December 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

« In Case You were Wondering . . . | Main | Economic Notes from the Underground »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It was outrageous speculation that was being blamed (cf. articles by galbraith, etc.), if you looked away from your "crazy leftist" talking points long enough to see what actual critics of the cost of fuel were saying rather than projecting. Since the parties involved in outrageous speculation (i.e. Wall Street) recently got their asses handed to them, it seems they haven't had time (or money) to mess with the price of oil.

Come to think of it...what happened to all that outrageous demand for fuel from India, China and everywhere else that was *supposedly* driving the rise in price? Did half the world suddenly stop driving? Or was there outrageous speculation on oil futures? hmmm.

How does one distinguish outrageous speculation from non-outrageous speculation? If the rise in oil prices was due solely to "outrageous" speculation, why doesn't this happen all the time, or at least every 2-3 yrs?

If you want me to get away from my "crazy leftist" talking points, you better tell the folks writing letters to the editor of my local paper or my colleagues advising student activist groups to get away from them as well. I don't make 'em up out of thin air.

And if there was a lot of "outrageous speculation" (nice clear easily identifiable phenomenon there...) going on, I'd suggest that many of THOSE folks got their asses handed to them in the last few months. That is how markets work after all.

There's always this question:

Why do gas prices shoot up so fast, but come down so slow? Well, here's a great counter example.

And here's an explanation why gas prices come down at all: They want us to stay addicted to gas, so then they can drive prices up again. Another "heroin addict" analogy.

Finally, I have a chance to offer some input toward a question posed on this blog.

Communication via Internet has been marked by its informality and spontaneity. The ellipsis found a natural home in Internet chat as people needed a mechanism to represent a pause in thought, and this persisted through to other forms of online communication, particularly blogging. Since blog post titles are meant to provoke an initial thought to be expanded upon by the rest of the post, the ellipsis works really well for the transition, and that is why so many end up using it in their titles.

My work here is done.

On a completely unrelated note, I find the differences between print and online communication fascinating. The Internet's inherent informality can be ominous if not used correctly, but in general it has resulted in much more effective presentations of information. Also, with the less formal environment, writers are more likely to slip up and reveal underlying bias which can become a subconscious tool for routing out fact and fiction.

My parents are always concerned about how much you can trust information from the Internet, but I always assure them that the 'Google generation' has learned how to cope with the barrage of bad information floating around out there, given that they have an ounce of discernment. It's the epitome of spontaneous order and adaptation. (Wow, sorry for the tangent)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books