Any Rand and Chuck Schumer
 

My view is that day to day life will not change from a rule making perspective. The SEC regs change minimally from year to year. The recent exception, of course, was SOX, but most of the SOX regs have already been implemented and no one expects major changes on that front. The only significant rule change proposal that I am aware that is currently on the table is to change the level of disclosure required for securities offerings based on the size of issuer (i.e., large issuers will be need less current disclosure in prospectuses on the theory that they are widely held and all material info is in their periodic filings).

From an enforcement perspective, the SEC is like any other agency. Most of the people on the ground are career professionals who do their jobs conscienciously no matter the administration or commissioner. The exception is the big ticket, political items, that Spitzer is pursuing like a rabbid dog.* The SEC lost face to Spitzer several times in the last few years (e.g., market timing investigations), and I think their has been a conscious effort under Donaldson not to let that happen again. This may change under Cox.

Lastly, and this is more to Ty's point, the SEC cannot stop fraud. Enron, Worldcom, etc., would have happened regardless of who was guarding the chicken coup.

*Even though he is a political hack, I kind of like Spitzer. There is a lot of dirty shit that happens every day on Wall Street, and he has been the one guy willing to take these guys on, even if his motives are not entirely charitable.

Kill the animal? That's like killing the guy who's having an affair with your wife. OK, not an entirely apt analogy.

If the home wasn't safe, she should have taken him with her or taken him somewhere else. It's her fault he's dead. It's not really the animals' fault.

OK, we'll let fringey adopt the animal.

Pits
 

2

Guilty,Guilty, Guilty
 

I usually don't read books about trials I am avoiding.

I'm just saying...

Still, what do you say we put the dog up at Neverland, in Michael's room (now that he's not going to sleep with any kids in there anymore).

Fringey will get it neutered and have it go to a pit bull rescue place, because Fringey recognizes that a pit bull would be a danger to the cat. Because unlike that woman, Fringey is not a fucking moron.

I imagined that in that situation, I would not be thinking 100% clearly.

I view pit bulls the same way as mosquitoes - if God created all living creatures, what the f*ck was S/He thinking?

God didn't create pit bulls; we did. And I blame Noah for the skeeters -- he had no room for the unicorns, but lets them on? Sheesh.

People bred dogs to produce the pit bull. And, as someone pointed out (I guess on the other board), more than 90% of pit bull attacks are by unneutered dogs.

I'd love to see you strangle a pit bull, btw. Maybe you figure it'd be worn out after mauling a kid?

I'm counting on the adrenaline rush.

Plus, I've been working out!

Iraq Invasion Update
 

Who?

Guilty,Guilty, Guilty
 

The trial was long over when the book came out.

More importantly, it had been highly recommended by a trusted professional colleague. I.e., someone I was pimping for help finding a job at the time. Need I say more?

Iraq Invasion Update
 

Between this board and infirm where do you find the time to sock this much? You are fucking nuts. No offense. Ha ha ha.

What percentage of pit bulls are neutered?

While we're on the topic of Neutering...
 

Not Nuts -- Nutless.

Penske has no Nut socks.

Pits
 

Yeah and that bit about "when it's your time to go, it's your time to go, and it was my son's time to go that day and there is nothing we could have done about it." WTF. And she knows the male animal was in a craze b/c the female was in heat (ick when she says she "told" the female pit to "just let him [male dog] do it to her") as evidenced by the fact that she puts the kid in the basement. Except she knows "he never listens" and that he'd probably get out. Yet she has no regrets.

She AND the dogs should both be shot. Who cares if it is not the "dog's fault". Who needs to risk it happening ever again. They shot that horse in Gone With the Wind and all he did was miss a jump post. It's only fittin I say.

While we're on the topic of Neutering...
 

blueballs?

nut_casesensitive?

go back to your drawing board, hack.

Nut Penske
 

Nuts!

Buh Bye, Europe
 

Slave, Hank and perhaps others will be cheered by Samuelson's op-ed in WaPo today.

The good news: Europe is hereby fucked harder than an Amsterdam red-light vendor offering discounts, and it's not due to France's Gaullist policies, it's the killer combination of demographics, xenophobia, and the financial burdens of the social state.

• This pivotal Europe is now vanishing -- and not merely because it's overshadowed by Asia and the United States.
  
  
  It's hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling. Europe's birthrates have dropped well below the replacement rate of 2.1 children for each woman of childbearing age. For Western Europe as a whole, the rate is 1.5. It's 1.4 in Germany and 1.3 in Italy. In a century -- if these rates continue -- there won't be many Germans in Germany or Italians in Italy. Even assuming some increase in birthrates and continued immigration, Western Europe's population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030 that would be one-fourth, and by 2050 almost one-third.
  
  No one knows how well modern economies will perform with so many elderly people, heavily dependent on government benefits (read: higher taxes). But Europe's economy is already faltering. In the 1970s annual growth for the 12 countries now using the euro averaged almost 3 percent; from 2001 to 2004 the annual average was 1.2 percent. In 1974 those countries had unemployment of 2.4 percent; in 2004 the rate was 8.9 percent.
  
  Wherever they look, Western Europeans feel their way of life threatened. One solution to low birthrates is higher immigration. But many Europeans don't like the immigrants they have -- often Muslim from North Africa -- and don't want more. One way to revive economic growth would be to reduce social benefits, taxes and regulations. But that would imperil Europe's "social model," which supposedly blends capitalism's efficiency and socialism's compassion.

Not quite so good news: This isn't really good for the US.

• All this is bad for Europe -- and the United States. A weak European economy is one reason that the world economy is shaky and so dependent on American growth. Preoccupied with divisions at home, Europe is history's has-been. It isn't a strong American ally, not simply because it disagrees with some U.S. policies but also because it doesn't want to make the commitments required of a strong ally. Unwilling to address their genuine problems, Europeans become more reflexively critical of America. This gives the impression that they're active on the world stage, even as they're quietly acquiescing in their own decline.

I'm inclined to accept this analysis, at least in the larger sense. Demographic problems are hard to reverse, though it could probably be overcome if they face up to their problems and start allowing more immigration and trim back entitlements. It's a tough proposition, and clearly Samuelson isn't convinced.

Buh Bye, Europe
 

Doesn't Japan have the same demographic issue? Doesn't China? And neither of those countries is more open to immigration that Europe.

Buh Bye, Europe
 

Maybe the rank and file of the democratic party should follow their leaders, like Babs Streisand, Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn, and emigrate to France.

Buh Bye, Europe
 

Japan indeed has this issue.

FWIWI, Russia has a similar issue, though I think their more immediate problems are AIDS, the brain drain out of the country, and generally getting pickled with vodka.

China, I haven't heard this about. I thought all the people in those manufacturing facilities were children, not the elderly.

Buh Bye, Europe
 

Any modern industrial economy with a sizable amount of social support will have this problem. People are healthy, have fewer kids, and grow old, needing greater retirement support. The U.S. would have a problem, net of immigration (even with immigration for that matter).

China's time will come--according to this moving graphic, some time in the middle of the 21st century, when the 1 is enough policy starts biting them in the ass.

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/...im/ch_all2.gif

Not Sure What to Make of This
 

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...2755-6408r.htm

Buh Bye, Europe
 

Translation: Europe wants it's cake an to eat it too (what is it with Europeans and cake anyway), but reality is not complying.

War on Terror status check
 

have we caught Bin Laden yet? are we still trying?

Buh Bye, Europe
 

Wow! That's funny!

War on Terror status check
 

This isn't a sock, its a BT clone, a real one. I'd forgotten how they are.

Buh Bye, Europe
 

For him, yes. He killed with that one at the Heritage Foundation intern mixer last week.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

This is bad news: One of the effects of economic development and education is that you reduce the population growth. Japan has a really bad case of this. If China and India keep growing economically then they will hit the same problem. This is a problem because most of the muslim world's population is growing by leaps and bounds. North Africa and Persia especially. In these countries you have slow to no growth, and tons of new young people with no job prospects. If we stop buying their oil the problem will become seriously acute. That is what I call fertile ground for more terrorists. The only solution to this problem is get governments in the Middle East that encourage economic growth. The Baathists, that used to be in power in Iraq and still are in power in Syria are Arab nationalist socialist parties. In other words socialist governments that prevent economic growth and consequently encourage population growth. Anti-western sentiment in the region led to anti-capitalsim. Our only hope is to have governments in the Middle east that embrace policies of economic growth.

Oh but wait - I forgot - we are not suppose to encourage governments in the middle east to let evil multi-nationals exploit them and we shouldn't be knocking out bad regimes. I guess we should just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

Uh, I thought China already had very low population growth?

If it's all about poverty, why aren't we worried about sub-Saharan African terrorists?

I may not get most of the humour on the board because I have no sense for irony, but I am of the opinion that the above comment was the funniest bit in a long while.

Fenwick?

Not Bob is very down-home nice. It's a function of living in Podunkville and working exclusively on slip-n-fall cases from the local Piggly-Wiggly.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

China has tried really hard with its one child policy, but they still have growth. Not as much as India but it is still there. But their economic growth is turning that around.

Unfortunately for Sub-Saharan africa the AIDS epidemic has solved their population problem. But that does not mean that we should not support pro economic growth governments their either. Lord knows they need the tax base.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

While I won't debate that there may be some correlation, I'd suggest the correlation is much, much stronger (as suggested in the article posted by Gattigap), between declining population growth/birthrates and increasing social protections that guarantee you, e.g., a retirement umbrella.

It was hardwired into our brains over human history that we needed children to take care of us in our old age. That's the personal motivation.

The social motivation was to ensure you had young replacement soldiers, young replacement workers etc.

But the personal motivation would (as us right wing types would expect) win out in a heart beat.

Uncy Sam (or Hans or Serge) gonna change your bedpan for ya? Buh bye birthrate.

Atticus made a comment about the pyramid scheme aspect of it (from the societal angle) a few days ago on the FB. Its right on. Wait until there are 4 retirees in Germany for every person working. You'll see 20% of the German population applying for asylum in the U.S., Canada and South America. Guess which 20%? I'd argue that the social nets are likely to disappear before this happens, just on the threat that this will happen, but who really know?

Just like social security here, there is no way a 35 year old European should be counting on a bunch of little blondes changing their bedpans on the government dime in 40 years.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

That is absolutely correct. However, another factor is people in developed country have the disposable income to prepare for their retirement. And the more children they have the less money they have to put away for their retirment. Where in undeveloped country, they only way to insure a pleasant retirement is to have as many kids as possible.

So the whole growth pattern is tied to retirment, it is just in developed countries the strategy changes.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

Yeah, I guess we'll really be fucked if we stop buying oil from Syria.

But seriously, folks. Is the population of the oil-rich Arab states actually growing? Or are they dependent on immigration? My understanding is that, in the smaller states at least (i.e., UAE, Bahrain, Oman) a large part of the population consists of immigrants -- but I don't know if that means that the indigenous population is not growing.




No, we are not supposed to encourage dictatorships and torture. I can see how you might forget that, given that your president likes to make out with King Fahd.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

Actually, the strongest tie is between low population growth and women's rights. Once women are able to work, and do other things besides produce babies, population growth tumbles.

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

So many, many correlations. But what is the causation . . . .

Buh Bye, Europe Hello Islamistan
 

So why the Baby Boom? Social Security had been in place for decades -- and was a hell of a lot healthier than it is now.