but unfortunately a lot of costs, in spite of the aggregate deflation are not moving and as New Deal Democrat has noted, oil and their pumping up on the price of oil is at it again.

We had so many posts on speculation, manipulation of oil/gas markets when it was at an all time high and then it crashed and hence all of the congressional hearings,discussion, analysis, investigations stopped.

Mainly because we had a new crisis with the financial implosion.

I think it's a good idea to revisit gas/oil again.

As terrible as it is, this is long overdue based on what I have been reading http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/30/gm-tailgating-chrysler-bankruptcy/ GM has been getting too big for their own good and promising too much to the unions. Hate to see it happen, but inevitable...

While this is beyond horrific news and it looks like commercial real estate is quickly imploding like someone put a neutron bomb in the middle of it, is a downgrade of CMBS and I'll assume these are some sort of CDO package like the MBS type of CDOs....is a downgrade equal to a write down?

I've got quotes on commercial real estate defaults from 1.67% up to 6% by the end of the year (which is a disaster).

So how much have we had to pay to keep this horror-show afloat since the taxpayer shaft began on this one last year, how many billions is it? I've never been one to have had very much sympathy for any of the major players here, company, UAW, investors, you name it. Every bit as much as Lehmann, they and all of the bailed-out banks should have been allowed to have gone under with the tide when it began to swell. The bulldickey proferred concerning the alleged essentially of these organizations to the economy was always quite that: Bulldickey. All we managed to achieve in the process of making these give-aways was to convert our economy into a replica of Schacht's National Socialism, a corporative state. But who's surprised at that? We launch unprovoked wars, tap phone lines and torture suspected "enemies" routinely, why not turn GM and Chrysler into something resembling an IG Farben or a Krupps?

Every time I think of the abuse to justice involved when the utilitarian morality of the political system is trotted-out to justify or to lend a certain patina to these outrages, my stomach turns. What effort has been made by these paramecia in the direction of the truly little guy, the unemployed, outsourced worker, the underwater homeowner? Absolutely none! Please spare me the neurotic self-preservation of a Barney Frank, the vacuous narsicism of a Nancy Pelosi or the disingenuous promise making of a liar like Barak Obama. The citizens of this nation shouldn't rest until each and every one of these reptiles is behind barbed wire in a concentration camp awaiting public trial.

and still be poor and in a bad situation where you aren't buying anything. Many folks felt positive when Barack Obama was elected, that still didn't change the dire financial situation many where in.

--------------------------------------------

www.venomopolis.com

"By creating a tax at the port, based on mileage, I would imagine that would be immediately challenged at the WTO based on unfair taxes against trading partners and seen as a subsidy."

I hope so, at which point we attack VAT rebates as a subsidy.

"I mean you can try it but another reason the VAT is being looked at is because since the WTO has already ruled in favor of the EU and yes, it is VAT taxes specifically, the U.S. could do the same thing and if the WTO ruled against the U.S. this time, they would have to invalidate the entire ruling for every other country at the same time."

Same with an ITYT- because if they call that a subsidy, then certainly a VAT rebate is.

"I think the key here is to get around the WTO....and then work backwards to make the tax actually progressive and not regressive or an actual additional tax burden."

A VAT can't be a VAT if it isn't regressive, because then it wouldn't be a value added tax.

-------------------------------------
Executive compensation is inversely proportional to morality and ethics.

Not only do I understand your energy money, of which I was poking fun of, I have repeatedly said this is in the land of economic fiction and not appropriate for this site. You are not going to change the international monetary system for energy as a solution, nor does it make a lot of sense from a monetary view point, which I have explained ad nausuem to you and so have others.

If you do another insult like that or personal attack you're out of here.

The WTO already ruled against the ETI in 2002.

Then, they ruled against FSC clause in the (joke title) American jobs act of 2004 too.

By creating a tax at the port, based on mileage, I would imagine that would be immediately challenged at the WTO based on unfair taxes against trading partners and seen as a subsidy.

I mean you can try it but another reason the VAT is being looked at is because since the WTO has already ruled in favor of the EU and yes, it is VAT taxes specifically, the U.S. could do the same thing and if the WTO ruled against the U.S. this time, they would have to invalidate the entire ruling for every other country at the same time.

I think the key here is to get around the WTO....and then work backwards to make the tax actually progressive and not regressive or an actual additional tax burden.

"So, you want to deny all U.S. manufacturers the ability to export."

Every export is somebody else's import problem.

"Exports mean out of the country."

Yes. So if we stop exporting *and* importing, we suddenly free up a market of 300 million people to sell to.

"So, what do you think will happen to the United States economy and businesses if they are 100% denied to export their goods and services?"

They'll have to turn to local manufacturing for local retail. Businesses that are small enough to succeed, rather than too big to succeed.

"China is an import."

Yep. And I'd like to see them cut off entirely as well.

"That is the reason for the VAT. The WTO has ruled that what the EU, China, India do with their rebates to their manufacturers on VAT is legal. So, one cannot deny the Chinese their VAT practices."

One can deny to do business with them at all- tax their imports $12000/container, and stop exporting to them, completely. And if the WTO doesn't like it- then raise tariffs against countries that do business with the WTO.

"I'm not endorsing the WTO, I'm describing why various economists would be looking at a VAT as a method to level the trade deficit and how the VAT is simply not just a "consumption" tax for these reasons."

What I don't understand is why those economists aren't looking at the progressive distributionist option.

-------------------------------------
Executive compensation is inversely proportional to morality and ethics.