Oil Speculators: The Geek Version

By -
OK here is the geekiest version yet of my views on oil speculation. I go through this one pretty slowly, step by step. I deal with some of the complications brought up by our good friends at MarginalRevolution etc., and show that they don't change the conclusion that speculators don't seem to be responsible.

There will be a punchier version (which deals more with the policy implications, rather than the boring economics) in an upcoming Freeman.

Comments

  1. Silas Barta4:14 PM

    You didn't mention how long-position speculation on oil could actually cause the price of oil to fall significantly, for example, if I were the one doing it.

    Your elaborate, well-thought-out justification for this oversight is _______.

    j/k, j/k, you're good, you're good

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy4:44 PM

    Out of curiosity, what are some examples of your "bad luck" in the past? You didn't cause 9/11, did you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4:50 PM

    I'm glad you are so impressed with us here at the blog that you give us a more technical version than FEE (and probably Congress).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Silas Barta5:19 PM

    One example would be constantly having problems that are very vivid in my consciousness (such as back pain) but which get trivialized and ignored because of the lack of a large enough physical component.

    Out of curiosity, how would you rank these priorities:

    1) Establishing clear, well-defined, principled property rights in resources for which there are none and get abused for that very reason, such as the atmosphere.

    2) Not having to pay more for gasoline.

    I would put them 1,2.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy12:08 AM

    Silas,

    I'm not going to reverse my position on drilling your accusations.

    I don't understand what you're saying about your bad luck. You have back pain and your doctor doesn't believe you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Silas Barta1:31 PM

    Wow, now it's way too late for Bob to see this, but ... yes, that's the simplified version.

    The more specific version is: yes they believe I have pain, but that "it's no big deal" because "it's never killed anyone" (as long as you ignore suicides); or believing, against all evidence, that it can be fixed with low-grade, unscientific treatments like physical therapy ("sixth time's the charm!"); or that it *must* not be hurting that much because the disc protrusion showing up on the MRIs isn't *that* big so I'm just a wuss. (Needless to say, not one of them has accepted my offer to go through one day of work with 16 needles scattered throughout their back in exchange for $50.)

    One of them, however, is genuinely sympathetic and has said that, because of the torture I go through in working, I meet the medical and legal definitions of disabled.

    (No, the quality of the chair doesn't help, thanks for asking.)

    ***

    And, thanks for reaffirming your position that your vision of a libertarian world is actually one of a privatized bridges but socialized air, and that cheap oil is more important to you than the property rights of others in their lungs and low-altitude land. Very principled.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more