As you may recall, a few months back we launched the IT Innovation site, sponsored by Sun and Intel, which has been a great program. Now we’re launching another site, this time for small business owners and entrepreneurs, called The Entrepreneur’s Corner, brought to you in partnership with AcceptPay from American Express. Like the IT Innovation site, the Entrepreneur’s Corner will have a mix of content cross-posted from Techdirt, as well as unique individual stories, such as this one, on what the health care reform bill means for small businesses today. Also, as with anything we post on our sites, the content is editorially independent of any advertisers or sponsors.
Ron Paul slammed Obama’s unconstitutional healthcare package on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch. The Congressman announced that he will introduce legislation to stop the government from forcing people to buy health insurance.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Hello and welcome to Freedom Watch, your daily dose of raw liberty online at FoxNews.com/FreedomWatch. I’m Judge Andrew Napolitano here, defending freedom, defending your natural rights, and defending your right to have a government that’s stays within the confines of the Constitution.
National healthcare is now the law of the land, and it raises a fundamental question: can the federal government compel any person to have health insurance? Congress will claim that the answer is yes, because Congress may regulate interstate commerce, persuant to power granted to it in the Constitution. But the original grant of this power meant that Congress should keep commerce regular. That is, it should ensure that the staes don’t interfere with commerce by imposing tariffs on the movement of out-of-state goods into the states.
But, over the years, Congress has pushed the envelope and regulated more than just commerce. It has regulated the salaries and working conditions, and the costs of the goods of those who manufacture what moves in interstate commerce. The courts, as well, over the years, have gone along with this.
But the Congress has never compelled individuals to engage in interstate commerce by forcing them to purchase something. My view is that this is clearly unconstitutional, as well beyond the power given to the congress in the Constitution.
Joining me now is one of America’s great defenders of freedom and liberty today, and the author of the bestseller, “End the Fed”, Congressman Ron Paul joins us from Capitol Hill. Congressman, welcome back to Freedom Watch.
Ron Paul: Thank you, Judge.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Can anybody take seriously before all the drama over last weekend, whether or not Congress even has the power to do most of what is in that 2,700-page bill that the house passed by 5 votes?
Ron Paul: No, they don’t take it seriously. Matter of fact, they do believe that they are obeying the Constitution because you hear them on the TV all the time, that the interstate commerce clause gives them the right to do it. And they also say the general welfare clause justifies everything that they’ve done. So no, they don’t lose any sleep over this, and the point that you make about forcing them to buy something is obviously very unconstitutional.
There will be a lot of legislation introduced dealing with this. And hopefully it will get into the courts and clean it up. But in the meantime I am going to introduce one piece of legislation which will be very narrow. And it will be directed towards this mandate of forcing you to buy something. I think I can do that in less than one page, and I think that’s the kind of bill that people understand. So I will be introducing legislation to repeal that provision.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: If your legislation is not passed and if this legislation that the president signed yesterday stays as the law of the land, what do you think is the long term financial impact on this country which is already broke, which is already trillions in debt?
Ron Paul: Well, it just means a lot more bankruptcy, it means healthcare is going to be a lot worse. You know, take the whole idea that you can force somebody to give insurance to somebody, even until they’re 26. Why isn’t that an agreement between the customer and the insurance company? So this will be very costly, and where are they going to get the money? They’re going to either have to get a bonus from the government, or the insurance companies go bankrupt. So these kinds of mandates are all over the place. And, of course, the mandate that is really atrocious is the collection of about $400 billion worth of new taxes. That, of course, is why they are planning to hire 16,500 more IRS agents.
So it is a bad bill all the way around, and it will hasten the day of the bankruptcy of this country, and the American people will have to face that. So it would be a terrible way to bring this to a head. But indeed it will. It will put us in such financial shape, that this country will have to decide, “Do we want to live in a free country, or we want to live under totalitarianism”. And the point that you made about mandating and forcing people to buy something that they don’t want and maybe don’t even need, I think is a major step in the wrong direction.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Do you think that when it actually comes to the bankruptcy of the federal government – well, it’s already bankrupt – an acknowledged bankruptcy of the federal government, before the people who run the Congress today would recognize the economic lunacy of what the president signed into law yesterday. Stated differently, how bad would things have to get before even the Democrats realize that this thing has gone too far?
Ron Paul: Well, countries go bankrupt differently than individuals or companies. They get bankrupt because the banks won’t loan them any more money and they have to pay off the debt. Individuals have to take an extra job and cut spending. Governments and countries never do that. What they do is they print money. And then when the dollar quits functioning, when you see the bond market crack – and there are some slight cracks in the bond market right now – interest rates are creeping up. Someday the bond market, the bond bubble will crash. That means interest rates will go up, price inflation will come warring back. We have the monetary inflation already.
So it will be the economic laws that will declare this. The Congress won’t all of a sudden say, “Hey look, we have to do something”. Because when Congress has a choice there is no serious indication here in this government, and unfortunately on both sides of the aisle, when push comes to shove, they’re not willing to really, really cut anything. Because if you talk about domestic welfare spending and foreign spending, you know, there’s support for both of these types of expenditures. So the people here in the Congress aren’t quite ready. But hopefully the signs that we’re seeing that the people are waking up, maybe we’ll get some help here to do the right thing.
Ron Paul: Do you think, Congressman Paul, that there are many people in the Congress who crafted this legislation, with the burdens that it imposes on insurance carries: like you can’t say no to anybody, no matter what they’re pre-existing condition is. You can’t say no even if they come to you after the onset of the pre-existing condition. You can’t raise premiums to adjust for the pre-existing condition. Do you think that things like that in the bill were written in because there are people who voted for this who really want insurance companies to go out of business, because they want us to have either the Canadian or, God forbid, the British model, where there are no private contracts between individuals and insurance companies, and the government is the sole payer, either as the employer of the healthcare entities, or as the persons, or as the sole third party payer. Do you think that’s what they want?
Ron Paul: Well, I think so. I think there is a bunch of them that like that. I think that may see this as chaos coming, and this will give them a chance next go around to have a one-party payer, which is more total control of the government. So they knew they couldn’t pass that right now, so they did back off. And this is, once again, what I call tokenism; it’s a major token this time. But we’ve been doing this for a long time. I mean we’ve had in the 1940s the beginning of the government involvement in the Hill-Burton episode. And, you know, through the 1950s and 1960s, it’s every decade we have more and more. And, of course, even with the last administration we had prescription drug programs.
But so far they haven’t been able to totally overwhelm the corporations. Corporations have a lot to say about what’s happening: whether it’s a management company, insurance company, the drug companies. They have a lot to say about and their lobbies are strong. So even though there is more mischief and more mandates and more controls, those individuals here in the Congress would like to see a single national healthcare system, and that’s what they’re working on. But let’s hope we wake up before that happens.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Alright. If this legislation accomplishes what the president and his folks say it will, then the 30 or 35 million Americans that don’t have health insurance, soon will. Where will the healthcare providers come from for those folks? And if you could think about this question as well: if you were back at Duke Medical School, would you have the same incentive to become a physician today that you did when you studied medicine?
Ron Paul: Well, I think I’d still have some of the same incentives, because hopefully people will realize that there are some of us who did go into medicine for the right reason. But even with the incrementalism of the 1960s when I first started medicine, government wasn’t that much involved. But I just refused to get engaged in that, because I think what is most important is the doctor-patient relationship. But they claim there will be a lot of doctors drop out, and nobody knows how many will. Because, you know, they have to also think of, “Well, how am I going to make a living?”
They might have training and they have all this expenses to say this is disgusting and drop out. It’s a hard decision. But I would think the better people may well not go into medicine. I think the quality of the physician will certainly go down and that the quality of medicine is obviously going to go down. And we will have more cost containments, more regulations, more rules. We will have rationing of care which happens under all these systems. So, I can’t understand how anybody could be optimistic about the bill that has just been passed.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: I couldn’t agree with you more. Congressman Ron Paul, thanks for joining us on Freedom Watch.
MILLIONS of householders who thought they had been given free eco-friendly lightbulbs have ended up paying £45 for them through a stealth green tax.
Energy suppliers handed out 182 million bulbs as part of a Government carbon reduction scheme to reduce emissions from homes.
But millions of packs of bulbs which landed on doormats added £45 a year to the average home’s energy bill because suppliers passed their cost back to customers, says consumer group Which?
Jenny Driscoll, spokeswoman for Which?, said: “Sending out truckloads of energy-saving light bulbs that might never be used is a box-ticking approach to the very real need to cut carbon emissions. Marketing these as ‘free’ just adds insult to injury. On average, £45 a year is added to household energy bills for carbon cutting measures.”
The Government’s carbon emissions reduction target, known as CERT, orders the six big energy suppliers to help households use less gas and electricity by giving away free insulation, draught proofing and energy-saving lightbulbs.
Click source to read FULL report by Louise Barnett
Zero Motorcycle, known as the global leader in the electric-motorcycle industry, today announced its new upcoming “Discover the Experience Tour” incentive that will be available to California residents.
Those living in California will be able to purchase the company’s Zero DS dual sport motorcycle and the Zero S at a prices of $7,945 after a $1,500 California Clean Vehicle Program rebate and ten percent federal tax credit.
“We could not be more thrilled to be the first electric motorcycle company approved for this rebate in the state of California,” said Gene Banman, CEO of Zero Motorcycles. “This new electric motorcycle rebate program is a result of hard work and dedication from the California Air Resources Board. It benefits everyone in the State of California from motorcycle enthusiasts to future generations who will breathe cleaner air.”
Those living in California will receive $1,500 off their purchase of a 2010 Zero S or Zero DS while funding for the program lasts, in addition to the ten percent federal tax credit
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was on hand at Zero Motorcycles’ press event this morning and said: “Zero electric motorcycles are very important technology and this is great for California because this is an ideal place to ride motorcycles… I love the financial side of these motorcycles because they cost less then one cent per mile to operate and you get a 10% federal tax credit plus a California rebate of $1,500. That equates to a 25 percent price reduction making these electric motorcycles affordable for anybody. It’s part of our overall strategy to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020.”
However, one of the authors of the report has admitted an American scientist has identified a flaw in its comparison with the impact of transport emissions.
Dr Frank Mitloehner, from the University of California at Davis (UCD), said meat and milk production generates less greenhouse gas than most environmentalists claim and that the emissions figures were calculated differently to the transport figures, resulting in an “apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue”.
Ford has a huge amount planned for its booth at next month’s Beijing Motor Show, including technology displays of the 2011 Ford Edge with MyFordTouch, interactive demos highlighting the next-generation Ford Focus, two orange robots hawking EcoBoost, and the chance to meet a crash test dummy that will sing Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm demonstrate safety technologies.
Alongside that Focus, which will sit on a global platform slated to underpin ten cars, the real treat will be the reveal of an “all-new concept car.” That’s all Ford had to say about it, and whatever it is, the first time anyone’s going to see it will be in Beijing. We’ve contacted Ford to see if they’ll give us anything more than a Dave Loggins line about it – “Please come to Beijing” – because we really have no idea what it could be, though we’re guessing something on the company’s C1 platform. The press release is after the jump, so you can scan it for clues and let the ruminations and rumor-mongering begin in comments…
At today’s House Financial Services Committee hearing Ron Paul asked Laurence Ball, Larry Meyer, Marvin Goodspeed and John Taylor about inflation, the government’s role in the value of money, and the Federal Reserve’s monetization of debt.
Location: House Financial Services Committee Hearing: Unwinding Emergency Federal Reserve Liquidity Programs and Implications for Economic Recovery Date: 03/25/2010
Transcript
Ron Paul: I have a comment for Professor Ball. First, because you made the statement that it would be a good thing to get a 4 percent inflation rate. That type of language happens to scare me a whole lot because I think it’s so detrimental and in many ways immoral because what you’re saying is, the purpose of the government is to depreciate the currency, depreciate the value of the money. And who suffers the most from that? Well, the poor people do because their prices go up. And the older people who are on retirements, they suffer a lot as well. The wealthy people seem to be able to handle inflationary problems a lot better than the average person and the characteristic of inflation is that you eventually wipe out the middle class. And quite frankly we do have a lot of inflation right now because there’s an inflationary factor in medical care. That’s the main complaint. Could you give me a brief answer on that if you like, because I want to ask Mr. Taylor a question as well.
Laurence Ball: Well there’s complicated issues. Briefly and very respectfully I disagree with what you’re saying. Research suggests that the effects of inflation are distributed fairly evenly across different income groups, whereas the effects of unemployment are very heavily concentrated on lower income people. And more generally I think just the costs to anybody of 3 or 4 percent inflation, there’s just been no documentation that they are important whereas it is pretty obvious how costly unemployment is.
Ron Paul: Thank you. For Professor Taylor, you have this exit rule. If the economy doesn’t get back to growth, matter of fact, stays where it is, or starts down again sharply like it might – some people suspect that the housing market is still in a major crisis – does your rule just not happen, does it not kick in? You don’t worry about reducing the balance sheet if the economy suddenly takes a downturn?
John Taylor: What I like about this proposal that I made is that it’s very similar to the decision about increasing or not increasing the interest rate. So if the economy languishes, the interest rate will not increase just as we discussed. If the economy picks up, then it will have increased the interest rate. My proposal on reserves, it’s very much like that. It’s tied into it. So that as the federal funds rate is increased if it is, reserves will come down at a similar pace. And the idea is by the time the Federal funds rate reaches 2 percent, then reserves will be roughly at the level where …
Ron Paul: Professor Myers suggested that there is not much left for the Fed to do. We can’t lower interest rates much lower so we get into trouble and the suggestion is we just need more fiscal stimulation and I think that’s correct. Well anyway, there’s a lot of desire for more fiscal stimulation, we’ve had a lot, and even today Chairman Bernanke said, “We are not in the business of monetizing debt.” Of course they just bought $300 billion worth of debt and if push comes to shove they do monetize debt. But wouldn’t it be safe to say that if a bank can get cheap money, 1 percent, 0 percent and take it because it’s available through the Federal Reserve system and they buy Treasury bills even though that might not go on the balance sheet, isn’t that indirectly monetizing debt?
John Taylor: I think the thing to look for in terms of monetizing the debt is how much the Fed actually purchases. Yeah, I think and it’s also it’s not an easy thing. Remember, we think about the monetization that occurred in the Great Inflation, it occurred gradually. In the late 1960s and 1970s, there was a lot of support for that inflation.
Ron Paul: Did Professor Meyer have a comment on that?
Larry Meyer: Well, I have a comment on a lot of things you said. Just with respect to fiscal policy, I don’t think that, I doubt anybody in Congress or there certainly would be a majority, who would want to have a significant fiscal stimulus today when there’s uncertainty about whether the economy needs it and when the budget is in such terrible shape going forward. With respect to a rule, yes, I use a rule to sort of follow what policy does. And the Fed is going to reduce reserves as it raises the funds rate, and that’s what Chairman Bernanke sort of emphasized. When as you raise the interest on reserves you could have manage the reserves very carefully, withdraw them to keep the funds rate close to the interest on reserves. So that’s inevitable and that’s really in the game plan.
At today’s House Financial Services Committee hearing Ron Paul criticized the Federal Reserve’s policy of hiding information about troubled banks from the public. The Congressman then asked Ben Bernanke about the Fed’s balance sheet and inquired as to why the Fed engages in price fixing (of interest rates) even though wage and price controls do not work.
Location: House Financial Services Committee Hearing: Unwinding Emergency Federal Reserve Liquidity Programs and Implications for Economic Recovery Date: 03/25/2010
Transcript
Ron Paul: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Chairman Bernanke. On February 24th we had our Humphrey-Hawkins meeting here and I asked some questions about some of the things the Fed had done in the past, and the comments that you made included the fact that you considered this rather bizarre what I was saying. Chairman Frank followed up with sending a letter and asking to get some clarification for you to look into, and even suggested that you and I get together so I can present exactly what my concerns are and see if we can resolve it. And I am certainly open to that so I hope that we can follow up on that and the suggestions of Chairman Frank.
Also, I wanted to make a comment about the March 19th ruling at the US Court of Appeals in Manhattan because once again the Federal Reserve lost their case against, I guess it was Bloomberg filing [under the] Freedom of Information Act, for information dealing with the $2 trillion of loans during the crisis. Of course that was ruled in lower court and the court of appeals has upheld this and the main argument the Fed uses in the court as well as here in the hearings is that if we knew so much about these banks and where these loans are going, it would stigmatize these companies and banks and do harm to their reputation make our problems worse.
I sort of understand that argument even though I don’t agree with it because in a way that challenges the whole notion of what the SEC exists for. They want accounting procedures. They don’t want to hide information and if they do, if it’s not out in front, it deceives the investors, so in a way the SEC is fighting to get information, to notify investors, and if they don’t do it right they get charged with fraud but it seems to be perverse that the Federal Reserve takes a different position that if a company’s in trouble, or a bank is in trouble, “We don’t want to do this, we don’t want to let the customers know.” So I find that rather challenging because I think revelation of what’s going on, what’s going on especially now with the financial crisis, what the American people want.
I’m also interested in finding out someday whether or not you will appeal this case that was ruled on March 19th, and I think the taxpayers would like to know, “How much does the Federal Reserve really spend on their legal counsels?” I am sure there are a lot of lawyers and I know you don’t have to come to the Congress to get an appropriation for this, so I’d like to know how you pay these bills and how much you pay.
So these are the things that we need to talk about, but also in the question and answer session I do want to bring up some specifics about the challenges that you have for someday maybe shrinking the balance sheet. And I will pursue that in the question and answer period. Thank you.
(Question & Answer Period)
Ron Paul: I thank the gentleman for yielding. I imagine everybody agrees that the increase in the monetary base in this last year and a half is probably historic. I don’t think we have much in our history to look back at as a precedent, so I would assume that we can’t look back too easily and look at trying to solve a problem like this and what we have to do and how much the monetary base has to shrink. As we talk about this I think most people assume that they’re waiting for a signal from you when the balance sheet might shrink. But even in the Depression when it shrunk 16%, it wasn’t done purposely, it was the way the system was working back then. Can you give me a rather quick answer on this? Do you have any idea what percentage the base should shrink or might shrink? Or is that something that you don’t even want to address?
Ben Bernanke: No, I think we would like to bring the balance sheet back to something consistent with where it was before the crisis, which means enough to accommodate Americans’ demand for currency plus a modest amount of reserves in the banking system and that would suggest something under a trillion dollars, I think would be…
Ron Paul: A trillion dollars?
Ben Bernanke: Or less, yes.
Ron Paul: Of course that would be very unprecedented. During the crisis that Paul Volcker had to deal with from 1979 to 1982, it was considered a major problem. The inflation got out of hand at 15%, and he had to come in and do something. And I guess the question is, how much did he have to shrink the balance sheet during those three years?
Ben Bernanke: Well, not very much. He was focused on money growth in particular. So he wasn’t clearly in a situation where we are now, with these large unused balances. I mean, I would point out that he was focused on M1 and M2 growth. M1 and M2 are not doing anything now; they’re very flat. It’s just the base, as you point out.
Ron Paul: Excuse me, but the truth is, is that during that time which was considered very tight money, the monetary base was still growing. During those three years the monetary base grew 31%. So my suggestion is, it might not be so easy to cut back because even in the midst of an inflationary crisis like that, because maybe in six months or a year from now when you decide to do something, maybe there will be an increase in M1 and M2 and then it will be a different ballgame when you’re dealing with this.
I have another question dealing with something you said on page 4 when you talk about one tool that you will have because quite frankly, I think if we get into a situation where this housing crisis reemerges, which I believe it is, it is going to be difficult for you to do what you say because that’s why you have been obviously hesitant to do anything.
You said one of your tools would be to pay interest on the balances, and that will cause banks to do different things and borrowers to do different things and of course I see that as a method of price fixing. In the early part of the last century, the free market economists said that socialism couldn’t work. It wouldn’t work. It would fail. And socialism and communism would fail because of pricing. You know, I assume that you would endorse this principle that wage and price controls isn’t necessarily the best way to handle rising prices. Is that a safe assumption?
Ben Bernanke: Absolutely.
Ron Paul: OK. My question, my concern in economic policy is, isn’t fixing interest rates in order to get the economy to do something a form a price fixing? The importance of prices in a free market is to tell the businessman and the consumer what to do. If the price is too high, they don’t buy and the businessman responds to supply and demand. Why is that not true in money? Money is one-half of every transaction, so if we’re working on this false assumption, that you’re exempt from market forces, and you have some type of unique ability to say, “Ah, interest rates are different. I know what is best. I know what they should be. They should be 0% for 15 months instead of 16 months.” Why does that logic not apply to fixing interest rates?
Ben Bernanke: Because if you believe that wages and prices are not perfectly flexible and there are many that are not, then the economy can get pushed away from full employment, as it obviously is today. And economists of all stripes, including Milton Friedman and others, agree that using monetary policy, monetary policy can be a useful tool to try and create growth and stability. In this particular case, low interest rates create more demand and can help bring the economy back to full employment. Now obviously there are limits to that and we recognize those limits, but changing the interest rate is really just the other side of changing the quantity. Quantity and price are two sides of the same equation, as you know. So we can either change the quantity or we can change the price. By changing the price we affect economic activity and try to achieve the objectives that the Congress has given us.
Ron Paul: Well, my fear is that your results will be the same as wage and price control.
While the U.S. auto industry overall is expected to have a strong month in March than February, Ford’s results should outpace the industry, said FoMoCo executive Ken Czubay.
“We are having a pretty good month in March and we are finding the industry is having a good month, but we ought to outpace the industry again,” he said.
Czubay said that the seasonally adjusted annualized sales rate for the industry in March will be “surprisingly good” compared with what might have been expected at the end of February.
Annualized U.S. auto sales ran at 10.8 million vehicles in January and at about 10.4 million in February. According to Edmunds U.S. sales in March were running at an annualized rate of 13.2 million vehicles.
Ford’s forecast for the U.S. auto industry sales is in the 11.5 million to 12.5 million range for the year.
2010March25: CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom fell 9.8% in 2009, according to the UK’s Department for Energy and Climate Change. A decrease in energy consumption due to the recession was the primary reason for the change. The switch from coal to nuclear to generate electricity also helped lower CO2 emissions, according to the department (Guardian.co.uk, 2010).
Image Description: The Corus Steelworks in Redcar, from across the River Tees, UK. Photo by Ralph Gant, 2008Sept29. Image Location: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Redcar_Steelworks.jpg Image Permission: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
This post is part of the Entrepreneurship series – sponsored by AcceptPay from American Express, a new online solution that lets you electronically invoice customers and accept online payments-all in one place. Offer more payment options, manage your cash flow and get paid faster with AcceptPay. Learn more here.
Of course, the content of this post consists entirely of the thoughts and opinions of the author.
It’s amazing how badly politicians who know a little bit can screw things up. Apparently, Chris Dodd’s financial reform bill contains a somewhat horrifying clause that would seriously harm the ability of startups to raise angel financing. Startups raising angel money are about as far from what caused the financial crisis as anything I can think of, and yet, the financial reform bill contains some ridiculous provisions:
Under existing law, startup companies can raise money easily and quickly from “accredited investors” — individuals with substantial wealth or income. There is no need for the companies or the investors to gain approval from any state or regulatory official.
All of this would change if Section 926 of the Dodd bill is included in any final reform legislation. That section would require, for the first time, companies seeking angel investment to make a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would have 120 days to review it. This would both raise the cost of seeking angels and delay the ability of companies to benefit from their funding.
The negative impact of the SEC filing requirement would be aggravated by the proposed doubling of the net worth or income thresholds required for investors to be “accredited.”
As someone who has raised a fair bit of money from accredited angels in the past, this proposal would be quite troubling. The idea that a company would need to wait four months before it can get the money it needs would kill a lot of startups. There is no evidence that the angel funding process has been problematic in any way. In fact, some might argue that it’s one part of the financial system that works incredibly well. So why are politicians mucking with it?
Pagani Zonda TriColor – Click above for high-res image gallery
Typically we don’t report on the regularity of exotic supercar crashes. For one thing, they make us cringe. For another, there’s unfortunately just too much of this going on, with Ferrari F430 Spiders and Lamborghini Gallardos seemingly crashed into telephone poles and roadside vegetation by every millionaire with more cash than driving skills. But once in a while a story comes along that – due to the profile of either car or driver – is just too notorious to pass up.
Like this one, for example: Reports from the UK indicate that a Pagani Zonda S – presumably referring to the C12 S variant of 2000 or the C12 S 7.3 of 2002 – has been crashed near Aberdeen, Scotland. But that’s not the end of it. Sources suggest that the man behind the wheel was none other than three-time Formula One world champion Sir Jackie Stewart.
For his part, Sir Jackie’s people refute the reports, but if they are indeed accurate, they could give new meaning to the legendary pilot’s nickname “The Flying Scot”. One way or another, the BBC reports that the vehicle in question is being sent back to the factory in Modena for repairs, which could cost as much as £300,000 ($450k).
Fans of British car shows take heart. Nope, we’re not talking about Top Gear, but it’s cross-town rival Fifth Gear. The Channel 5 car show that picked up after the original Top Gear was canceled was itself the victim of cutbacks recently. In the face of reduced viewership (compared to the five million who watch Top Gear regularly) and reduced ad revenue from belt-tightening automakers, network executives canceled the show back in October. By December, however, sources indicated that there was still a heartbeat and a glimmer of hope.
Now reports suggest that, following an outpouring of support, the network has agreed to keep Fifth Gear alive, albeit with some changes. The new Fifth Gear will apparently leave the studio permanently to focus directly on the test drives in a bid to lure hard-core enthusiasts disgruntled with Top Gear‘s decided emphasis on shenanigans. Two of the six presenters – Tom Ford and Tim Shaw – have also been dropped, leaving Vicki Butler-Henderson, Jonny Smith, Tiff Needell and Jason Plato to present the show.
With the revised format, Fifth Gear has reportedly been approved for two more seasons, with the first starting only a month away in late April, beating Top Gear‘s late-summer return to the punch. Apparently the Discovery network has been contracted to broadcast the show in other European markets outside the UK, so here’s hoping we’ll get the shows Stateside as well.
The US Trade Rep is proudly promoting the fact that there’s someone out there who likes ACTA. It’s put up a new info website, where it highlights the fact that it’s received TWO WHOLE LETTERS in support of ACTA. Of course, those letters come from two lobbying groups — the International Trademark Association (ITA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) — two groups who have been heavily involved in the creation of ACTA in the first place. Of course they support it.
But, really, it’s incredibly telling that the USTR is only willing to promote the letters it’s received in support of ACTA, isn’t it? Lots of people have been contacting the USTR with concerns about ACTA, and those don’t get highlighted on the website at all. It’s as if the USTR wants to make it clear that it works for the RIAA and the ITA, rather than the citizens of the country. It’s reached the point where it’s obvious that the USTR’s focus is not on creating a good trade agreement, but on the trade agreement that some lobbyists wanted. It seems obvious that the USTR is not interested in understanding the complaints, but only in getting ACTA finished.
U.S. Financial Markets Return to Pre-Crisis Levels – Mark Perry – … Taken together, the return of these two important market indicators … provide further evidence that the worst is far behind us, and U.S. financial markets are once again stable and healthy. … – Carpe Diem Blog
————
Bankers Saying ‘We Got Away With it’ Risk New Crisis, Kay Says – By Jennifer Ryan - Bankers are resuming the risk- taking practices that led to the worst financial crisis in a century, threatening to create even worse turmoil, economist John Kay said. For “so many people I talk to in the financial sector, it’s kind of, ‘Phew, we got away with it, now we can get on with making money in the same old way,’”… “If we do that we’re going to end up, probably quite soon, with an even larger version of the kind of crisis we’ve just been through.” … – Bloomberg
————
Repo 105’s antecedents: Ken Lewis – John Hempton – I agree with Felix Salmon that the former Lehman staffers who defend Repo 105 are psychopaths – certifiably insane. They state (as if this justifies it) that … The only people who would worry about using an old trick to reduce leverage from 13.9 to 12.1, are “yappers who don’t know anything.” For those that don’t know Repo 105 was a sale and repurchase agreement by which Lehman parked about 50 billion in assets (presumably assets they did not want to discuss) overnight via a repo transaction so they would not appear on the balance sheet. – Bronte Capital
————
Financial Market Contagion May Be Rare, But It Can Be Deadly – From the “Now They Tell Us” Department. A new Working Paper from the Bank of England finds that while contagion in financial markets is rare, the effects can be severe when problems do arise. – has excerpts – Research Recap
link to working paper: Contagion in financial networks – Bank of England
————
China: the coming costs of a superbubble – By Vitaliy N. Katsenelson – China may seem to have defied the recession and the laws of economics. It hasn’t. When China’s bubble bursts, the global impact will be severe, spiking US interest rates. – Christian Science Monitor
————
Oil reserves ‘exaggerated by one third’ – By Rowena Mason – The world’s oil reserves have been exaggerated by up to a third, according to Sir David King, the Government’s former chief scientist, who has warned of shortages and price spikes within years. – Telegraph.co.uk
————
Why I’m not worried about hyperinflation – Felix Salmon – Reuters
S&P Agrees with Moody’s that Dodd Financial Reform Bill Threatens Big Bank Ratings - Standards & Poor’s today joined Moody’s in suggesting the Dodd financial reform bill could result in the downgrading of big banks benefiting from government support, notably Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C),Morgan Stanley (MS) and Goldman Sachs (GS). – Research Recap
————
Dodd Financial Bill – next stop in govenrment takeover of the economy? – Will Walmart Pay for the Next Bailout? – By GREGORY ZERZAN – The Dodd bill would regulate and tax plenty of non-banks. – … The bill that passed the House proposed to create a systemic risk regulator with the power to look into any company in America to determine if it poses a "threat" to the economy … – Wall Street Journal
————
Yellen sees tame inflation, years of high unemployment – By Carla Mozee – … said Tuesday she doesn’t foresee an "outbreak" of inflation as a result of government efforts to stimulate the economy and that unemployment is likely to remain "painfully" high in coming years. Yellen also told reporters she’s in the process of supplying the White House with information as it considers her possible nomination to take the position of vice chairman of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors. … – MarketWatch
————
Evans Sees Accommodative Fed Stance Lasting at Least 6 Months – Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President Charles Evans said the U.S. central bank is likely to maintain an “accommodative” interest-rate stance for at least six months to support the momentum of economic growth. – Bloomberg BusinessWeek
————
big article well written – It’s China’s World. We’re Just Living in It. – By Rana Foroohar and Melinda Liu – The middle kingdom is rewriting the rules on trade, technology, currency, climate—you name it. – NEWSWEEK
Here’s a video of Niall Ferguson on Bloomberg today talking China, the yuan, and all the same trade stuff that everyone’s been chewing on for awhile now.
At one point he’s asked why China doesn’t revalue it, and he gives the stock answer about China not wanting to be bullied, but how they should.
This whole thing about China, and its ego, and its desire not to be bullied or humiliated is an old story and it gets repeated about a whole host of topics.
But, how about razor-thin margins of Chinese factories and the fact that China has slipped into a trade surplus? There are real reasons China might not be eager to jack up the yuan. Let’s cool it with the humiliation/ego trope.
SonyStyle Canada has finally posted the long awaited 3D Bravias for Pre-Orders and in a way beat SonyStyle USA in that sense. However it is not the pre-orders we have been wondering about, but the pricing of Bravia HX and LX series. Just a reminder Bravia HX is the high end, sorta what the XBR line used to be. The HX900 is built to deliver a cinema quality viewing experience in your home. Sit back, relax and let the high performance Full LED picture technology amaze you as films, games or favorite TV shows become epic entertainment. Before we dive into pricing, here are a few things you want to know about it:
HX900 series is the higher high end model and will be available in two screen flavors of 46 and 52 inches, also the LCD technology used in those two models will feature Intelligent Dynamic LED backlight. It’s interesting to note a small but unannounced discrepancy in its Motionflow offering (the tech behind ultra-smooth frame rate). Get this: Sony USA and Japan list this model with Motionflow Pro 240 Hz, however Sony Latvia boasts it with Motionflow Pro 400 Hz, and if you think there was a typo there, you can see an actual pic used to promote Motionflow. If you are interested to learn more about this link on AVS has some discussion about it, and a document specs list Motionflow 480 Hz for the US market.
2. HX800 series will feature Dynamic Edge LED Backlight, so you if you want the bomb, go for the above HX900 series. Pricing announced on SonyStyle Canada is as follows:
55HX800 will be going for CAN$3800, 46HX800 CAN$3000 and 40 incher for $2600. I would assume that in the US configuration you will see a difference of $100 or so, so the 55HX800 will end up costing around $3699.
So one can imagine how much HX900 series will cost, no pricing has been announced, however I’d say it’ll be around to what XBR8 series used to be when it came out, which was around 5 grand for a 46 inch model.
3. LX series Bravia sort of got its naming scheme starting with a prefix of XBR instead of usual KDL- which Europe and Japan still use. US and Canada are offering XBR-60LX900 and XBR-52LX900 and Canada lists both at $5500 and $4500 respectively. I don’t think this so called XBR line comes near the XBR we are used to, however it is what it is. It does offer full 3D integration of course and Wi-Fi built in with Edge LED Backlight.
Like this one, for example: Reports from the UK indicate that a 
