart enough to realize that no single policy is THE reason for economic success or failure, but raising taxes on the equity markets (or even signaling that you might) make the equity markets less desirable for investment - that is a pretty simple and non-controversial statement I think.

[masteen]

That said, you are right. The US is no longer a STABLE, growing market. One reason, and there are surely others, that we are not seen as stable is that people like me are worried about the government changing the tax rules on my investments in the next few years.

I will assume that you are smart enough to realize that no single policy is THE reason for economic success or failure, but raising taxes on the equity markets (or even signaling that you might) make the equity markets less desirable for investment - that is a pretty simple and non-controversial statement I think.

The US has a growth problem, not a stability problem. At least, not yet. My issue with you is that a lot of what you advocate will exacerbate the demand problem in America. Costs can only be cut so far, no matter what they taught you in college. This applies to government as well as corporate finance.

[Aabidano]

....

That's what drove the Chinese commentator to refer to our market as being in "end stage capitalism".

The rise of a robust Chinese middle class will help us a lot, we just need to survive our own stupid long enough for it to happen.

For a number of reasons corporations and corporate investors are obligated to crap in their own nest.

[Avestan]

That said, you are right. The US is no longer a STABLE, growing market. One reason, and there are surely others, that we are not seen as stable is that people like me are worried about the government changing the tax rules on my investments in the next few years.

I will assume that you are smart enough to realize that no single policy is THE reason for economic success or failure, but raising taxes on the equity markets (or even signaling that you might) make the equity markets less desirable for investment - that is a pretty simple and non-controversial statement I think.

The US has a growth problem, not a stability problem. At least, not yet. My issue with you is that a lot of what you advocate will exacerbate the demand problem in America. Costs can only be cut so far, no matter what they taught you in college. This applies to government as well as corporate finance.

I think that the rise of gold shows that we have a growth problem AND a stability problem. As far as cost cutting is concerned, we have not even started to cut. I do not advocate getting rid of social security, but it does need to be trimmed. I want welfare too, but it needs cuts. So does Medicare.

Do some of that and I will happily support more taxes to whoever you want to tax, but if we just keep raising taxes, those programs will never get reformed.

[Jice Virago]

NAFTA fucked us, simply put. It sytematically destroyed all production aspects of this country and turned us into nothing but a service based society. People who actually build shit in this country are in the minority, compared to MBA fucktards who move imaginary money around electronically all day. All meaningful production got outsourced in short order, including in cutting edge/growing fields like tech and medicine. Thank you faith based policy! The reason no one is investing in US industry is because there is quite literally nothing to invest _IN_. Why, if I am the greedy fucking parasite that most of these people are, would I ever consider investing domestically when I can pump the money into some chinese company that gets to use sweatshop labor, with no regard for the human condition of its workers? The only reason they even live here anymore is because the very unbound industry that is giving them their investment return makes actually living in those countries horrific. Put some tarrifs and protectionist taxes back in there and you can bet your ass these same people will either move abroad (instead of getting all the bennefits of living in the US with none of the burden) or start building industry back up in this country. Either way, problem solved. These Randian selfish pricks do not understand empathy, only strong punative consequences.

[Avestan]

wtf. NAFTA? Anyone missing a dead horse? Jice is over there beating it.

[Jice Virago]

Not a dead horse. It was (along with Clinton cementing a lot of the Reagan era dereculation into place) the beginning of the end of this country as a industrial producer. Banking and debt became the cornerstone of the US economy within a year of its enactment. Do you really think there would be the same issues if some of the protectionist economic policies were still in place from before that time period?

[masteen]

He's right, which is why you won't see Germany leading the EU into any NAFTA-style free trade agreements. Unrestricted free trade is the enemy of first world production.

[Avestan]

Guys, you cannot undo globalization. The concept is absurd.

[Leonaerd]

Like decreasing carbon emissions?

[Avestan]

I have no clue how to respond to that. Are you suggesting that we undo decreasing carbon emissions?

Forget it. . .I just un-ignored you because I guess I put you there years ago for some unknown reason - putting you back on ignore now.

[Leonaerd]

i'm on your side, man
it isn't reversible
hence, all my laughter

[kyoukan]

Guys, you cannot undo globalization. The concept is absurd.

Globalization absolutely can be undone. It's all legislation.

[Aabidano]

Guys, you cannot undo globalization. The concept is absurd.

Globalization absolutely can be undone. It's all legislation.

"Undone" isn't likely, evened out is very possible but I don't expect it until things get much worse. Then it will happen on it's own.

Especially in the case of countries like China with very protectionist policies where the US gets seriously screwed. The profit on every dollar we spend on Chinese goods goes back to them in large measure with Wall St taking a cut, every dollar they spend on US goods or technology has most of the value sucked out of it before it leaves China again.

*Edit - by policy 85% only leaves as more Chinese product, which we then borrow money from them to purchase. It's like shopping at "the company store". As a country we're caught in a credit trap the RNC in particular has no incentive to get us out of.

Aside from the hit to people's Chinese investments what's the impact of putting policy in place to reflect what China is doing to us?

Without sensible protectionist policies of some sort coming into effect in the long haul we're screwed as a country no matter what spending gets cut.

[Avestan]

We could also legislate a 10-15% tax on all consumer products and just increase the welfare program by that amount. The effect would be about the same to workers and it would be far less damaging to the competitiveness of the country.

It would also kill all GDP growth.

[masteen]

Given that our country is "competitive" now while 20% of the work force is unemployed, I don't give two fucks about "competitiveness." The global financial system is fucked unless you're uber-rich or one of their lackeys like Avestan. A little isolationism might do us some good if we're forced to actually produce shit other than corn, bombs and porn.

[Avestan]

We are still competitive for now, but the trends are not good. If you only consider the here and now, you do not end up in a good place in 5 to 10 years.

Because I believe that resorting to name calling is usually a sign of someone knowing they are losing an argument, I will not respond to the lackey comment.

[masteen]

So by that statement, you're content with a "competitive" America that produces nothing but corn, bombs, and porn? Because that future is exactly what I am concerned about.

The current financial system is clearly unsustainable. Without it, what does American have? Not a lot, as we've allowed everything else to be moved to China and Mexico.

I guess we could continue to deregulate everything, and continue to position ourselves as Germany's Mexico, but that's not really a future I want to be part of.

[Avestan]

I want an America that is the world leader in intellectual property, technology and entreprenuership. We will never compete with developing nations in manufacturing. We should stop trying outside of a few areas where logistics represent a large chunk of the costs (mining for example). The world economy is global, not local - that is not going to change - get over it.

We should stop pretending that we can go back to the good 'ol days of protectionist economies - it just ain't gunna happen.

No one has all of the solutions. The problem I have with most stances here is that you are pretending that you do.

The next decade is going to be rough, get ready for it. I support making long term decisions now so that at the end of that time, we can pull ourselves out of the muck.

We need to invest in:

1. Education - best long term investment we can make
2. Investment - we want the US to be the friendliest place in the world to invest in
3. Immigration - we need to continue to benefit from smart & hard working people moving to this country (Google, Intel, Ebay, Youtube, Yahoo all started by immigrants)

i am bullish on the US long term because we still have the best infrastructure in the world for starting new businesses, but that will erode if we burden those systems with more and more taxes and regulations. If we become protectionist, we might be able to create some short term jobs, but I believe that they come at the expense of the long term prosperity of the US.

[Aabidano]

We could also legislate a 10-15% tax on all consumer products and just increase the welfare program by that amount. The effect would be about the same to workers and it would be far less damaging to the competitiveness of the country.

It would also kill all GDP growth.

In the current environment we cannot compete with China, a tiny part of that is due to sweat shop labor, the larger issue is purely political and driven the Walton-esque crowd and by the banking lobby.

Today I am a more profitable asset than my peers in China, India and Poland. US manufacturing is far more efficient in general. That we can't compete overseas is a mostly political problem. US trade policy with China in particular screws the whole country and is the most glaring example.

Agree with you on 1. Absolutely priority 1, assuming we base it on actual science. Which knocks out the republican candidates.

2 - you need something to invest in besides fiction based financial products.

Agree on immigration - for people entering legally and who will be a benefit to our society. We don’t need gardeners & other minimum wage workers. We've plenty of ditch diggers already.

[Avestan]

There are more than enough companies starting today that are not financial. They are here today. They could use help, today.

I live in silicon valley and am surrounded by them. I can provide a list a couple hundred long if you would care to see it.

[Siji]

1. Education - best long term investment we can make

Kids can't vote, thus this will never happen.

[masteen]

i am bullish on the US long term because we still have the best infrastructure in the world for starting new businesses, but that will erode if we burden those systems with more and more taxes and regulations. If we become protectionist, we might be able to create some short term jobs, but I believe that they come at the expense of the long term prosperity of the US.

The GEDI rankings don't agree with you on this one:

• 1 Denmark 0.76
  2 Canada 0.74
  3 United States 0.72
  4 Sweden 0.69
  5 New Zealand 0.68
  6 Ireland 0.63
  7 Switzerland 0.63
  8 Norway 0.62
  9 Iceland 0.62
  10 Netherlands 0.62

In fact, we haven't lead the world in this measure for a decade. Not only that, but preliminary data indicate that we might have lost 3rd place to Sweden in 2010-2011.

Deregulation actually makes it harder on entrepreneurs, because companies can more easily engage in monopolistic behavior and erect artificial barriers to entry.

[Avestan]

Regulations erect barriers against new business creation.

Existing large companies often like regulation because it makes it much harder for startups to compete with them.

For example, large companies love Sarbanes Oxley because it makes it harder for companies to go public. It may cost them 5-10 million per year to comply and they look like they are great corporate citizens by supporting it, but they actually like it because it was a huge disincentive to entrepreneurs who eventually want to take their companies public.

That 5-10 million per year is a much bigger deal for a company with $100 million in annual revenue. It is likely all of their profit. That is why you have not seen many smaller IPO's in the last three years. That has had a huge negative impact on the amount of investment dollars coming into small and medium sized businesses that would have used at least some of that money to hire employees.

Also - I know I could look it up but I am lazy. What is GEDI? Never heard of it.

[Aabidano]

Regulations erect barriers against new business creation.

They certainly can, but the simplistic anti-regulation stance people are willing to buy into doesn't tell them what gets deregulated and at who's prompting.

Many of those startups will be doomed by the pump and dump schemes they frequently get caught up in as soon as they begin to show promise. If the SEC was doing it's job or allowed to we'd be better off, something else I don't expect to happen.

I don't hear anything from either side that's of benefit to startups, besides more of the same old crap. They're where out future is.

[masteen]

If the "new business creation" that regulation stifles is shit like sub-prime mortgage securitization, then those regulations are doing their fucking job.

[Aabidano]

Closer to home for me is all the companies being allowed to divest all their liabilities onto an intentionally doomed subsidiary, re-incorporate themselves and walk away with all the in cash and millions in performance bonuses to the execs for such a remarkable job of screwing their current and retired employees & govt who has to clean up afterwards.

*Edit - These are the ones Killmoll thinks should be paying their retirees healthcare cost, which they won't do unless forced too by regulation. One of the larger reasons I'm for medicare for all & keeping SS as a rescue net.

Then there are the companies taken private, public, private, public, each time being remortgaged back to themselves with the investment bank taking a slice of the pie, until all that's left is a worthless pile of debt.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I think you are taking liberties with me there. I am against the overpaid CEO's and execs, but think we are going about it the wrong way via the taxation route. If you asked to regulate wages on publicly held companies I would be 100% with you. Stop overpaying these assholes because they can vote each other all those bonuses.

[Aabidano]

I think you are taking liberties with me there. I am against the overpaid CEO's and execs, but think we are going about it the wrong way via the taxation route. If you asked to regulate wages on publicly held companies I would be 100% with you. Stop overpaying these assholes because they can vote each other all those bonuses.

I don't disagree with you in principle on a lot of areas, in practice it just doesn't work out the way they'd have us believe. Retirement and healthcare in particular, I fell back to those as they're a couple areas where Perry, etc.. aren't going to move us in a humane direction. Families' and churches' inability to pick up the bill is why they exist as they do. Paying private insurers an essentially mandatory cut of every healthcare dollar is stupid whether no matter what direction it's driven from.

Taxation certainly needs fixed, flat tax isn't an answer, fairtax seems better. Current system is hosed.

That's the incestuous mature of the boards of directors who are supposed to be overseeing the whole deal. How many "superstar" CEOs are worth what they're paid? Not too many, and the justification for them is non-existent in many cases.

While I have seen and worked for some great ones your run of the mill bungee-VP is worth jack and shit in most cases I've seen. Bounce in long enough to earn the parachute, suck value out of the business and bounce out.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Don't tie me to Perry! I shudder thinking of him or Bachmann or Palin getting the GOP candidacy. Just because I hate liberals, doesn't mean I like the ultra conservatives either.

Health care came at a horrific time and at a horrific price. There should have been a focus early for working towards a real plan for helping the economy. The first step of a recovery right now would be driving the gas prices down (which the prime shithead does not want to happen). I am all for working towards other energy sources to make the middle east and some of the other unstable shithole countries like Venezuela completely insignificant to us. Personally, I intend to begin gradually moving to solar and think our libtards should come up with plans to reward people for moving green rather than penalize with carbon taxes and other stupid shit.

[Aslanna]

The crazy keeps coming...

Michele Bachmann is getting some pointed criticism from scientists for suggesting that the HPV vaccine poses serious health risks.

"It can have very dangerous side effects," she said of the vaccine on the Today Show on the morning after Monday night's Republican debate. "This is the very real concern, and people have to draw their own conclusions."

The Republican hopeful said a mother approached her following the debate and told her that her daughter became mentally retarded after receiving the HPV vaccine. But the American Academy of Pediatrics blasted Bachmann, saying the notion that the vaccine can cause retardation has "absolutely no scientific validity."

Bachmann tried doing some damage control, saying, "I didn't make any statements that would indicate that I'm a doctor, I'm a scientist or that I'm making any conclusions about the drug one way or another," CBS News reported. But when asked if she'd apologize for her comments linking the vaccine to mental retardation, Bachmann said: "Oh, I'm not going to answer that."

I assume she's more of a 'faith based' healing type of person and people should put their fate with god rather than trust those crazy scientists and their immoral immunizations.

[Avestan]

If the "new business creation" that regulation stifles is shit like sub-prime mortgage securitization, then those regulations are doing their fucking job.

I am thinking more along the lines of technology startups. Is that industry ok by you?

[masteen]

If the "new business creation" that regulation stifles is shit like sub-prime mortgage securitization, then those regulations are doing their fucking job.

I am thinking more along the lines of technology startups. Is that industry ok by you?

Sure. Now please cite specific legislation and give examples to back up your claims.

[Avestan]

Didn't I already do that? Sarbanes Oxley.

I will try to explain again.

The "payday" for tech startups is going public. SarOx makes it much, much harder to go public. It protects large entrenched players by restricting smaller firms from accessing public market capital and it makes it harder to take your tech startup public.

This impact cascades into venture capital ultimately making VC's charge more for their money because instead of a 3-5 year outlook to go public, companies now have to think about 7-10 years. Entrepreneurs, as a result, have to give away more of their company to investors in order to get early infusions of capital.

The net result is that it is less attractive to be en entrepreneur because of SarOx. I suppose I could dig up more regulations, but SarOx is probably the most significant financial regulation of the last decade.

[Aabidano]

I'm still not sure how eliminating temporary tax breaks is an increase, but whatever.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... e-deficit/

[masteen]

Didn't I already do that? Sarbanes Oxley.

I will try to explain again.

The "payday" for tech startups is going public. SarOx makes it much, much harder to go public. It protects large entrenched players by restricting smaller firms from accessing public market capital and it makes it harder to take your tech startup public.

This impact cascades into venture capital ultimately making VC's charge more for their money because instead of a 3-5 year outlook to go public, companies now have to think about 7-10 years. Entrepreneurs, as a result, have to give away more of their company to investors in order to get early infusions of capital.

The net result is that it is less attractive to be en entrepreneur because of SarOx. I suppose I could dig up more regulations, but SarOx is probably the most significant financial regulation of the last decade.

Well allow me to retort: pets.com

[Avestan]

Nothing would have changed with pets.com - their numbers were fine it was just a bad company.

SOX was meant to counteract Enron, Worldcom, etc. so those would be better examples for you to give.

My point is that the long term costs of these regulations which cannot be seen as gigantic fireballs in the sky like the Enron collapse are far more costly than are those collapses. Plenty of people disagree with my assessment, but SOX absolutely does stifle new business creation and success. That is what we "pay" for the security of not having another Enron.

I think there is probably a middle ground that does not levy $4-10 million in auditing and administrative costs on small companies but still protects against massive failures. One suggestion is that SOX should only apply to companies over a certain market cap - say $2 billion. That way, small companies can still go public with $30-$100 million in revenue without forfeiting all of their profits to comply with regulations.


Regardless - my original point was that regulations stifle good business. They do. I am not saying they don't do anything good. They usually do, but most legislators are too stupid to understand the long term negative impacts of moving away from market driven economics. You do not have to be a capitalist to believe in econ 101 - taxes, subsidies, and regulations create what is called "deadweight loss" - it pretty much is what it sounds like it is.

Wikipedia's explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

[Avestan]

Just in an attempt to quantify the cost of SOX. . .there are roughly 15000 public companies in the US. The average compliance cost is likely much higher, but let's assume it is $4 million per year.

That is a $60 billion per year industry we created with a single regulation. That is money going out of the hands of companies and into the hands of banks and auditers. Do you think that maybe cost this country a job or two?

Shareholders lost $11 billion when Enron went under.