Is this FTL Paula?

If there is any conspiricy it’s coming from those who try to make people like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul look like quacks. They ignore their warnings and when they are shown to be correct they berate them.

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.

http://online.wsj.com/

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Monday that a White House office that has records about millions of possibly missing emails doesn’t have to make them public.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly says the Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, enabling the White House to maintain the secrecy of a lengthy internal paper trail about its problem-plagued email system.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed against the administration by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a private group that has been trying to find out the extent of the White House’s email problems for more than a year. The functions of the Office of Administration “are strictly administrative,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly said the Office of Administration has no authority over others in the executive branch and that the office is exclusively dedicated to providing services to the Executive Office of the President.

Since its creation in 1978, the Office of Administration has responded to FOIA requests. But the Bush White House reversed that policy in August 2007 in the lawsuit filed by CREW.

http://www.cnn.com

In January, the White House said it cannot rule out that it may have lost certain e-mails. The possibly lost e-mails are from a period in which the United States decided to go to war with Iraq…

As if we needed another example of how inefficient and broken Washington is.

I certainly saw this ruling coming a mile away, just as I can see these “lost” emails mysteriously resurfacing some time after today’s events become a talking point in a US history book. There’s room for debate on whether or not the Office of Administration can be held subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but I think we can all agree that for what we’re paying Washington, this should never happen.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Writes Stephen Fairfax: “Today on page A5 of the War Street Journal, the FDIC has a full-page ad. They have the gall to display a $100,000 Series 1934 Gold Certificate, with the words ‘One Hundred Thousand Dollars in Gold’ plainly visible.

“Of course, the FDIC has never paid an atom of gold to any depositor, and was created as part of the gigantic theft and fraud associated with FDR’s gold confiscation. Wikipedia reports that it is still illegal for private citizens to own the gold certificate whose image leads the FDIC propaganda.”

Things like this make it seem more plausible that some of the many conspiracies surrounding the Federal Reserve are true.

http://www.examiner.com/…

Six parents of chronically truant San Francisco schoolchildren - each of whom missed more than 50 days of class - were arraigned Tuesday before a superior court judge on infractions that charged the guardians with failing to make sure their kids receive an education.

The infractions, pursued by District Attorney Kamala Harris, carry a $100 fine. If the truancy continues, the next step would be misdemeanor charges of neglecting a child’s education, charges that could land a parent in county jail for up to a year with a fine up to $2,500, Harris said Tuesday.

The parents - Connie Wilson, Jamelia Kellom, Shanae Seastrunk, Kenneth Reed, Chanell Brown and Joshua Pomar - were the first to be prosecuted under stricter enforcement guidelines announced by Harris at the beginning of the school year.

The number of students skipping school in San Francisco has long been above statewide averages and costs the already cash-strapped district more than $5 million in state funding every year. One absence costs the San Francisco Unified School District about $42, according to district data.

Among the most common reasons for truancies, especially among elementary school children, are child care issues, drug abuse by parents, lack of transportation, family abandonment and the students ditching classes, according to school district Superintendant Carlos Garcia.

“You know, little kids, what rights do they have? I think we as a society need to stand up for their rights, the right to an education,” Garcia said.

1. Education is not a right. You don’t have a right to other people’s labor. Your existence doesn’t create an obligation for others to provide you with anything. Taxation is theft, period. 2. The absence wouldn’t cost anyone anything if there wasn’t compulsory government schooling. This whole “your actions cost us all” “problem” only exists because these power hungry, megalomaniacs who think they know better than everyone one else use guns to force people into participating in things they could be doing voluntarily. If the service was so important as these people like to claim why then wouldn’t the free market be able to provide it? If you look at it historically it could… what has changed? Could it be that religious and socialist idealists wanted to control the populous? Could it be that compulsory education was instituted not for the children but those in power who wish to propagandize their utopian values?