Commerce Dept. Refuses to Investigate Chinese Currency Policies: Good News, Bad News

Today's big trade news is that the U.S. Department of Commerce has formally refused to initiate an investigation of whether China's currency policies provide illegal (i.e., "countervailable") subsidies to Chinese exporters of aluminum and (in a separate case) coated paper.  Although this decision was pretty much expected after last week's, err, rather timely announcement that DOC was implementing a myriad of new policies that would tend to increase duties against China and other "non-market economies," today's currency announcement is still a good and welcome development.

But let's not pop the champagne corks just yet, ok?

Now, before we get to all that, let's start with a little background on the cases, courtesy of Reuters (lots more here, if you're interested):

The U.S. Commerce Department, in a decision that could provoke congressional action, said on Tuesday it did not see strong enough legal grounds to investigate if China's currency practices subsidize its exports.

It made the decision in separate trade cases involving imports of coated paper and aluminum "extrusions" from China.

In both cases, U.S. petitioners argued China effectively subsidized exports by keeping its currency at an artificially low value to the dollar and asked the department to impose countervailing duties in response....

Many U.S. manufacturers and lawmakers believe China's currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, which they say gives Chinese companies an unfair trade advantage....

The United Steelworkers union and aluminum extrusion producers in nine states asked the Commerce Department in April to impose countervailing duties over China's yuan as part of a broader case alleging a long list of government subsidies and unfair pricing practices.

Since then, agency officials had been mulling whether they had strong legal grounds to launch a formal investigation into the charge China effectively subsidizes its exports by keeping its currency undervalued against the dollar.

Under both U.S. and WTO law, a subsidy is defined as a financial contribution from the government which provides a benefit to a specific industry.

In the aluminum case and a separate one involving coated paper, U.S. petitioners have argued the benefits that come from the Chinese government controlling its currency are specific to Chinese exporters since they account for about 70 percent of the country's foreign exchange transactions.

And here's the key part of DOC's announcement:

[T]he Department of Commerce announced that two allegations before it that China’s currency practices constitute an unfair subsidy under U.S. countervailing duty law failed to meet the requirements for the initiation of an investigation. The currency allegations under review were made in the context of both the aluminum extrusions case as well as a CVD investigation of coated paper from China.

“Today’s currency decision was based on a careful evaluation of the specific legal arguments and evidence put before the department, in relation to the standards for the initiation of an investigation under the CVD law,” Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration Ronald K. Lorentzen said. “In these two cases, the Department has determined not to investigate whether the alleged undervaluation of China’s currency, the RMB or yuan, is a countervailable subsidy, because the allegations made by domestic producers do not meet the statutory standard for initiating an investigation under the requirement that benefits provided under China’s unified foreign exchange regime be specific to the enterprise or industries being investigated.”

The DOC source documents are available here, here and here.  I'll try to avoid getting into the weeds too much here, but the agency rejected the petitioners' subsidy allegation because they failed to prove that the China's currency policy was either a prohibited export subsidy or a domestic subsidy that was specific to a particular company, industry or group of companies or industries.  On the latter point, DOC importantly found that:

China’s currency regime is broadly available across the Chinese economy to all firms that exchange foreign currency and thus does not single out any enterprise, industry or group thereof. Indeed, the exchange system of China is “unified,” meaning that there is only one “price” for every user. Given that all enterprises and individuals in China that convert allegedly overvalued foreign currencies into RMB are recipients of the alleged subsidy, and in light of the findings in previous cases noted above, Petitioners have not sufficiently supported their claim that the undervaluation of the RMB is specific to any enterprise, industry, or group thereof.

This, of course, makes a lot of sense and follows WTO rules, but you never know what zany legal argument might just work in these investigations, so it's still good to read in the Federal Register.  Also interestingly, DOC punts on whether petitioners proved that a "financial contribution" exists - another major point of contention - but I guess we'll have to leave that issue for another time.

Finally, and as if to eliminate any doubt that last week's industry/union-friendly decision to "tweak" several policies with respect to US trade remedies law and non-market economies was a down payment on today's news, the very next paragraph of the press release provides the "hey-unions-don't-get-too-mad-remember-last-week" conclusion:

In addition to today’s decisions, Commerce last week announced a package of 14 measures – especially focused on unfair import practices by non-market economies – that will strengthen trade enforcement and help keep U.S companies competitive. These steps support President Obama’s National Export Initiative (NEI), which aims to double exports in the next five years and support the creation of several million new jobs. The proposed changes came in response to U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke’s call to survey the agency’s current trade remedy practices in order to determine how the department could improve the effectiveness of its existing enforcement tools.

That's about as subtle as Lady Gaga, I'd say.

Now let's hit the (pretty obvious) good news.  DOC's announcement is a victory for--

• American families and import-consuming companies.  Treating china's currency policy as a countervailable subsidy basically would have made every Chinese import "illegally subsidized" by the amount that RMB is found to be undervalued by DOC (maybe 40% or higher).  This would allow domestic producers and/or their unions to petition the government for the imposition of an essentially "automatic" 40% duty on any Chinese product and, if the US government agreed after a CVD investigation, that product - anything from Chinese steel and solar panels to food and clothing - would become that much more expensive in the US market.  Ouch.  Moreover, the mere threat of increased CVD cases against Chinese products - something this would almost certainly bring about - would likely have a chilling effect on Chinese exporters, as they pull back from the US market in order to shield themselves from future litigation and (maybe) duties.  Double ouch.

• American exporters.  Of course, no one would expect the Chinese government to take a change this important lying down.  And, if last year's Section 421 investigation against Chinese tires is any indication, the first group hit would be US exporters.  Now, I was always skeptical about export-led economic growth in the US, but this certainly wouldn't help matters.

• Free traders and US trade policy in general.  In the face of sagging poll numbers and intense pressure from some domestic corporations and labor unions, the Obama administration has (for the moment, at least) decided not to open an enormous can of worms and begin attacking China's currency policies through the blunt and easily-manipulated tool of the US countervailing duty (CVD) law.  Good for them.

Unfortunately, today's news is not all wine and roses, as there are still several reasons to be irked about the admininstration's latest moves.  First and foremost, there's still a long way to go in the Great China Currency Debate of 2010.  DOC's decision can be appealed, or the agency could change its mind at a later date (the standard for such a change is very low).  But more importantly, Congress - and its many China-bashing members - still gets a say on the issue, as the aforementioned Reuters article makes clear:

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, who has been pushing for action on China's currency in the Senate, criticized the Commerce Department's "incomplete" decision.

"Once again, even when the opportunity is thrust into its hands, the administration has refused to take action," Schumer said.

The House of Representative Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing Sept. 15 on the concern and is expected to hear testimony from lawmakers and groups supporting legislation to address the situation.

Schumer's up for re-election this November, so we all know that the big guy's gonna have a field day with DOC's news and demagogue the issue until election day (at least).  And with Ways and Means Chair Sander Levin (D-MI) venting about today's DOC decision, as well as the RMB's lack of movement over the summer, this controversial issue is far from settled on Capitol Hill.  Oh, and let's please not forget that the Treasury Department's semi-annual negotiating toolreport on foreign currency practices is due again in mid-October, so even the administration has another bite at the protectionist apple this year.

Second, today's decision is also not a sign that President Obama has suddenly become a staunch free trader because the move (apparently) came at a price - those 14 new "non-market economy" policies announced last week.  A real free trader wouldn't have needed to make such a "bargain," but I'm not even sure that a this was a best-that-can-be-expected outcome.  Considering that the currency-CVD issue is fraught with legal, political and foreign policy peril, one must question whether those 14 new policies - which will very likely lead to more and higher duties on Chinese imports and almost certainly won't appease anti-traders - were really a fair price to pay for DOC's currency decision.  As I mentioned above, the cost of an affirmative DOC decision was going to be pretty darn high in terms of corporate and foreign backlash and would have led to a litany of litigation in US courts and at the WTO.  (I've already pointed out how strong some of the WTO arguments against currency/CVD action are, and the Chief Judge of the US Court of International Trade - which would handle any appeal of DOC's decision - has just recently reiterated her immense displeasure with DOC's handling of the whole "China CVD" issue.  Furthermore, just carrying out the new policy might have been an unworkable nightmare for the agency.)  And Congress might still take the bull by the horns and force the issue this fall.

Thus, DOC's "big compromise" was really a decision to trade (i) a very public and very political battle over an dog of a legal issue that could've started a major trade conflict with China and might still be handled by a protectionist Congress for (ii) a myriad of less-publicized-but-still-pretty-effective anti-China measures.  Meanwhile, the administration can appear to be even-handed and even kinda pro-trade - something that might help a little with that pesky anti-business label that the President can't seem to shake.  In that light, the tradeoff's not nearly as cut-and-dry as it would first appear.

Now, I don't mean to imply that today's currency decision isn't a bigger deal than last week's "non-market economy" policy announcement.  It certainly is bigger, and it's heartening to see DOC do the right thing here, even if it took some, ahem, "tough choices" to make that happen.

But let's not tear a rotator cuff patting the administration on the back, ok?

UPDATED~High Speed Police Pursuit Ends In Fatal Crash In Aurora:

Authorities in Aurora are attempting to notify the family of a Springfield man who was involved in a fatal car crash during a police pursuit early Saturday morning.

The pursuit, which at times reached 120 m.p.h., began in Billings and ended at approximately 3:55 a.m. when 33 year-old Elchico Barnes (who was identified through police fingerprint records) attempted to make right turn on MO 39 at the intersection of U. S. 60 and slammed into a light pole.

--

A few minutes earlier, Aurora PD had been notified that Billings police officers and a Lawrence County deputy were in pursuit of a vehicle travelling westbound on Highway 60.
--
A medical chopper was called to the scene but left after a ground ambulance transported the man to St. Johns hospital in Springfield where he was pronounced dead.

The vehicle was later determined to have been reported stolen in Springfield.

An accident reconstructorist from the Highway Patrol is assisting in the investigation.

Simmons Extradited Back To Texas To Face Capital Murder Charges:

Mark David Simmon (mug shot HCTX)

The man who kept authorities at bay in an eight-and-a-half hour standoff at the Walnut Lane Motel in late June has been extradited back to Texas to face capital murder charges.

An officer on routine patrol attempting to locate the getaway car believed used in the robberies of the Super 8 and Spinning Wheel motels discovered a stolen 2008 Hyundai Sonata in the parking lot of the Walnut Lane Motel. When he ran the plates, he discovered that Mark David Simmons was wanted for murder.

Hays County, Texas District Attorney Sherri Tibbe filed a governors warrant to have Simmons extradited back to Buda, Texas after Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell dropped weapons charges related to the robberies against Simmons to expedite the process.

Prosecutors in Texas say Simmons murdered his business partner, Steven Wayne Woefel in April. Simmons allegedly lived with Woefel's dead body for a week before he moved it to the garage and set it on fire. Investigators say Simmons stole firearms from Woefel’s home and rigged the house to explode in an effort to cover up evidence and injure first responders.

Taney County Sheriff Jimmie Russell says the governors warrant was served on Simmons Thursday in the county jail. Texas Rangers and officers with the U.S. Marshal’s Service conducted the extradition.

Merrell says depending on the outcome of the murder case, his office may pursue the gun charge and possible burglary charges related to the motel robberies a few days before the June 29 standoff.

Christian County Deputy Charged With Unlawful Use Of A Weapon In Two States:

Brent Paoli (mug shot JCSO)

An off duty deputy from Christian County has been charged with unlawful use of a weapon after allegedly firing his service revolver during a dispute with a woman near the Missouri/Kansas border Saturday.

Authorities in Crawford County, Kansas received a 9-1-1 call from a woman who told them that Brent W. Paoli fired two shots and ran into the woods. She told investigators that Paoli allegedly fired another shot from a 9 mm handgun at her vehicle as she drove away.

Officers at the scene heard a fourth shot a short time later, according to the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department.

About two hours later authorities received information that Paoli was in the area of the Mo-Kan Dragway on the Missouri side of the state line. A Kansas Highway Patrol chopper spotted him hiding near the speedway, where he was taken into custody by Jasper County authorities.

Paoli, who is a corporal and has been with department for almost four years, was placed on paid administrative leave while an internal investigation is conducted.

--

He was released from custody after posting $3,500 bond.
--
Christian County Sheriff Joey Kyle says Paoli is one of his better officers and that he has had no disciplinary issues with him.

Monday Quick Hits

Lots of headlines and cools stuff over the last few days, so let's get right to it:

• Obama Administration: We'll increase exports by, err, attacking Chinese imports.  Last week, the US Department of Commerce announced a bevy of new trade remedies policies aimed at achieving the President's export-expansion goals by increasingenhancing the accuracy of antidumping and countervailing duties on imports from "non-market economies" (essentially Vietnam and China).  With almost 60% of all imports into the United States capital goods and equipment - things that American companies (including exporters) need to remain globally competitive - I'm at loss as to how making Chinese and Vietnamese imports more expensive will expand US exports, and the WSJ agrees: "President Obama has been making some encouraging pro-trade noises recently, after a protectionist first year. So it's troubling to see him veering off course again with a new proposal to boost American exports by cracking down on imports from China."

• A funny thing happened on the way to attacking Chinese imports...  So while DOC is plotting to "get tougher" on hypercompetitive Chinese imports, more news arrives showing that China's labor cost advantages - and thus its global competitiveness - appear to be rapidly shrinking: "China’s rising wages are cutting the country’s cost advantage over other manufacturing centers such as Mexico, according to Flextronics International Ltd., the world’s second-largest custom electronics maker.... Flextronics, which supplies to Hewlett-Packard Co. and Cisco Systems Inc., has been forced to increase wages in China in line with government regulations and growing affluence in the fastest-growing major economy. Larger rival Foxconn Technology Group said this month it will move production away from China’s coastal regions after announcing a doubling of wages at its largest production bases in the south east." So if you needed any more evidence that government is just really, really bad at keeping up with the market, well, there you go.

• United States in 2009 was the most energy-efficient economy in the history of the world.  Ever.  From Mark Perry: "Since 1990, the energy consumption per unit for five of the most common household appliances has fallen so consistently over the last twenty years that today's household appliances use between 20% (air conditioner) and 73% less energy (clothes washer) than in 1990."  Very, very cool.

• "Glass City" museum buys Chinese glass, unintentionally demonstrates the complexity of US-China trade and the global economy.  The WSJ has an excellent article today on why construction of the Toledo Museum of Art's $30 million Glass Pavilion required some specialized Chinese glass: "No one in the U.S. had the capability to satisfy cutting-edge architectural specifications for the curving pavilion, even though the 2006 job involved techniques advanced decades ago by Toledo inventors: bending and laminating glass. The pavilion features 360 thick glass panels, each up to 13.5 feet tall, eight feet wide and weighing over 1,300 pounds." Of course, it's actually not that simple, so be sure to read the whole article.  My favorite part: American politicians and unions blaming unfairly subsidized Chinese imports for destroying the US glass industry (as opposed to their own economy-killing fiscal policies and labor contracts), despite the fact that (i) although China makes about 45% of the world's glass, it exports almost none of that production and (ii) the little that China does export to the United States is really, really bad: "Most of China's glass output is such low quality, it has no market other than China. And much of the Chinese glass now hitting U.S. shores is chiseling into market extremities where profit margins are thinnest: the cheapest salt shakers, table tops and replacement windshields."  Exit question: if Toledo had been forced to follow "Buy American" policies, would their snazzy museum have been built as designed?  Hmmm.

• Speaking of manufacturing, guess what part of the country's getting a brand new Toyota plant and a couple thousand jobs?  If you guessed a part that has less regulation, lower taxes and isn't controlled by labor unions, you'd be right: "  Toyota began taking applications Monday for 1,350 production and maintenance workers at its Blue Springs, Miss., plant that had been stalled while the Japanese automaker waited for the worldwide recession to end.... Starting pay is $15 per hour, ranging up to $21, for production workers and $18 to $21.25 hourly for maintenance workers. Maintenance salaries will top out at $25 an hour.... The company has said it would create 2,000 jobs at the Blue Springs plant. New auto plants such as this also spin off about 2,000 supplier jobs."  Import-blaming governors Jennifer Granholm (MI) and Ted Strickland (OH) were unavailable for comment.

• Skepticism about US-Korea FTA is well-grounded.  NRO's Stephen Spruiell reports on the administration's, ahem, revived efforts to advance the KORUS FTA and - based on the White House's complete lack of effort on the pending US-Colombia FTA despite amazing improvements in Colombian labor union violence - is very, very skeptical (be sure to check out the great charts).  And based on the latest reports out of Korea, it appears that Spruiell's skepticism is well-deserved: "'The Korean government has not promised any kind of concessions concerning the Korea-United States free trade agreement,” said Choi [Seok-young, Korean deputy minister for trade]. 'The U.S. Congress is currently in recess, and we have not yet been offered anything from the U.S. government concerning the FTA.'  He added that since the U.S. government has not offered anything yet, it is not the right time to talk about the Korean government’s plans on disputes over imports of U.S. autos and beef."  Awesome.

• Cato wages an all-out assault on fallacies surrounding last week's revised GDP figures and the US trade deficit.  First, Alan Reynolds provides an eye-opening look at "what everyone missed" in last week's revised GDP numbers (hint: rising domestic consumption, real disposable personal income, and business fixed investment).  Then, Dan Griswold calmly corrects the Washington Post's misreporting that the trade deficit harmed GDP growth: "The fatal flaw of the [Post's] story line... is that it assumes that rising imports slow economic growth.  That assumption, in turn, rests on a simplistic Keynesian view that if a portion of domestic demand is satisfied by spending on imports, that means less demand for domestically produced goods, thus less output and lower employment.  That view neglects the supply-side role of imports.  More than half of what we import consists of goods consumed by producers—capital machinery, raw materials, parts and other intermediate inputs. Those imports help us produce more, not less.  The Keynesian view also confuses cause and effect: Imports usually grow in response to RISING domestic demand. Consumers more eager to spend 'swelling sums' on imports typically buy more domestically produced goods as well."  Finally, Dan Ikenson piggybacks off Griswold's post with our charts-of-the-day, which clearly demonstrate that "neither imports nor trade deficits cause U.S. job loss or slower economic growth.   If anything... imports and the trade deficit rise when the economy is growing and creating jobs, and they both fall when the economy is contracting and shedding jobs":

• Feel free to judge the President by the company he keeps.  From the Hill: "President Obama will spend Labor Day alongside AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, the union announced Monday. Obama, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Trumka will all participate in a Labor Day "celebration and rally" in Milwaukee on Monday, an appearance confirmed by the White House this afternoon, which separately announced the president would travel to Wisconsin for the Laborfest. The appearance is another recent sign of unity between Obama and Trumka — the pair had sometimes had an adversarial relationship over the past year on issues like stimulating the economy and healthcare reform...."  Woo hoo! Laborfest!

And on that happy note, folks, let's call it a night.

Not Remotely Crime Related....Wandering Goat Gaining Facebook Fans:

Wandering goat in Mexico, MO, photo courtesy of facebook fan page

This story is not remotely crime related, but it makes me smile!

A goat that has been wandering around the small eastern Missouri town of Mexico has a facebook following, much to the chagrin of animal control officers.

KXEO reports that the goat was first spotted by a motorist last Saturday near an underpass on the east side of town. Animal control says it has fielded more than a dozen reports of the adult goat being seen around town, including downtown Mexico.

Officers, who have named the wandering animal, Billy Goat Gruff, are trying to catch the goat.

Now people are donning t-shirts that say "Goat Watch 2010" on the front, and "Catch me if you can" on the back.

In a time where there is just so much bad news, it's refreshing, at least for me, to have a chuckle!

Seymour Man Fined $1,000, Sentenced To 60 Days For Attempting To Infect Police Officer With HIV:

Michael Sartin (mug shot WCSO)

A judge in Webster County found a Seymour man guilty of assault of a law enforcement officer after the man intentionally tried to infect a Fordland police officer with the HIV virus.

On May 29th Officer Josh Burris was transporting Michael Sartin, who was arrested on an outstanding warrant, to the Webster County jail when he noticed Sartin attempting to slip out of his handcuffs. As Burris adjusted the cuffs, Sartin bit his tongue and then spat in the officer's face as he put him back in the patrol car.

According to court documents, Sartin told Burris, "I bit my tongue . . . it's bleeding, so now you can have HIV like me. . . Now you're gonna know what it's like to live knowin' you're gonna die." Burris says that on the ride to jail Sartin, "made several threats of how he was going to kill me and members of my family."

Sartin was sentenced to 60 days and fined $1,000.

Burris has tested negative for virus that causes AIDS.

Umm, Yeah, About that "Dangerous" NAFTA Investment Thing...

One of professional anti-traders' more, umm, "sophisticated" criticisms of US free trade agreements is that they create frightening new investment powers for foreign corporations.  In short, protectionists claim that "NAFTA-style" FTAs are just horrible because, among other things, they allow foreign corporations to challenge domestic health, consumer or safety regulations, and, if they win, to receive compensation from the offending government.  For example, here's Public Citizen on the US-Korea FTA:

If the [Korea-U.S. FTA] were to go into effect, at least 79 Korea-based corporations with 270 establishments across the United States would obtain new rights to demand taxpayer compensation through challenges of U.S. federal, and state laws in foreign tribunals.

Oooooh, scary!  Of course, what these fearmongering protectionists always fail to mention is that the FTA investment provisions that they're carping about are actually designed to encourage mutual investment in FTA partner countries - i.e., to help the countries give each other money for silly things like factories and jobs - by providing certain basic protections for that investment.  And against what exactly are these rules protecting, you ask?  Well, for one, they help discourage guys like Hugo Chavez from forcibly taking the land or facilities that a foreign company has fairly purchased because those rules would obligate ol' Hugo to compensate the company in the amount of its stolen investment.  The horror!  These rules also prevent governments from passing protectionist laws that will harm an FTA partner company's investment where the company proves that those laws are actually disguised restrictions on trade or violate due process.  For example, if American ScottCo buys a Mexican widget factory and then Mexico passes a "health regulation" prohibiting the domestic use of only ScottCo widgets (but not Mexican widgets), Mexico would have to compensate ScottCo where the company showed that the Mexican regulation had no rational, scientific basis.  And, of course, by seeing this type of sane, rules-based investment protection, companies like ScottCo are more inclined to invest in Mexico in the first place.

Pretty sane and un-scary, huh?

Unfortunately, the anti-trader's "investment canard" has become a real favorite of congressional protectionists. For example, here's Maine's favorite protectionist congressman, Mike Michaud (D), on the KORUS FTA in a 2009 letter to President Obama:

While the Bush FTAs with Colombia, Panama, and Korea contain some improvements regarding labor and environmental standards relative to NAFTA, more work is needed on these and other provisions. Many of the most serious problems with the previous trade-agreement model are replicated in these FTAs. They must be renegotiated to ensure that these pacts at a minimum pass the most conservative “do no further harm” test.

This includes the FTAs’ investment chapters, which afford foreign investors with greater rights than those enjoyed by U.S. investors. These three pacts’ foreign-investor chapters contain the same provisions in CAFTA that led many Democrats to oppose that pact, and that you cited as problematic during your campaign. Such provisions promote offshoring and subject our domestic environmental, zoning, health, and other public-interest policies to challenge by foreign investors in foreign tribunals.

Gee, that sure sounds pretty bad.  Well, it isn't, and recent events surrounding two investor-state disputes in Canada have clearly demonstrated that protectionists' "investment canard" is really just a bunch of fear-mongering poppycock.  First, comes news that the Canadian government has settled with US-based AbitibiBowater after the province of Newfoundland seized Abitibi's land and assets:

Canada agreed to pay AbitibiBowater Inc., the insolvent pulp and paper maker, C$130 million ($123 million) to settle a trade complaint after the government of Newfoundland and Labrador stripped the company of its timber and water rights in 2008....

AbitibiBowater in February filed a trade complaint against Canada over what the company said was the illegal seizure of property by the provincial government in Newfoundland. At the time, AbitibiBowater requested C$500 million and filed the case under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement....

With demand for newsprint falling, AbitibiBowater decided in 2008 to shut the Grand Falls-Windsor Mill in Newfoundland, which had operated for more than a century. Within two weeks of announcing that closing, the provincial government passed legislation stripping the company of its timber and water rights, according to the Nafta petition.

In short, Newfoundland politicians got mad that a bankrupt US-based company was shuttering some of its Canadian facilities, so, instead of attempting to broker a reasonable compromise or just letting the market, you know, actually work as it's designed, the Newfie government forcibly seized AbitibiBowater's property without any compensation.  Fortunately for AbitibiBowater's creditors and investors, however, the company had legal recourse under NAFTA investment rules, and that led the Canadian government to provide fair compensation for the seized property (although C$370m less than the company wanted).  How, errrr, scandalous.

Only a day later, however, the Canadian government came out on top in another NAFTA investment dispute, this one involving US chemical company Chemtura and new Canadian environmental regulations:

The lawyers at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade are not bragging about it—at least not to date—but they've just won an impressive victory in an $80 million-plus NAFTA lawsuit.

Earlier this month, a panel of three arbitrators dismissed claims filed by the US chemical company Chemtura under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Chemtura had sought to hold Canada liable for financial losses related to the government's phase-out of lindane, a hazardous agricultural chemical. However, the company failed to persuade arbitrators that government regulators acted without regard for scientific evidence or due process.

In addition to kicking Chemtura's claim to the curb, arbitrators also ordered the company to reimburse Canada for $3 million in legal costs and expenses.

In short, Canada passed a law outlawing lidane,which Chemtura produced; Chemtura sued under NAFTA; and the arbitrator ruled in favor of Canada because Chemtura couldn't show that Canada's new law was unscientific.  I dunno about you, but that seems pretty rational (and deferential) to me.

So to summarize, in the last week we've seen these horrible, scary NAFTA investment rules (a) lead to the fair compensation of a bankrupt US company whose lawful property was forcibly seized by the government in response to the company's routine (but unfortunate) commercial decision; and (b) uphold a Canadian environmental regulation and compensate the Canadian government for its legal expenses.

Stop the insanity!

Oddly, neither Congressman Michaud nor Public Citizen has commented on these excellent Canadian examples of the FTA investor-state provisions that they so detestenjoy bringing up.  Instead, Public Citizen's latest blog post scares us about - you guessed it - KORUS investment provisions.  (Because, you know, why focus on a silly thing like how these investment provisions actually work in practice?)

Did Tommy Lynn Sells Kill Ena And Rory Cordt?:

By Dave Warren and
Kathee Baird

The murder of Ena Cordt and her son Rory, in Forsyth, has remained unsolved for a quarter of a century and theories about what happened that July day in 1985 have been almost as numerous as the years that have transpired.

Was it a killing based on a chance encounter and drugs, as some claim? Was it a murder for hire as others allude to? Were there ties to other killings in the area? Were there sinister forces at work in the local government at the time?

Conspiracy theories often tend to cloud issues with partial facts or statements that cannot be confirmed. During our investigation of this double homicide we checked fact after fact on the case that is, by all accounts, colder than ice. However, while some new claims came to light in our investigation, some of the theories were discounted, while some others still remain viable solutions to this crime.

Perhaps one of the more interesting theories (or if you believe the suspect, a confession) comes from a man on death row in Texas. His claim is that the murders were not a random act, but rather a plot to silence someone who posed a threat.
--
PART I - He has been called the Coast-to-Coast killer and while he has confessed to more than 60 murders, authorities say they aren’t buying all of the confessions, but they do confirm his suspected involvement in at least 15. Following his arrest in 2000 for a killing in Texas, Rangers began looking into the killer’s claims and have identified a double homicide in Missouri in 1985 as likely one of his first.

For their part, some authorities in Missouri have no interest in his confession and a crime that should have been solved decades ago remains in limbo.
-
For 25 years the murder of Ena Cordt and her son Rory in their Forsyth home, has remained an open case in Missouri. The Missouri Highway Patrol say they do not consider the confession of a convicted serial killer as true. In fact, the patrol told The Ozarks Sentinel earlier this year that, “He is not a suspect. He has been dismissed.”
--

Tommy Lynn Sells

In Texas, where Tommy Lynn Sells sits in a cell, a Texas Ranger who was been interviewing Sells since 2000 disagrees and says the double homicide in Taney County is one he strongly believes Sells committed.

New evidence uncovered could point to another suspect, or two, according to the serial killer.

So, why the difference of opinion between these two law enforcement agencies? To understand that, one needs to go back 25 years and closely examine what Sells said happened and just who he claims was involved. One also needs to examine the early life of Sells and what motivated him to become of the nation’s most prolific serial killers.

Sells was born along with his twin sister, on June 28, 1964. His twin sister died a short time later from a high fever. Sells exhibited the same high fever at age 18 months, but survived. Early in his life Sells was sent to live with his mother’s Aunt Bonnie, and during that time his mother never visited. Aunt Bonnie wanted to adopt Sells, but his mother took him back and refused to allow him to visit her again.

Aunt Bonnie said in an interview years later that Sells’ favorite activity was to ride his tricycle up and down a sidewalk. Sells claims that this was one of the only bright spots in his entire life.

At age seven, Sells said he began to drink alcohol that was kept at his grandfather’s house. In talks with psychiatrists following his capture, he said the alcohol was hidden...but when he found it he would drink as much as he could. In 1972, at the age of eight, Sells befriended a known pedophile in the Missouri town of Frisbee. At age 10 he began smoking marijuana and told
psychologists that he continued to drink heavily and use drugs up to the time of his arrest.

Other aspects of Sell’s early life are mired in controversy. Sells claims he had sex with other aunts and even his mother. His mother discounted the story and claims such acts never happened.

One key incident Sells claims affected him was when his mother would entertain men in a motel room that they lived in. Sells said he watched through the window as his mother engaged in improper acts with the men. That incident, he claimed, would play a role in what happened in 1985.

July 26, 1985 was a typical summer day in the Ozarks. In the small town of Forsyth, MO., the Taney County Fair was underway and people from around the area were enjoying all the fair had to offer. According to some, the fair is where Sells encountered Cordt and her son and made the decision to go home with the attractive woman and have sex with her.

At least that’s the popular story told on web sites across the Internet. It’s not what Sells claims happened, although the fair does play a pivotal role in the murders.

At the time Cordt, who was known as a young woman who like to party, worked at a dress shop and sometimes at a local car wash. Her mother worked for the Taney County Clerk. The single mother didn’t have a lot of money, but she managed to get by and did the best she could raising her son. By most accounts, she got along well with her mother and visited her at the courthouse where the clerk’s office was located.
--

During the time of the county fair, Cordt would have been very aware of the murder of a young woman 38 days earlier just a few miles up the road in Nixa. It was front pages news for most papers in several neighboring counties and was the top story on local television news for several weeks.

Police had discovered the body of 20 year-old Jackie Johns floating in Lake Springfield in June of 1985. Despite some leads, police were unable to identify a suspect and that case would also remain unsolved for decades. A break in the cold case finally came in 2007 when a Sgt. with the Highway Patrol asked to investigate the the cold case.

The work of Sgt. Dan Nash led to the arrest of businessman Gerald Carnahan, who was always the chief suspect in the case, and who is now scheduled to go to trial for Johns' murder in September. Carnahan is represented by attorney's Dee Wampler and Joe Passanise.

Carnahan's life in 1985 and years after held almost as much drama as Sells’. In 1986 a grand jury indicted the businessman for allegedly tampering with evidence connected to Johns' murder. A judge dismissed the case, saying "lying does not constitute physical evidence." In 1987 Carnahan's step-daughter, Sara Collins, was indicted by a grand jury for perjury for allegedly lying about her stepfather's whereabouts the night Johns went missing. A judge found her not guilty (The Ozarks Sentinel will have the complete Carnahan timeline and trial coverage when his trial gets underway.)

So, on that fateful summer day in 1985, Cordt was aware that someone, unknown to police at the time, was killing women in the Ozarks. Being approached by Sells at the fair, and as some insist, being asked to take him home with her (Cordt), seems remote at best.

The story that Sells is telling now, and has been for at least a decade, is much more sinister.

“Now I am certain that this is the same Deputy who faced me down for making some remark to that woman at the Taney County Fair,” Sells writes in a letter obtained by The Ozarks Sentinel. “He asked me if I wanted her and acted tough. Then he told me that if he said the word, she would accuse me of rape and I’d be in prison for the rest of my life.”

Sells indicates that a Taney County deputy approached him at the fair, (where witnesses saw Cordt and her son) and that the deputy admonished him for making a pass at the woman. If true, that deputy was one of the first to know Sells was in the Forsyth area, unless of course, he was in the area at the request of someone else.

Interestingly, five days earlier, Sells had been questioned by local police about the theft of a car. He was, at the time, a patient at New Horizons Drug Rehabilitation Center in Blue Eye after being released from prison for felony theft. According to records, he left the center shortly after being questioned.

Sells was on parole at the time and the deputy should have arrested him rather than letting him go. So why did he choose to let Sells go? Was it that decision that eventually led to the murder of more than nine and as many as 20 people by Sells, who became known as the Coast-to-Coast Killer?

In her book, "Through the Window," published in 2003, Diane Fanning helped perpetuate the story that Sells picked Cordt up at the Taney County Fair, but it is an inaccurate account of what happened, at least according to Sells.

Sells paints a much different picture of the crime in letters written to an area man who has worked on the case for several years, and who is considered to be an expert on Sells by at least one state agency. He has appeared on national television shows as an expert on Sells.

In another letter Sells states that the murder of Ena and Rory wasn’t a random act, but rather a murder for which he was to be paid $2,500. Sells states in his written correspondence that the deputy not only threatened him with the accusation of a rape, but convinced him to agree to take on a murder in exchange for the money.

“I knew I was in trouble so I asked a friend I was drinking with what to do,” Sells writes.

According to Sells, the deputy was also the same one who was sent to Texas to interview him following his arrest by law enforcement in that state. That officer was also running for political office at the time of the 2000 interview, something that lends credibility to Sells' claim of conspiracy within local government at the time of Ena and Rory Cordt's murder.

While Sells' letter does name some names, it also names positions of those elected to public office that he claims hired him to kill Cordt.

In next week’s edition we’ll examine more of the claims of Sells and tell you what he claimed led to the double homicide of Ena and Rory Cordt.


THE MISSOURI HIGHWAY PATROL IS ACTIVELY SEEKING INFORMATION ON THIS CASE AND IS REQUESTING THAT ANYONE WITH INFORMATION CONCERNING THE DEATH OF ENA CORDT AND HER SON RORY, CONTACT THEM AT 866-362-6422.

Southwest City Police Office Charged With Manslaughter In Shooting:

Bobby L. Stacy (family photo)

A police officer in Southwest City has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection to the deadly shooting of a man following a traffic stop five months ago.

McDonald County Prosecutor Janice Durbin filed the charge today against Brian G. Massa, 34, of Anderson, after a lengthy investigation by the Missouri Highway Patrol.

According to the probable cause statement written by Highway Patrol Sgt. James Musche, Bobby L. Stacy, 26, was in a stolen GMC Suburban shortly before 2 a.m. on March 28 when Massa attempted to stop the vehicle on the parking lot of Seven Sons storage in Southwest City.

--

Brian Massa (mug shot MCSO)

The Suburban stopped on the lot for a few moments then sped away after Massa exited his patrol car. Massa pursued the Suburban with his lights and sirens activated, southbound on Missouri 43 through Southwest City.

Based on footage from Massa's dash cam video, at approximately 02: 15 :40, the Suburban ran off the right side of Frye Road into a ditch, approximately 1 mile from Missouri Route PP. At approximately 02:15:47 the Suburban accelerated out of the ditch, traveling back northbound on Frye Road as Massa's patrol car was coming to a stop. At approximately 02:15:48, the drivers door of the stolen Suburban struck the front bumper of the patrol car causing minor damage.

Based on the footage from Officer Massa's in dash cam and footage from the digital video recorder attached to a jacket he was wearing, Officer Massa opened the door of his patrol car and began to exit as the Suburban passed by his driver's door.

In a matter of five seconds Massa fired four rounds form his service issued revolver. Based on trajectory analysis, one shot entered the right rear cargo window and and hit the roof, another hit the left rear passenger door and another passed through the rear passenger window.

At 02:15:54 Officer Massa fired the fourth and fatal shot which struck Stacy in the right side of the head. Stacy was transported to a hospital in Grove, Oklahoma and then air lifted to a hospital in Tulsa where he died the next day.
--
In the court document Musche writes McDonald County sheriff’s deputy Richard Gidcumb told him he saw Massa pick up a shell casing lying in the road between Massa’s patrol car and the SUV.

"When processing the scene on Frye Road on the morning of March 28, 2010, I only recovered 3 of the 4 shell casings, all of which were located near the front of the patrol car. Based on the evidence, Massa fired the fatal shot approximately five seconds after [the] Suburban had passed by his location and could no longer be a threat to his or any other person’s immediate safety,” Musche wrote.

Massa says he feared the Suburban was going to strike him which led t0 him firing four founds in rapid succession into the driver's side of the Suburban.

Massa, who turned himself in after a warrant was issued for his arrest, has been released on his own recognizance. He has been placed on paid administrative leave pending resolution of the case.

Carthage Man Could Get Twenty Years For Raping Infant:

Christopher Wayne Cooper (mug shot JCSO)

A man from Carthage is facing up to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to raping a baby girl three years ago.

Christopher Wayne Cooper, 27, pleaded guilty Monday in Jasper County Circuit Court in Joplin to first-degree statutory rape, an offense that carries a punishment range of 10 to 30 years, or life, in prison in Missouri.

According to court documents, the 1-year-old little girl had been in Cooper’s care for three days when she fell down some stairs. Cooper undressed the infant and removed her diaper to check her injuries. He says it was at that point that he decided to rape her.

Cooper entered into a plea deal with the Jasper County prosecutor’s office. As part of the plea agreement prosecutors say they will ask that he not serve more than 20 years. Judge David Dally delayed formal acceptance or rejection of the plea bargain and set sentencing for November 1st.

Cooper has been in custody at Fulton State Hospital pending the outcome of his criminal case.

Inmate Charged In Plot To Kill Christian County Sheriff's Deputy:

Cody James Hastings (mug shot CCSO)

A Christian County man already behind bars for alleged child abuse and domestic assault is in more trouble with the law for allegedly plotting to kill a deputy in Christian County.

Christian County Prosecutor Ron Cleek says Cody James Hastings, 34, of Clever, allegedly told two other inmates incarcerated in the county jail that he wanted to kill Deputy Richard "Brett" Leslie.

According to the probable cause statement filed with the charges, Hastings was being held in booking cell #66 with Jimmie M. Williamson and Jesse L. Waltz when Leslie brought in a prisoner. He told his cellmates that he was mad because Leslie had arrested him and that he wanted to kill him. Waltz told Hastings he knew where Leslie lived and allegedly drew him a map of how to get to the deputy's house.

Waltz told Deputy D. J. Outhouse, "Cody said he would use a guitar E-string to slit Deputy Leslie's throat while he was sleeping. Jesse (Waltz) said Cody then said he would shoot him with a .38 multiple times saying there would probably have to be multiple gunshots. Jesse said Cody said he would use a .38 because it would be easier. Jesse told me Cody asked him about neighbors and said he would take Deputy Leslie to an open field so the bullets could just pass through him."

Waltz told Outhouse he drew Hastings a "fake" map of where the deputy lived, and that Hastings asked him if the deputy had a wife, kids, or dog, and asked about the deputy's neighbors.

--

Jimmie Williamson (mug shto CCSO)

Williamson, who is also facing charges of conspiracy to commit murder, told Outhouse he didn't think Hastings was serious until he heard the other inmate giving Hastings directions to the deputy's house. "He (Williamson) didn't know if Jesse provided Cody with an actual drawn map to Deputy Leslie's house but he overheard Jesse's verbal directions and that they were detailed enough to provide him a mental map."

Williamson says he warned Leslie that he was in danger.

Outhouse said he interviewed Hastings after reading the man his rights. Hastings admitted getting a map to the deputy's home from one of the other inmates. "Cody told me Jesse gave him a map to Deputy Leslie's house. Cody provided me with a reconstruction of the map he said Jesse (Waltz) gave him and I noticed that it matched very closely to the one Jesse had given me before. Cody told me he asked Jesse several questions about Deputy Leslie's house including: type of siding, trees and fence in the yard, location of neighbors, and if he had a wife, kids, or dog."

"Cody said he didn't really have any intention of killing Leslie," the detective wrote in the probable cause statement, "then immediately said, 'I thought about it, I wanted it, you know what I mean.' Cody said, 'I'd like to do it.' Cody said, 'Like you said, ya, you can't away with a cop, killing a cop.'"

The plan was allegedly hatched between August 11 - 18th.

According to online court records, Hastings has been convicted of third-degree assault, domestic assault, and theft. He was being held on $27,500 bond on the domestic violence and child abuse charges.

His bond on the conspiracy to commit murder charge has been set at $75,000. If convicted, Hastings could face anywhere between 5 and 15 years in prison.

Assault Charges Upgraded To Murder In Loftis' Death:

Billy Ray Hankins (mug shot GCSO)

A career criminal originally charged with assault for running down his wife's former boyfriend with his truck last month is now facing murder charges following the mans death.

Prosecutors say Billy Ray Hankins, 56, of Springfield, allegedly attempted to run over several people before he backed his truck over forty four year-old Charles Loftis near Harrison and Laurel. Loftis died from his injuries about two weeks after he was critically injured.

Court records indicate that a group of men went to confront Hankins for allegedly beating his wife. When authorities arrived, Hankins had already fled and a police dog was called in to track the man. Hankins was found hiding in some bushes not far from the scene of the assault.

According to court documents, Hankins allegedly told investigators his wife called six to 10 men on motorcycles and in black trucks to beat him up, and that those men shot the tires off his vehicle.

Hankins, whose preliminary hearing is set for September 30th, is being held in the Greene County jail on $200,000 bond.

America's Absurd, Immoral Sugar Policy

Today Andy Roth at the Club for Growth pointed my attention to a recent WSJ article about the USDA agreeing to allow more imported sugar into the United States because of dire predictions of imminent shortages.  The article itself is pretty boring - it's clearly written for a target audience of commodities traders, with the author reporting in a ho-hum manner USDA's decision and the current US and global market situation for sugar.  But intended or not (and I'm siding with not), this short article provides oodles of evidence of just how awful - economically and morally - American sugar policy is.  Consider the following passages:

Global sugar prices soared on Friday after the U.S. said it will ease import restrictions to help avert a national shortage.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday said it will give foreign sugar producers a bigger window to send sugar to the U.S. over the next two months.

Translation: US sugar policy is so enormously trade-distorting that the mere two-month easing of sugar import quotas caused a huge spike in global sugar prices (as the US sucks in supply, thereby leaving less sugar for the rest of the world and, naturally, higher prices).  Yeesh.

World prices for raw sugar reached a five-month high on Friday, rising above 20 cents a pound during the day. Sugar for October delivery finished 2.4% higher at 19.95 cents a pound.... 

Farmers counter that the food companies are just seeking ways to boost profits. U.S. domestic sugar prices are at about 34.13 cents a pound, up 30% in 12 months. ... 

Sugar is the second-most common ingredient in many bread products, and bakers are distraught over high prices, said Robb MacKie, president and chief executive of the American Bakers Association. The fall is the peak time of sugar use, as many manufacturers start to build up inventories of finished products to go into the winter.

Translation: Because of US restrictions on sugar imports, American sugar prices are currently almost 75% higher than world market prices.  This extra cost is initially borne by sugar-users (e.g., American bakers), who will pass it on to American consumers (particularly families with sugar-loving kids).  In short, American parents are paying for US sugar protectionism; and by spending more of their hard-earned dollars for candy, sodas, cakes and cookies, cereal, etc. than they would in the absence of such protection, they have less money to spend on other family necessities (like shoes, clothing, other foodstuffs, etc).  So sorry, Timmy.  No new soccer shoes for you, because American sugar quotas make Mom and Dad's annual grocery tab a whole lot higher.  Pretty nice, huh?  Oh, and guess who benefits from this protectionism?

The USDA was responding to intense lobbying from sugar users, who claimed the country was in danger of running out of sugar. The USDA this year has twice increased its import quota at the behest of sugar processors and food manufacturers. The sugar users have long been vocal critics of the government's restrictions on sugar imports, which they argue are designed to protect American farmers by keeping U.S. sugar prices inflated....

The U.S.'s ability to tap the broader market is limited by longstanding import restrictions set by law. The so-called tariff rate quota is set every year at slightly more than 1.2 million tons, and the USDA can raise it only in April following the start of the fiscal year in October.

Oh, riiiiight.  So American sugar producers are cashing in on "longstanding import restrictions set by law," and American families are footing the bill.  And American sugar quotas are so absurdly, anti-marketly (not a word, I know) rigid, they can only be altered once per year after a six-month delay.  That makes perfect sense.

Or not.

Missouri Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Of Post Office Burglar From Neosho:

Dwight Laughlin mug shot (MODOC)

A Neosho man who has spent 17 years in prison for burglarizing a post office in Neosho has been ordered released because he was tried in state court.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled the state did not have jurisdiction to charge, convict and sentence Dwight Laughlin because the burglary occurred on federal property.

The fifty one year-old man was sentenced to 40 years in prison for first-degree burglary and first-degree property damage stemming from the February 1993 break-in at a Neosho post office.

When Laughlin was arrested by authorities inside the post office they found a scanner tuned to the Neosho police frequency, a flashlight, crowbar, pipe wrench, screwdrivers and bags containing mail, stamps and money. By the time they got there a combination lock to a safe had been removed.

Laughlin, who was sentenced as a repeat offender, already has served more time in prison than the five year-sentence he would have received if he had been convicted in federal court and the statute of limitations to charge him has expired.

Sunday Quick Hits (Mostly China Edition)

I'm back on American soil, and there's lots to note, so let's get right to it.

• China's not taking over the world, and here are a few reasons why.  A nice summary from Newsweek (of all places) about why all this talk about China's inevitable global dominance is wrong.  I can't say I agree with everything here (particularly the authors' assumption that direct foreign aid is a good thing), and I think they miss a few issues, but the article's still worth a read.  Sample quote: "Of course, Asia is still the one region in the world where China now dominates regional trade—overall trade between China and the rest of the continent hit $231 billion versus the U.S.’s $178 billion in 2008. But most of the flows are in intermediary goods of low value (China buys cheap components and raw materials from poorer nations and uses them to make products for export, just as it supplies the same to richer nations like South Korea). This trade does not foster the skills transfer that Southeast Asian countries so desperately need in their bid to move up the technology ladder. Countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia still rely on entrepreneurial, technological, and educational engagement with the U.S. for that. And America still accounts for a far greater chunk of regional foreign direct investment—8.5 percent versus China’s 3.8 percent, or $3.4 billion to $1.5 billion, in 2009."

• China overtakes Japan as world's second-largest economy.  So what?  After last week's announcement that China's GDP is now greater that Japan's, there was a lot of predictable hemming and hawing from the chattering classes.  Jonah Goldberg counters the conventional wisdom with some much-needed perspective: "Last quarter Japan produced about $1.28 trillion of economic output, or about $10,085 for each of the 127 million Japanese people. China’s output was $1.337 trillion for the quarter. But China has 1.3 billion people, so that’s about $1,000 for each Chinese person. Yes, 1.3 billion poor Chinese people are collectively more productive than 127 million rich Japanese people, but I can guarantee that most sane people would rather be poor by Japanese standards than middle class by Chinese standards."   Indeed.  Jonah hits on several other important points - several of which I've been preaching for a long time now - so be sure to read the whole thing.  My favorite line: "Economic 'competitiveness' is a con. It assumes that when other countries prosper, America loses. That’s nonsense. If the average Chinese worker were as rich as the average Japanese worker, it would be an economic windfall for the United States. Conversely, if China’s economy imploded tomorrow, we would 'gain' competitively but suffer economically. The cult of competitiveness is just a ruse used to justify the ambitions of economic planners and the pundits who worship them." Sadly, one of those planners just happens to be President. 

• More on China's big second-place announcement.  When reading Jonah's aforementioned column,  I kept thinking that he missed one important point about China's breakneck economic growth: it's what developing countries do because they start way, way down the totem pole.  And as Cato's Dan Mitchell explains, this trend is even more pronounced in a place like China: "Yes, China has been growing in recent decades, but it’s almost impossible not to grow when you start at the bottom — which is where China was in the late 1970s thanks to decades of communist oppression and mismanagement."

• But, hey, China's still doing several things right (and the US probably shouldn't lecture).  Cato's Alan Reynolds has an excellent blog post about China's growth and labor market.  Here's a sample: "Prices of... multinational products cannot be arbitrarily increased to please American politicians, because higher prices would encourage more multinationals to do what many are already doing – namely, to move labor-intensive work on low-end products from China to cheaper places like Vietnam or Bangladesh.... Lacking the equivalent of Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid, China has no payroll taxes at all, no capital gains tax, and only a 15-25% tax on corporate profits. It is not such a bad thing that China does not share America’s looming “safety net” crises in entitlements and public pensions.... Imagine what your 401k would be worth with no tax on capital gains. Imagine what U.S. employment would look like with no payroll tax and a 15-25 %tax on corporate profits. American politicians are giving them advice?"

• Brookings: China-bashing won't do anything to change the US trade deficit.  I can't say I agree with Robert Pozen's particular remedies for the US-China relationship (see Reynolds' post above for some reasons why), but it's worth noting that conservatives and libertarians aren't the only ones who understand that American politicians' China-bashing and trade-deficit-obsession are nonsensical.  Even the good, center-left folks at Brookings get it: "Many American politicians want the yuan to appreciate relative to the dollar in order to reduce the U.S. trade deficit—by making Chinese exports more expensive, and encouraging Chinese consumers to buy more imports. However, the value of the yuan is not the main driver of the U.S. trade deficit. The wages and social safety net of Chinese workers are more important. Labor is the most significant component of most goods exported from China to the U.S. If wages go up in China, then the prices of its exports will rise—absent a proportional increase in labor productivity. Wages are direct costs of producing Chinese exports, which cannot be easily avoided by currency hedging."  Pozen recommends that American politicians "support higher wages" in China.  My response: that seems totally unnecessary because it's already happening (unless it's supposed to just keep our meddling pols occupied.)

• Lou Dobbs: Angry Protectionist.  Apparently, there's some doubt about whether Lou Dobbs is a protectionist.  I had no idea that this was even up for debate, but in case you have any doubts, Cafe Hayek's Don Boudreaux - who obviously has a higher pain/idiocy threshold than I - weeds through Dobbs' book and puts the doubts to rest once and for all.  Oh, and here's a little video evidence just for good measure:

• Free trade is sexy - no really!  Great video here from Matt Ridley (h/t Andy Roth):

That's all for now, folks.

Former Greene County Jailer Charged With Drug Possession:

John Nicholas Edmonds (mug shot GCSO)

A former Greene County jailer who used to enforce the law found himself behind the same bars he once put criminals after a three month investigation into the jailers alleged drug activity outside of work.

After the three month investigation, prompted by a tip by a citizen, a search warrant was served at the home of John Nicholas Edmonds and Andrea Evans at 2254 E. Livingston on August 6th. Authorities allegedly found pot, methamphetamine and assorted drug paraphernalia in the raid.

Edmonds, who had been a jailer in Greene County for about 11 years, was fired the same day. An internal investigation found no evidence of Edmonds supplying drugs to inmates.

--

Andrea Edmonds (mug shot GCSO)

COMET Drug Task Force officers reported a strong smell of marijuana in the home during the search and Andrea Edmonds allegedly admitted to officers that she bought meth the night before.

Charges have not been filed against two other adult family members who were in the home at the time of the raid.
-
Both of the Edmonds, who have been charged with drug possession, were released from jail after posting $1,000 bond each.
-
COMET and the Missouri Highway Patrol assisted in the investigation.

Joplin Man Charged With Raping Girlfriends 8 Year-Old Daughter:

A Joplin man has been charged with statutory rape and statutory sodomy of an 8-year-old girl.

Prosecutors say twenty eight year-old Daniel L. Menteer allegedly inappropriately touched his girlfriends daughter. Menteer was arrested in a Joplin courtroom when he appeared for another matter.

In 2004 Menteer was sentenced to four years in prison after he pled guilty to deviate sexual assault of a child under the age of 14.

Menteer is being held in the Jasper County jail on $20,000 bond.

Four Charged With Kidnapping In Jasper County:

Donald D. Simonds Jr. (mug shot JCSO)

Five people have been charged with allegedly kidnapping a Joplin man late Thursday night and restraining him for over five hours in a home in rural Carthage.

Prosecutors have charged Donald D. Simonds Jr., 36, Carthage; Darrell W. Thomason, 41, Jasper; Brandy L. Swinford, 22, Lamar and Christopher B. Haskins, 25, of Carthage with kidnapping.

--

Darrell W. Thomason (mug shot JCSO)

Jasper County Sheriff's Captain Derek Walrod says investigators are still trying to piece together exactly what happened after Ricky Prigg, 54, got into a vehicle with Simonds, Thomason, Swinford and Haskins. Walrod says somewhere along the drive to 10607 Cedar Road Ricky Prigg, 54, was tied up.

Walrod says Prigg somehow was able to free himself after being held for five and a half hours and ran through woods to an RV lot and had a someone call 9-1-1. "We're still looking for a motive in the case. At this point Mr. Prigg says the incident was not related to drug activity."

--

Christopher B. Haskins (mug shot JCSO)

Walrod said Prigg sustained some cuts and scrapes as he ran through the woods when he bolted from the house.

While officers were waiting on a search warrant for the residence, a car full of suspects attempted to leave and were arrested. Walrod says, "When they were stopped, they were trying to burn a controlled substance with a three year-old child in the vehicle."

Simonds and Thomason have been charged with kidnapping, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, tampering with evidence and endangering the welfare of a child. They are each being held in the Jasper County jail on $65,000 bond. Haskins has been charged with kidnapping and is being held on $50,000 bond.

Jamie D. Delmont, 28 of Carthage was arrested on an outstanding warrant.

--

Brandy L. Swinford (mug shot JCSO)

Swinford, the little girl's mother, has been charged with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, tampering and endangering the welfare of a child. She is being held on $15,000 bond.

The little girl has been placed in protective custody with the Division of Family Services.