15 February 2013
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
They say if you forget something important, relax and rely on your brain's grey matter, if it's important probability becomes practicality. I had a discussion board assignment for a class, which the topic was Privacy Laws. I've been wanting to say what I've just written for some time, to the bottom-feeders, posers, and political leeches from the commie side of the political spectrum, when I was your age we didn't sell our children to the government; learn and enjoy.
Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 2002
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/29/sarbanes-oxley-10-years-later-boards-are-still-the-problem/ (Forbes July 2012)
This article makes mark of the Sarbanes-Oxley 10th anniversary, but inveighs that the Act did not go far enough, particularly noting that it misses a more pertinent danger of Boards of Directors. Although I am not a fan of free-market regulation myself, Sarbanes-Oxley goes to publicize the financial affairs, whereas regulating Boards and Directors of, is a hard task, an imposition to citizen privacy, and borderline totalitarian - watching/monitoring the balance sheets thru public efforts and public channels is a increasingly more important task in the Credit Age, all though difficult it may be.
It's more important to know exactly what the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is, it is a law after all, and good to know nonetheless.
It's full title is, "An Act To protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes." - 'and for other purposes' is a way for politicians to merely remember the title of any bill in supposition for a legitimate excuse.
Of course I'm political, I'm conservative.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sarbanesoxleyact.asp#axzz2KwRr7Ywo (Investopedia, link visited 2013)
Its official purpose is to keep transparency where government cannot, a public display of resources and records for the general public to avoid and protect from critical stock-market dangers. In my opinion it allows financial sector workers (and thus lobbyists) to add a clean and law-abiding balance-sheet to their company resume for investors to see. The damage it does is allow the illicit entities of the business world to keep more secrets than previously had, so long as their Sarbanes-Oxley mask is ready. In other words, when the financial regulators only have to look for the Sarbanes-Oxley checklist, they're not looking for much else.
This fallacy of transparency allows traditional "banksters", insider trading (on the outside) thru credit/currency war, and plays hell on consumers via inflation via liquidity crises. It's successor "Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010" was/is as equally flawed, but in addition to that condition has a small amount of consumer protection in regards to consumer credit, but in the same deceitful fashion that I implied above, masks risky borrowing individual. For example, the Dodd/Frank designed to prevent predatory lending, resulted in prosecution of lenders so that credibility of borrowers could not be assessed, that interest rates would be low although irrelevant to a borrower with bad credit. The probably reason being, many loan defaulters revert to lower-class standards and the dole and taxpayers on the hook for a property grab of egregious proportions.
Those that borrowed the home-loans likely had good intentions, many were certainly real-estate entrepreneurs, taxes should be used to catch their fall into poverty/eviction, but we wouldn't handle every dollar of theirs like parents do for children, like the Sarbanes-Oxley act attempts to do, including regulating new problems found in the Dodd/Frank bill. Tax-payer bailout from the possibly manufactured crisis was much better than the alternative, foreclosure on plausibly every bank in the country to Uncle Sam.
I love that I turned this into another objectivist rant.
Keep in mind, credit goes beyond being the aid of the financial industry, in traditional commerce things like assets, allowances, and alliances, can be made in traditional barter fashion. Watching the money doesn't always lead to a pot-o-gold or a leprechaun caught red handed.
That's right, I said leprechauns.