> Evidence of the SEC's imperfect lawlessness implies the greater financial markets are also, in part, lawless
By this logic lawlessness anywhere means lawlessness everywhere.
> my point wasn't even to say whether a given industry as broad as finance is 'lawless' or not
You said the “lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized” [1]. You cited the SEC in respect of Enron as an example. I “asked for one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t” do with Enron. You ignored the question and started pontificating on not the law but legal philosophy.
You continue to evade that first question. Now you’re claiming you didn’t make the first statement.
To maybe help you alleviate a small bit of your presumably nearly overwhelming confusion I will repeat my reply to your SEC question[1], if that is indeed the 'first' one you ambiguously refer to.
> When SEC approved Enron's change in account reporting practices from historical cost to mtm, I would argue that the SEC failed it's mandate to protect investors by allowing disingenuously optimistic instrument valuations
I'm not sure what about that you think is evasive but I'd like to end the conversation here regardless.
[1][Whats] one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t.
By this logic lawlessness anywhere means lawlessness everywhere.
> my point wasn't even to say whether a given industry as broad as finance is 'lawless' or not
You said the “lawlessness of finance is so pervasive that it has effectively become legalized” [1]. You cited the SEC in respect of Enron as an example. I “asked for one example of something the SEC had a mandate to do that it didn’t” do with Enron. You ignored the question and started pontificating on not the law but legal philosophy.
You continue to evade that first question. Now you’re claiming you didn’t make the first statement.
This is arguing in bad faith.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40890110