3 ms·
You are confusing your political viewpoints with the actual points the article made. EDIT: It's sad to see that political discussions even on HN are dominated
by dsplittgerber 16y ago
You are confusing your political viewpoints with the actual points the article made.
EDIT: It's sad to see that political discussions even on HN are dominated by the usual misrepresentations of arguments and viewpoints and voting behaviour based on political viewpoints, as is common on e.g. reddit.
- bluedanieru 16y agoYou could try adding to the discussion rather than spouting off witty one-liners. I think I addressed the actual points in the article well enough. If you don't agree then respond in kind or not at all, rather than just showing your contempt. In some cases, not saying anything at all can serve to elevate the discussion.
- dsplittgerber 16y agoThe burden is on you to show that you actually did not misrepresent the author's points. You say the author complains about lax regulation leading to market failure. On the contrary, the author complains about too much static regulation, as any static rule just leads to it being circumvented. He proposes e.g. financial accounting rules based on general principles and duties. Also, where are your sources for the fact that the SEC is or was at any time supposedly devoid of material funding?