"<span class="Apple-style-span">As a champion of oligarchy in Congress, Chris Cox knows that a predatory economy is built on misdirection and deregulation. With the help of Chris Cox, the rich will get even richer, even faster, and the rest of you poor schlubs better roll over for it!"</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">Well, something like that.</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">It is stuff like this that I point out to acquaintances who voted for Bush last time because he's "strong on terror."</span&gt

Actually a free economy, as ours demonstrates, is built on the rule of law.

No, i really have to agree with the President here. Sure we have laws, but with an ill funded SEC and a desire to constantly look the other way, it really is down to trust for the most part.

Cox is simply just going to do away with that charade.

As a champion of the free-enterprise system in Congress, Chris Cox knows that a free economy is built on trust.

Shorter Version: Christ Cox will let these businesses cheat, and then we'll all get rich.

Well... you can't trust company retirement plans anymore. They could just decide to shed their pension obligations and pay pennies on the dollar to retirees on a whim.

Between the Supreme Court decision on Arthur Andersen saying it's fine for auditors to shred evidence of malfeasance as long as it's company policy to shred evidence of wrongdoing, and Chris Cox coming to the SEC to put that big block Enron "E" back in the SEC... well, let's just say US stock markets might be safe enough for your money, but they aren't safe enough for my money.

Apparently, coins aren't too good an investment idea either (Ohio Coin Gate... google Toledo Blade and see next year's Pulitzer Prize already being engraved with their names on it).

Bush's is still out there trying to save Social Security the same way Nixon tried to save Hanoi and Bush keeps trying saving Fallujah.

So... for low risk retirement investments... exactly what choices are left? Are there any that I don't have to get my dollars exchanged into Euros first?

Actually, the president's statement is much more accurate than the statement in the post. 

Any lawyer, for example, will tell you that there's no possible way to anticipate all possible issues in an ongoing business venture.  They'll give it a try, to be sure, but the relationship won't work--and shouldn't be entered into--if there's no trust between the parties.

Most sophisticated analysts of our economy recognize that fact; I imagine the author understands it too, but wanted to score cheap political points more than he wanted to say something interesting or insightful or accurate.

[The previous reply to Anonymous Hero is by Anrig --- sorry for the screw up] 

As I lawyer, I can't draft anticipating absolutely every outcome, and to some degree, there are vagaries left that the parties will need to determine when a particular situation arises.  In the private sector, there is some degree of trust that these will work out--however, it is a trust based on a common anticipation of advancing self interest.   If the relationship is worthwhile to both the parties, then all expect that we will find a way to deal with the grey areas when they areise.   However, if the relationship is not worthwhile, then they are going to find a way out of that agreement.

Query, however, even this concept of "trust" applies in a regulatory environment.   The SEC mandates certain disclosure rules, for example.    In the SEC-public company relationship, one cannot assume that the other will act based on a best outcome model.   The benefit to the SEC, and therefore the public, is transparency.   The benefit to the company is ... what?  Frankly, they comply so that they don't have to fact the threat of loss of access to capital markets.   Any benefit to the public company--such as having a vibrant and reliable capital market--in my experience is too limited and tenous to be seen as good worth "working it out" over, especially in the fact of a big bill from your securities lawyer.

So, "trusting" the public companies to work it out, it seems to me, doesn't work in the same way that third party business arrangements work out.   Thus, it is crucial to have a vibrant and involved SEC (by the way, I think they actually do a really good job most of the time, esp, on the non-policital levels).  I also don't necessarily think its a bad thing to have someone involved who understands how public companies work--administrative burdens for their own sake only don't do anyone any good.  I, sadly, see Cox gutting SOx and any new legislation coming down the pike on the basis of this "administrative burden argument", and swinging the pendulum back to where we again letting the foxes guard the hen house. 

Of course trust alone is insufficient.  The rule of law - that is, respect for contracts and rights of property - is essential to a free market economy, and Cong. Cox is surely more sensitive to this than most of you.  The rule of law means first of all predictablity and enforcement of bargained for expectations.  Class actions, punitive damages, and swashbuckling plaintiffs lawyers do not represent the rule of law so much as extortion under color of law. 

We all seem to like to suggest themes here.  When it comes to the financial markets, mine would be:

"Keeping Capitalism Honest." 

 It would define the way people who believe in capitalism, as most progressives do, defend capitalism.  I'm tired of the left being called "statists" or "communists."  Most of us aren't, the same way most convervatives aren't anarchists.  We need to make people understand that the rules of capitalism, especially rules that enforce honesty, clear contracts, and fair competition actually save capitalism from eating itself alive.

The employees of Enron trusted that their pensions would be secure. Consumers trust companies to produce, market, and sell products that are safe. Employees trust their employers to pay them on time, accurately, and give them the benefits they deserve.

Time and time again, history has proven that employers will take advantage of employees' trust. Producers will take advantage of consumers' trust. But capitalism is a good system, it's just not perfect. It requires reform and constant attention and oversight. There is no inherent defense of the public good in capitalism, and so the government must fill that role effectively.

That's the difference between Democrats and Republicans on the economy these days. As a college professor of mine used to say, politics in the United States has become somewhat boring and bland because "we're all capitalists now." While I disagree with his premise, he is right about one thing - by and large, we are all basically capitalists now. And, in my opinion, that's a good thing. Democrats are hands-on capitalists, and Republicans are hands-off capitalists. Finally I agree with a Dean talking point: you can't trust Republicans with your money.

The Center for American Progress has put together a devastating critique of Representative Chris Cox, President Bush's choice to succeed William Donaldson as chairman of the SEC. Cox's support for curtailing shareholder lawsuits, bill providing cover for Enron and his own checkered past show that Bush was never serious about his demand for corporate accountability.

Cox's confirmation seems assured, especially with the broad support he enjoys from the financial services industry. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said of Cox, "with a career dedicated to public service, Chris Cox has the expertise needed to handle the intricacies of securities regulation."

As part of the confirmation process, Cox should face the Harken Test. That is, he ought to answer one simple question:

"If Sarbanes-Oxley were in place 20 years ago, would George W. Bush have faced charges over his leadership of Harken Energy?"

As has been well-documented by the Center for Public Integrity and others, the answer should be "yes."

For more, see:

"Chris Cox and the Harken Test."

As a lawyer, I see both trust and the rule of law as necessary in a capitalist economy.  On a simplistic level, most lawyers would say to do business with people you trust, but have a strong contract.  With due respect, the original comment by the author was a cheap, political shot. 

Clearly, the rule of law makes commerce possible.  Many countries must overcome their lack of solid legal foundations and honest courts before they can hope to achieve real economic advancement. 

However, trust also is crucial in two respects.  First, even the best contract with an untrustworthy party merely buys a lawsuit.  Also, on a societal level, a free economy requires trust in the government that it will not change the rules to destroy business. 

Russia exemplifies this issue.  Its government simply cannot be trusted to maintain its legal and tax structure in such a way that businesses can operate profitably.

The SEC exists to provide information to investors with the goal that all investors are "on the same page" regarding information about companies under its jurisdiction.  Even with it, trust remains important.  Investors ultimately must trust that the information provided under SEC regulations correctly reflects the underlying corporate realities. 

As with contracts,SEC regulations do not guarantee that parties will comply with their obligations.  They require enforcement against those that prove themselves untrustworthy.

Buy a steel box, put your money in it.....and then bury it in your backyard. Future interest earned - $0. Amount of principal remaining when Bush leaves office - 100%. Sounds like a damn good investment these days.

Unless, of course, you're richer than snot - then the sky's the limit!