As for SARBOX, it’s a total joke. This is a great example of how government actually causes more problems when it tries to fix problems. Of course, the best solution to the SARBOX mess is to come up some additional regulations.

To the fool who said something about free-market economics being discredited; you’re a dumbass. Obviously you have never studied economics. Anyone with even the slightest hint of knowledge about macro-economics knows that virtually all economists agree that free-markets are the most efficient means by which to allocate resources. Those who support central planning do so (usually) on the grounds of promoting equality. They believe that equality means everyone has equal stuff, and they want to make this so. Whereas in a free market everyone has equal opportunity, but some will make better use of these opportunities than others. Just a side note, the world has never seen any large-scale free markets. Some markets are freer than others, but none of consequence are anywhere close to truly free. We have tons of examples of centrally planned, sorta planned, and just a little bit planned systems all around us. I suggest you pay attention to them. It doesn’t take a PhD. in econ. to see that freer markets work far better than heavily regulated ones in the medium to long run.

I often find the most enthusiastic proponents of Sarbanes-Oxley to be those who have never had to comply with it. In application, has it improved book-keeping at all? Not for large stupifyingly structured companies like AIG–so what’s your point?

Nayagan, people who whine the most about SOX are those who have to comply with it (just as the most enthusiastic proponents will be those who benefit from it; btw, disclosure: I have worked in an industry where the fall-out of SOX was pretty dramatic and imposed major costs on business). Some companies have reported improved book-keeping. There are legitimate concerns about SOX: preliminary studies show that the some companies de-listed from NYSE, and that it might clamp down on risk-taking by certain entrepreneurs. Here, the data needed is whether SOX is preventing companies from taking risks that are justified or unjustified (which admittedly we don’t have). On the other hand, cutting the links between those who audit the firm and those who provide it financial services seems like a good thing — the same conflict of interest relationships that allowed Enron executives to hide massive financial irregularities. And because many troubled financial sector firms end up being candidates for govt bail-outs, I think it’s only fair that taxpayers see extensive disclosures from them. Moreover, if investing is not akin to gambling and gains/losses are not completely random, how else are stock-holders or potential investors going to see what the company is up to without fairly detailed financial disclosures? from the SOX article I previously linked:

It’s true that only one out of the world’s ten biggest IPOs last year was listed in the U.S. But the other nine were all for overseas companies. And if foreign firms find our desire for transparency so distasteful, do we really want them here anyway? Are you, as an investor, so devastated that PartyGaming (Charts), a Gibraltar-based company, saw fit to list in London instead of New York? Anyway, it’s not as if the pipeline is drying up. There were more U.S.-listed IPOs in the first half of this year than in either of the past two years. Steve Schwarzman, CEO of private-equity juggernaut Blackstone, recently said that Sarbanes-Oxley “is probably the best thing that’s happened to our business and one of the worst things that has happened to America.” What Schwarzman seems to be suggesting is that because Sarbanes-Oxley is so costly and complicated, companies are throwing themselves at him in an effort to go private. Maybe. Or maybe CEOs are dialing Schwarzman’s number simply because he and his competitors in the buyout biz are raising money hand over fist – Blackstone just closed a record $15.6 billion fund – and itching for opportunities to spend it. I decided to ask one of the bill’s authors, Senator Paul Sarbanes, what he thought about the criticism. “These people have already forgotten what happened at Enron and WorldCom,” he told me. “People lost all their pensions and retirement savings. The bill is really about ensuring that public companies have a legitimate system of internal financial controls. To me that is a worthwhile cost.” Oh, and then there’s this. On the day Sarbanes-Oxley was signed, the market value of the Wilshire 5000 index – a proxy for all public companies in the U.S. – stood at $10.5 trillion. At the end of June, the Wilshire was worth $16.14 trillion, an increase of 54%. To say that’s all SarbOx would be just as specious as some of the criticism of the bill. But to deny that the restoration of confidence it brought had any impact would also be inaccurate. Sarbanes-Oxley isn’t perfect. And by all means, it should be scrutinized. But consider the alternative. What if we had done nothing?

As far as GOP browns go, uh…quite a few seem to pop up in DC. Vivek Kundra, Aneesh Chopra, and Amit are all examples from just the last few years. The liberal browns they frequently claim to represent don’t have a lot of brown choice lately if they want to vote identity (and you know they do want to).

In terms of brown GOPS, Jindal is the only one that has potential in the next 10-20 years to make it big (he’s already the gov. of Louisiana). I wouldn’t be surprised if he becomes President.

As far as GOP browns go, uh…quite a few seem to pop up in DC. Vivek Kundra, Aneesh Chopra, and Amit are all examples from just the last few years. The liberal browns they frequently claim to represent don’t have a lot of brown choice lately if they want to vote identity (and you know they do want to).

This is what drives me crazy whenever I hear my fellow idiot Americans yap about immigration, they are completely clueless to the fact that what drives this country is that intelligent people from all over the world want to come here, we need to continue and enhance this in order for USA to prosper.

“I believe many follow this general notion that the Democrat is automatically better for minorities and immigrants without actually looking at the policies implemented and positions taken by the candidate.”

I am exactly the person he is describing.

“The beauty of engineering is that you learn there are many ways to solve a problem and to arrive at the best solution you need to try many things. That is a fundamental reason I am against the Federal govt controlling so many of our services like Education with a one-size-fits-all solution. By allowing the States to control many of our services, we are more likely to learn from one another and improve the services for everyone.”

This is huge, and to me this isn’t a Democrat or Republican position, it’s one of good common sense. “State’s Rights” no longer means you’re pro-slavery.

“I also understand how over-regulation and over-taxation reduce the incentive to take risks and serve our customers better.”

Again, another great point. This is a huge impediment for people wanting to start their own small businesses or services.

I have always been turned off by politics because I felt that politicians were completely different from me, with completely different values, ideas, etc. I related to Obama due to some similarities, but now I finally have a candidate that sees things from my perspective. We need more 2nd gen. Indians running for office, doesn’t matter which party.