They tried to squash and stifle his entrepreneurial ingenuity by throwing him in jail and criminalizing his pioneering business practices. But like an abused character from a Randian novel, he is back. Today Forbes published an interesting overview of the resurrection of this proverbial Phoenix and what his future plans are.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/5063/michael-milkens-second-act/
Michael Milken’s Second Act
Previous post: Do you want a Mises.com email address (gmail interface)?
Next post: Quick Test
{ 5 comments }
I think G. Gilder is correct in his positive appraisal of M. Milken.
Also, I think there’s a potentiality to the idea that: MM & Enron(Enron online) were both “taken out” due to their seriously disruptive challenges to the Status Quo.
I don’t think Enron was “taken out”, I see Enron as having had a bad business from the beginning. Anyone who wants to base a business on the success of the Kyoto treaty and its “pollution credits” deserves to fail.
Milken, on the other hand, was taken out. He helped create a way for upstarts to challenge the established power structure. The only thing left is the government mandated monopolies that all communications companies enjoy at the local/state level.
Had Milken continued, had his fortunes and his clients fortunes risen as they very likely would have during the 10 years following his conviction, I think there would have been a credible threat to the “mandated” monopolies in the form of well financed public opinion in favor of _real_ deregulation.
By forcing a crisis, the Fed.gov was able to further control banking as well as restrain the upstart telecom companies until they could become established and decide they would rather suck at the government teat than compete.
Milkens was an extreme case of the Federal Government using force to maintain its monpoly on banking. Other folks that have challenged this are Bill Gates and now Walmart. And look they both see continuous harrassment from the legal system and federal part in particular.
CH,
I think you may be understating the business case of “EnronOnline”, they were trading multi-various goods beyond mere “pollution credits”. In the short time they were operational, they were crushing the spread/chop/”profit margin” in many, thentofore, illiquid industry verticles.
I concur, though, that “Kyoto” is/was a terrible conceit.
Mr. Hoffer, I have no doubt they had their hands into lots and lots of other pockets that I’m not aware of. What I saw looked like they were positioning themselves to capitalize upon the Kyoto treaty distortion of the energy/pollution markets. When that didn’t happen, their various, to abuse a term, “short positions” collapsed.
Comments on this entry are closed.