Religious Fundamentalism in Orwell and Pynchon

[Terrance]

pynchonoid wrote:
> 
> --- Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > What's your point about Enron?
> 
> It's difficult to trust in the integrity of corporate
> accounting propaganda, especially with regard to
> reports of profits and losses, misuse of funds, etc.
> At least that's what my Wall Street investment banker
> friend tells me. Enron is one particularly egregious
> example.

Well your WS investment banker friend is wrong. Enron is the egregious
exception. 
It's certainly not difficult to trust the integrity of corporate
accounting. And accounting is not propaganda.



> 
> You seemed to be headed in the direction of making
> some sort of technicality argument based on
> Haliburton's corporate report.  

Not at all. I don't think you understand what profit is. 
I fact, I'm quite convinced that you are very naive about how the basic
financial mechanisms in the United States actually work. 

I wouldn't necessarily
> trust that.  I've got another longtime friend who's a
> corporate tax attorney. It's amazing how they can
> juggle numbers to make a company look as if it's got
> no profits to tax, use various ways to hide money
> offshore or in various kinds of corporate entitites,
> etc.

I don't know who they are. Enron "cooked its books." They are not the
first big company to do it and they won't be the last, but they are not
the standard. The vast majority of US companies don't break the law or
"cook their books." 


> 
> Fact is, these companies (Haliburton, Bechtel, United
> Defense, etc.) invest heavily to win these contracts,
> which indicates that they find them profitable, since
> these aren't non-profit organizations.

Non-profit organizations can invest heavily to win contracts and do
every day. 
Of course defense companies bid for contracts that they hope will be
profitable. In the long run they need profits. Why else would they be in
business. 

What is the point you are trying to make?