>>Why single out Mike?
>>
>>Doug
>
>Hmm, you seem to be going all YAF-ish on us, Doug. Try this:
>Because Milken represented the antithesis of what a democracy is
>supposed to be. Despite all the Drexel Burnham agitprop about how
>Mike somehow represented the popularization of finance, secrecy and
>oligarchy were the very essence of MM.
>
>Besides, if it's in the public interest, say, "to kill an admiral
>from time to time to encourage the others," it seems to me
>enlightened policy to savage an arch-capitalist from time to time to
>*discourage* some of the more egregious excess among his followers.
>And did Mike ever have groupies! In every way, the man had the
>biggest predator's balls around.
You want a financier who committed serious crimes, why not go after Michel Camdessus or Horst Kohler or James Wolfensohn? IMB/WB policies kill people. Patrick Bond says he's doing research into how the WB caused cholera in South Africa. What's Milken next to that?
Did jailing Mike discourage Wall Street from luring unsuspecting punters into buying stupid IPOs or day trading themselves broke? Did it discourage financiers from loading up poor people with debts they don't have a prayer of paying off?
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me who exactly the victims were of Milken's crimes. Not in the moral or figurative sense but in the legal sense.
Doug