November 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SPECIAL TIMES EDITION BLANKETS U.S. CITIES, PROCLAIMS END TO WAR

• PDF: http://www.nytimes-se.com/pdf
• For video updates: http://www.nytimes-se.com/video
• Contact: mailto:writers@nytimes-se.com

Early this morning, commuters nationwide were delighted to find out that while they were sleeping, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had come to an end.

If, that is, they happened to read a “special edition” of today’s New York Times.

In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass them out on the street.

Articles in the paper announce dozens of new initiatives including the establishment of national health care, the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for C.E.O.s, and, of course, the end of the war.

The paper, an exact replica of The New York Times, includes International, National, New York, and Business sections, as well as editorials, corrections, and a number of advertisements, including a recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. There is also a timeline describing the gains brought about by eight months of progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama’s “Yes we REALLY can” speech. (The paper is post-dated July 4, 2009.)

“It’s all about how at this point, we need to push harder than ever,” said Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper’s writers. “We’ve got to make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do. After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start imagining heaven.”

Not all readers reacted favorably. “The thing I disagree with is how they did it,” said Stuart Carlyle, who received a paper in Grand Central Station while commuting to his Wall Street brokerage. “I’m all for freedom of speech, but they should have started their own paper.”

Is Ms. Suttner claiming Carter wasn’t hell? What about LBJ?  I’m not so sure I can be “all for freedom of speech” for individuals who have no desire to extend me freedom of speech (pretty sure they support campaign regulation), or freedom of association (CEO pay, lobbying), or freedom from aggression by the majority (mandatory national healthcare.) The Yes Men are state socialists / anti-big business. They aren’t concerned with individual freedoms. They don’t bother reading history. They likely have little understanding of economics or how these plans of theirs would work in theory or practice. They have an incredibly shallow view of the world and it’s problems, ignore human tendency, and prescribe solutions equally as shallow and ignorant. Their proposed solutions however are far worse then the existing problems.

The one thing I hope comes from acts like this is that the participants get so worked up that when Obama fails to deliver their faith in their all powerful god Government will be diminished. Unlikely, but possible. Maybe if more bridges are built between the anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialists these state socialist types can be more easily convinced.

UPDATE:

Since their servers aren’t very responsive here are the PDFs: Without spreads | With spreads

http://www.fortbendnow.com/…

In the face of $4 per gallon gasoline and predictions the price will rise to $7 by the end of summer, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson) is calling on Congress to explore how the weakened value of the dollar may be contributing to the rise in oil prices.

Paul, whose 14th Congressional District of Texas includes part of the Katy area and much of Cinco Ranch, said he wants Congress to hold hearings on the relationship between the falling value of the dollar and the recent rise of oil prices.

As ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Paul sent a letter earlier this week to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services committee, asking for the hearings.

“The price of oil is currently among the most pressing issues to American workers,” Paul said. “Congress should be examining all factors contributing to the high cost of oil, and monetary policy is one of the key factors in the run-up in price.”

Paul’s letter pointed out that the price of oil in dollars has risen 39 percent this year. Oil in Euros has only risen 30 percent, resulting in degraded purchasing power of the dollar of at least 80 cents of the increased price of a gallon of gas.

“Neither the Federal Reserve nor the Treasury Department have been willing to take responsibility for the dollar’s slide over the past several years, while American consumers have been forced to pay continually higher prices for gasoline, heating oil and numerous other imported products upon which Americans depend,” Paul noted in his letter. “American consumers cannot afford to allow continued lax Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department’s duties as stewards of the dollar, especially since the dollar is a major factor in the skyrocketing price of oil.”

Besides himself, 16 other Members of Congress signed on to the letter, including ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Spencer Bachus, and Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling.

Hopefully DownsizeDC will get something going on this. If anything this could be an educational tool for those who would be participating. The more congress critters who understand economics, even a little bit, the better.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/…

Ron Paul gave a speech on the House floor today condemning the “virtual war resolution” soon to be considered by the House of Representatives. This bill already has 208 co-sponsors, and will likely be voted on after the 4th of July holiday. A related bill is being worked on in the Senate, with 29 Cosponsors. Many of the cosponsors are Democrats. Who says the Democratic Party is the anti-war party? You can see the video of Dr. Paul speaking out forcefully against this resolution here, sadly to a nearly empty House chamber.

It is time for Americans to join together against this insanity. Please take the time to understand your representative’s position on this resolution, and let him or her know that the American people do not want another war. Below is an unofficial transcript of Dr. Paul’s speech:

Read More…

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://thirdpartywatch.com/…

Green Party candidates like Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay, and Katherine “Kat” Swift offer positive solutions.The British are paying $8 dollars a gallon for gas. Goldman Sachs predicts Americans will be paying $6 a gallon next year.

Green Party candidates positive solutions. “More Trains, Less Traffic”. Build modern high speed rail across America. New High Speed rail in the intersate corridors, and light rail in communities to cut dependance on foreign oil in half. Stop wanton waste of $1 Trillion tax dollars on foriegn military misadventure. Stop the deficit spending that has brought a weaking dollar, and inflated prices. Seek political solutions for political problems. Use tax savings to balance annual $3.1 trillion federal budget, pay off $9.4 Trillion federal debt, install auditable accounting system at pentagon. Build rail with tax savings.

Kent Mesplay, ” Cut out tax payer funded oil, auto, aspault subsidies”.

Columist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this week. “Tax the damn thing.”

“Why have the extra $2 dollars (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gas tax.” To pay off the federal debt and strengthen the U.S. economy. Force conservation.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S.auto fleet, change driving habits, and hugely reduce U.S. oil demand and bring down world oil prices .. the American consumer and American economy reap all the benefits”.

Don’t know if the spelling mistakes are in the original press release but I’d hope not. Couldn’t find this release on their website so I’m not sure of the source. I’m interested in the economic theory behind this along with the constitutional validation. I have a feeling the former would be overly simplistic and the latter based on the fallacious living document theory. I’m not entirely sure I understand the tax floor at $4/gallon of gas. Does that mean if prices drop the tax will become a greater percentage or the retail price? Does that imply that they will raise the tax as the gas price increases in order to at least keep the percentage the same? How will this light rail work in the nonmetropolitian areas where at least 1/6th of the population lives in? I know that where I grew up buses and light rail would be almost completely useless. Where is the justification for taxing those individuals who happen to live in rural areas where these services won’t ever reach? Will anyone acknowledge that the unconstitutional interstate highway system very likely was a major component of our current situation? Are the people advocating this claimed solution claiming that this government intervention will be different because it’d be done “right” by the “correct” people unlike the very consistent string of “wrong” individuals prior? What do they propose to do for those who couldn’t afford artificially inflated $6/gallon gasoline?