Post by: Lucifer on October 29, 2019, 06:34:36 AM
Can anyone name a city that was under republicans that the democrats came into power and actually improved conditions for the citizens?
Post by: Number7 on October 29, 2019, 06:37:34 AM
Oooohhh...
That would be....
What is, San Francisco for $100 Billion...
Post by: Number7 on October 29, 2019, 06:48:17 AM
Post by: Lucifer on October 29, 2019, 06:58:44 AM
Post by: Anthony on October 29, 2019, 06:59:39 AM
Post by: Lucifer on October 29, 2019, 07:11:06 AM
LBJK's War on Poverty and the Great Society.
I disagree.
Quote
In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
Post by: Anthony on October 29, 2019, 07:19:21 AM
Post by: Rush on October 29, 2019, 07:20:31 AM
But there is one thing liberals have been squawking about longer than conservatives and now conservatives are starting to join them, seeing they were right after all, and that is criminal justice reform. The evidence is now very clear that punitive imprisonment above only the most violent offenders actually increases the crime rate. States that have implemented less incarceration and started programs to assist transitioning to the outside are finding less recidivism.
However right now I am assuming those plans were suggested by the left, and I might be wrong. I don’t have the time right now to dig into it. All I know is that historically, and by that I mean my lifetime, conservatives have been “lock em up and throw away the key” much more than liberals.
On the other hand, it is Trump who is leading the charge for prison reform so...never mind.
Post by: Rush on October 29, 2019, 07:21:35 AM
I disagree.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years
I thought Anthony was being sarcastic. ;D
Post by: Anthony on October 29, 2019, 07:36:25 AM
I thought Anthony was being sarcastic. ;D
Oh, you figured me out! :)
Nixon signed the EPA into law, and while I think we've done some great things reducing actual harmful emissions and effluents, they've gone way to far. It has become a Fascist, weaponized agency.
Post by: Rush on October 29, 2019, 10:00:07 AM
Oh, you figured me out! :)
Nixon signed the EPA into law, and while I think we've done some great things reducing actual harmful emissions and effluents, they've gone way to far. It has become a Fascist, weaponized agency.
This seems to be a pattern. A real problem is identified and efforts to combat it are made. 90% of it is solved. But to address the last 10% requires infinite amounts of money and other costs (such as loss of freedom). For some reason we are never satisfied with 90% solved, we shoot for 100% and in the process create all kinds of unintended consequences that end up making everything worse. Besides that, anyone given power eventually abuses it.
Post by: nddons on October 29, 2019, 10:13:38 AM
This seems to be a pattern. A real problem is identified and efforts to combat it are made. 90% of it is solved. But to address the last 10% requires infinite amounts of money and other costs (such as loss of freedom). For some reason we are never satisfied with 90% solved, we shoot for 100% and in the process create all kinds of unintended consequences that end up making everything worse. Besides that, anyone given power eventually abuses it.That last 10% provides perpetual job security for anyone hired to try to accomplish it.
Post by: Rush on October 29, 2019, 11:30:17 AM
That last 10% provides perpetual job security for anyone hired to try to accomplish it.
And used by politicians as eternal "causes" to be milked ad infinitum.
Post by: Anthony on October 29, 2019, 01:11:52 PM
And used by politicians as eternal "causes" to be milked ad infinitum.
Why actually fix anything when you can perpetuate a faux need for more government, aka Race Baiters.
Post by: Rush on October 29, 2019, 01:56:56 PM
Why actually fix anything when you can perpetuate a faux need for more government, aka Race Baiters.
Yep and these days they aren’t just exaggerating past and mostly fixed problems, they’re flat out making stuff up. “The world’s going to end in 12 years,”.... what horseshit!
Post by: bflynn on October 29, 2019, 02:35:41 PM
RICO was introduced by a Democrat, but signed by Nixon. Hard to classify a lot of legislation as strictly R or D
Post by: Lucifer on October 29, 2019, 04:43:24 PM
This seems to be a pattern. A real problem is identified and efforts to combat it are made. 90% of it is solved. But to address the last 10% requires infinite amounts of money and other costs (such as loss of freedom). For some reason we are never satisfied with 90% solved, we shoot for 100% and in the process create all kinds of unintended consequences that end up making everything worse. Besides that, anyone given power eventually abuses it.
Department of Education. This agency was brought in by Jimmy Carter.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/19/federal-report-finds-u-s-department-education-massive-failure/
Quote
A new report raises questions about how the U.S. Department of Education monitors the performance of its wide-ranging elementary and secondary education programs.
The department currently receives $38 billion for its major K-12 education programs. Yet the assessment says those programs are plagued by “complex and persistent” challenges, many of which have been identified previously, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the official “congressional watchdog” charged with ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently.
Specifically, the GAO identified four key shortcomings in the department: oversight and monitoring, data quality, capacity, and evaluation methodologies. As the GAO makes clear, it is not the only oversight agency raising concerns about the department’s program management. What’s more, such problems have plagued our federal education departments since the first one took form back in 1867.
Not Paying Attention to Where the Money Goes
The GAO found that various education department offices failed to document consistently required monitoring activities in their official grant files. For example, its review of 75 grants totaling $21 million in discretionary funding revealed that “almost all” of them “were missing key monitoring documents, including grantee performance reports, which describe the results grantees achieve with grant funds,” according to the GAO.
The department’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG) reached a similar conclusion in its 2016 audit of the office responsible for oversight of the Rural Education Achievement Program, which receives about $170 million in annual funding. Additionally, the OIG audit found that what little program data was collected was not being used to improve monitoring efforts or help grantees meet program goals.
While the department has taken some steps toward improving program monitoring and oversight, the GAO notes that challenges will likely persist in the coming years as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the largest federal K-12 law, continues to be implemented. “The flexibility ESSA provides for state and local educational agencies under various grant programs complicates efforts to design program-level performance measures,” according to the GAO, “because state and local educational agencies’ program goals vary based on their unique needs.”
Post by: Steingar on October 30, 2019, 07:21:54 AM
Post by: nddons on October 30, 2019, 07:26:15 AM
When I was a kid most cities were badly polluted, the Cuyahoga river caught fire, Lake Erie was dead and so was the Chesapeake. Air and water quality are way, way better, and yes you can thank the EPA and related legislation. You can thank govco for your national parks, all of which were proposed for development by industrialists. Horrors like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire are history because of workplace regulations. Boy could I go on.You sound like the Union proponents who look back to the child labor days for their continued justification, when they really have outlived their usefulness, especially in the public sector.
“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!”
Ronald Reagan
Post by: Anthony on October 30, 2019, 07:33:48 AM
When I was a kid most cities were badly polluted, the Cuyahoga river caught fire, Lake Erie was dead and so was the Chesapeake. Air and water quality are way, way better, and yes you can thank the EPA and related legislation. You can thank govco for your national parks, all of which were proposed for development by industrialists. Horrors like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire are history because of workplace regulations. Boy could I go on.
So who is saying we shouldn't have environmental regulations to ensure clean air and clean water? NOBODY. Richard Nixon, a Republican signed the EPA into law.
What we are saying is these agencies become out of control and over zealous, and go way beyond where they should and we have NO RECOURSE.
Post by: Lucifer on October 30, 2019, 07:39:19 AM
Also, can someone point out a city that was predominately republican that the liberal/leftist took control of, and made better for the citizens?
Right now take a look at the Utopia that is California. The dems/liberal/leftist/progressives have a death grip on that state, and it's becoming Venezuela as we watch.
Post by: Anthony on October 30, 2019, 07:55:36 AM
On a whole, when we look back at various legislation and policies pushed by the liberal/leftist, again, what benefit have we actually derived?
Also, can someone point out a city that was predominately republican that the liberal/leftist took control of, and made better for the citizens?
Right now take a look at the Utopia that is California. The dems/liberal/leftist/progressives have a death grip on that state, and it's becoming Venezuela as we watch.
The MEDIA is blaming PG&E and Man Made Climate Change for the cause of the wild fires. In reality it in Environmental Activists and Communities that believe them and not allowing forest and brush to be removed too close to power lines. Once again, Liberal/Progressive LIES. CA is a sh*thole. A third world country due to one Party Democrat rule.
Post by: Rush on October 30, 2019, 10:37:32 AM
When I was a kid most cities were badly polluted, the Cuyahoga river caught fire, Lake Erie was dead and so was the Chesapeake. Air and water quality are way, way better, and yes you can thank the EPA and related legislation. You can thank govco for your national parks, all of which were proposed for development by industrialists. Horrors like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire are history because of workplace regulations. Boy could I go on.
Post by: SoonerAviator on October 30, 2019, 09:29:51 PM
There nothing that can’t be criticized from either side. If you didn’t have any health care, Obamacare is a miracle. If you’re one of us that is paying for it, then it’s a disaster. Similar for Medicare/Medicaid. Sarbanes-Oxley has good and bad. Holding CEOs accountable for fraud in their books has cost a lot of money but the oversight has been positive for business discipline.
RICO was introduced by a Democrat, but signed by Nixon. Hard to classify a lot of legislation as strictly R or D
Truth be told, S-O is complete waste of time and VAST amounts of money. The only thing it did was secure a new product for the major accounting firms to rack up big $$ to audit/implement SOX programs. As an accountant who has gone from publicly traded with SOX in 2010, then private, then back public again in 2017 . . . the amount of time I spend "documenting" (i.e. taking screen shots and changing dates on an excel spreadsheet) is longer than it takes to compile the data for the entry in the first place. Not to mention the time spent with internal and external auditors from D&T or others explaining some mundane entry that gets made the same way it has always been made is absurd. I have to take screenshots that include the clock on my computer desktop to "prove" the time/date the data was compiled. As if no one could change the system time/date if they needed to backdate something . . .
It has been proven-out several times that the cost of implementing, maintaining, and auditing a SOX compliance program for publicly traded companies far outweighs the cost of average fraud seen in the market. It's feel-good legislation that only sucks money from the bottom line of a company. Top brass will find ways to wriggle out of anything that occurs, SOX compliance in place or not. The only way they get hammered is if there is infallible proof that they manipulated the books with malice. Otherwise, golden parachute and slap on the wrist.
Post by: bflynn on October 31, 2019, 06:10:30 AM
Truth be told, S-O is complete waste of time and VAST amounts of money. The only thing it did was secure a new product for the major accounting firms to rack up big $$ to audit/implement SOX programs. As an accountant who has gone from publicly traded with SOX in 2010, then private, then back public again in 2017 . . . the amount of time I spend "documenting" (i.e. taking screen shots and changing dates on an excel spreadsheet) is longer than it takes to compile the data for the entry in the first place. Not to mention the time spent with internal and external auditors from D&T or others explaining some mundane entry that gets made the same way it has always been made is absurd. I have to take screenshots that include the clock on my computer desktop to "prove" the time/date the data was compiled. As if no one could change the system time/date if they needed to backdate something . . .
Yes, I work withe SOX compliance too and I agreed that it cost a lot of money.
But there was good that it did because it put the CEO and CFO on the hook for fraud, which they hadn't previously been. You seem have focused entirely on the extra waste rather than the positive that it did achieve.
I think the core issues with the original question are still the inability to define a lot of things are purely left or right policies, except maybe in the past 20 years AND that you can make arguments for the positive and negative on anything. I can even go to Gay Marriage and say that it's 100% supported by the Constitution and the 1st Amendment because personal beliefs about Christian matrimony are religious beliefs and cannot be established as official law. Marriage is a personal belief and the government has no business defining it one way or another.
Post by: Rush on October 31, 2019, 07:02:43 AM
Yes, I work withe SOX compliance too and I agreed that it cost a lot of money.
But there was good that it did because it put the CEO and CFO on the hook for fraud, which they hadn't previously been. You seem have focused entirely on the extra waste rather than the positive that it did achieve.
I think the core issues with the original question are still the inability to define a lot of things are purely left or right policies, except maybe in the past 20 years AND that you can make arguments for the positive and negative on anything. I can even go to Gay Marriage and say that it's 100% supported by the Constitution and the 1st Amendment because personal beliefs about Christian matrimony are religious beliefs and cannot be established as official law. Marriage is a personal belief and the government has no business defining it one way or another.
The point that keeps being missed is there is a balance of cost vs benefit. Nobody is saying problems should not be addressed. What we are saying is when the solution begins to have a cost way greater than the benefit, that's a whole new problem. The cure is worse than the disease. I can't speak to SOX compliance because I know nothing about it but when people who do know, who work directly with it, say the cost way exceeds the benefit, we should listen.
The problem is people run on their emotions and not rationality. CEOs are seen as rich and greedy so we need to "get" them and it's irrelevant if more harm is done than is worth it. You can apply this to a lot of things and both liberals and conservatives are guilty, but liberals tend to apply it much more and in ways much more damaging.
* I feel rent is too high! Poor people need lower rent because I feel sorry for them and I can't be bothered to look at the actual long term result of rent control because the logical part of my brain is eclipsed by my feeeeeeeelings.
* Criminals are evil and need to be punished and it doesn't matter if too many innocents are wrongly convicted because I feel very emotional and angry about crime.
* Drugs are bad and we must eliminate drugs and it doesn't matter if innocent pain patients and their doctors are wrongly persecuted, because I have a loved one ruined by drugs so I feeeeeel very emotional about this.
* Global warming is scary and the sea levels are rising and it doesn't matter that eliminating fossil fuels will cause mass economic collapse, because my emotion of fear must be addressed by draconian policy.
* Guns are evil. It doesn't matter that gun control causes more crime. My emotions tell me we need to get rid of all guns!
* The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and so we can't let gays marry because I am very emotional about my faith.
* I feeeeeeeeel emotional about animals and so everyone should be forced to be vegan and I don't care if it causes nutritional deficiencies.
* I feeeel bad when animals are killed for their furs so I don't care that fake fur is made of plastic and is far more harmful to the environment. I actually cry tears over the poor little animals so I need to force everyone else to not wear real fur and I don't care that humans have been killing animals for their fur for a million years and it's actually perfectly normal and acceptable to Mother Nature.
MY FEEEEEELINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT. I don't give a damn about facts and reality and what Mother Nature designs, and most important I don't care about anyone who doesn't FEEEEEL exactly like I do.
Not saying that's what's going on with SOX but maybe. Give me hard numbers for the extra waste vs the positive that it did, and convince me that emotional distaste for rich evil capitalist CEOs isn't the underlying motivation.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 31, 2019, 07:15:47 AM
anyone remember the use of MTBE? It was used to increase octane, rather than lead.
Unfortunately, MTBE appears to be worse for the environment than lead.
btw - apparently MTBE is still being used in other countries.
(please forgive me if I've mangled the chemistry...)
Post by: SoonerAviator on October 31, 2019, 07:57:44 AM
The point that keeps being missed is there is a balance of cost vs benefit. Nobody is saying problems should not be addressed. What we are saying is when the solution begins to have a cost way greater than the benefit, that's a whole new problem. The cure is worse than the disease. I can't speak to SOX compliance because I know nothing about it but when people who do know, who work directly with it, say the cost way exceeds the benefit, we should listen.
The problem is people run on their emotions and not rationality. CEOs are seen as rich and greedy so we need to "get" them and it's irrelevant if more harm is done than is worth it. You can apply this to a lot of things and both liberals and conservatives are guilty, but liberals tend to apply it much more and in ways much more damaging.
* I feel rent is too high! Poor people need lower rent because I feel sorry for them and I can't be bothered to look at the actual long term result of rent control because the logical part of my brain is eclipsed by my feeeeeeeelings.
* Criminals are evil and need to be punished and it doesn't matter if too many innocents are wrongly convicted because I feel very emotional and angry about crime.
* Drugs are bad and we must eliminate drugs and it doesn't matter if innocent pain patients and their doctors are wrongly persecuted, because I have a loved one ruined by drugs so I feeeeeel very emotional about this.
* Global warming is scary and the sea levels are rising and it doesn't matter that eliminating fossil fuels will cause mass economic collapse, because my emotion of fear must be addressed by draconian policy.
* Guns are evil. It doesn't matter that gun control causes more crime. My emotions tell me we need to get rid of all guns!
* The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and so we can't let gays marry because I am very emotional about my faith.
* I feeeeeeeeel emotional about animals and so everyone should be forced to be vegan and I don't care if it causes nutritional deficiencies.
* I feeeel bad when animals are killed for their furs so I don't care that fake fur is made of plastic and is far more harmful to the environment. I actually cry tears over the poor little animals so I need to force everyone else to not wear real fur and I don't care that humans have been killing animals for their fur for a million years and it's actually perfectly normal and acceptable to Mother Nature.
MY FEEEEEELINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT. I don't give a damn about facts and reality and what Mother Nature designs, and most important I don't care about anyone who doesn't FEEEEEL exactly like I do.
Not saying that's what's going on with SOX but maybe. Give me hard numbers for the extra waste vs the positive that it did, and convince me that emotional distaste for rich evil capitalist CEOs isn't the underlying motivation.
SO, this chart is pretty recent. Let's take the median in explicit compliance costs on the chart, essentially $1M per year just in paying audit/compliance fees. This doesn't include the personnel cost and lost efficiency/time wasted maintaining SOX compliance, just actual dollars spent on specific SOX internal/external auditors, programs, staff, etc. $1M for every publicly traded company in the US, so something like $6B in just direct-costs alone is spent ANNUALLY. Obviously we weren't experiencing $6B in investor/public losses per annum due to fraud preventable by SOX. It's also some ballpark math that doesn't extrapolate quite that easily, but the point is, an industry was created simply because of a knee-jerk reaction to fraud by some corporate top brass which should have been caught and got off mostly unscathed in the legal system (bankruptcies/stakeholders left holding the bag). It isn't to say that there aren't positives that have been extracted from focus on SOX auditing, it's that we spend more dealing with it than the fraud it was designed to combat. KPMG/E&Y/D&T, etc. all love it though, as it is a government-mandated, guaranteed income stream that they didn't have to do a thing to earn.
Here's a few graphics that might be helpful, but I haven't vetted the info (which appears to be from a "SOX analytics/consultant" company, so data could be cherry-picked).
https://www.protiviti.com/US-en/insights/sox-compliance-survey (https://www.protiviti.com/US-en/insights/sox-compliance-survey)
Post by: Rush on October 31, 2019, 08:26:13 AM
SO, this chart is pretty recent. Let's take the median in explicit compliance costs on the chart, essentially $1M per year just in paying audit/compliance fees. This doesn't include the personnel cost and lost efficiency/time wasted maintaining SOX compliance, just actual dollars spent on specific SOX internal/external auditors, programs, staff, etc. $1M for every publicly traded company in the US, so something like $6B in just direct-costs alone is spent ANNUALLY. Obviously we weren't experiencing $6B in investor/public losses per annum due to fraud preventable by SOX. It's also some ballpark math that doesn't extrapolate quite that easily, but the point is, an industry was created simply because of a knee-jerk reaction to fraud by some corporate top brass which should have been caught and got off mostly unscathed in the legal system (bankruptcies/stakeholders left holding the bag). It isn't to say that there aren't positives that have been extracted from focus on SOX auditing, it's that we spend more dealing with it than the fraud it was designed to combat. KPMG/E&Y/D&T, etc. all love it though, as it is a government-mandated, guaranteed income stream that they didn't have to do a thing to earn.
Here's a few graphics that might be helpful, but I haven't vetted the info (which appears to be from a "SOX analytics/consultant" company, so data could be cherry-picked).
https://www.protiviti.com/US-en/insights/sox-compliance-survey (https://www.protiviti.com/US-en/insights/sox-compliance-survey)
My jaw is on the floor. I had no idea it would cost that much.
You know, the hidden indirect costs of anything that doesn't actually produce widgets is cumulative. The more you burden an economy with pencil pushing, the less value you get in all your goods and services. Why don't people understand this? People complain their toilet paper roll is shrinking. WHY? In addition to real costs, such as manufacturing and freight, you have to account for taxes, regulatory compliance, and all sorts of other non-productive activities such as this kind of auditing.
It's probably not that SOX itself is so wasteful (which it is according to these numbers!), it's that we have so many more idiotic make-work mandates all put together and it all adds up dearly.
Post by: nddons on October 31, 2019, 08:43:55 AM
I was briefly in the SOX game at a previous firm, but I soon learned it was closer to mental masturbation than an actual “fix” to a nominal problem.
By the way, as a competitor to Andersen, the CPA profession took no pleasure in seeing a competitor collapse. It was damaging to the entire profession.
Post by: SoonerAviator on October 31, 2019, 08:59:41 AM
My jaw is on the floor. I had no idea it would cost that much.
You know, the hidden indirect costs of anything that doesn't actually produce widgets is cumulative. The more you burden an economy with pencil pushing, the less value you get in all your goods and services. Why don't people understand this? People complain their toilet paper roll is shrinking. WHY? In addition to real costs, such as manufacturing and freight, you have to account for taxes, regulatory compliance, and all sorts of other non-productive activities such as this kind of auditing.
It's probably not that SOX itself is so wasteful (which it is according to these numbers!), it's that we have so many more idiotic make-work mandates all put together and it all adds up dearly.
Insane, right? It didn't start off being that bad. However, they made some major adjustments to SOX regulations since it was enacted in 2002 (wake of Worldcom/Enron) which made audit control programs and such much more invasive and all-encompassing. Again, the data is very difficult to find on the web, and I've seen low estimates and absurd numbers from varying sources as far as total cost of compliance. Companies still had external auditors anyway, so those costs are intermingled with "SOX compliance" which certainly muddies the water. I know that in my company ($6B+ market cap), we pay an external accounting firm (one of the Big 4) to help with internal auditing and SOX compliance, then we pay an external accounting firm as our external audit team (a different member of the Big 4). One of my accountants spends a few hours per week dealing with "auditor requests", and that's just for my division. Even if the "real" number isn't $6B, but something like $3B . . . is it still worth the loss of efficiency/inflated product costs/loss of EPS compared to the risk that another Enron happens? Maybe keep some of the audit controls but relax the "take screen shots of everything and have 4 different control tabs for every calculation spreadsheet".
Post by: Rush on October 31, 2019, 09:35:13 AM
Insane, right? It didn't start off being that bad. However, they made some major adjustments to SOX regulations since it was enacted in 2002 (wake of Worldcom/Enron) which made audit control programs and such much more invasive and all-encompassing. Again, the data is very difficult to find on the web, and I've seen low estimates and absurd numbers from varying sources as far as total cost of compliance. Companies still had external auditors anyway, so those costs are intermingled with "SOX compliance" which certainly muddies the water. I know that in my company ($6B+ market cap), we pay an external accounting firm (one of the Big 4) to help with internal auditing and SOX compliance, then we pay an external accounting firm as our external audit team (a different member of the Big 4). One of my accountants spends a few hours per week dealing with "auditor requests", and that's just for my division. Even if the "real" number isn't $6B, but something like $3B . . . is it still worth the loss of efficiency/inflated product costs/loss of EPS compared to the risk that another Enron happens? Maybe keep some of the audit controls but relax the "take screen shots of everything and have 4 different control tabs for every calculation spreadsheet".
Sounds like another case of 80% of the problem is solved by 20% of the cost/effort. But you spend the other 80% of cost/effort trying to chase the other 20% and the truth is, you NEVER can get to 100%.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 31, 2019, 10:10:57 AM
Sounds like another case of 80% of the problem is solved by 20% of the cost/effort. But you spend the other 80% of cost/effort trying to chase the other 20% and the truth is, you NEVER can get to 100%.
More like spending 80+% chasing what people think might be part of the problem.
Post by: Anthony on October 31, 2019, 10:19:12 AM
More like spending 80+% chasing what people think might be part of the problem.
Yet to hear Progressives talk, you'd think we have NO Regulation of business, banking, investing, etc. We are so over regulated on many government levels that I am surprised we get anything done.
Post by: Rush on October 31, 2019, 10:40:47 AM
Yet to hear Progressives talk, you'd think we have NO Regulation of business, banking, investing, etc. We are so over regulated on many government levels that I am surprised we get anything done.
I read a really good article, at least it was really good all the way to the last sentence.
It started off talking about how Stalin got rid of Saturday and Sunday and put everyone on a 5 day work rotation where the factories were never down, and assigned people randomly to 1 day off thereby ruining holidays and social gatherings with your friends. It was a horrible disaster and he eventually backed off. So the article says the U.S. today is doing this to itself with email and cell phones and keeping businesses open on weekends. We are now expected to be connected to the boss 24/7 because we take our phone everywhere and people don't get to plan time off or vacations with their families because we keep things open on Sundays and it is causing a breakdown in society.
ALL TRUE.
Then the very end it says all this is due to "unbridled capitalism".
What??? We didn't have this problem in the 18th century when capitalism was a whole lot more unbridled than it is now. We have extremely regulated capitalism now.
What is wrong with people, just MINDLESS bashing of capitalism, I guess it's being taught in schools so they just spit out this crap. An otherwise smart writer making a good observation. So sad.
Post by: bflynn on October 31, 2019, 11:55:52 AM
The point that keeps being missed is there is a balance of cost vs benefit. Nobody is saying problems should not be addressed. What we are saying is when the solution begins to have a cost way greater than the benefit, that's a whole new problem
But is it? US corporate profit is around 6.5-7 trillion annually. Assuming yet he number is right, and I haven’t reasearched that, 6 billion is something like .005% of the total profit. It’s a lot of money because there’s a lot of work being done at a lot of firms. You could cancel the law right now but very few firms would change how they do business. 6 billion sounds like a lot, but with 3800 companies listed on US exchanges and subject to SOX, that is actually less than 2.2m per company.
So how much of the 6.8 trillion or so comes about because the US is a more stable place to put money? I agree there are rules that make our companies less competitive, but Sarbanes Oxley is not one of them. It has literally strengthened the discipline of financial management and actually changed the world of accounting. I don’t know the answer to this and I cannot find anyone who has studied it. Might make a really interesting paper if I were teaching and had the time to collect the data properly. I’m positive the number is positive because it is a positive trait that we are talking about.
Positives and negatives. I went into bschool just after this passed and we spent a lot of time talking about it. Even then there were negative Nancy’s and rose tinted optimists. Turns out most of the arguments are true, but the absolutism of all the arguments misses.
Post by: Anthony on October 31, 2019, 11:56:28 AM
Post by: SoonerAviator on October 31, 2019, 12:46:20 PM
But is it? US corporate profit is around 6.5-7 trillion annually. Assuming yet he number is right, and I haven’t reasearched that, 6 billion is something like .005% of the total profit. It’s a lot of money because there’s a lot of work being done at a lot of firms. You could cancel the law right now but very few firms would change how they do business. 6 billion sounds like a lot, but with 3800 companies listed on US exchanges and subject to SOX, that is actually less than 2.2m per company.
So how much of the 6.8 trillion or so comes about because the US is a more stable place to put money? I agree there are rules that make our companies less competitive, but Sarbanes Oxley is not one of them. It has literally strengthened the discipline of financial management and actually changed the world of accounting. I don’t know the answer to this and I cannot find anyone who has studied it. Might make a really interesting paper if I were teaching and had the time to collect the data properly. I’m positive the number is positive because it is a positive trait that we are talking about.
Positives and negatives. I went into bschool just after this passed and we spent a lot of time talking about it. Even then there were negative Nancy’s and rose tinted optimists. Turns out most of the arguments are true, but the absolutism of all the arguments misses.
The problem is that you're justifying it solely because it's "only X% of total profits". Why do people complain about executive compensation, it's only X% of profits?! Why do we care about lean operating initiatives, it's only X% of profits?! The real question is if the benefits of spending so much time/labor/cash into vetting out audit controls and filling out additional filings outweighs the potential risk for another Enron-like event. What is the annual statistical likelihood of another failure and what would the financial impact be to the stakeholders? As a controller, I believe strong controls should be in place and external auditing should be done, no questions. However, has/can the implementation of the regulations become so overbearing that it actually results in less "value" being created in the market?
Post by: bflynn on October 31, 2019, 03:51:04 PM
Furthermore, Government does not exist to provide benefit to corporations, it exists to provide benefits for The People. A micro cost that doesn’t even show up as a decimal,point in the bottom line of most companies is irrelevant to the public benefit of transparency in public companies.
Don’t like this? Then do what thousands of companies have done and go private. then you can use whatever accounting method you want and you only have to satisfy the owners.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 31, 2019, 04:20:59 PM
Yes, I do say it’s only a thousandth of a percent of profit, so I’m not hugely concerned. ....
But is it? US corporate profit is around 6.5-7 trillion annually. Assuming yet he number is right, and I haven’t reasearched that, 6 billion is something like .005% of the total profit.
um, I think you've slipped a decimal place or two...
Post by: bflynn on October 31, 2019, 04:31:39 PM
um, I think you've slipped a decimal place or two...
My undergrad was in math so it’s entirely possible. The calculator I used output a number with a base 10 multiplier and I was not strict about the conversion.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 31, 2019, 04:38:01 PM
My undergrad was in math so it’s entirely possible. The calculator I used output a number with a base 10 multiplier and I was not strict about the conversion.
public math is always dangerous...
Post by: Anthony on October 31, 2019, 04:50:10 PM
public math is always dangerous...
I'll check it with my slide rule.
Post by: bflynn on October 31, 2019, 04:56:38 PM
Post by: nddons on October 31, 2019, 05:53:59 PM
I'll check it with my slide rule.I’m a CPA and a Pilot, so I just walk around my office with my E6-B.
Post by: Little Joe on November 04, 2019, 07:21:10 AM
So who is saying we shouldn't have environmental regulations to ensure clean air and clean water? NOBODY. Richard Nixon, a Republican signed the EPA into law.You beat me to it on both points.
What we are saying is these agencies become out of control and over zealous, and go way beyond where they should and we have NO RECOURSE.
I am a very environmentally conscious person because I love a nice, clean environment. I have worked on several environmental research projects and many environmental clean up projects. But I do all that because I like a clean environment. Not because I think I am saving the planet from global warming. I think we'd have to adjust the orbit and the intensity of the sun to accomplish that.