The series of articles by our Jill Gardiner on the similarities between London and New York is a reminder that New York, while it is the greatest city of them all, nonetheless exists in a competitive global market. London officials opened a New York office in March devoted to luring New York companies there, and when the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was asked on a visit here about his economic development strategy, he answered in two words: “Sarbanes-Oxley,” the name of the American law mandating a post-Enron crackdown on accounting and corporate governance standards.

It says a lot that the biggest beneficiary of Sarbanes-Oxley turns out to be a communistic-type mayor known as “Red Ken” who is gleeful about capitalism being driven out of New York and into his own city. Ms. Gardiner’s series, which concludes today, noted that when the Russian oil company, Rosneft, recently made one of the largest public offerings in history, raising more than $10 billion in a fell swoop, it was on the London stock exchange, not New York’s, notwithstanding Attorney General Spitzer’s much-heralded efforts to clean up the Big Board.

New York’s art world still has the upper hand, but London is gaining in food and finance. New York’s successes are attributable in a large part to the genius and hard work of its people, many of them immigrants from elsewhere. But government policy plays a role, too. If New York’s politicians would, before making decisions, ask themselves, “Does this increase or decrease the likelihood of London surpassing New York as the global financial and cultural capital?” they could prevent some costly mistakes. Competition, after all, is healthy, not only for companies but also for these two cities that are leading the way for freedom and capitalism in a world that could use more of both.