I caught a bit of Bill Richardson on CNN this morning. Where I came in in the interview they were talking about the backlash Barak Obama is getting from his supporters for changing his position on the recent FISA bill passed in the Senate. From being opposed to the telecom immunities and saying he would filibuster if it was kept to voting for closure and the bill itself.

Richardson tries to explain away Obama’s position change saying in effect: “That’s just the realities of politics when running for president. He [Obama] has said when he’s in office he will see how the law is working and act accordingly.” What’s the realities? That you don’t have a spine? That special interests tell you what to do?

Then they change topics to energy and how the government is going to solve this supposed problem. They show a clip from an anti-McCain ad which critisizes him for wanting to allow drilling because it will take upwards of 7 years “to get the first drop of oil.” So complaining he doesn’t have a short term solution. The interviewer brings up that Obama doesn’t have much of a short term plan either. They quote things from his energy plan which go into effect in 2025, 2050, etc. Richardson hems and haws and beats around the bush. He just goes on to say that drilling is a good idea, as long as it’s not in nice places like Alaska.

Whatever the case these guys piss me off. Yes, I know, they are just acting like typical politicians but still. I’ve heard so much bullshit from people about how he’s different. Gotten into discussions on why he should be supported because he’s different. He’s not. It’s obvious to anyone not awestruck.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Campaign season is just getting warmed up, but looking back on the primaries we’ve already seen plenty of the usual fare: candidates shaking hands, hanging out at diners, and scaring voters about foreigners who are taking your jobs.

Sometimes the threat comes from China, Japan, or outsourcing to India. Today, it’s NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement—you know, all those Mexicans taking our jobs.

Senator Barack Obama joins the likes of CNN’s Lou Dobbs in decrying NAFTA. So many free trade foes fret about cheap foreign labor, yet they rarely holler about competitors who will work for far less than any foreigner. Politicians don’t pay much attention to it, but—from Terminator to Ice Pirates—Hollywood films have been warning us about humanity’s inevitable war against the machines.

“Now, think about it,” says Reason.tv host Drew Carey. “How are we supposed to compete against something that doesn’t get paid, doesn’t get health insurance, and never goes on breaks?”

Today, we don’t need human workers to book our travel, do our banking, or file our taxes. From factory workers to symphony conductors, countless workers are locked in battle with soulless job stealers known as computers, websites, and robots.

“No job is safe from the robot threat!” warns Carey. Of course, the warning is more than a little tongue-in-cheek. There’s no need to take a sledgehammer to a robot, because, although technology shakes up the labor market, it ends up giving us higher living standards as well as more and better job opportunities.

Like technology, trade gives us more good stuff than bad—yet Americans are likely to cheer technology and fear trade. No doubt TV talkers and White House wannabes will keep stoking our fears of foreigners until voters and viewers stop buying it—or until robots snag their jobs, too.

I don’t like regulated trade but if the alternative is one sided regulation the argument can be made for government treaties but they should not increase any restrictions or provide special treatment. That, however, is incredibly unlikely not to be included and therefore I think better to be safe then sorry and allow the grey/black market work around the regulations.

http://www.forbes.com/…

China’s decision to raise fuel prices is unlikely to have much of an impact on demand, which is the fundamental cause of inflation, Morgan Stanley said in a note.

‘It seems to us that the government is trying to cope with the near-term financial difficulties of refiners and IPPs (independent power producers) rather than trying to depress demand,’ the note said.

The regulator, the National Development and Reform Commission, said last night that it would raise gasoline and diesel prices by 1,000 yuan per ton and jet fuel by 1,500 yuan per ton, effective from today.

The government has also raised electricity tariffs for industrial consumers and announced caps on cap coal prices.

Morgan Stanley (nyse: MS - news - people ) said the price hikes will also add more inflationary pressure to China’s economy, making it less likely that the government will permit more significant power tariff rises in the next few months.

It said that while there will be a temporary improvement in the performance of China’s refiners and independent power producers, the ‘underlying imbalance is not fixed’ and more inflationary pressures are expected.

‘Inflation can only be fixed by controlling demand, not prices,’ Morgan Stanley said.

‘When the regulators focus on pricing control, the imbalance only deepens and earnings visibility becomes worse. Our market de-rating call still holds.’

This is just what I was talking about beetlbumjl. They can’t continue to have artificially low prices without consequences. Of course this retard from Morgan Stanley needs to head back to economics class. Inflation can be controlled by the government… by not printing more money i.e. monetizing debt. What he is really referring to is the increase in prices as a result of higher demand. That’s not “inflation.”

If we look back just a few years we can see that there has been a remarkable shift in the definition. I don’t know of any word which has gone through such a translation without having prior or secondary meanings still listed. My conspiracist sense is tingling.

Regardless, the Chinese government has kicked a bucket of water and is now trying desperately to stop the waves by shaking it. If they allow the natural price of fuel to return that would slow consumption. The demand for energy is likely not going to be reduced but naturally higher prices will incentivize entrepreneurs to find new, cheaper energy sources when compared to oil.

Update:

Just on CNN they were talking about this. The mentioned that Saudi Arabia was wanting to talk about strengthening the dollar and the anchor said that “that would likely bring prices down.” Well of course it would. Oil is traded in US dollars. The US dollar is the reserve currency for much of the world. So if the dollar is worth less, in turn leading to other currencies being worth less, then oil will cost more. If the dollar is worth more then less dollars are needed to purchase the same unit of oil. Therefore prices must drop otherwise the value of oil would have to be rising at the same time. The same anchor said that increasing the prices would limit demand. That’s sort of true in that the higher costs may divert people to other means however in the larger view it’s a ridiculous statement. The demand, as in the desire for a energy source, is still the same or increasing. It’s just less consumable because of higher costs.

Record prices have prompted a slew of bills to curtail the role of investors, but traders say they could backfire:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Fed up with soaring oil prices and a chorus of people blaming Wall Street speculators, Congress is considering a host of rules aimed at limiting the inflow of investor money into oil contracts.

But oil traders urge caution. While more disclosure is a good thing, they say making it harder for speculators to invest in oil futures could have the opposite effect intended, and send prices higher.

In light of oil’s phenomenal climb from under $50 a barrel to nearly $140 in less than 18 months - and the public belief that Wall Street traders were behind the rise - Congress is awash in bills that attempt to limit the role of speculators. Several have bipartisan support and could soon become law.

“In two days, the price of oil rose $16,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., at a joint hearing of two Senate panels on oil speculation Tuesday. “Did I miss something, was there some war in the Middle East?”

Read More…