Re: pomo or the economy?
At 01:11 AM 09/09/2000 +, you wrote: Will Goldilocks meet the Three Bears now, Jim D.? hey, inflation driven by high oil prices might be a _good_ thing, because it might prevent asset-price deflation and the resulting debt-deflation depression! Inflation is one way to get rid of unsustainable debts... On the other hand (and more likely), an oil price spike might encourage the Fed to push the US and world economies into a tail-spin (the aforementioned debt-deflation depression, with a large component of underconsumption). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "From the east side of Chicago/ to the down side of L.A. There's no place that he gods/ We don't bow down to him and pray. Yeah we follow him to the slaughter / We go through the fire and ash. Cause he's the doll inside our dollars / Our Lord and Savior Jesus Cash (chorus): Ah we blow him up -- inflated / and we let him down -- depressed We play with him forever -- he's our doll / and we love him best." -- Terry Allen.
pomo or the economy?
Colin reminded us that the discussion on postmodernism seems to crop up every couple years. I cannot for the life of me understand why on this list people get so much more energized discussing the subject, when economic questions, such as the discussion of educational vouchers, seem to get relatively little attention here. I subscribe to the Sacramento Bee, which today had a headline suggesting that higher oil prices might be leading to a recession. I would think that would be very important for us to be ready to explain why a recession happened. It would be easy to fob it off onto environmental restrictions, that supposedly cause higher oil prices. Or perhaps excessive regulation or any of the other usual suspects. Don't you think that we should be more interested in what's happening or what is about to happen in the economy rather than debates about literary criticism? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pomo or the economy?
Michael Perelman wrote: Colin reminded us that the discussion on postmodernism seems to crop up every couple years. I cannot for the life of me understand why on this list people get so much more energized discussing the subject, when economic questions, such as the discussion of educational vouchers, seem to get relatively little attention here. Because even economists find economics boring? Keynes didn't call it "our miserable profession" for nothing. Doug
Re: pomo or the economy?
Michael Perelman wrote: I subscribe to the Sacramento Bee, which today had a headline suggesting that higher oil prices might be leading to a recession. I would think that would be very important for us to be ready to explain why a recession happened. It would be easy to fob it off onto environmental restrictions, that supposedly cause higher oil prices. Or perhaps excessive regulation or any of the other usual suspects. Thomas Friedman is gearing up to blame it on Chavez Hussein: * NY Times 9/8/00 FOREIGN AFFAIRS The Secret Oil Talks By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN The heads of state from the OPEC oil countries will gather in Venezuela Sept. 26 to 28 for only their second top-level meeting since OPEC was founded in 1960. The meeting comes as oil prices hit a 10-year high this week at $34 a barrel. Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, the host of the summit, just broke the ring of isolation around Iraq and personally flew to Baghdad to consult Saddam Hussein. Here's what I imagine was their conversation. Saddam: Hurricane Hugo, how are you? I love the way you snub the Americans. You remind me so much of Fidel. I'm sorry I can't attend your OPEC summit, but the minute I get on a plane, the Americans will either shoot it down or force it down. Just promise me you won't let the Saudis talk everyone there into keeping prices low. The Saudis keep repeating this mantra to OPEC: "The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones. People invented alternative tools. And the oil age won't end because of a shortage of oil, but because we drive the price up so far, so fast, we stimulate alternatives." But the fact is, the price of oil today, in real terms, is a fraction of what it used to be in 1973. That's why Americans all drive S.U.V.'s. Why should we subsidize their gas guzzling? Chávez: Brother Saddam, I couldn't agree more. Let's face it, I need the money now. Iran needs the money now. You need the money now. We all have soaring populations, we've all, frankly, destroyed the entrepreneurial middle class in our countries, and none of us want to go through the restructuring, deregulation or privatization required for globalization, because it would mean ceding power. So pushing up oil prices is our only means of economic survival. Bush and Gore say, how dare we raise prices? Oh, give me a break. I think we should propose this at our summit: We'll stop acting like a cartel if Microsoft stops acting like a monopoly. We'll cut the price of oil to its real production cost when Microsoft cuts the price of Windows 2000 to its real production cost. How's that? Saddam: I love it! And the Americans are just playing into our hands. You'd think I was their energy secretary. They're totally unprepared for winter: U.S. heating oil inventories are down nearly 40 percent from a year ago, and crude inventories are at a 24-year low! Heating oil prices have jumped to a 10-year high because of panic that U.S. refiners won't be able to produce enough fuel to heat homes by winter. I read one story where U.S. experts were quoting something called The Farmers' Almanac as predicting it was going to be a mild winter, so they don't have to worry about us. Can you imagine? Betting your whole economy on some almanac written by farmers? Chávez: They're cocky. They think everything runs on silicon now - it's all this new-economy stuff. The fact is, we're still the biggest threat to their prosperity and new economy. Without oil, baby, there ain't no bits and there ain't no bytes. We're the real dot in dot-com. They're just depending on the Saudis to increase production. The fools don't understand the Saudis' real situation. The Saudis are $140 billion in debt, with a huge public payroll and an electricity grid so in need of upgrading they had blackouts this summer. They need cash too. Show me the money, baby! Moreover, the excess capacity the Saudis have is largely in heavy oil, not in the sweet crude the market wants. If Iran, Iraq and Venezuela cut production just a bit we could soak up any Saudi increase. Saddam: Maybe it's time for a little October surprise. I've waited nine years to get revenge on George Bush. Now I'll get it on his son. Can you imagine if we make oil prices an issue in this U.S. election, with Bush Jr. and Cheney - the embodiments of Big Oil - running for office? Gore and Liebowitz, or whatever that Jewish guy's name is, will eat them alive. Chávez: If either of these candidates was a real leader he would be telling Americans that they actually need to push energy conservation immediately, by raising gas taxes and aggressively reducing their dependence on us. Look who their dot-com economy depends on today - Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia and Nigeria. Hah! The rogues' gallery! No serious U.S. presidential contender would tolerate that. Saddam: Then we're safe - $40 here we come! * Yoshie
Re: Re: pomo or the economy?
You might be right. Michael Perelman wrote: Colin reminded us that the discussion on postmodernism seems to crop up every couple years. I cannot for the life of me understand why on this list people get so much more energized discussing the subject, when economic questions, such as the discussion of educational vouchers, seem to get relatively little attention here. Because even economists find economics boring? Keynes didn't call it "our miserable profession" for nothing. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: pomo or the economy?
On Democracy Now today, Juan Gonzalez suggested that the money for Colombia may be in part a preparation to "Allende" Chavez. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Thomas Friedman is gearing up to blame it on Chavez Hussein: * NY Times 9/8/00 FOREIGN AFFAIRS -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pomo or the economy?
PEN-Lers, Item from The Sacramento Bee website: OPEC boost in oil output not expected to cool prices By BRUCE STANLEY, Associated Press (clip) LONDON (September 8, 2000 2:28 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - Analysts predict that OPEC will agree to raise its official output by no more than 800,000 barrels a day -- 3 percent of each member's production quota. They say such an increase would do little if anything to rein in oil prices, which have more than tripled during the past 20 months and have continued rising this week to new post-Gulf War highs. Well, yes. But the Sac. Bee article deftly omits one big part of the global oil production story: World consumption of oil was 76 million barrels a day during January-April 2000, an increase of eight million barrels a day since 1990, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). And the US? Its oil consumption was a mere 19 million barrels per day during January-April 2000 versus 17 million barrels in January-April 1990. Will Goldilocks meet the Three Bears now, Jim D.? Seth Sandronsky pomo or the economy? by Michael Perelman 08 September 2000 23:40 UTC Colin reminded us that the discussion on postmodernism seems to crop up every couple years. I cannot for the life of me understand why on this list people get so much more energized discussing the subject, when economic questions, such as the discussion of educational vouchers, seem to get relatively little attention here. I subscribe to the Sacramento Bee, which today had a headline suggesting that higher oil prices might be leading to a recession. I would think that would be very important for us to be ready to explain why a recession happened. It would be easy to fob it off onto environmental restrictions, that supposedly cause higher oil prices. Or perhaps excessive regulation or any of the other usual suspects. Don't you think that we should be more interested in what's happening or what is about to happen in the economy rather than debates about literary criticism? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
RE: Re: Re: pomo or the economy?
Echelon is working overtime... and the latest econ. report of the prez. show a big leap in nanotechnology investment. better, smaller "bugs" to put on those plastic plants... :-) Ian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 5:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:1529] Re: Re: pomo or the economy? On Democracy Now today, Juan Gonzalez suggested that the money for Colombia may be in part a preparation to "Allende" Chavez. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Thomas Friedman is gearing up to blame it on Chavez Hussein: * NY Times 9/8/00 FOREIGN AFFAIRS -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bears Are Everywhere! (was Re: pomo or the economy?)
Well, yes. But the Sac. Bee article deftly omits one big part of the global oil production story: World consumption of oil was 76 million barrels a day during January-April 2000, an increase of eight million barrels a day since 1990, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). And the US? Its oil consumption was a mere 19 million barrels per day during January-April 2000 versus 17 million barrels in January-April 1990. Will Goldilocks meet the Three Bears now, Jim D.? Seth Sandronsky There have been some literal encounters between Goldilocks more than three bears (animal bears, not bears on the Wall Street, but they may be related -- gas-guzzling economic boom + more sprawl = higher oil prices = bears, natural or economic, closer to home). Where is Colorado's answer to Mike Davis? * The New York Times September 7, 2000, Thursday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section A; Page 18; Column 1; National Desk HEADLINE: Basalt Journal; This Land Is Their Land: Bears Are Everywhere BYLINE: By MICHAEL JANOFSKY DATELINE: BASALT, Colo., Sept. 6 It was bad enough when Steve Solomon and his wife, Bates, found the skunk crawling around under their bed at 2 a.m. That they could deal with. Sooner or later, Mr. Solomon figured, the critter would make its way out the front door, which they routinely left open for the breeze. But was the door still open? Mr. Solomon had to check. That's when he froze. It was open, all right. But standing only 20 feet away at the compost bin was a large black bear, chomping on the remains of a cantaloupe. "It must have been twice my size," Mr. Solomon said today, guessing the bear's weight at 400 pounds or more. "I had a skunk behind me, a bear in front of me. I didn't know which one was worse." Mr. Solomon is hardly the only Coloradan who of late has lived out a Goldilocks tale in reverse. Because of a hot, dry summer that has withered natural food supplies, and with an ever increasing number of people living closer to forests and wilderness areas, bears have been meeting up with humans at an alarming rate throughout the state. So far, only a smattering of human injuries have been reported, all of them minor. The encounters have been worse on the bears, more than 25 of which have been put to death this year under Colorado's two-strikes-and-you're-out policy for those that forage too close to people. Over the same period last year, the state killed only six. Biologists and state officials say that if there are more summers like this one, and if home construction near mountainous areas continues at its feverish pace, more dangerous confrontations are inevitable. "If a bear learns where to find human foods, he's likely to come back," said Chuck Schwartz, an expert in bears as the leader of the United States Geological Survey's Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, in Bozeman, Mont. "They have very good memory, and they don't differentiate. If it's edible, they'll eat it." Grizzlies are not to be confused with the black bears roaming Colorado and other states. Grizzlies, larger than black bears and more threatening to humans, are generally found only in areas around two national parks in the northwest Rockies, Yellowstone and Glacier, putting them at greater distances from population centers. Black bears, which are known to attack humans only when they feel trapped, are commonly found in dense forests and mountain terrain at high elevations, where they have encountered unsuitable conditions in Colorado this year. A late spring frost and endless summer weeks of uncommonly hot and dry weather have cost them their usual meals of acorns and berries. Bears typically eat up to 20 hours a day in the warm months to put on enough weight to last the winter. Denied their natural foods, they have been foraging closer to homes and towns to scavenge landfills, trash cans, even dog dishes, making this year one of the most active for officials responding to calls from frightened people throughout the Rocky Mountain West. In Colorado, reports of bear sightings and encounters now occur almost daily. "Everybody has a bear story," said Mr. Solomon, a jewelry maker who has lived for 15 years in Basalt (pronounced buh-SALT), a mountain town 20 miles northwest of Aspen. "One woman on the next street down was canning in her kitchen with the door open. A bear wandered in to help her out." "I know another family," he said, "who eliminated every bit of food from their house, scrubbed it down and now only eats in restaurants." In Aspen, the food is apparently so tasty that for the first time bears have been spotted poking into garbage bins along Main Street this year. Other bears have wandered along streets in Grand Junction. Tom Theobald, a beekeeper near Boulder, said bears had twice ravaged his colonies, eating the honey and destroying equipment at a cost that now exceeds $2,000. "I don't know how they do it," he said of the
Re: pomo or the economy?
Michael Perelman said on 9/8/00 4:29 PM On Democracy Now today, Juan Gonzalez suggested that the money for Colombia may be in part a preparation to "Allende" Chavez. There are others who suggest that it's a simple, blatant money-laundering scheme. Martin
