13 Nov 2015

Two Posts on Energy Issues

Climate Change, Oil, Shameless Self-Promotion 7 Comments

A little awkward talking about the UN Climate Change meetings in Paris in light of today’s tragic events, but anyway here are my two latest Institute for Energy Research posts:

==> This one shows that oil prices (adjusted with CPI) are higher now than the 1950-2015 average.

==> Check out the frankness of the UN’s top climate official on the $$ she wants.

7 Responses to “Two Posts on Energy Issues”

  1. E. Harding says:

    Breaking: Sumner blows the lid off the head of the Lord Keynes.

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Ha-ha, “breaking”.

      How about “Yawn, Sumner accidentally discovers he was a Keynesian all along.”

      What is interesting to note is that after all these years of Sumner critiquing Keynesianism, the fact that he only recently learned what is in the first chapter of The General Theory shows he isn’t very well read in the very topics he chooses to speak. Kind of sad really.

  2. E. Harding says:

    Now that oil’s ~$40.50 a barrel, it’s not that much higher than 1950-2005 average of $39.

  3. Khodge says:

    On Figueres at the UN:
    And to think that mere months ago we were worried that the world governments would have so much spare money flowing in from Piketty’s tax the wealthy-asset-base scheme that they would not be able to spend it all. Thank goodness that the UN has been able to offer a solution to the sundry governments’ looming problem.

  4. Khodge says:

    I understand and accept the price analysis. I do, however, wonder what the baseline inflation adjuster is and, in the case of crude oil, is it the correct one? While I have not looked at the options, might a basket of minerals give a better basis?

    Of course, as consumers, CPI works when looking at the pump whereas manufacturers would be interested in their Costs of Goods Sold.

  5. E. Harding says:

    Bob, on the latest Contra Krugman, I liked how you mentioned prescription opioids, but I wonder why none of you guys mentioned the word “Canada”, or, at least, emphasized the White American exceptionalism from the rest of the world. The other NYT commentators are just as bad; none of the top ones there mentioned Canada, either. A super-duper analysis would have mentioned Asians.

Leave a Reply