"it did seem bizarre to me. Will read Krugman."

Very good idea. Here's his column about the oil non-bubble:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Another reason to read Krugman regularly: Jonathan thinks he's a bad guy:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/22/paul_krugmans_hypocrisy/

Posted at May 15, 2008 4:03 AM in response to Speculation & Oil Prices

Could you explain how the speculators doing this?

I don't think Jonathan can - its impossible, see Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/more-on-oil-and-speculation/

Two quotes: "there are only two things you can do with the world’s oil production: consume it, or store it....you have to believe that 2 million barrels a day is disappearing into secret hoards somewhere — secret, because it’s not showing up in the OECD inventory data. That’s a lot of oil. And bear in mind that people have been claiming that there’s an oil bubble for years.

So my challenge to people who say there’s an oil bubble is this: let’s get physical. Tell me where you think the excess supply of crude is going."

The Iranian tankers don't cut it: 25 mln. barrels (the amount quoted by Jonathan) is less than 30% of DAILY world oil production, about 6 days worth of Iranian production and about 10 days worth of Iranian export. It took me less than 5 min. to find out. Why couldn't Jonathan do that before posting?

Posted at May 15, 2008 2:06 AM in response to Speculation & Oil Prices

Jared,

This is not an argument but a question - who am I to argue economics with you or PK?

If I understand correctly, PK's preference for Clinton's plan to deal with mortgage crisis over Obama's is:
"Mrs. Clinton wants a modern version of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the New Deal institution that acquired the mortgages of people whose homes were worth less than their debts, then reduced payments to a level the homeowners could afford.

[...] [Obama's] proposals for aid to the victims of the current crisis, though significant, are less sweeping than Mrs. Clinton’s: he wants to nudge private lenders into restructuring mortgages rather than having the government simply step in and get the job done."

Being an economics ignoramus, I don't understand if you chose not to address this PK's point (which seems to be central in PK's critique of Obama), or believe that PK is wrong, and that Obama's plan is identical to Clinton's in this respect.

My question to you: which is it? Do you believe the difference PK points out to be insignificant, or non-existent? If its the former, can you please explain to laymen why?

Thanks a lot for the post - nice to see someone emitting light rather than heat.

Posted at March 29, 2008 1:46 AM in response to JB on PK vs BHO

Tnathan,

I see where you're coming from, There is a lot of excellent discourse about that, see for example posts by David Seaton, e.g. http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/2008/03/sorry-folks.html
A quote:"a feeling of foreboding about this man. Something is there that gives me the creeps.

I am also very worried by the intense partisanship someone who objectively has done nothing of any note inspires in such numbers of people only by mouthing platitudes.

This readiness to worship and follow pure hot air among such masses of citizens of the most highly armed nation in the history of the world simply frightens me."

I'm quite sensitive to that due to my personal history (an immigrant from the former USSR). The dumbing down of political discourse in this country is truly frightening. We REelected Bush. Just stop for a moment, and think about that: reelected Bush. And now we're ready to march in lock step to where ever another charismatic leader will take us...

But I'm cheered up by the fact that this is still a free country, and that even the USSR fell under the weight of its own idiocy. Lets hope we'll still be able to step away from the brink - and let's work towards that aim. No marching in lock step in any direction, no cheering for the storm troopers in any uniform, under any banner.

Posted at March 27, 2008 2:09 AM in response to Billary's One-Two Punch Has Changed the Game

tnathan,
You better believe. Obama's movement has always had the totalitarian and messianic tendencies, and now they really need the muscle of their flock to end the campaign quickly, because its unraveling. (Remember Bush's riots which stopped recounts in Florida? Now they're stopping the re-vote in Michigan and Florida again) Mr. Sleeper indeed has vividly shown that Obama movement is now closely related to such illustrious predecessors as e.g. Mao's Red Guards, and Putin's "Nashi"- Ours.

Come to think of this, ready supply of shock troops must have been one of the reasons for Obama to join Wright's church.

I wouldn't be so worried about the republic - Obama's chance of becoming president has been reduced to zero now. He does have a chance to drag the Democratic party down with him, which is why his campaign is busy orchestrating the riots for Clinton to quit. Let's be vigilant, and supportive of the choice of majority of Democrats - Senator Hillary Clinton. She's the only candidate who can win for the Dems in November.

Posted at March 26, 2008 11:35 PM in response to Billary's One-Two Punch Has Changed the Game

So Greg, who's votes aren't there? DNC approves the revote plan, Clinton's campaign does too, Obama's cmpaign obstructs and tries to run out the clock - why don't you say so in plain English? You say: "if a solution is agreed upon that Obama can support, then the situation in the state legislature could conceivably shift and it could conceivably pass." Translated from TPMese into English this means that Obama's supporters in the state legislature are preventing the re-vote law, approved by DNC, which grants full representation to the MI Dems, from passing. Am I missing something?

Posted at March 19, 2008 4:28 PM in response to Last-Ditch Talks Continue On Revote Between DNC, Michigan Dems And Clinton And Obama Camps

Eliyah,

Readind comprehention, please. I wrote: "Obama might not succeed in shooting down FL and MI re-vote, after which Hillary will probably take indisputable lead in popular vote."

I stand by this statement. This is the reason why Obama's surrogates try to talk their way out of re-vote. I hope they'll fail. And if you think a Democrat can win the party establishment (which is what Super delegates are) by saying "Ignore the popular vote" - I say Florida 2000.

You say "Clinton would still be far behind in delegates" Far behind means far enough for super delegates not to matter - that is an arithmetical impossibility for either candidate. If Obama will prove to be uncapable of winning any large state except his own (including FL and MI), supers will align with Clinton. This is the reason supers have been created in the first place - to break a tie in the interests of the party.

Posted at March 10, 2008 7:28 PM in response to Dick Morris Tells Hillary "It's Over."

Phill,

a minor correction. You write: "Michigan is a much harder problem because its an open primary. Obama would do best by allowing the original result to stand. Otherwise the GOP voters will likely turn the net 20 advantage to Obama into net 25 or more."

I don't think that anyone who voted in the Republican primary in January would be allowed to vote in the Dem primary - that would be giving them 2 votes instead of one. Since voting participation is public knowledge (not the vote, but participation), that would be verifiable (I guess).

As for the money, its not a problem - see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/politics/10campaign.html?ex=1362801600&en=366a57096022f655&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted at March 10, 2008 3:44 AM in response to Obama supporters will cost him the nomination

Sorry for the double post - I (over)reacted to a network glitch

Posted at March 10, 2008 12:34 AM in response to Dick Morris Tells Hillary "It's Over."

The shmuck hates Clintons with a passion, he predicted her demise about half dozen times over the course of the campaign, every time with great certainty and aplomb, every time wrongly. He's even promised to leave the country if she's elected president (I vaguely remember that Hillary has used this promise as a fundraising appeal).

In his latest rant he conveniently forgets that Obama might not succeed in shooting down FL and MI re-vote, after which Hillary will probably take indisputable lead in popular vote.

Dick Morris and his ilk is yet another reason to vote for Hillary.

Posted at March 10, 2008 12:23 AM in response to Dick Morris Tells Hillary "It's Over."