ShareThis Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, April 30, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Bank of America says it made a $4 billion accounting error, as in it has $4 billion less capital than it thought. Not only did the mistake go undetected for several years, it made it past the banking giant's audit committee and even PricewaterhouseCoopers, its external auditors. Said one analyst, “There are signs that controls are not as tight as they need to be.” Consider it the understatement of the week. Oh, and don't try this at home. ... The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1776, vociferously opposed to privatizing liquor and liberalizing beer sales in Pennsylvania, has begun airing a wholly deceptive TV ad that suggests North Carolina's privatized alcohol system is the reason that one child per week, on average, died last year in underage drinking-related accidents. But the source cited in the ad makes absolutely no link to how alcohol is sold in The Tar Heel State. Truth continues to be the first casualty in the liquor union's fight to preserve its non-reason for its existence and the Keystone State's liquor monopoly. ... The Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates that the cost of U.S. federal regulations now is larger than the economies of all but nine countries in the world. The free market think tank says the annual $15,000 cost for households to comply with those regulations likely is one of their highest single household expenses. Stated another way, as did Investor's Business Daily, U.S. regulatory costs are the world's No. 10 economy. The most effective use of capital this is not.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.