Guy Berger

Krugman may or may not be right on oil prices currently experiencing a speculative bubble. (Which can largely be boiled down to the idea that the actual price of crude oil has diverged from its "fundamental value".) However, he is 100% right that the fundamental value of oil (and other forms of energy) IS increasing, due to rapid growth in India, China and other developing countries. It's a little late here for me to dissect the article posted by Berigan, but it strikes me that this is largely a mishmash of accusation and doesn't contain many serious arguments. I would like to say that: (A) "Speculation" (as commonly understood) is not the same as a "speculative asset bubble". Plenty of speculation can happen in situations where assets trade close to their fundamental values. (B) "Market manipulation" is different from "speculation" or "speculative asset bubbles". The latter two can happen without any market manipulation whatsoever.

Because prices are rising to adjust. That's the point of supply and demand -- when supply decreases or demand increases, prices go up. Guy

I am not an expert on the oil industry, but how much oil does "big oil" actually own? Most reserves are in countries that have nationalized their oil industry. Guy

I don't really see global demand for energy going lower. Its rate of growth will probably slow (are China and India really going to grow at 10% per year when oil is at $xxxxx per barrel?) but that doesn't imply a fall in demand, just (at best) a stabilization. I am not sure I believe the bubble story, though it is certainly possible Guy

I don't know why I slept on this band for as long as I did, but this week I heard "Victoria" for the first time. Wow. One of the best pop songs I've discovered in a long time. Guy

I'll give it a try - pioneer - Ornette Coleman. No doubt a pioneer, but even he didn't literally invent a new style -- there were precedents for his innovations. Guy

Yes, I don't think it could be stated any better than this. I also think that focusing exclusively on genres tends to overstate and understate his influence at the same time. Guy

My research in grad school was in international trade and development economics so I find this stuff fascinating. And especially sub-Saharan Africa, where the #1 tool for lifting large numbers of people out of poverty - the market - is not doing its job very well. For what it's worth I should've mentioned -- while India is far, far superior within its own borders in obeying its citizens' rights, in both Myanmar and sub-Saharan Africa its behavior is little better than China.

Damn, just bought these from amazon... Guy

Given the resurgence of interest in tiny cars, perhaps we will start seeing Fiats in the States as well.

For what it's worth - Miles's recordings from '55 onward were originally released on LPs and programming order usually makes a big difference. The music loses some of its potency if you listen to it in box set form. Guy

Not sure if I would personally give it 5, but it is a great album and you were not off the mark. Guy

That case could definitely be made. The Fillmore East recording from March 1970 that was released a while back is great, but despite Sony marketing as "the Lost Quintet" is not the same thing. Guy

Really don't agree with any of these statements. #2 and #3 are matters of taste of course but I really don't hear any similarity between Rivers and Coltrane. Very different players. A bunch of reasons. One is that it gave audiences a sense of familiarity with the material. The second is that rehearsing new material requires work. And the third is that groups that place a high importance on improvisation might appreciate a high familiarity with a narrow range of material rather than a smaller familiarity with a wide range. Guy

It's a good thing that Carter refused to institute price controls - they are an absolutely terrible idea. Guy

I'm not really familiar with the benefits of credit unions. What are they? Guy Two really, I think. First, they're run as co-operatives, so the profits (if any) can be returned to the investors (rather than a bank's shareholders) as dividends. I don't really see this as a plus (or a minus). Just different people collecting the profits. Obviously an empirical question - but given the typical effectiveness of most not-for-profit organizations, I am very hesitant to think that this is a sustainable model without any sort of explicit or implicit subsidy. Guy