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.
