4 ms·
fraud has been illegal for centuries. Sarbanes-Oxley did not outlaw fraud. yeah, no shit. We're saying the same thing. Sheesh. But of the 100 reforms I'd li
by dhimes 17y ago
fraud has been illegal for centuries. Sarbanes-Oxley did not outlaw fraud.
yeah, no shit. We're saying the same thing. Sheesh.
But of the 100 reforms I'd like to see, none of them look anything like Sarbanes-Oxley.
Agreed again. So what is your point? Did you even read what I've been writing here?
- mnemonicsloth 17y agoThe two of you agree on everything that sane and rational people should. Fraud bad. Innovation good. Prevent fraud good. Hinder innovation bad. You've just got different internal estimates of the prevalence of fraud, the ease of deterring innovation, and the costs associated with each. Interestingly, when people disagree like this they almost always either start talking about principles, generalities, or hypotheticals that are obviously very good or very bad. They never say "let's start with some numbers we can both agree on and see if we can figure it out together." I think that's because people are wired to think with representative symbols (genius inventor, robber baron, welfare queen), and to weight their judgments according to their loyalty to various ideology brands.
- lkrubner 17y agoYou wrote: "I've no problem with that." Seems like we disagree on something fundamental, if you've got no problem with Sarbanes-Oxley. I've got a lot of problems with it.
- lkrubner 17y agoEven more so, you said: "I doubt it will stop innovation" but you admit: "even though they are expensive" These can't both be true. If the rules are expensive, they will stifle innovation.