Seriously. He just spews whatever special interest he's interested in. Completely inane when it comes to anything immigration related, true economic fiction as well. Thinking Obama has some grand chess master strategy is a joke.
Looks almost like a psychosis occurring right on cable to claim that.
Obama is bought and paid for by special interests and that's the real problem. Starting out with special interest agenda items as a negotiation position with a whole gang that also is bought and paid for by special interests with one caveat, they want to see him as a 1 term President...
well, of course the ones who get screwed every single time are the U.S. citizens, American middle class.
the NAR with their never ending excuses for why a gigantic housing bubble built on the stilts of a fictional derivatives gambling casino, using suckered Americans thinking their appraisals would just keep increasing for infinity.., gee wiz, why did that mess collapse [sic].... drives me crazy.
Hello, when one takes away a major gambling chip of Wall Street, does one really expect that sector to take off when the middle class is being shuttered off to poverty land?
Anyway, Calculated Risk really pays attention and analyzes all of the data. On housing, I am not doing too much original number crunching.
What's especially maddening is how some of the news pundits that supposedly should know better (eg Lawrence O Donnell on MSNBC) either mislead themselves or their viewers by claiming Obama is winning eg this debt ceiling battle;eg, that Obama is playing "3 level chess" while the Repubs are playing checkers.
It's obvious that Obama is playing instead to the same interests of the wealthy as the repubs (as are similar apparent sellouts like Sen Durbin D-IL). The lure of big money for the campaign and post-office bonanza can be apparently irresistible
What's especially maddening is how some of the news pundits that supposedly should know better (eg Lawrence O Donnell on MSNBC) either mislead themselves or their viewers by claiming Obama is winning eg this debt ceiling battle;eg, that Obama is playing "3 level chess" while the Repubs are playing checkers.
It's obvious that Obama is playing instead to the same interests of the wealthy as the repubs (as are similar apparent sellouts like Sen Durbin D-IL). The lure of big money for the campaign and post-office bonanza can be apparently irresistible
While we're focused in on this, we have everything from Google to basic cable monitoring our every move, all to "sell us" via "profiling" and "targeted advertising".
Here in New Mexico we have a scandal a day, as judges, police and other 'titans' are brought down in unheard of stings and scandals.
America is yearning for a good hanging judge. And any titan will do for the gallows.
It's a tidal change, subtle but unstoppable, that will probably wash away the empires of the mandarin class.
In my 63 years, I've never witnessed this level of hostility toward the privileged - even by old school Republicans, held hostage to the GOP by cultural conservatism.
They may hate Mexicans and socialists... but they hate Wall St more.
but many do original research. I can tell you for me to dig out even one economic metric or read one piece of legislation can be hours and hours. Ain't easy.
I agree with all that you said: great story, well researched and a real contribution to a current issue that affects millions of people. This is precisely the kind of thing that a "professional press" is needed to do. The people who don't support their local media and claim the Internet can do it all are just nuts. What army of unpaid bloggers could or would do a story like this?
1. NECESSITY OF SOME DEGREE OF EGALITARIAN REFORM. Yes, ol' Henry had that figured out! Whatever production infrastructure we have, it's essential to think in terms of some egalitarian reforms in order to achieve a recovery from the recession/depression. Video posted by Robert Oak featuring Fed board member Sara Bloom Raskin (Obama appointee, 2009) explains that there will be no recovery without reversing the shifting of income from bottom to top that characterizes the current U.S. and global economies. Pseudo-libertarians object to all 're-distribution' of wealth, but the founder of true libertarian economics, Henry C. Simons, includes re-distribution of wealth as part of a sane program to avoid concentrations of power. Concentrations of power generally result in anti-democratic decay of civil liberty. (The point of libertarian economics is to support economic policies that promote civil liberty.)
2. "FOREIGN AID BY OTHER MEANS." Yes, I agree, that would be one of the myths promoted by the elites that have promoted corporate globalization since World War II. Actually, the truth about globalization of the WTO type is seen in the Naomi Klein video (posted by Robert Oak) on shock doctrine. Also, cf. John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Foreign aid, especially when disguised as 'free trade' policy, has mostly been a scam -- benefiting ruling elites rather than the peoples of third-world countries. Current Secretary of State Clinton typifies the delusional system when she speaks of foreign trade as part of U.S. global security policy. That is neo-mercantilism. That is the problem. That is the loophole that allows political corruption to determine such matters as targeted tariffs. By the Constitution, "trade agreements" should never to confused with national security policy. That's why I promote specifically 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF to replace the existing U.S. system of preferences and targeted tariffs or subsidies. Highfalutin pretensions have always been promoted as rationalizations for the U.S. system of preferences of all kinds for the purpose of this, that or the other social agenda -- and the end result is the destruction of free enterprise.
I'll start with PaulaNYC's # 3 and work back to #1 and # 2. It's on #3 that PaulaNYC's statement is faulty.
"3. I suspect that the main reason that the US has not pushed China on its currency manipulation is that it serves America's interests. Americans would likely rise up in open rebellion were China's goods offered to Americans at their actual price." -- PaulaNYC
It's a ridiculous parody of the U.S. public to say that "Americans would likely rise up in open rebellion were China's goods offered to Americans at their actual price." I guess the thought here is that Americans are buying at a discount because of China's pegging their yuan to the US dollar, and this perceived discount is of greater importance to the American people than unemployment, failed medical insurance system, homelessness, institutionalized poverty, political corruption, perpetual war, the prospect of runaway inflation, and, national bankruptcy (defaults on national, state, city, corporate and personal debt). The truth is that we are subsidizing Walmart and Walmart's suppliers by opening up our borders without charging a tariff or VAT, thus creating a situation where our domestic producers subsidize their foreign competitors.
Americans are getting absolutely nothing for free! Rather, American and Chinese financial elites are increasing their wealth at the expense of working Americans, and China is using this treasonable policy to undermine the U.S. in order to accomplish their political (imperialist) goals. The idea that "the US has not pushed China on its currency manipulation" is misleading! It misleads by way of a hidden premise that the U.S. has been or should be attempting to build an economic policy based on begging or cajoling our Chinese masters to take pity on our plight and peg the yuan upward. The suggestion that the U.S. policy to go begging to China "serves America's interests" is absurd and disrespectful of our country.
The whole agenda of limiting discussion to somehow pressuring China to peg the yuan higher is a phony issue, a straw-man argument. The truth is that we can and should institute a 15% Across-The-Board tariff. China has a right to peg its currency if they want to. We have a right to institute a tariff -- not anti-China, not anti-Mexico, but pro-America! To petition China is absurd when the means of correcting our problems are at hand. We have created our problems, and we can correct them by taking appropriate action without reference to China.
Characterization of the U.S. public as in an addict-like dependency relation to China goes along with the characterization of Americans as unable to compete for jobs because of our supposed lack of skills or because of our supposed unwillingness to work!
"If B of A is on the hook for 2.5 Billion. I would rather it be required to be spent on repairing the houses that have been neglected, rather than reimbursing investors who lost money on the distressed securities. We need jobs and safe affordible houses for sale or rent. Fixing up these homes and maintaining them could offer both."
If the $2.5 Billion is seen as some kind of penalty imposed on B of A, then it could be spent on maintenance of the properties. However, if it's more like a money judgment against B of A, then the money must go to the plaintiffs.
Reimbursement of investors who have been victims of misrepresentation or grossly neglectful management should be able to expect reimbursement for their losses, assuming the investors did their due diligence. Anything else would tend to undermine the entire system that fosters savings and investment.
If we had a populist national political leader outside the two branches of the Money Party, such a leader would much prefer to go for the gusto with ABT than promote a 'VAT' of which the last word is 'tax'! This is called a populist reform approach.
As for the philosophical side, the purpose of the ABT is to free our thinking from the neo-mercantilism model and restructure thinking about globalism on a new basis. We want to restructure globalism leaving out the part about destruction of the nation-state. This is called a reform process.
Other than the supposed "legality" of VATs in the quasi-legal WTO system, virtue is found in VATs because they are capable of "fine tuning" and "dynamic." As part of this theory on VATs, it is proposed that undesirable regressive impacts of VATs can be lessened by proper structuring. That's exactly what I think we need to avoid, and why I promote an Across-the-Board Tariff (ABT)!
The suggestion to fine-tune VATs so as to avoid "regressive" consequences lands us smack back in the middle of ever-competing agendas to fix social problems through trade policies. Of course, these 'social problems' are represented in political agendas and, as such, are subject to the political compromises that put profiteering politics into the middle of every business decision.
This kind of thinking is what results in a tangle of tax preferences that result in a system of tax loopholes. Just as we need a sane monetarist system of currency supply rather than a fix-this, fix-that Keynesian-like quasi-collectivist system, so also we need a stable protectionist policy -- not dynamic, not "fine tuned," but stable and predictable for the sake of long-term development of free enterprise.
This kind of thinking ('fine-tuned' and 'dynamic') is shared by Secretary of State Clinton when she packs corporate interests with her on diplomatic missions. Clinton has openly stated that she views foreign trade as part of U.S. global security policy. It all reduces to that trade policies should serve interests other than creating a stable de-politicized business environment. That is neo-mercantilism and, ultimately, it is anti-globalism, because it is policy in favor of globalism as global enslavement. That is the problem. That is the loophole that allows political corruption to determine such matters as targeted tariffs or 'fine-tuned' VATs.
By the Constitution, "trade agreements" should never be confused with national security policy. That's why I promote specifically 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF to replace the existing U.S. system of preferences and targeted tariffs or subsidies (or VATs).
Highfalutin pretensions (e.g., let's avoid regressive consequences for the sake of the poor) have always been promoted as rationalizations for corporatism. On the road paved with good intentions, we have created the U.S. system of preferences of all kinds for the purpose of this, that or the other social agenda -- and the end result is the destruction of free enterprise on which civil liberty is based.
And, then again, who knows? We can try. The truth is its own defense.
As for the prospect that tariffs would be ruled illegal by the WTO ... GOOD ! ! !
The WTO is a paper tiger! I consider it a positive aspect of an across-the-board tariff that it would call the WTO bluff.
Since the VAT bills in Congress are all 'fine-tuned' around China, they are prima facie in violation of WTO principles! By comparison, the Across-the-Board Tariff (ABT) is simply a reasonable charge for access to the U.S. infrastructure that we do, after all, support with our tax dollar. Therefore, ABT may be defended as legal in WTO quasi-judicial fora. (The ABT is never anti-China or in any way discriminatory or preferential by industry or nation of origin.)
Concerns about WTO legalities always leave me under-impressed. International trade did not originate with GATT and it would not end with the demise of the WTO. Who's afraid of the big bad WTO wuff, wuff, wuff? "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll BLOW your house down!"
But okay. If you want to promote VATs, fine. That would be much preferable to what we have now.
However, I think you may want to reconsider the tariff approach -- specifically, the Across-the-Board Tariff (ABT) approach.
If B of A is on the hook for 2.5 Billion. I would rather it be required to be spent on repairing the houses that have been neglected, rather than reimbursing investors who lost money on the distressed securities. We need jobs and safe affordible houses for sale or rent. Fixing up these homes and maintaining them could offer both.
Congress could pass an across the board tariff against China for currency manipulation but it's clear Geithner, Obama refuse to support it.
But overall, tariffs would be ruled illegal by the WTO. A VAT, on the other hand, is legal by the WTO and can more finely tuned as well as be dynamic and that is legal as well.
A VAT is regressive, since it's a value added tax on imports, but it can be structured to make it less regressive and could really help with the trade imbalance.
Tariffs are like an axe and VATs are like a scalpel, although on China's case, there are bills in Congress that almost every member has co-signed.
So, Reps/Senators supposedly support the bills because they have co-signed them yet they are never brought to the floor for a vote.
1. Its interesting that Henry Ford built the Model A at a price point that his workers could afford. It was the baseline that created the 20th Century American industrial economy and, as we all know, that economy has mostly disappeared.
2. America's elites have created the "globalization" myth as part of their idealized One World economy. In was foreign aid by other means.
3. I suspect that the main reason that the US has not pushed China on its currency manipulation is that it serves America's interests. Americans would likely rise up in open rebellion were China's goods offered to Americans at their actual price.
" ... we really need to see that manufacturing bubble [in the BLS bubble graph] grow and grow, it's about 11% of the total economy which is not good for a host of reasons." -- Robert Oak
We need to open up our congress critturs to the fact that the fundamentals of current U.S. trade policy are delusional and dysfunctional. Why in the world are congressional Republicans, including the new tea-partiers, afraid even to use the word 'tariff'? Tea Party could join with some progressive Democrats on this issue and really make a difference. After all, for at least its first hundred years, the Republican Party was the pro-tariff party!
Demand 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF in your communications with members of Congress! The 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF will give U.S. industry room to breathe and to grow.
Why "across the board"? Demand 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF to replace all the preference systems. Little targeted tariffs here and there court trade wars and reflect official policy of political corruption that typifies neo-mercantilism. Targeted tariffs are inefficient -- like targeted tax breaks (more correctly termed 'loopholes').
To turn the U.S. around, we need to reject, unambiguously, the neo-mercantilism model that the U.S. has disastrously embraced.
Tariff promotes domestic manufacturing ... and even increases revenue to balance the budget!
LONDON (Associated Press) - A group of internet hackers claims to have tampered with the website of Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper.
Visitors to The Sun's website late Monday were redirected to a page featuring a story saying Murdoch's dead body had been found in his garden.
Lulz Security took responsibility via Twitter, calling it a successful part of "Murdoch Meltdown Monday."
Lulz Security has previously claimed hacks on major entertainment companies, FBI partner organizations and the CIA.
.
============
In the fake death notice, the reference Palladium being found in Murdoch's kitchen. That may be a veiled and ironic reference to the poisonous role of Rebekah Brooks. Paladium derived from Pallas Athena, Brooks being the font of stupidity rather than wisdom. Highly literate hackers. The world is improving. Of couse, it could also be a reference to palladium's distribution into the environment through car exhaust.
Seriously. He just spews whatever special interest he's interested in. Completely inane when it comes to anything immigration related, true economic fiction as well. Thinking Obama has some grand chess master strategy is a joke.
Looks almost like a psychosis occurring right on cable to claim that.
Obama is bought and paid for by special interests and that's the real problem. Starting out with special interest agenda items as a negotiation position with a whole gang that also is bought and paid for by special interests with one caveat, they want to see him as a 1 term President...
well, of course the ones who get screwed every single time are the U.S. citizens, American middle class.
the NAR with their never ending excuses for why a gigantic housing bubble built on the stilts of a fictional derivatives gambling casino, using suckered Americans thinking their appraisals would just keep increasing for infinity.., gee wiz, why did that mess collapse [sic].... drives me crazy.
Hello, when one takes away a major gambling chip of Wall Street, does one really expect that sector to take off when the middle class is being shuttered off to poverty land?
Anyway, Calculated Risk really pays attention and analyzes all of the data. On housing, I am not doing too much original number crunching.
What's especially maddening is how some of the news pundits that supposedly should know better (eg Lawrence O Donnell on MSNBC) either mislead themselves or their viewers by claiming Obama is winning eg this debt ceiling battle;eg, that Obama is playing "3 level chess" while the Repubs are playing checkers.
It's obvious that Obama is playing instead to the same interests of the wealthy as the repubs (as are similar apparent sellouts like Sen Durbin D-IL). The lure of big money for the campaign and post-office bonanza can be apparently irresistible
What's especially maddening is how some of the news pundits that supposedly should know better (eg Lawrence O Donnell on MSNBC) either mislead themselves or their viewers by claiming Obama is winning eg this debt ceiling battle;eg, that Obama is playing "3 level chess" while the Repubs are playing checkers.
It's obvious that Obama is playing instead to the same interests of the wealthy as the repubs (as are similar apparent sellouts like Sen Durbin D-IL). The lure of big money for the campaign and post-office bonanza can be apparently irresistible
While we're focused in on this, we have everything from Google to basic cable monitoring our every move, all to "sell us" via "profiling" and "targeted advertising".
Here in New Mexico we have a scandal a day, as judges, police and other 'titans' are brought down in unheard of stings and scandals.
America is yearning for a good hanging judge. And any titan will do for the gallows.
It's a tidal change, subtle but unstoppable, that will probably wash away the empires of the mandarin class.
In my 63 years, I've never witnessed this level of hostility toward the privileged - even by old school Republicans, held hostage to the GOP by cultural conservatism.
They may hate Mexicans and socialists... but they hate Wall St more.
but many do original research. I can tell you for me to dig out even one economic metric or read one piece of legislation can be hours and hours. Ain't easy.
I agree with all that you said: great story, well researched and a real contribution to a current issue that affects millions of people. This is precisely the kind of thing that a "professional press" is needed to do. The people who don't support their local media and claim the Internet can do it all are just nuts. What army of unpaid bloggers could or would do a story like this?
Question is, will it make a difference?
I sure hope so but frankly I have my doubts.
1. NECESSITY OF SOME DEGREE OF EGALITARIAN REFORM. Yes, ol' Henry had that figured out! Whatever production infrastructure we have, it's essential to think in terms of some egalitarian reforms in order to achieve a recovery from the recession/depression. Video posted by Robert Oak featuring Fed board member Sara Bloom Raskin (Obama appointee, 2009) explains that there will be no recovery without reversing the shifting of income from bottom to top that characterizes the current U.S. and global economies. Pseudo-libertarians object to all 're-distribution' of wealth, but the founder of true libertarian economics, Henry C. Simons, includes re-distribution of wealth as part of a sane program to avoid concentrations of power. Concentrations of power generally result in anti-democratic decay of civil liberty. (The point of libertarian economics is to support economic policies that promote civil liberty.)
2. "FOREIGN AID BY OTHER MEANS." Yes, I agree, that would be one of the myths promoted by the elites that have promoted corporate globalization since World War II. Actually, the truth about globalization of the WTO type is seen in the Naomi Klein video (posted by Robert Oak) on shock doctrine. Also, cf. John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Foreign aid, especially when disguised as 'free trade' policy, has mostly been a scam -- benefiting ruling elites rather than the peoples of third-world countries. Current Secretary of State Clinton typifies the delusional system when she speaks of foreign trade as part of U.S. global security policy. That is neo-mercantilism. That is the problem. That is the loophole that allows political corruption to determine such matters as targeted tariffs. By the Constitution, "trade agreements" should never to confused with national security policy. That's why I promote specifically 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF to replace the existing U.S. system of preferences and targeted tariffs or subsidies. Highfalutin pretensions have always been promoted as rationalizations for the U.S. system of preferences of all kinds for the purpose of this, that or the other social agenda -- and the end result is the destruction of free enterprise.
I'll start with PaulaNYC's # 3 and work back to #1 and # 2. It's on #3 that PaulaNYC's statement is faulty.
"3. I suspect that the main reason that the US has not pushed China on its currency manipulation is that it serves America's interests. Americans would likely rise up in open rebellion were China's goods offered to Americans at their actual price." -- PaulaNYC
It's a ridiculous parody of the U.S. public to say that "Americans would likely rise up in open rebellion were China's goods offered to Americans at their actual price." I guess the thought here is that Americans are buying at a discount because of China's pegging their yuan to the US dollar, and this perceived discount is of greater importance to the American people than unemployment, failed medical insurance system, homelessness, institutionalized poverty, political corruption, perpetual war, the prospect of runaway inflation, and, national bankruptcy (defaults on national, state, city, corporate and personal debt). The truth is that we are subsidizing Walmart and Walmart's suppliers by opening up our borders without charging a tariff or VAT, thus creating a situation where our domestic producers subsidize their foreign competitors.
Americans are getting absolutely nothing for free! Rather, American and Chinese financial elites are increasing their wealth at the expense of working Americans, and China is using this treasonable policy to undermine the U.S. in order to accomplish their political (imperialist) goals. The idea that "the US has not pushed China on its currency manipulation" is misleading! It misleads by way of a hidden premise that the U.S. has been or should be attempting to build an economic policy based on begging or cajoling our Chinese masters to take pity on our plight and peg the yuan upward. The suggestion that the U.S. policy to go begging to China "serves America's interests" is absurd and disrespectful of our country.
The whole agenda of limiting discussion to somehow pressuring China to peg the yuan higher is a phony issue, a straw-man argument. The truth is that we can and should institute a 15% Across-The-Board tariff. China has a right to peg its currency if they want to. We have a right to institute a tariff -- not anti-China, not anti-Mexico, but pro-America! To petition China is absurd when the means of correcting our problems are at hand. We have created our problems, and we can correct them by taking appropriate action without reference to China.
Characterization of the U.S. public as in an addict-like dependency relation to China goes along with the characterization of Americans as unable to compete for jobs because of our supposed lack of skills or because of our supposed unwillingness to work!
Lynda Hoving:
"If B of A is on the hook for 2.5 Billion. I would rather it be required to be spent on repairing the houses that have been neglected, rather than reimbursing investors who lost money on the distressed securities. We need jobs and safe affordible houses for sale or rent. Fixing up these homes and maintaining them could offer both."
If the $2.5 Billion is seen as some kind of penalty imposed on B of A, then it could be spent on maintenance of the properties. However, if it's more like a money judgment against B of A, then the money must go to the plaintiffs.
Reimbursement of investors who have been victims of misrepresentation or grossly neglectful management should be able to expect reimbursement for their losses, assuming the investors did their due diligence. Anything else would tend to undermine the entire system that fosters savings and investment.
If we had a populist national political leader outside the two branches of the Money Party, such a leader would much prefer to go for the gusto with ABT than promote a 'VAT' of which the last word is 'tax'! This is called a populist reform approach.
As for the philosophical side, the purpose of the ABT is to free our thinking from the neo-mercantilism model and restructure thinking about globalism on a new basis. We want to restructure globalism leaving out the part about destruction of the nation-state. This is called a reform process.
Other than the supposed "legality" of VATs in the quasi-legal WTO system, virtue is found in VATs because they are capable of "fine tuning" and "dynamic." As part of this theory on VATs, it is proposed that undesirable regressive impacts of VATs can be lessened by proper structuring. That's exactly what I think we need to avoid, and why I promote an Across-the-Board Tariff (ABT)!
The suggestion to fine-tune VATs so as to avoid "regressive" consequences lands us smack back in the middle of ever-competing agendas to fix social problems through trade policies. Of course, these 'social problems' are represented in political agendas and, as such, are subject to the political compromises that put profiteering politics into the middle of every business decision.
This kind of thinking is what results in a tangle of tax preferences that result in a system of tax loopholes. Just as we need a sane monetarist system of currency supply rather than a fix-this, fix-that Keynesian-like quasi-collectivist system, so also we need a stable protectionist policy -- not dynamic, not "fine tuned," but stable and predictable for the sake of long-term development of free enterprise.
This kind of thinking ('fine-tuned' and 'dynamic') is shared by Secretary of State Clinton when she packs corporate interests with her on diplomatic missions. Clinton has openly stated that she views foreign trade as part of U.S. global security policy. It all reduces to that trade policies should serve interests other than creating a stable de-politicized business environment. That is neo-mercantilism and, ultimately, it is anti-globalism, because it is policy in favor of globalism as global enslavement. That is the problem. That is the loophole that allows political corruption to determine such matters as targeted tariffs or 'fine-tuned' VATs.
By the Constitution, "trade agreements" should never be confused with national security policy. That's why I promote specifically 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF to replace the existing U.S. system of preferences and targeted tariffs or subsidies (or VATs).
Highfalutin pretensions (e.g., let's avoid regressive consequences for the sake of the poor) have always been promoted as rationalizations for corporatism. On the road paved with good intentions, we have created the U.S. system of preferences of all kinds for the purpose of this, that or the other social agenda -- and the end result is the destruction of free enterprise on which civil liberty is based.
And, then again, who knows? We can try. The truth is its own defense.
As for the prospect that tariffs would be ruled illegal by the WTO ... GOOD ! ! !
The WTO is a paper tiger! I consider it a positive aspect of an across-the-board tariff that it would call the WTO bluff.
Since the VAT bills in Congress are all 'fine-tuned' around China, they are prima facie in violation of WTO principles! By comparison, the Across-the-Board Tariff (ABT) is simply a reasonable charge for access to the U.S. infrastructure that we do, after all, support with our tax dollar. Therefore, ABT may be defended as legal in WTO quasi-judicial fora. (The ABT is never anti-China or in any way discriminatory or preferential by industry or nation of origin.)
Concerns about WTO legalities always leave me under-impressed. International trade did not originate with GATT and it would not end with the demise of the WTO. Who's afraid of the big bad WTO wuff, wuff, wuff? "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll BLOW your house down!"
But okay. If you want to promote VATs, fine. That would be much preferable to what we have now.
However, I think you may want to reconsider the tariff approach -- specifically, the Across-the-Board Tariff (ABT) approach.
If B of A is on the hook for 2.5 Billion. I would rather it be required to be spent on repairing the houses that have been neglected, rather than reimbursing investors who lost money on the distressed securities. We need jobs and safe affordible houses for sale or rent. Fixing up these homes and maintaining them could offer both.
Congress could pass an across the board tariff against China for currency manipulation but it's clear Geithner, Obama refuse to support it.
But overall, tariffs would be ruled illegal by the WTO. A VAT, on the other hand, is legal by the WTO and can more finely tuned as well as be dynamic and that is legal as well.
A VAT is regressive, since it's a value added tax on imports, but it can be structured to make it less regressive and could really help with the trade imbalance.
Tariffs are like an axe and VATs are like a scalpel, although on China's case, there are bills in Congress that almost every member has co-signed.
So, Reps/Senators supposedly support the bills because they have co-signed them yet they are never brought to the floor for a vote.
I appreciate that.
Yours is one of the best overviews of JOLTS available.
1. Its interesting that Henry Ford built the Model A at a price point that his workers could afford. It was the baseline that created the 20th Century American industrial economy and, as we all know, that economy has mostly disappeared.
2. America's elites have created the "globalization" myth as part of their idealized One World economy. In was foreign aid by other means.
3. I suspect that the main reason that the US has not pushed China on its currency manipulation is that it serves America's interests. Americans would likely rise up in open rebellion were China's goods offered to Americans at their actual price.
" ... we really need to see that manufacturing bubble [in the BLS bubble graph] grow and grow, it's about 11% of the total economy which is not good for a host of reasons." -- Robert Oak
We need to open up our congress critturs to the fact that the fundamentals of current U.S. trade policy are delusional and dysfunctional. Why in the world are congressional Republicans, including the new tea-partiers, afraid even to use the word 'tariff'? Tea Party could join with some progressive Democrats on this issue and really make a difference. After all, for at least its first hundred years, the Republican Party was the pro-tariff party!
Demand 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF in your communications with members of Congress! The 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF will give U.S. industry room to breathe and to grow.
Why "across the board"? Demand 15% ACROSS-THE-BOARD TARIFF to replace all the preference systems. Little targeted tariffs here and there court trade wars and reflect official policy of political corruption that typifies neo-mercantilism. Targeted tariffs are inefficient -- like targeted tax breaks (more correctly termed 'loopholes').
To turn the U.S. around, we need to reject, unambiguously, the neo-mercantilism model that the U.S. has disastrously embraced.
Tariff promotes domestic manufacturing ... and even increases revenue to balance the budget!
LONDON (Associated Press) - A group of internet hackers claims to have tampered with the website of Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper.
Visitors to The Sun's website late Monday were redirected to a page featuring a story saying Murdoch's dead body had been found in his garden.
Lulz Security took responsibility via Twitter, calling it a successful part of "Murdoch Meltdown Monday."
Lulz Security has previously claimed hacks on major entertainment companies, FBI partner organizations and the CIA.
.
============
In the fake death notice, the reference Palladium being found in Murdoch's kitchen. That may be a veiled and ironic reference to the poisonous role of Rebekah Brooks. Paladium derived from Pallas Athena, Brooks being the font of stupidity rather than wisdom. Highly literate hackers. The world is improving. Of couse, it could also be a reference to palladium's distribution into the environment through car exhaust.
In any case, nice work Lulz Security.
Pages