Notice that it was liberals who made a stink over the Dubai non-issue. Once again, cheap democrat political points got in the way of good policy. It's also the left hat tends to support protectionism. And that British worker wouldn't have had any problems, if liberals would just admit that the terrorists we're fighting are near-100% Arab, and we shouldn't be blind to that fact; there's no need to harass British citizens.

Congress would be well advised to legislate an appeal to the Do Not Fly list, as well. An individual could be given a clearance code to distinguish himself-John-Smith from terror-list-John-Smith, thus making the list a bit more specific than it is.

The current method is insane.

putting a freeze on trade deals isn't the panacea some liberals seem to think that is

I couldn't agree with you more K-Drum. Unfortunately, the new liberal Democrats like John Tester, James Webb, and Heath Schuler are all pro-protectionism. They realize they can't win on their liberalism so they must win by attacking foreigners and people who aren't white. Their attacks on free trade are protectionist and racist. Republicans are against racism and that's why they are pro-free trade. Free trade helps everyone in the world especially the poor people in Africa and Latin America. It allows the poorest on the Earth to participate in capitalism which causes their income and standard of living to rise. People around the world are beginning to see what a bunch of racists liberals really are.

And that British worker wouldn't have had any problems, if liberals would just admit that the terrorists we're fighting are near-100% Arab, and we shouldn't be blind to that fact; there's no need to harass British citizens.

AH, if you visit any investment bank in Wall Street these days, you will find that a very large proportion of its technical and financial personnel are not native Americans or Europeans. You will see a very large number of Arabs, as well as Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Turks, etc. The same in London. Stereotyping would do little to make Wall Street staffing any easier.

Are you posting from a red state?

"Some of the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley may be overly onerous"

Well, maybe, but I'm sure not seeing it. Sarbanes/Oxley seems to have bought some fairly effective protection against corporate malfeasance at relatively low cost. I'm skeptical even Section 404 presents such insurmountable problems. Color me unconvinced.

"Notice that it was liberals who made a stink over the Dubai non-issue."

What world does American Hawk inhabit, by the way?

When the benefits of free trade are shared across the income spectrum, rather than gobbled up by the rich, Dems should support free trade. Not until then, though.

And I'm still pretty uncomfortable with outsourcing essential homeland security, thankyewverymuch. If that bothers the London bankers, well, screw them.

Al or Fake Al:

Conservatives don't really believe in "free trade" - they believe in rigged trade, where cronyism, nepotism and favors dispensed to the already privileged are the coin of the realm. If they believed in truly free trade, they would insist our trading partners have the same labor and environmental protections we do and support small businesses that want to trade abroad, instead of just megabillion dollar revenue corporations. Get your story straight...

TCD

They might try lowering their fees, too.

It seems that everyone else has to do this today to win business, but that 7% has been in effect a loooong time.

''We've had candidates that arrived for an interview, were told they couldn't leave a room in the airport, and were put on the next plane back."

Well sure. I mean the last thing we want here is more running dog capitalists. Besides, by definition these people were illegal immigrants. Why should we give 7-figure salaries to people who didn't plan ahead by being born here? Losers.

Kevin,

Any government efforts that stop global finance from doing whatever they want whenever they want are going to get their opposition. If this is how they're reacting to Sarbanes-Oxley (which isn't all that bad), imagine how they'd react to efforts to reduce (Oh hell, eliminate) the trade deficit or slash corporate tax loopholes. Their screams mean we're on target.

I agree that immigration issues are a lot more important than Sabranes-Oxley, at least from just anecdotal evidence living here in NYC. Spending a little more on your accounting to comply with the foreign companies' rules is not the issue, it's being able to travel, relocate, and visit your investors/markets that makes the difference. No-one knows better than frequent international travellers that our government's "terrorism theater" is designed just to randomly humiliate people, not make anyone safer.

The major problems with SOX (which are getting shaken out) was the indefiniteness of some of the regulations meant nobody knew what was necessary and what would be allowed. So everyone went overboard for a while.

The US has become much more hostile to global business, mainly due to so-called "anti-terrorism" bits in the PATRIOT Act. When we have to fly my partner in from Japan in order for routine paperwork rather than having him sign stuff at a US embassy abroad, we have problems. It's gotten bad enough that we're looking at moving our company entirely outside the US.

Here is another article from Reuters on this:

Lehman sees Europe becoming world's market

Lehman Brothers (LEH.N: Quote, Profile, Research) Chairman and Chief Executive Richard Fuld says Europe could supplant the United States as the crossroads for global finance because it has fewer restrictions and lower fees. In an interview published on Sunday in the Italian business daily Il Sole 24 Ore, Fuld said the additional costs and rules brought about by the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance legislation had put the United States at a disadvantage.

"The best conditions for finance are in Europe," he was quoted as saying.

... if liberals would just admit that the terrorists we're fighting are near-100% Arab, and we shouldn't be blind to that fact; there's no need to harass British citizens.

Because there are no British Arabs, eh Hawk?

... the new liberal Democrats like John Tester, James Webb, and Heath Schuler ....

Wait, I thought those were the new conservative Democrats who were going to keep Pelosi from getting the Liberal Agenda™ enacted. Which is it?

Yes, Sarbanes Oxley is more onorous than what's needed to keep business honest. It's a particular problem for smaller companies, since they can less easily afford the cost.

Anyhow, it's a dubious proposition that dishonest companies will choose to reveal their dishonesty voluntarily. In my experience, the crooks will cheat, no matter how long the reporting form is.

The real problem IMHO is the ineffectiveness of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC's feebleness goes back to before Bush's Presidency. It would be great if the Dems in Congress could find a way to make the SEC more effecive.

Al and AH live in a world completely dominated by far-left liberals, who either believe all the wrong things too straongly or in nothing at all, depending on the Issue of the Day©.

Furthermore, the evil liberals are ignorant racists who will do anything to advance their cynical agendas. Funny how that sounds so much like some other people who have been shouting orders for the past five years. Very, very funny.

Al and AH are fervently studying Korean because of their profound and daily expressed yearning to live in a one-party state. There, they can get married and adopt all the non-white babies they can possibly save from atheist liberal homosexuals. We wish them luck and God speed.

The SEC's feebleness goes back to before Bush's Presidency.

Indeed. It goes back to the Republican congress overriding Clinton's veto to strengthen and reform it back in 1995 -- because Republicans know that businesses like Enron are honest enough to police themselves.

Ah, Kevin.

SOX is a terrible law, and it IS responsible for curtailing economic growth, not just international growth. Another example of the liberal tentacles that BUsh has had to deal with and will have to fend off even harder from now on.

And now you see how Bush was right about Dubai ports. You liberals want to roll back free trade.

I agree Kevin.

Fuck the working people (and the environment). Countless workers in this country might lose good-paying jobs and health care benefits, millions of workers abroad (many of them children) might have to endure horrendous working conditions for a few cents a day (without any possibility of joining a union by the way), and the environment will continue to degrade.

But who cares about the workers or the environment? If we change our trade policies we might lose influence in the world! Life will become more difficult for those poor poor corporate executives and Wall Street tycoons!

Fuck you Kevin, and all of the other free-traders that support selling out the environment and working people all over the world.

If I were a really wealthy individual or company, I wouldn't keep my money where US administrations might freeze assets without oversight. The CIA grabs and interrogates some random Joe, who under torture says I was funneling money...

*Wham* those assets are frozen. And no way for me to prove my company's innocence, since the tortured guy's testimony is held in a triple-secret-X vault somewhere.

Has it happened yet? Dunno. But if I had money, I wouldn't keep it here and wait to find out. More freedom outside the US, probably, these days.

One result, little talked about, is that ordinary citizens are moving money out of the US at an alarming rate. Where I live in Canada, I've learned that money traders hold frequent seminars in the Western US showing people how to move their investments to Canada and Europe, and the seminars are packed, baby!

This wasn't true five years ago, and there's no ideological bandaid these dipshits can put on it. Time to face it, you bootlickers: Bush and company are killing capitalism in the US. The only ones who advance in their system are connected to their version of the mob. Turns out they believe in a kind of socialism for the rich.

Traveling to the US *is* a mess which I try to avoid as much as possible. Two weeks ago it was 1.5h queuing at immigration and thus missing the connection flights. More than once I've heard from fellow travelers that the hassles are not worth the business any more.

Here are two typical stories as links:

Grounded until further notice
Laptops searched and confiscated

Land of the sheep, home of the paranoid.

While SOX is far from a perfect law (I have to deal with it everyday), it has helped management of corporations (particularly the CEO and CFO) be more accountable for internal controls. Sections 302/906 require them to certify quarterly that internal disclosure controls are in place.

A better example of a law that Democrats should be working to repeal is HR 5122, benignly referred to as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act. This horrible piece of legislation made it easier for The Decider to declare martial law and usurp more of our rights. Back in the day, Republicans would have been leading the charge to repeal this piece of creeping fascism. Kevin, I noticed you haven’t even commented on it. I suggest you read up on it.

Drum is partly right, I don't know enough about Sarbanes/Oxley but I do know the reaction of intelligent, well-traveled and urbane foreigners to the cultural change we have experienced in the U.S. and it is not favorable.

The Democratic Party attacks on the Dubai ports deal was really an impossible to avoid gambit to be taken in order to win some sympathy and votes in the hinterlands. Both parties do it and this situation just happened to come up at the right time. I don't think the new Senators will be unfavorable to free-trade at all; but, as someone mentioned earlier here, they are opposed to rigged-trade which is the current stance of most Republicans and too many corrupt Democrats. The whole situation of international trade needs a close look in the coming years it is impoverishing large parts of the human population.

trex wrote: The SEC's feebleness ... goes back to the Republican congress overriding Clinton's veto to strengthen and reform it back in 1995 -- because Republicans know that businesses like Enron are honest enough to police themselves.

trex, the cite you provided said that the bill, which was passed over Clinton's veto, restricted private class-action legislation. It doesn't say that the bill would have strengthened the SEC.

IMHO the SEC has plenty of power, when they deciude to use it. The problem is that they often don't take the trouble to investigate complex frauds.

P.S. Despite that reform bill, there are still plenty of class action suits in this area. That bill was an attempt to weed out a few of the worst of the meritless lawsuits.

I work in insurance in NYC, and SOX has nothing to do with the advantages of Europe. Many insurers are setting up shop in Ireland, but mainly because from there it is quite easy to do business anywhere and Europe and because there are tax advantages to being specifically in Ireland.

Even with SOX, regulation across Europe is much heavier than in the USA. However, I think the corporate tax rate is lower there than here, but there's not enough of a difference to drive a decision on where to locate.

We have no problem hiring foreign-born citizens. I have had employees from nine countries across four continents. Frankly, it's easier to get work here than in Europe, and I've known Americans who move to Europe who can't work because of immigration laws.

I do wonder however, if the USA will ever catch up to London in the carbon trading market. That is a definite loss to this country, and it is caused by the narrow-mindedness of the Bush Administration.

In the end, though, most companies choose their location because that is where the CEO wants to live.

re: Dubai ports deal.

I have yet to hear a reason why the American people, not corporations, should not realize the profits from operating the ports built and maintained by their tax dollars and which bring in the goods destroying American industry.

The future of America with the globalization of MegaCorp?
http://www.gatt.org/wharton.html

In the end, though, most companies choose their location because that is where the CEO wants to live.

I thought I read something once that said that the vast majority of companies were located within 8 miles of the CEO's house. You'd think for $100million/year they could commute a little.

I thought I read something once that said that the vast majority of companies were located within 8 miles of the CEO's house.

Isn't it easier to assume that the CEO moved close to the company rather than the other way around?

It seems to me that much of the protectionism in the United States is due to the benefits of free trade not going to the middle class.

Why not indulge in some good old-fashioned income redistribution by taxing those super-rich and transferring the income back to the middle class, either with tax cuts, universal health care, "family support payments" to families with children (which has been a huge winner, politically, for the conservative federal government here in Australia, anathema as it is to many of their supporters). There are plenty of other possibilities, I'm sure you can get creative.

Regardless of the merits of the rest of the commentary, it's fairly silly to criticize the nativism of the Dubai ports deal as uniquely American (as silly as it was).

Every country under the sun, and on just about every continent, has plenty of silly nativist elements impacting its trade policy. To name just a few, the EU wrangles regularly over the ownership of country-specific product identities (like French wines), while Latin America goes through repeated rounds of absurd propaganda. Countries go through nativist streaks, and though it's not an admirable quality, it's certainly a ubiquitous one.

How Bad Trade Deals are Destroying the Middle Class

This is from “Skeptical Economist”.

So far, our global economic failures show up mainly as discontented workers in areas hard hit by import competition. However, the real problems (and the worker problems are quite real) are considerably worse

The United States as a nation is far from self-sufficient or anything close. Back in Kennedy era, imports and exports were in the range of 4 to 5% of GDP. The US economy was closes to autarkic. These days comparable numbers are imports are 16.22% of GDP and exports are 10.46% of GDP. Per se, there is nothing wrong with trade growing as a percent of GDP. However, the brutal reality is that our nation can no longer pay its bills. Imports of goods are almost double exports of goods. We enjoy a small (and shrinking) surplus on services and are now in deficit for payments (profits received from overseas US investments versus profit earned by foreign investment in the US).

If you could only pay half of your bills, would you think you were doing well? Would that be OK? Might some question of economic failure arise? Wouldn’t virtually every American see it that way? Yet, when it comes to our country, it is somehow OK. Of course, it is not.

If you could only pay half of your bills, your debts would be soaring. Guess what? So are the debts of the United States. Of course, the national debt is growing and more than 50% owned by foreigners. However, the debts of ordinary Americans are rising as well and a growing percentage are owned by foreigners as well.

The trade debate is usually depicted in terms of “cramped, narrow minded, locally oriented protectionists” versus “visionary, open minded, free trading globalists”. This caricature is largely correct. However, that doesn’t mean the protectionists are wrong. With America going broke, they are at least on the right side of the issue..

Thomas Friedman demonstrated again the cluelessness of our elites on trade today. His piece “China: Scapegoat or Sputnik” repeated the usual mantra about education solving our problems. His actual words were “health care, portability of pensions, entitlements, and lifelong learning”. Nice ideas, but will they really help middle aged workers without jobs? No, of course not, but the deeper problem is they won’t fix our trade problems either. We will simply go broke faster. What words were missing? How about “overvalued currency”, “RMB versus the dollar”, “China’s lack of currency flexibility”, etc. All notably missing.

This post by Kevin is absolute, unaldulterated, and total horse pucky.

"...the United States is culturally and politically averse to the international market system..." Are you f'ing kidding me?

We have a balance of trade deficit with China alone, of over $200 billion a year. And that's just with China. We are the most free trade nation on the planet. Ever. And by a huge margin. We're so far from a quote "full blown protectionist mode" that anyone who even remotely mentions that possibility should be institutionalized.

And hard for int't financial workers to get into and out of the country? Try going to London, Paris, Milan, Zurich or any other European financial center and getting a job. You need a work permit, and they don't just hand 'em out!

And lastly, think these 2 questions over, if NY was losing its influence as a global financial center, would the unemployment rate there be the lowest in history? And would this year's bonus pool at banks and brokerage firms total $34 billion?

Our visa/immigration policies are having an exceedingly negative longitudinal effect on America's lead in cutting edge subfields of the hard sciences.

We rely on immigrants to fill our shortage of Phd's in esoteric but valuable disciplines and quite a few of them are deciding that it isn't wort the hassle.

''We've had candidates that arrived for an interview, were told they couldn't leave a room in the airport, and were put on the next plane back."

Oh please. If you have money there's not going to be a problem. Here is the giveaway:

"It is hard to express just how offended the global finance world was by the blunt nativism surrounding the Dubai Ports World debacle earlier this year, or the rise of protectionist sentiment in Congress,"

Free trade. Money for the rich. If they want to argue for those things go right a head, but don't say that your millionare scion can't even leave the airport, if you want to be taken seriously that is.

American Chicken Shit... there are many British muslims too, and British Arabs. how do you deal with that, mush brain? And if only liberals support protectionism, how do you explain the actions of the joke-in-chief, your pea-brained president? Why don't you just sod off to little green footballs or somewhere where they welcome your brand of mindless bullshit?

the cite you provided said that the bill, which was passed over Clinton's veto, restricted private class-action legislation. It doesn't say that the bill would have strengthened the SEC.

IMHO the SEC has plenty of power, when they deciude to use it. The problem is that they often don't take the trouble to investigate complex frauds.

Really? Is that all that happened? They just don't take the time? No, you're just an idiot as usual:

...the House and Senate froze the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), even though the agency (as the General Accounting Office would later find) already lacked the staff to adequately monitor corporate balance sheets. As David Ruder, a former Republican head of the SEC, told The New York Times in 1995, "The Republican Congress is dealing with the SEC as though it is the enemy, instead of the policeman on the beat."

See also:

In 2000, Clinton Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Arthur Levitt, Jr. proposed regulations to prohibit accounting firms from simultaneously serving as consultants and auditors. Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms mounted a massive lobbying campaign against the Clinton-Levitt regulations, killing them. The lead lobbyist for the accounting firms was Harvey Pitt. After being sworn in as President, George W. Bush named Pitt chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

So the inneffectiveness of the SEC did go back before Bush -- to the Republican Congress -- and then Bush came into office and even made it worse.

There are about six more egregious instances of Republicans providing cover for felonious corporations like Global Crossing and Enron. You can read about them here.

And then you can admit you were wrong, in addition to being dense.

P.S. Despite that reform bill, there are still plenty of class action suits in this area. That bill was an attempt to weed out a few of the worst of the meritless lawsuits.

Is that all it was? Good 'ol Republican tort reform? First you claim that the SEC needs to do more to police companies, but when faced with the prospect of class action lawsuits by shareholders to protect their interests and keep the dishonest companies honest -- you really think that less policing is better.

And how many frivolous class action lawsuits by investors were there prior to that terrible Republican bill? Cite? And how many are there now by comparison? Cite?

Don't bother responding. You're bound to be tiresome and your facts and logic are certain to be erroneous as usual. The kiddie blog is down the 'Net and to your left.

gab and trex both make good points. In addition, many foreign companies are voluntarily adopting many of the SOX requirements, most notably Section 404, in order to satisfy international investor and debt covenant requirements.

In my mind, the biggest problem with SOX is that it was intended, in part, to penalize the public accounting profession for ignoring or looking the other way when management was cooking the books. Instead, SOX has meant a huge windfall for the public accounting profession.

This really isn't a partisan issue and until everyone here realises that nothing's going to improve.

The Dubai Ports deal goers directly to one of the issues that no-one is recognising here. America is entirely dependent on the rest of the world for it's logistics apart from two main suppliers, UPS and FedEx.

The S has no blue water merchant marine anymore of worth. The main providers are mainly European or Asian.

It's airlines are kept alive purely through direct government intervention. Again FedEx and UPS are about the only profitable operators. Former CIA fronts like Evergreen only survive thanks to Pentagon contracts. Delta and USAirways are about to link up which means that one almost bankrupt company will link up with another almost bankrupt company. Again, it is Asian airlines that lead the way with Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific dominating in tems of profitability and innovation.

As far as third party logistics providers are concerned Fedex and UPS are the worlds no.1 and no.2 respectively. But if you strip out the US Domestic market, they fall way behind the competition. DPWN, the German Post Office is the largest air freight forwarder, largest ocean freight forwarder and worlds number one warehousing and distribution provider. DHL Express their express courier organisation is no.1 everywhere else outside of the US and is closing in on the US domestic market where it currently lies third.

As far as the ports are concerned, the Long Beach disaster of last year showed the complete inability for domestic operators to run the ports successfully. Dubai would ave improved the running of the ports, (they do a superb job everywhere else) and this would have included security systems. In addition, the claims that a company linked to the Peoples Liberation Army is now running the Panama Canal also masked the issue that Hutchison Whampoa took the canal over simply because their was no viable US competition and their port services operations are about the biggest and the best alongside Dubai and Port of Singapore Authority. (Anyone who has spent time working in hong Kong knows that almost every company is connected in someway to the PLA in some way.)

America cannot compete in the logistics sector anymore except for two companies and their death grip on their market share is starting to slip.

Uh huh. Just like those Roman financiers fled to Athens after periodic crackdowns on unscrupulous behavior.

London is a nice place - still - but taxes are too high, and more important it is too far away from the capital of the world, which is and will remain Washington for a long time to come.

Al: "Republicans are against racism...."

Gee, I didn't know the sun rises in the west in
RepublikkkanWorld. Lessee.... Michael Steal's campaign in Maryland, Corker in Tennessee, the RNC robocalls... just one-time anomalies all, right?

But then, I guess that's how the world looks when you live with your head up your ass Al, believing that the Confederate Traitor Party is the opposite of what it is.

Republican Culture of Corruption.

Republicans want deregulation, because it makes it easier for them to lie, steal, and commit fraud. The Republican Party is what it would be like if the Mafia decided to get into politics.

Barney Frank was interviewed by Al Hunt on Bloomberg over the weekend. He said that he would be looking to modify S-O.

It would be great if the Dems in Congress could find a way to make the SEC more effecive.
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 19, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm all for giving the SEC access to tasers. And maybe even "harsh interrogation techniques" for use on white collar criminals.

Isn't it easier to assume that the CEO moved close to the company rather than the other way around?

Perhaps, but the article I read was addressing the specific issue of companies moving to new headquarters. They would go through all these motions about where to move to, and then - surprise! - they would move down the street from the boss.

网络维护
计算机维护
电脑知识

• 电脑维修


• 电脑故障


• 网络维护


• 电脑维护


• 病毒防治

网络维护, 计算机维护, 电脑知识, 电脑维修

电脑故障,网络维护,电脑维护,病毒防治

故障网络维护电脑维护电脑维修主板显示器路由器windows灰尘交换机adsl宽带计算机病毒病毒防治技巧报错计算机维护集线器IT外包服务刻录机电脑病毒局域网综合布线显卡内存硬盘无线局域网网卡打印机宽带声卡笔记本vista优化苹果电脑

Republicans are against racism

Maybe the question is what century Al inhabits?

The anti-SOX propaganda goes too far.

Sarbanes-Oxley compliance causes a lot of whining, but the rules are basically good old-fashioned quality control.

You don't want feces in your hamburger, nor in your quarterly reports.

I've worked on SOX compliance and I've seen corporate staff start out complaining about the costs of compliance but end up, a few months later, acknowledging the benefits of SOX compliance. For instance, it takes longer to upgrade a financial database in a SOX-compliant manner, but the quality-control effects of SOX make it more likely that the upgrade is done right the first time and won't have to be redone.

SOX critics overstate the one-time costs of getting into compliance and understate the economic benefits of SOX compliance.

Barney Frank should hold hearings on SOX, and he will probably find that SOX needs tweaking. But he shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Kevin, when France or the EU signs a free-trade deal with Algeria, then you can post a lecture about "centrism." Not before then.

性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 裸体图片 美女自拍 色情图片 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 黄色小说 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房

Kevin, if you want to continue with free trade the way it is you have to take care of the working folks in this country. We need universal healthcare, we need a universal pension system that transfers with you from job to job, we need cheaper education, more grants and less loans, we need to take care of the people in this country.

The rich folks are rolling in cash, and if they want us to continue to allow them to roll in their cash they better pony up for some of the above suggestions, or protectionism will run rampant. I can see Byron Dorgan rallying the new Senators into his camp and that won't bode well for the free traders.

And that British worker wouldn't have had any problems, if liberals would just admit that the terrorists we're fighting are near-100% Arab, and we shouldn't be blind to that fact; there's no need to harass British citizens.

Except of course for the terrorists who blew up the London Tube, and the ones who were supposedly planning on blowing up all those airliners earlier this summer, who were all British citizens. Of course, we could just stop and harass those British citizens who look like Pakis. And if they were British citizens who looked like Pakis but happened to be financial services experts coming to the US to interview for jobs...oh never mind.

And that British worker wouldn't have had any problems, if liberals would just admit that the terrorists we're fighting are near-100% Arab, and we shouldn't be blind to that fact - AH

Republicans are against racism and that's why they are pro-free trade. - Al

For Christ's sake, guys, get your story straight. No wonder you got creamed in the elections.

What good does international influence do us without a base of decent jobs for our citizens?

I'd rather give up the influence and preserve the jobs.

Sarbanes-Oxley is necessary, and not related to the other complaints (security, protectionism, etc.). Indeed, S-O is the wave of the future, and progressives should make sure it continues to be so. Transparency and accountability should be more than hot buzzwords - they should be the baseline of the international financial and trading system.

Of course, transparency and accountability ought to be forged into the bedrock of American and international politics as well.

I'd rather give up the influence and preserve the jobs.

I'd rather give up all my money and stay young forever. Unfortunately that option is not available.

The jobs we are losing to foreign competition are for the most part not preservable. There is no way for American seamstresses at $8 or more an hour to outcompete Vietnamese seamstresses at 25 cents or less an hour. However, if we violate our WTO obligations to try to save those American seamstresses' jobs, then we will no longer be able to sell Boeings to Vietnam Airlines, and our aircraft engineers and mechanics will lose their jobs too.

There is nothing the US can do unilaterally to stop losing jobs to international competition. But what we can do is to begin to press hard, in a collaborative internationalist fashion, for labor and environmental safeguards in our trade treaties with other countries. We should have started doing this 20 years ago. There is no way out of this problem on our own; we, the Europeans, and the wealthy East Asians are going to have to all team up and do it together.

Given two companies, identical except that one is SOX regulated and the other is not, which one would you invest in?

Just getting into America, even if you're American is an issue.

I'd much rather spend the time and effort getting into Paris.

The stock market is now up about 50% from the 2002 lows attributed to the accounting frauds, so Sarbanes-Oxley has been well worth it.

To amplify mcdruids point, enforcing greater transparency should make US markets more attractive to investors. In finance-speak there should be less uncertainty around the interpretation of US financial statements which should make US stocks more valuable.

I also agree that the people doing the most whining about SOX are the ones that need it the most.

London is a nice place

For the most part. It would be a lot nicer if it didn't rain so damn much (there's a reason the stereotypical Brit is depicted carrying an umbrella). And a no-smoking law for the pubs would be helpful.

These people have lied repeatedly about how onerous regulation was. They can't be trusted, about this or anything else. Corporations lie, and they always lie. Only an idiot ever believe anything that comes out of their mouths.

and yes, there are things we could do unilaterally to stop jobs from moving overseas. none of you like the things that could be done, but pretending we're helpless is foolish. We're too ric ha market for any major distrubtor to get locked out of. If we told a company that if they didn't keep a certain percentage of jobs in this country or we'd lock them out, they would be forced into compliance. Not all countries are the same, we have special bargaining power. And, if they refuse,new firms will be started in this country due to the opening in the market and they will be forced to play by our rules.

Like I said, theres a difference between there being no policies you agree with that could obtain an outcome, and there being no method by which to obtain an outcome. This is why people don't like Free traders, they lie a lot.

Ain't about regulation, it's about the outrageous fees in New York. It's simply become less expensive to do business elsewhere.

Just another shell game.

Part of the problem is that the global finance world seems to have more than its share of the people played by John Cleese in the Merchant Banker skit--people whose sole allegiance is to their portfolio.

After the Enrons and Worldcoms, I'm not convinced that SoX was an overreaction to criminal misdeeds such as their's. If anything, it is too weak.

I agree that immigration issues are a lot more important than Sabranes-Oxley, at least from just anecdotal evidence living here in NYC. Spending a little more on your accounting to comply with the foreign companies' rules is not the issue, it's being able to travel, relocate, and visit your investors/markets that makes the difference. No-one knows better than frequent international travellers that our government's "terrorism theater" is designed just to randomly humiliate people, not make anyone safer.

Yep. I work with the international financial markets, and it's a tremendous hassle for our foreign contacts to get to New York for a meeting, given the immigration hassles at JFK. It's become far easier to schedule meetings for our London office.

Saw the "Changing World of Global Finance" panel at The Atlantic Magazine Day of Ideas at the NY Public Library Saturday. The panel said that the banks are international and will make their money on IPOs anyway, but that the percentage of IPOs done by US banks is dropping because it's too easy to get sued here. They said that the lawyers are hiring clients to bring class action suits against companies and that it is a protection and extortion racket that is keeping business away from the US. I don't think that SOX bothered them that much. They said that the laws were already on the books.

I'm sorry for the pinstripe crowd's difficulties in getting into and off of planes in New York, but America's phony-baloney "free trade" stance is most murderous in its brush off of 3rd world farmers, not in demanding transparent accounting of perks that it gives to its CEO and the like.

This is good! We don't want those goddam commie filthy bastards ruining our Purity of Essence or our Precious Bodily Fluids...

SOX is one of the reasons I am leaving my current job. All the perpetual auditing has become tedius, and it just isn't fun to work when any more when it seems most of your time is spend satisfying auditors and beaurocrats.

Its typical, though. The problem wasn't that we need more rules, the problem was the punishment for breaking the rules we had needed to be greater, and the rules needed to be enforced more rigoruously. SOX is just plain silly. Having the CFOs and CEOs bear responsibility for signing off on the financials is a good part of the legislations, but the other more onerous parts of compliance are overwhelming and crushing to anyone but the least imaginative beaurocrat.

Yes, the company I work for is located 13 miles from where I live, and I am not even a VP.

Kevin wrote: Some of the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley may be overly onerous, and Democrats would be well advised to at least consider modifying some of them.

Really? Which ones?

"ex-liberal" wrote: In my experience, the crooks will cheat, no matter how long the reporting form is.

I'm certainly inclined to believe that "ex-liberal" has experience with crooks, cheats and liars.

I'm certainly not inclined to give a damn what the unabashed serial liar "ex-iberal" thinks about anything, no matter how oten he/she/it precedes his/her/its bullshit with "IMHO".

Gregory,

If you aren't "inclined to give a damn", then why did you even make the comment?

I used to work for a company that did corporate governance consulting for the US and the UK.

What's lost in discussions of S-O is that the UK's Combined Code, although nominally voluntary, is established enough so that pretty much any listed company of meaningful size must comply with its provisions. And, despite being much cheaper to comply with, the Combined Code blows the doors off of S-O in the corporate governance arena.

I would very much like it if the US adopted something more like what the UK has -- less of an emphasis on technical compliance, more of an emphasis on compliance with the spirit of the law, nigh-draconian disclosure requirements and strict and meaningful caps on the size and concentration of stock option awards.

Notice that it was liberals who made a stink over the Dubai non-issue. Once again, cheap democrat political points got in the way of good policy. It's also the left hat tends to support protectionism.

AH is right that Democrats were the ones to open fire over the Dubai Ports World deal, although the utter lack of support Bush got from the rest of his party tells you how little the right believes in free trade when America comes out on the losing end. Or, look back to the Clinton era, when Jesse Helms was blocking any end to textile protectionism and scuttling diplomatic overtures to Pakistan, or when a Hong Kong company with ties to the PRC got the contract to operate the Panama Canal. In those cases, it was the right that tried to poke a stick into the wheels of free trade.

Basically, there is no real "free trade party" in American politics, because (a) America is such a high-wage labor market that too many workers are afraid of losing wages or jobs to cheaper countries, and (b) American companies like indirect government subsidies and will shovel money on politicians willing to bestow them. Since stereotypically (a) is a liberal concern and (b) is a conservative one, each party has its share of protectionists.

Gregory: I'm certainly inclined to believe that "ex-liberal" has experience with crooks, cheats and liars.

Right you are. I'm currently involved in the investigation of a case of massive corporate fraud. Although the fraud has been publicly reported, the SEC is doing nothing to ferret out the full details or to prosecute the wrong-doers.

Right you are.

Of course I am, "ex-liberal," given that you're an unabashed serial liar in thest threads.

Yancey: why did you even make the comment?

To point out that "ex-liberal"'s serial dishonesty renders any opinion of his bereft of value. Dishonesty does that, Yancey -- a fact you'd do well to remember, yes?

SOX!
Immigration Problems!
Blah, blah, blah ...

Maybe Wall Street's problem is just that they haven't adjusted to "global pricing". From this editorial

The London Stock Exchange, one of the leading beneficiaries of the American decline, commissioned a study showing that underwriting fees in London are just 3 percent to 4 percent of a transaction, compared with an average of 6.5 percent to 7 percent in the United States.

Oh, that's right, global price competition is only supposed to apply to people earning less than $200k/yr. Never mind.

生态餐厅
日光温室
西装
西服
职业装
进口轴承
消音
海参
最新传奇私服
新开传奇私服
北京婚庆 北京婚庆公司
紫外线消毒器|塘瓷水箱
玻璃钢水箱|无负压
不锈钢水箱
助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
内蒙古助听器验配网
湖南助听器服务网
上海助听器在线
助听器博客群
海南助听器直销网

中国助听器大全
助听器
助听器
助听器
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器大全
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗

浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
噪音
冬虫夏草
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作

网站设计
设计
北京网站设计
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网站制作
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站优化
yahoo竞价
google推广
google排名
google优化
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网站设计 北京
网站推广
网站推广 北京
网站制作 北京

网页设计 北京
网站建设 北京
婚纱摄影
进口轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
轴承
进口轴承
skf轴承
fag轴承
轴承
进口轴承
直线轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
数码摄象机|索尼数码相机|三星数码相机|佳能数码相机|索尼数码摄象机|

Oh, that's right, global price competition is only supposed to apply to people earning less than $200k/yr. Never mind.
Posted by: alex

Just so. Except $200k/yr wouldn't keep these guys' private jets supplied with toilet paper.

ohetothks666 http://ohetothks666.nu/