I nearly lost my turkey and stuffing upon reading the NY Times today. Krugman claims to have been researching some stuff for tomorrow's column (on Ron Paul?) and came across the startling revelation that Ron Paul opposes one of the most obvious enemies of business in America: Sarbanes-Oxley. (How dare he do so!) Krugman, of course, hints that those who support Ron Paul just "don't know about" these skeletons in Ron Paul's closet. If Krugman had a clue, he'd:
1) Know that this is one of the many reasons why anti-establishment, anti-totalitarian, pro-freedom people support Ron Paul - because he does dare to speak out on the establishment's pet programs.
2) Also know that most people who are not affected by Sarbanes-Oxley don't have a clue what the heck it is. Ron Paul supporters, who tend to be more libertarian/intellectual, and thus enlightened to these issues, are far more clued in to these things than Mom-and-Pop Mitt Romney supporters or Billary groupies.
3) Know what Sarbanes-Oxley is really about and he'd stop throwing around cheap, dime-store definitions of a very convoluted, very vague corporate regulatory program. Krugman quotes this definition of SOX 404: "Section 404 requires companies and their auditors to assess the companies’ internal controls, which are the practices or systems for keeping records and preventing abuse or fraud." This definition is not only wrong, but it is simplistic to the point of being ridiculous. Krugman linked to this nonsense about institutional investors bearing the real costs of SOX and why the whole regulatory scheme is so necessary. If Klueless Krugman needs help understanding the real Sarbanes-Oxley and its assorted warts, I'd more than happy to offer my assistance in explaining to him what horrifying effects this whole program has on large as well as small companies -- from my front-row seat in corporate-SOX America.
How can somebody who is supposedly so intellectually capable (*choke*) be so ignorant and so flippantly clueless?