Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 31

Spanky · 06-14-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
There you go again. If Ralph Nader were made the US Trade Rep, would you just assume that he would radically shift US policy away from free trade?

I would make that Assumption.

Ralph spoke at my law school graduation. He said that there are a ton of attorneys but very few lawyers (or maybe it was the other way around). The few and the proud go out and use the legal system to change society and make their mark on the world. The rest just becomes cogs in the machine. He said that you have to make your mark right out of law school. You can never do it the other way around. He said if you don't do something remarkable by the time you are six years out of lawschool it ain't going to happen. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I missed my chance.

ltl/fb · 06-14-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I would make that Assumption.

Ralph spoke at my law school graduation. He said that there are a ton of attorneys but very few lawyers (or maybe it was the other way around). The few and the proud go out and use the legal system to change society and make their mark on the world. The rest just becomes cogs in the machine. He said that you have to make your mark right out of law school. You can never do it the other way around. He said if you don't do something remarkable by the time you are six years out of lawschool it ain't going to happen. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I missed my chance.

Uh, right. So, are you saying you assume that Cox will move the SEC toward a more relaxed way of monitoring?

Gattigap · 06-14-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I would make that Assumption.

Ralph spoke at my law school graduation. He said that there are a ton of attorneys but very few lawyers (or maybe it was the other way around). The few and the proud go out and use the legal system to change society and make their mark on the world. The rest just becomes cogs in the machine. He said that you have to make your mark right out of law school. You can never do it the other way around. He said if you don't do something remarkable by the time you are six years out of lawschool it ain't going to happen. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I missed my chance.

I'm mildly disappointed that this story didn't involve Ralph getting his ass kicked by a Marine in an Okinawa bar.

Tyrone Slothrop · 06-14-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
There you go again. If Ralph Nader were made the US Trade Rep, would you just assume that he would radically shift US policy away from free trade?

Gee, maybe Donaldson resigned because he really wanted to spend more time with his family.

Spanky · 06-14-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, right. So, are you saying you assume that Cox will move the SEC toward a more relaxed way of monitoring?

No I am just saying that I would assume Ralph would move us towards a protectionist policy if he were US Trade Representative.

Spanky · 06-14-2005, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Gee, maybe Donaldson resigned because he really wanted to spend more time with his family.

Maybe I am confused, but you guys seem to be arguing with eachother eventhough you agree. Sidd - do you think the SEC is going to be less regulatory with Cox? If you do, what the hell is the point of dispute? On the other hand if you think you can't assume that Cox will be less regulatory, does that mean one can't assume that Ralph will be anti-trade?

Sidd Finch · 06-14-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I would make that Assumption.

One of these days, you'll be able to recognize sarcasm (irony?)when you see it. And then, the charm of your innocence will be gone.

Sidd Finch · 06-14-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Maybe I am confused, but you guys seem to be arguing with eachother eventhough you agree. Sidd - do you think the SEC is going to be less regulatory with Cox? If you do, what the hell is the point of dispute? On the other hand if you think you can't assume that Cox will be less regulatory, does that mean one can't assume that Ralph will be anti-trade?

Go back and re-read my post. I have edited it for clarity.

As for the serious question, I think it is obvious that the SEC will be less regulatory with Cox. More importantly, there will be no more effort to make it more regulatory -- Donaldson was pushing for greater regulation, but could not move things forward. Cox will not want to move things forward in that direction; he will move in the opposite direction.

This is as obvious as the proposition in my Nader-comment. If Nader were Trade Rep, he would pursue more protectionist policies -- that's obvious to anyone who knows a damn thing about him (though people can suprise -- viz. Souter being a lot less conservative than his record as state AG would have suggested.) We can argue whether less enforcement by the SEC would be good or bad, but I don't think anyone can really expect that he will not pursue a policy of less enforcement.

eta: Note that I tried to start a discussion on Cox several days ago, but we were all busy arguing about whether Chilean wines produced under Pinochet were as good as the Bordeaux produced under Petain. My view is that, while the PSLRA was in part a necessary response to abusive suits, it contributed to an attitude that there was no accoutability to investors.

ltl/fb · 06-14-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
No I am just saying that I would assume Ralph would move us towards a protectionist policy if he were US Trade Representative.

I think it went like this:

Someone posted something that had, as an (unstated?) premise, that Cox would be for less strict regulation as head of SEC than the guy who is leaving.

Club posted something like you bastard liberals just assume that he'll be a lax regulator blah blah Ayn Rand blah blah.

Sidd posted the thing about Nader sarcastically -- basically saying, hey, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it's pretty much a duck, and you'd do the same thing if you weren't reading from the RNC talking points memo.

You bizarrely thought he was making a substantive point about Nader, because apparently you are incapable of normal human conversation circa 2000.

I typed out this thing after a huge meeting, which is completely inexplicable.

Is the innocence really charming? I think not.

ltl/fb · 06-14-2005, 09:12 PM

Guy who edited environmental reports to join Exxon Mobil.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050614/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Spanky · 06-14-2005, 09:27 PM

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports that were issued in 2002 and 2003.

I may be naive, but not that naive.

Miss Crabtree · 06-14-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports that were issued in 2002 and 2003.

I may be naive, but not that naive.

Spanky! You're growing up!

(Oh, my, yes, you are growing up!)

Diane_Keaton · 06-14-2005, 11:17 PM

Is it just me or are the mother's comments way off the chart?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGJND7G5L1.DTL(spree: 9 year old mauled by pit bulls after walking in on pits schtupping).

sgtclub · 06-14-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Good point. Even when the fox is guarding the chickenhouse, is there not still regulatory oversight?

This is one of the few instances over the last X years I've been posting here that I actually know what I'm talking about. The differences in enforcement from administration to administration or from commissioner to commissioner are not very dramatic. The only "loosening" I expect is at the high profile level (e.g., I think the SEC will back away a bit from the Spitzer type investigations (or persecutions, depending on your perspective).

sgtclub · 06-14-2005, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
eta: Note that I tried to start a discussion on Cox several days ago, but we were all busy arguing about whether Chilean wines produced under Pinochet were as good as the Bordeaux produced under Petain. My view is that, while the PSLRA was in part a necessary response to abusive suits, it contributed to an attitude that there was no accoutability to investors.

I responded to this the other day but it went no where.

Why do you think that the PSLRA changed accountability to investors? My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the number of securities law suits filed since the PSLRA has not been dramatically effected and may have even increased post SOX.

eta: Hey all you tax dorks out there . . . if this discussion goes anywhere, you'll get a feel for how the rest of us feel when y'all delve into your esoteric tax discusisons.