it says once buy something that s copy righted, a book, a cd, you can sell it. the copy right holder has no interest in your sale. this was about whether it applied to things made overseas. this affected a student who came to the u.s. he was buying textbooks here and he asked his parents to buy him the english versions made in thailand because they were a lot cheaper. they were made to be sold only in thailand. pretty soon he had a booming business making over $100,000 selling these ill ported textbooks on ebay. he got sued and he took it autumn way to the supreme court. today supreme court said that first sale applies to things made overseas as well. what that means is that you can now, or you can still sell anything that you buy that has copy righted material in it on ebay. even if it is made overseas. that would include books that are published overseas, but perhaps computers that contain software. even some kind of watches that have trademarks in them. lots of products.
the erroneous loss is just the latest evidence that what banks call hedges are often risky bets that so-called too big to fail banks have no business making. now, it s obviously a stock reminder of the need for regulators. he goes on to talk about how we need to protect the taxpayer from this risk. just to recap some of the things that happened. it s not just the monetary loss here. it s also a setback in terms of the reputation. finding the white shoes are scuffed. this is a bank that kind of came through the financial crisis a lot better off than other banks. in terms of its share price, it s viewed the best of bank stock. it is falling today and taking a lot of the other major financials with it. but is not effecting the overall market. we hope it doesn t effect other banks. for the everyday consumer, that is. let s switch to something. the largest ipo in a long time, we ve been talked about facebook, right?
the new tax doesn t punish polluters. it punishes anyone, business making over $2 million a year in revenue but traffics in any of the chemicals, oil, gas. this creates, this law cre treats them as polluters. don t they didn t dump cheryl: let me get john layfield with us, via skype again. john, what do you think, sir? i don t have any idea what the administration hates about big business but apparently they do. they are going after banks and they will put punitive tax on banks and they tried to go after wal-mart. now going after the oil companies. this has nothing to do with a clean-up. don t say it has to do with the environment. this has something to do with a windfall profit tax and telling people if you make money in the country, you must be evil. therefore, we ll take the money from you. cheryl: tracy? to john s point, not big business. $2 million in a top line is not a lot. the bottom line could be $300,000 after you pay everything. so you are talking about hitting l
in the implementation of the superfund before and the same problem you will have again, when you tax any business making over $2 million a year, that s insane. it will hurt the economy and it will hurt everything else. yes, it may be good for the environment but you are going to pay for it more in the long run, particularly if you let the federal government run it. outrageous. that s a good point. $2 million for a company is nothing as far as income each year and they wouldn t be hiring if that was the case. the question is not if it is going to be paid for but who will pay for it. if someone dumps sludge in my backyard i want them to pay for it, not me. the taxes are focussed on oil but that s not what it says. mark pay zero in american taxes. you go to the court system to solve that one, my friend. jonathan? we can t find a lot of 30% of the superfund sites are abandoned sites. they go out of business and you know who pays for it? you and me.
not having a grand jury. i was only there 31 years and i never saw that, but maybe i m missed that. then he called it a matter, acquiesced to the loretta lynch issue. being a leader doesn t mean you lead and calm waters, you fight the headwinds and he just never did that. he never put on his fbi hat, always wear his department of justice hat and made decisions he had no business making. i have a big problem with his representation of what happened. tucker: you said you were there for 31 years and saw a lot of investigations take place. and you never seen a situation like this were a grand jury wasn t called. is that what you said? absolutely that s what i said. from the most in your investigation to the most major investigation, you cannot do your job as an agent or commander, or prosecutor, without a grand jury. the fact that this is a major investigation of national