Time is running out:
It appears the cool aid drinkers have refilled there glass. For us taxpayers this is going to be a bitter time since we seen it before they wanted to and will have to linger in this condition until fair trade is a matter
of fact. Meanwhile Hedge Funds are leaving to terms which will be presenting themselves in the press.
Summers made five points that reveal a great deal about his personal thinking - and the structure
of thought that lies behind most
of what the Administration is doing vis-a-vis the crisis. Some
of this we knew or guessed at before, but it was still the clearest articulation I have seen.
All crises must end. The “self-equilibrating” nature
of the economy will ultimately prevail, although that may take massive one-off government actions. Such a crisis happens only ”three or four times” per century,
so taking on huge amounts of government debt is fine; implicitly, we will grow out of that debt burden.
http://baselinescenario.com/2009/04/27/ ... new-model/
Meanwhile:
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/s ... hoots.html
The U.S. crisis reflects regulatory problems in the U.S. and innovative financial products that ignored basic economic rules,'' former Chinese central bank deputy governor Wu Xiaoling told a financial conference in Beijing recently." "The U.S. crisis today would be China's tomorrow if financial products such as securitization are introduced without proper risk-control measures.'' Chinas' cautious attitude, government banks, and regulatory framework have helped China to restrict its losses and write-downs from the credit-market crisis to less than 1 percent
of the massive global total. The feasibility
of bank nationalizations, closer regulation, and banning certain types
of transactions, such as derivatives, which carry excessive risk are all lessons which can be learned from China. Banks, financial companies, and the wealthy should not be allowed to unload their bad debts onto ordinary workers and taxpayers. It's sheer madness to allow them to transfer a trillion dollars from workers and taxpayers to themselves.
The US has become increasingly frustrated by what it says is the gutting
of its proposals to cut farm tariffs. Rich WTO members such as the EU, Japan and Switzerland, and poorer countries such as India, Indonesia and the Philippines, have sought to protect a wide range
of agricultural products from tariff cuts. Susan Schwab, US trade representative, said such exemptions would defeat the object
of the talks, to create trade flows. “
As we went through the layers of loopholes . . . we discovered that a couple of our trading partners were more interested in loopholes than market access,” she said. Pascal Lamy, WTO director-general, said the failure would “send out a strong negative signal for the future
of the world economy amidst the danger
of a resurgence
of protectionism.
They are moving forward... we are eating our capital base to systemic malinvestments which will "are" unfolding.
There seed money is for revenue based infrasture trades
of contract. Our basis is pointless since time is a function
of reality
and permagrouth has led us where. The lack
of contract and transparency to capital decisions to date have told the taxpayer what to date?
The President remains adamant that South Korea should do more to admit American cars. But the momentum has clearly shifted. After North Korea carried out a missile test early in April, Max Baucus, the senior Democratic senator on trade matters, and Charles Grassley, his Republican counterpart, urged Mr Obama to move the South Korean FTA forward to help a “steadfast ally”. Doug Irwin, a trade economist at Dartmouth College, notes that the White House website’s agenda lists 24 items from civil rights to urban policy, but not trade. “They don’t have a trade policy,” says Mr Irwin. “They want the issue to go away.” And bigger tests are coming. Charles Rangel, the top Democrat on trade issues in the House
of Representatives, has introduced a bill that would toughen enforcement
of existing trade laws in ways that could run foul
of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rulings. And the United Steelworkers’ union has asked for duties to be imposed on Chinese tire imports under a little-used law known as Section 421. This does not require proof that imports break trade laws, only that they hurt someone, and it gives the administration discretion whether or not to impose duties. It will be Mr Obama’s “most important litmus test”, says John Veroneau, a Bush trade official. Mr Bush rejected all four Section 421 petitions that reached him. In 2007, at the American Economics Association conference, economist Ramya M. Vijaya gave a paper which stated that a sample
of out-
of-work manufacturing laborers who enrolled in job retraining through the program ended up, on average, in positions with a lower wage than those who skipped the retraining.
Lawrence Summers, who served as President Clinton's treasury secretary during the headiest days of free-trade enthusiasm, is now having some very public second thoughts. Writing in the Financial Times, he noted that "[e]ven as globalisation increases inequality and insecurity, it is constantly and often legitimately invoked as an argument against the viability of progressive taxation, support for labour unions, strong regulation and substantial production of public goods that mitigate its adverse impacts." But Summers argued that such an attitude was a political non-starter, particularly as globalization "encourages the development of stateless elites whose allegiance is to global economic success and their own prosperity rather than the interests of the nation where they are headquartered." In a subsequent column, he concluded that the "domestic component of a strategy to promote healthy globalisation must rely on strengthening efforts to reduce inequality and insecurity. The international component must focus on the interests of working people in all countries, in addition to the current emphasis on the priorities of global corporations." Mark Thoma, an economist at the University
of Oregon who runs the popular blog Economist's View. "There's a growing perception that the political will to keep markets open or open them further depends on solving some
of these distributional issues, health care, all
of these things. I don't think there's complete buy-in on the welfare state, but what's new is the idea that opening trade further is going to require us to deal with the problem
of winners and losers, rather than just acknowledge it. It won't just solve itself, and it won't happen quickly and easily."
July 8th 2008 I wrote my Senator and it was clearly conveyed back to me.
Thank you . . for contacting me about the impact
of free trade agreements on our country. I share your deep concerns about our current trade policies and am leading the fight to change course. Last year, I voted against the Peru Free Trade Agreement, and I intend to lead the opposition to trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea that are being pushed by the Bush Administration. We live in a global economy that continues to grow and expand. Over the last century, we have consistently proven that Michigan businesses and workers can successfully compete with anyone in the world when the playing field is level. Unfortunately, persistent unfair trade practices by other countries are costing us jobs every day. Lack
of trade enforcement has made it harder than ever for Michigan companies and workers to compete. We have 230 trade agreements on the books to enforce, but the United States still has the smallest trade enforcement agency
of any industrialized nation. I have consistently pushed the Bush Administration to bring trade enforcement actions against countries who break the law, and I was pleased with the World Trade Organization's recent finding that China's policy
of charging a higher tax on American-made auto parts violates WTO rules. However, while our workers and businesses waited for this ruling, six
of our nation's largest auto suppliers declared bankruptcy, we lost 3.4 million manufacturing jobs, and our trade deficit with China grew to a record $1.1 trillion dollars - all while our state's unemployment rate remains the highest in the nation.
Of course, China is not the only country refusing to play by the rules. South Korea is blocking American products from entering its economy by doing everything from instituting excessively rigorous testing on American appliances to placing higher insurance premiums on American cars, many
of which are made here in Michigan. The results have been telling. For example, last year U.S. automakers sold only 9,723 vehicles in Korea, but Korean automakers sold nearly 773,000 vehicles in the United States. That's why I have joined with Senator Lindsey Graham
of South Carolina to lead the fight to establish an office
of Trade Enforcement to investigate other countries' illegal trade practices and take enforcement action on behalf
of American businesses.
Additionally, countries like Japan and China are manipulating their currencies to make their products artificially cheaper. For example, this practice provides a $2,100 to $6,300 per car subsidy to Japanese automakers. That's why I have joined with Senator Bunning
of Kentucky to author legislation to provide U.S. manufacturers with the legal means to fight back against what amounts to an illegal trade subsidy. Recently, I brought together Michigan manufacturers from across our state and the nation's top trade enforcement official, Christopher Padilla, who serves as Undersecretary
of Commerce for International Trade. This meeting provided an open venue to discuss our current trade enforcement system and the unfair trade practices that are hurting companies and workers across the nation. We discussed issues ranging from the stealing
of patents to illegal subsidies. The outcome
of the meeting was clear. No one is looking for a free ride. Our businesses are simply looking for a level playing field, so we can keep jobs in America. You can count on me to continue fighting for a comprehensive trade policy in this country that enforces our trade laws, provides real assistance to workers and communities who are hurt by trade, improves product safety, and most importantly, puts Michigan workers and business first. Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues
of concern to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator