> Maybe it is time to float the DHS on the LSE?

You're one funny guy, Ian.

There's so much fraud in the world's financial system that this just might be possible. :) Of course all this fraud is going to come home to roost.

DHS should do an IPO while they still have a chance.

Ok, here's a question for anybody. Does all fraud necessarily have to come to an end?

Hey, at least you picked up the joke :) So to answer your question, I'd say "no." Fraud is a necessary part of the system, something which I assumed in my GP rants.

As a sort of corollary to Goodhart's law -- if you designate something as fraud, that only means you want to stop it, not that you can. Now, it then comes down to an economics basis for whether fraud can be stopped, and who it is that is doing the designation of fraud.

For example, insider trading is considered to be a 'good' by economists because it reveals information and a 'bad' by market regulators. The latter will call it fraud, and the former will point out the perfect market hypothesis probably demands the fraud must continue ...

> Hey, at least you picked up the joke :) So to answer your question, I'd say "no." Fraud is a necessary part of the system, something which I assumed in my GP rants.

But Ian, I don't think that is answering the question.

As a sort of corollary to Goodhart's law -- if you designate something as fraud,

Fraud it what it is. It's not a matter of someone designating it.

that only means you want to stop it, not that you can.

> not that you can.

Huh, fraud in general can't be stopped. It's part of life.
Let me narrow the question. Does some instance of finacial fraud necessarily have to come to an end?

> Now, it then comes down to an economics basis for whether > fraud can be stopped, and who it is that is doing the
> designation of fraud.

I don't know about the designation of fraud, but thinking about human nature, I can't see that fraud will not always be around. I see a problem if somebody is designated to define fraud, to protect us from it.

> For example, insider trading is considered to be a 'good' > by economists

Screw the economists. Most of 'em are just mouth pieces.
I also understand that knowledge can be private property.

because it reveals information and a 'bad'
> by market regulators. The latter will call it fraud, and
> the former will point out the perfect market hypothesis
> probably demands the fraud must continue ...

What I'm thinking is that the fraud, financially, can't continue. That there is a price to be paid for it.

I can't prove that. I'm too ignorant (lack of knowledge).

and Hastings Corollary #1 sez:

todays legal offshore banking practice is tomorrows onshore fraud and money laundering regulation.

nuff said