Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: The Libertarians are at it again- Sarbanes-Oxley Act 21
Here we go again. I realize the myth is that Enron was an anomaly, a single case. But as this article shows, many other companies at the same time rushed to "restate earnings", only a step or two ahead of the prosecuters.
I maintain that anybody wanting to remove the protections of Sarbanes-Oxley should be suspected of fraud- because near as I can tell, the only reason to roll back this transparancy would be *specifically* to lie to investors and customers.
I maintain that anybody wanting to remove the protections of Sarbanes-Oxley should be suspected of fraud- because near as I can tell, the only reason to roll back this transparancy would be *specifically* to lie to investors and customers.
have you read the law? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
. Take what the SEC is already supposed to be doing and create Yet Another Government Agency to duplicate the SEC's function.
. Gives GAAP the weight of law, but those accountants who violate GAAP are basically ostracized from the profession anyways, so this doesn't add a whole lot that isn't already there.
. Requires CEOs to sign off on all financial statements, making them criminally liable if there are problems with said statements. But let's be r
Re: (Score:2)
Then you misunderstand the law. What it "accomplishes" is:
. Take what the SEC is already supposed to be doing and create Yet Another Government Agency to duplicate the SEC's function.
Which was obviously needed because the SEC had failed.
. Gives GAAP the weight of law, but those accountants who violate GAAP are basically ostracized from the profession anyways, so this doesn't add a whole lot that isn't already there.
So why weren't they ostracized *before* Enron?
. Requires CEOs to sign off on all financial statements, making them criminally liable if there are problems with said statements. But let's be real - what CEO has time to analyze every single financial statement the company produces? They will just sign off on whatever their CFO gives them without seriously studying it (and any given CFO may very well have not written themselves the financial state
Re: (Score:1)
And the reason the Enron accounts weren't ostracized before the collapse is because their activities weren't known to the community until after the fact.
The way public corporations behave isn't going to change much as a result of SOX, they'll go public and commit fraud against private investors, or they'll just be more careful about getting caught.
You should read Confucius. The People will behave in the manner of t
Re: (Score:2)
If the SEC couldn't do its job, what makes you think another agency will be any better at it?
The fact that companies are fleeing public ownership is a damn good signal that the new agency is better than the SEC. Public ownership was the major problem with the SEC- it encouraged such bad accounting because of those damned quarterly reports that made every corporation short-sighted by law.
And the reason the Enron accounts weren't ostracized before the collapse is because their activities weren't known to the community until after the fact.
Poor reasoning there- because Sarbanes-Oxley forces the activities to be known. More importantly- it forces public corporations out of the marketplace, which is a good thing in general.
The way public corporations behave isn't going to change much as a result of SOX, they'll go public and commit fraud against private investors, or they'll just be more careful about getting caught.
Which is good enough
Funny, you're off chief... (Score:2)
We figuratively "looted" those SOX compliance testees, and had a virtual gold mine awaitng us each time they needed to do any compliance test, and this is just for email and electronic communications. Granted its nice to "stick it to the man" but most of the groups we dealt with were SMALL
Re: (Score:2)
firstly, the government in a representative democracy is supposed to be acting on the will of the people. granted, the system isn't perfect. but the appropriate response to this is not to abandon the idea of representative democracy, but to work to make it better. when you say that the government should get it's "claws" out of things, what you're really saying is that the people should do that. that is anti-democra
No. You are incorrect. (Score:2)
*TOTALITARIANISM* *OLIGARCHY* *LAISSEZ-FAIRE(hasn't ever existed since 1788)* *ANARCHY*
So which are you, LEFT wing, or RIGHT wing? What the news says "liberal left" and "conservative right" is Bull and S***. LEFT
Re: (Score:2)
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
and here's how wikipedia defines "republic": a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country.
your semantic quibbling and overzealous use of the caps lock notwiths
Re: (Score:2)
This is a chart, totalitarianism is LEFT EXTREME, ANARCHY RIGHT extreme... and no Congress will not abolish elections, they are the diligent exercise in futility that we are "allowed" to perform.
If they abolished elections, there are FAR too many Americans, not just US citizens (slaves to the corporation that is the United States construct) who are armed and not willing to be enslaved. Sadly that number is steady and n
Re: (Score:2)
i kidnap your children. i start sending you their body parts in the mail while gently suggesting maybe you should give me a pile of money. but i haven't murdered or raped them. and, as for the pile of money, it was given by you. i didn't steal it. i didn't explicitly tell you that your children would be returned if i received it. so this is legal in your world.
Kidnap - you've already deprived them of their liberty and since they're still under my roof, you've already robbed them
Re: (Score:2)
let the record show this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
show me any region of the world where anarchy currently exists. you can't do it. and you know why?
because anarchy, on a large scale, the kind of large scale that nations operate in, is unnatural. anarchy is similar to communism in one respect - it is only a natural property of groups of people when those groups are very small. history and science have both shown nature,
Re: (Score:2)
The chart I'm used to is two dimensional: Anarchy bottom, Left Liberal, Right Conservative, top Statist/Totalitarian. On that chart, I'm slightly above center.
Yes I'm familiar with your chart, but the original (Score:2)
PS - your chart is post WW2... quite new, it was a fascism test actually, done by researchers seeking a way to find what traits allowed one to swing into fascism easilly. Guess they didn't notice US citizens were highly suscept
Re: (Score:2)
I said it was a chart, and you jumped on the anarchy thing, I never advocated that, I simply mentioned you wouldn't be either "right wing" or "left wing" and still be sane. One involves becoming The Borg, and the other involves complete chaos. Neither will occur and be good, but the closest you can get to lack of hierarchy the less you will have to have it enforced upon you.
WACO, TX Slaughter:
I understand that under US statute Koresh raped those girls, but by
Re: (Score:2)
no, you said "right is freedom" and presented the chart as proof that anarchy is freedom. you certainly won't be the first person, or the last, to claim this. you also won't be the first person, or the last, to be left sputtering in the wind as people point out that institutionalized anarchy is not only grossly impractical but also a literal contradiction in terms.
or is it your position that anarchy is not freedom? feel free to clarify your posi
Re: (Score:2)
after all, that's what you're claiming i should be able to do, right? i should be able to procure any type of armament i want to, right? and i should have the "freedom" to take any action i see fit as self-defense, right? because here's your entire argument - it wasn't wrong what happened to david k
Re: (Score:2)
yeah you did. and then you redefined them so that assault and battery became rape. at that point it became pretty clear to me that you were quite willing to bend your three laws to be whatever you wanted them to be for the sake of your argument. so yeah, after you stopped taking them seriously, i did too.
"You're talking from a state educated point of view, that might makes right,"
i never said that and you can't cite where i did. you are putting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I seem to recall that cops, by ruling of the SUPREME COURT, have no requirement to save, protect or serve the individual (wi