That little disgusting weasel who destroyed so many lives has died of a heart attack. One could look at this as a heart attack too late or too soon.
Finally brought to trial after driving Enron into the ground and fleecing thousands of people of their life savings in the process, Lay continued to live a life of obscene wealth and never took responsibility for the damage he caused and the lives he ruined.
ENRON’S KEN LAY DIES: ‘HIS HEART SIMPLY GAVE OUT’
Convicted Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay, who was found guilty of helping perpetuate one of the most sprawling business frauds in U.S. history, has died of a massive coronary. He was 64.
Nicknamed “Kenny Boy” by President Bush, Lay led Enron’s meteoric rise from a staid natural gas pipeline company formed by a 1985 merger to an energy and trading conglomerate that reached No. 7 on the Fortune 500 in 2000 and claimed $101 billion in annual revenues…
When Lay and Skilling went on trial in U.S. District Court Jan. 30, it had been expected that Lay, who enjoyed great popularity throughout Houston as chairman of the energy company, might be able to charm the jury. But during his testimony, Lay ended up coming across as irritable and combative.
He also sounded arrogant, defending his extravagant lifestyle, including a $200,000 yacht for wife Linda’s birthday party, despite $100 million in personal debt and saying “it was difficult to turn off that lifestyle like a spigot.”…
Lovely. And isn’t it amazing that after this man did people in general were still surprised that he was “combative” and “arrogant”? What a pig. These two men not only harmed real individuals, but did extraordinary damage to the image of American business, success, and the power of personal wealth to do good. The Bill Gates and Warren Buffet charity partnership is a good example of that responsibility.
It’s a travesty this man was allowed to remain free, and for so long as his body simply failed. It at least would have been more appropriate had he killed himself, and his conspirator has admitted considering (of course considering is quite different than doing).
So, I’m not happy he’s dead, but wish he had survived to find out how that obscene lifestyle built on the destruction of others can be turned off–and into a life in a prison cell that would have been the more approrpriate end to that man’s existence here on Earth.
This is why rapid prosecutions of scum like Lay and Skilling is key. But gee, at least they got Martha Stewart in the meantime.
Related LInk:
Enron Crooks Nailed
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
He died in Aspen. I thought the Enron honchos had to sell their multimillion dollar mansions and place the proceeds into a fund to repay some of the former employees’ pension monies. Apparently, that report was wrong.
I am a person who doesn’t believe it is wrong to speak evil of the dead. If a person is a “pig†or evil when alive, he is none the less a pig or evil when dead. I have to take exception, however, to the rather harsh assessment of the Lay/Skilling/Fastow/Enron fiasco. I worked in various corporations over 45 years before I retired. While not a powerful executive myself, I worked elbow to elbow with some of them. In all corporations there is a constant effort to put “lipstick on the pigâ€. The CEO and lesser officers in a company are required to do skillful dance to enhance performance but keep from going over the edge into illegality. Constantly at risk are such things as bond/credit rating, stock price, professional esteem, and salary. Many times I have seen the truth stretched in one quarter and vindication occur in the next quarter as the corporation pulls itself up by the bootstraps (in my positions I was usually a bootstrap puller).
When auditors came to the company, the common pattern was to give them any information they ask for and not lie, but don’t answer any questions they don’t ask. All of this seems amoral. It is amoral: caveat emptor (also let the investor beware). The charge given to an enterprise in a free market is to make a profit. The legality and morality is left to the authorities, lawyers, and clergy. Breaking the law, however, is counterproductive in the long run and will almost guarantee a net loss or at the very least a reduction in profits at some point. Each corporation must support the law in self-interest. It retards the tendency to act rashly or shortsightedly. It gives every one equal treatment and a level playing field. A lawbreaker may be a competitor, a corporate raider, or patent usurper.
Commerce is governed more by natural law than by civil law. For example, enterprises are limited by A=A, A always=A, and if A is a dollar it cannot be in two places at one time. A drought in India or the January snow pack in Nebraska or a hurricane in the Caribbean, affect economics more than all civil laws or legislation.
I see Lay and Skilling as two who were caught in a downward spiral looking for a way to pull up (ask a pilot). From what I have read, they weren’t trying to do anything illegal but were trying to rescue the company from some bad decisions. A side note is that there may have been some chicanery and illegal profits in the “partnerships†formed by Fastow. Skilling and Lay never profited from these. If I were to investigate, I would look at the finances of the board members or people who did financial business with the corporation. Remember that money is never made nor lost. It only moves from one place to another.
If an investor “loses†money, it really just moved from failed investor to a successful investor. Risk of failure is the reason that investments can be more lucrative (and less certain) than a FDIC insured savings account.
I really appreciate your internet radio program and your point of view. It would be bizarre if we agreed on everything.
BA in LA
The real mistake here is to judge Enron as some kind of bad example of the free enterprise system. Energy in this country is a govt-subsidized industry. The price of a kilowatt of electricity is not decided by the market, but by govt regulation. It was a mistake from the very beginning to try to trade in it as if it were a market-based commodity. The people who put their money into Enron were fools, attracted by the promise of a big payoff from trading in a protected commodity. Any wise investor steered clear of Enron for this very reason. As WC Fields used to say: “You can’t cheat an honest man.” The real criminal is the one who encouraged this bogus investment scheme as a part of his “economic boom”.
I am really taken a back at your reference to Ken Lay being a pig. I feel that that is an unnecessary slander to an intelligent and (contrary to popular opinion) clean breed of domestic livestock.
His death just saved taxpayers quite a bit money. True, some of our dollars went to the trial, but they won’t go a jumpsuit or a prison cell.
Maybe it’s just me, but I see more venom being expressed toward Ken Lay at his death than was directed toward Zarqawi at his death.
Robert:
Zarqawi may have killed some servicemen and inoccent hostages.
What he did not do is steal your mother’s retirement.
Ah: You make my point. Thanks. No one stole my mother’s retirement, btw, but thanks for the attempt to personalize your anti-business venom. “…some servicemen and innocent hostages…” Quite an understatement, don’t you think?
Robert:
If you or anyone else out there misconncrews (I never rec’d the gift of spelling) my remarks to beleive that I have any sympothy for Mr. Z you miss my point.
I was only pointing out my theory as to why the ire toward Mr. Lay.
If you think supporting business means having to excuse extragrand theft from the public, you demean business. I have respect for the many honest business people out there.
No poor man has ever writen me a paycheck.
lol.
John
John: I just think that the death of Zarqawi was infinitely more significant to us than anything having to do with Ken Lay. The entire concept of Enron was wrong from the beginning, as I have explained above, and it was always doomed to failure. The losses were due to the flawed concept, not to any actions anyone performed. That doesn’t excuse any wrongdoing, but the real culprit, IMO, goes unindicted to this day. Those who thought they were going to prosper from such an enterprise were fools, IMO. They are not victims, they are greedheads who didn’t get what they thought they were going to get: a windfall due to govt manipulation of the energy market.
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/guest/qtr1/0216.htm
Am I allowed to post a link here? Thought some of you might like this. Ken Lay committed the bulk of his crimes when it was Clinton’s job to stop him.
Zarqawi may have killed some servicemen and inoccent hostages.
What he did not do is steal your mother’s retirement.
I think somebodies priorities have gone astray. Would you rather have somebody steal your retirement money or kill your mother? That actually seems like an easy choice to me.
I’m sure my mother would remain alive. So it just depends on whose mother it is being killed. Somebody seems to imply since it was somebody elses mother, they would rather have the money.
Okay, okay. There was a mildly sarcastic tint to my remarks. Remember in the “Longest Yard” when Bert Reynolds was wondering why the inmates hated him so much? He was told “guys in here are rapists, killers, a couple of these guys even killed their own mothers. But you cheated on foot ball. Damn son, that’s unAmerican.”
ahwatukeejohn:
If your mother has her whole retirement fund invested in one high flying company, she is a walking, talking, victim and should have a conservator.
You must log in to post a comment.