It’s an oil boom stupid!
Sent to The Economist, August 30, 2005, destiny unknown
Sir, In March 1999, in “The next shock?” The Economist wrote that “in today’s conditions the price [of oil] would head down towards $5 [per barrel]” Now again, for the umpteenth time, The Economist, so serious and clearheaded in most issues, loses it all when it comes to oil. In “Counting the Cost” of August 27 and even while assisted by a clear chart of the real prices of oil in 1980 terms, your editorial staff insist on labeling an oil crisis when the index is getting close to 100 and not when that index in 1998 dropped to only 20. That was the real oil crisis, and that is what the world is paying for today!
To top it up, The Economist seems also to be preparing the terrain to blame oil for the collapse of the high property prices that they duly classify as a “boom”, instead of looking at much more plausible culprits. Come on, we expect more from you.
Sir, In March 1999, in “The next shock?” The Economist wrote that “in today’s conditions the price [of oil] would head down towards $5 [per barrel]” Now again, for the umpteenth time, The Economist, so serious and clearheaded in most issues, loses it all when it comes to oil. In “Counting the Cost” of August 27 and even while assisted by a clear chart of the real prices of oil in 1980 terms, your editorial staff insist on labeling an oil crisis when the index is getting close to 100 and not when that index in 1998 dropped to only 20. That was the real oil crisis, and that is what the world is paying for today!
To top it up, The Economist seems also to be preparing the terrain to blame oil for the collapse of the high property prices that they duly classify as a “boom”, instead of looking at much more plausible culprits. Come on, we expect more from you.
Posts
