They were interviewing Bob Nardelli, the C.E.O. of Chrysler, and he was explaining why the auto industry, at that time, needed $25 billion in loan guarantees. It wasn’t a bailout, he said. It was a way to enable the car companies to retool for innovation. I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: “We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation?” If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?

One of the puzzling things is that most of GM’s non-US operations are profitable, and most of those are prospering with the sort of cars that consumers in the US now want. Development costs are minimal – all the cars have great safety features, ‘clean’ emissions, etc. so there’s little tweaking to do – the cars are fuel efficient, and they’re even pretty well styled. The only stumbling block is cost, though production costs in Europe can’t be significantly higher than in the US (otherwise GM wouldn’t need the bailout. I guess hiring a container ship to start importing Vauxhall Astras is too innovative without a fat pot of government cash to pay for it.

The Chinese news agency Xinhua said 52.7% of the country’s 3,631 companies making toys for export went out of business in the first seven months of the year.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown says he is “angry” about irresponsible behaviour by bankers and has warned that “the days of big bonuses are over”.

Wrong!

I’ve no idea if there’s some huge flaw in the argument, beyond the fact that the banks probably won’t like it, but it certainly appears to have merit. Unfortunately it’s from Soros, so the Republicans probably won’t like it either, and right now that’s a bad thing.

I’d been thinking that I was a potential future victim of the crisis. The mortgage we have cost £195 to set up, and gets us 1.5% off the standard rate for the life of the mortgage. The current equivalent deal costs £795, and only gets you 1.25% off. And that’s with a very traditional lender, who cover at least 90% of their lending from their own savers.

But then I realized (and oh how this will make a capitalist reader’s heart soar) that there’s no ‘right’ level for such deals. I think it’s pretty clear that mortgages at the moment are a little expensive, but the one we got was probably a little cheap, depending as it did on an inflated lending market. Hopefully by the time we’re looking to move again things will have evened up some.

Oh yes, I took a little time off from blogging accidentally – work, life, that sort of thing – but I’m back now.

I’ve just returned from a visit to your Fareham store. As I was checking out a transvestite walked past, presumably having finished his own shopping. The person serving me, her colleagues, and assorted passing staff members then spent the next five minutes laughing at the man in make-up and a dress who “walks like a navy”.

I was raised not to publicly question the behaviour of people older than me, so said nothing at the time. I’m deeply disappointed that the same standards of civility aren’t held by your employees. They remain entirely free to think whatever they want of someone who doesn’t conform to their expectations, but if I wanted to hear such opinions I’d hang out with a bunch of 13 year olds. I certainly wouldn’t expect it from a group of adults who are supposed to be thinking about their customers.

10. The cost of local services should be paid for by user charges, i.e. a Poll Tax.

Wrong. It is more important to look at the value of what the landowner gets (as reflected in land values) than the cost of local services. Having more policeman on the beat reduces crime, cuts a household’s home and car insurance bills and makes an area more attractive, thus boosting selling prices. Having lots of five-a-day advisors and environmental-awareness-officers costs just as much but adds no value whatsoever.

The argument is that any benefit you derive from local services will be reflected in the value of your land; if you get free massages from the local authority, and that’s something that people want, then the value of your land will rise (as will the land tax, thereby paying for those massages). The counter-argument is also in there; ‘five-a-day advisors’ (I assume the author is referring to healthy eating campaigns) may be the single best thing a local authority could do for its residents, but if it’s not seen to be a desirable benefit then there will be no corresponding increase in land values to help pay for it.

OK, not really. I don’t think anyone has a solution, or rather I don’t think anyone knows they have a solution (using ‘know’ to indicate fact, rather than internal certainty). But as this is partially a result of the free market, it only seems fair to let the market have a crack at solving it. A good start would be a tax on pollution, which would affect extractive industries among others. Now I’d support this on general environmental grounds, but putting that argument aside there are real costs involved in pollution that are currently paid by society rather than by the people causing those costs.

So how does that solve the problem? Well it doesn’t, it just changes the problem. Assuming that China levies this tax directly, but lowers other taxes to compensate, it pushes manufacturers to save a little on raw materials, perhaps by employing more people to control waste. If China doesn’t enact the tax but the importing countries do (which I’d guess is less likely) then we have a direct incentive not to consume so much, and China is still pushed to use fewer resources. Either way the stupidity of the current system is tempered, without forcing a negative impact on the average worker.