The Oil Pricing Squeeze Is On
By David Theroux on Jul 20, 2008 in Economics, Energy, Environment, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, War
Americans are now feeling the real squeeze between warfare zealots and anti-development environmentalists as the price of gasoline continues to skyrocket.
In a recent article for Bloomberg.com, Alexander Kwiatkowski notes that the most recent $5 spike in crude oil prices to a record high of $146.90 has resulted from . . .
concerns that Israel may be preparing to attack Iran, while a strike in Brazil and renewed militant activity in Nigeria threaten to cut supplies.
Oil rallied to a record high of $146.90 a barrel in New York after the Jerusalem Post said Israeli war planes practiced over Iraq, adding to speculation the country is preparing to attack Iran. A Brazilian union said it plans a five-day strike on platforms that pump 80 percent of the country’s crude and Nigerian militants pledged to renew attacks on oil facilities.
. . . .
Gasoline prices in the U.S. rose to a record. Futures for August delivery rose as much as 10.46 cents, or 3 percent, to $3.6155 a gallon on Nymex.
The average price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump in the U.S was $4.11 on July 8, according to AAA, 38 percent higher than a year earlier.
For an up-to-date and graphic plotting since 1947 of the effect of Mideast wars on oil prices, including how real oil prices have steadily increased since 9/11, go here.
Meanwhile, many politicos and environmentalists oppose ending oil development restrictions in the U.S., especially pertaining to offshore drilling, with one of the most hysterical and foolish commentaries appearing in a column in the San Francisco Chronicle, supporting the neo-mercantilist (corporatist?) drilling moratorium that was implemented by Bush’s father when he was president. And, a further editorial in the Chronicle fears increased drilling overall. (In contrast, Senior Fellow William Shughart points out here and here why freeing up markets is the solution to the oil pricing crisis. And, environmental harms are trivial so long as resources are owned and managed privately and not through government bureaucracies, with property rights for all parties fully protected from trespass.)
Barack Obama, Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Nancy Pelosi recently declared their firm opposition to any increase in offshore drilling, with Gore even equating offshore oil drilling to the invasion of Iraq. Never mind the fact that it is the federal government that invaded and now occupies both Iraq as well as the continental shelf.
Similarly, the chorus of warfarists continues its mantra for endless U.S. interventionism in the Mideast, guaranteeing a continuation of record oil prices on futures markets and at the pump, with John McCain claiming that the U.S. has “succeeded and we need to continue the strategy.” In Kansas City, MO, he stated:
I am happy to stand in front of you to tell you that this strategy has succeeded. It has succeeded. It has succeeded.
And later in the day he added that:
The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run.
Meanwhile, Obama has set a 16-month timetable to begin withdrawing U.S. troops, and asked when the U.S. military should leave the country, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki directly answered:
As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want.
No sign of McCain retracting his view that the U.S. should remain in Iraq for a 100-years war and then even for 1,000 or 10,000 years.
In contrast, Obama’s proposal for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is indeed laudable and well-overdue, and would have a powerful effect on driving down oil prices. However, since he incredibly wants then to send these troops on to Afghanistan to fight the “real front” and even into Pakistan (also see here) while maintaining a major presence of the U.S. in Iraq, war will only at best be shifted to other fronts (and more probably widened and escalated), with oil prices likely to go even higher in the process. And on top of this, his opposition to oil development will only make matters worse. So much for the candidate of “change” and his “new strategy.”
Better to consult our Senior Fellow Ivan Eland on the need for the U.S. to exit Iraq and disengage overall from the U.S.’s ill-fated and hubristic worldwide empire of 800+ bases and policy of endless, invasive war. In this regard, the updated edition of his book, The Empire Has No Clothes, plus that by Robert Higgs and Carl Close, Opposing the Crusader State, are must reads. And on the folly of going to war for oil at all, see David Henderson’s superb Independent Policy Report, Do We Need to Go to War for Oil?
It’s a little dishonest to talk about environmentalists distorting the market for oil without mentioning the fact that the “market” for oil is highly dependent on what the government decides: most oil goes into cars and trucks, and in the US (as in every other developed country in the world), transportation is almost entirely nationalized. So before you start talking about pro-environment distortions, I think you ought to first address America’s “highway socialism” that has allowed the private automobile to dominate over the more economically efficient forms of mass transit that it displaced, and which has allowed it to continue its reign without much innovation or change over the last century. Of course, talking about how zoning rules, minimum parking regulations, and the Interstate Highway System are anti-market forces is more prosaic than attacking statist environmentalists, but it’s far more intellectually honest.
Rationalitate | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Rationalitate,
You are indeed correct that the government-monopoly, road transportation system is a socialist subsidy for the automobile, distorting transportation markets. Indeed, we critique such “highway socialism” in our award-winning book, Street Smart: Competition, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Roads (edited by Gabriel Roth). But the solution is privatization/marketization not further collectivization, as most environmentalists propose. And the same goes for “zoning rules, minimum parking regulations”, etc. For the essential book on the myriad of such mercantilist urban folly, see The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society. Also, go here, here, here, and here.
David Theroux | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
But if the system is fundamentally flawed in a much bigger way than the miniscule amount of oil that’ll come out of places that are now disallowed, and if the companies who exploit this wouldn’t otherwise be in a business anything like the one they would be in were the demand side of oil liberalized, how is opening up drilling not just another government handout to oil companies? Of course closing off drilling is a very imperfect way to estimate what a free market in energy/oil would look like without all the demand-side subsidies that oil gets, and it’s definitely not the reason why Democrats oppose the project, but as a critical libertarian, can’t you see that opening up ANWR is just expanding the reach of an already very anti-market and anti-liberal industry?
I think that too many libertarians (yourself included) become so defensive about the environmental issue (and I sort of understand – 99% of all environmentalists want to impose further statist policies as solutions) that you don’t evaluate your own positions well enough. Because in this case, the considerate libertarian would realize that ANWR is a peripheral issue whose morality and “free-marketness” is ambiguous due to the much larger elephant in the room (quite literally – private oil companies are huge, and they’re nothing compared to the state oil companies).
Rationalitate | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
Rationalitate,
Any good environmentalist should recognize that environmental problems stem from the “tragedy of the commons” when resources are held in a commons (collective) status. Yet, most then still embrace the absurdity of further collectivization, largely because of ideological biases. Somehow, they believe religiously that the solution is in placing sensitive resources solely in the hands of the very people who are by definition not held accountable because of the sovereign immunity of governments and whose decisions are based on interest-group politics and bureaucratic gamesmanship.
Nevertheless, for ANWR, I would recommend “To Drill or Not to Drill: Let the Environmentalists Decide,” by Dwight R. Lee (The Independent Review, Fall 2001).
And to address the many dimensions of environmental matters (air, water, land, species, etc.), please see Re-Thinking Green: Alternatives to Environmental Bureaucracy, edited by Robert Higgs and Carl Close.
To overcome environmental degradation, recognizing and protecting property rights is a must, and no utilitarian calculus exists that will paper over and reconcile the problems created by commons mongering. In short, where collectivized distortions exist, privatize/marketize each dimension involved.
David Theroux | Jul 20, 2008 | Reply
I believe Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin http://www.baldwin08.com is the best candidate to help solve our energy and other problems.
Michael B.
Rockville, Maryland
Michael B. | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
So long as Americans continue to see the price of oil as the problem and refuse to see that the addiction to oil is what truly destroys our livelihoods we will continue to squabble our way right past an opportunity to capture the rewards of innovation. As our industries across the board fall further back and even behind the advances of those in other major nations we will one day find ourselves still drilling for oil while another nation introduces the world to a sustainable, inexpensive, and environmentally sound system of alternative energy which they will successfully market and monetize as the supply of oil becomes less and less plentiful around the world. Yes, the free market matters. Yes, if the people of a state desire to have their shoreline drilled they should be able to do so. But the truth is more oil is not a viable solution to what truly ails us and if we don’t stop looking for ways to treat the symptom and turn our focus to treating the disease we will leave an inheritance of debt and disgrace to the next generations.
Dan C | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
David Theroux,
I don’t mean to be combative, but I get the feeling that you’re not actually reading what I’m writing. Why do you keep bringing up the straw man of the collectivist mentality of environmentalists? That’s not what I’m talking about – what I’m talking about is how a solution that seems marginally libertarian (opening ANWR) is actually an anti-liberal solution given that the other side of the equation (the demand side) is so fundamentally anti-market. I am an anarcho-capitalist – I am not someone who wants to impose further statist solutions on a problem that was clearly created by statism to begin with. I acknowledged that most people who oppose drilling in ANWR are statist environmentalists who don’t recognize the root of the problem, but I’m also arguing that they might just be right, though for a reason they surely don’t understand.
This is what I was talking about when I said that libertarians often become too defensive to critically evaluate their own positions. You’ve become so defensive that you’re not even talking about the same thing I am. What I worry about is that when the public sees the “libertarian” view of things, all they see is, “Open ANWR!” rather than a more considered approach that recognizes that the only reason ANWR needs to be opened in the first place is because the market for oil/energy is fundamentally distorted. It’s like arguing to contract out the food service in the gulags – sure, it seems marginally libertarian, but there are a plethora of reasons why in the free market that’s not even a decision that you’d be anywhere remotely close to considering.
@ Michael B: Well with that persuasive endorsement, how could we not support him??
Rationalitate | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Rationalitate,
The key point that you are missing is that what is crucial here is methodological individualism, which is to say that to understand and then address any issue we need to recognize that each and every human action is based on individual choice, agency and intentionality. Instead, you are arguing for a methodological collectivism in claiming that since some environmental system is only partially market-based, that such a system can best be resolved (made “sustainable”) through some collective action that imposes rules from the “top” (e.g., banning drilling in ANWR). But this is a fundamental fallacy. There is no “top” or collective from which to impose such rules, because only individuals exist in the context of the natural law. The real solution is in applying natural law in economics and ethics, each and every individual is allowed to make peaceful choices with their property and establish rules for the use of such property and be held accountable. In other words, each and every choice needs to be defended, not marshaled into some contrived, utilitarian “ends justifying the means” calculus.
Should ANWR be opened up for human use? Yes indeed it should because any other position is to embrace a collectivist fallacy economically and ethically, with the consequent environmental-commons problems resulting. But, the mythical claim of sovereignty itself by the federal government to determine the use of ANWR (that you seem to support) should also be ended, as it should be on the continental shelf and lands overall. (And the way to do so is to allow individuals into the region to establish property rights in the resources.) The government after all is merely a group of individuals who claim to have some special authority to impose arbitrary rules on others, but it this very type of claim that is the problem.
The bottom line here is that any step toward allowing individuals to make their own choices and holding them accountable for such choices is a step forward.
David Theroux | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Dan C,
Your use of the terms “addiction to oil” and “disease” are clearly to suggest that people are making energy choices based on irrational compulsion or worse. But, there is no more of an “addiction to oil” than there exists an addiction to leather shoes, orange juice, or telephones. People use what they do because of the value they receive from doing so. Because fossil fuels are cheaper, more efficient, plentiful, and have a greater range of uses than other energy sources, they are by far the major fuel source. And if other energy sources become more competitive, oil will be displaced just as petroleum replaced whale oil and whale oil replaced firewood.
If solar or wind or biomass or nuclear or any energy sources provides better value for lower prices, then people will use them. But none of these forms of energy have intrinsic value over the others. And, oil no more “destroys our livelihoods” than does sugar or beer. But used improperly, each can. Furthermore, to subsidize one energy source over others is to guarantee distortions in energy markets and technologies, as people are deceived into believing that one form is better when it is not.
The energy debate today involves the issue of climate change and has been transformed from one based on reason, science, and moral principles into a witch-hunt in which people are attacked and smeared as heretics for daring to question the Zeitgeist. As a tonic to sober up from this hysteria, I would recommend our program involving Michael Crichton and a panel of scientists, States of Fear: Science or Politics? (also available on DVD), in which junk science and fear-mongering are debunked.
David Theroux | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
David Theroux-
Your “methodological individualism” appears to be based upon the collectivist concept of “property”: it’s only “their property” because the state has allocated it to them and defends their claim to it, otherwise it would be a native North American’s property, or a Canadian’s property, or perhaps even an Russian’s property. “Natural law” regarding property appears to be founded on the lie that “anyone can claim and possess private property without that claim actually being subservient and beholden to the state that allocated the right to that property and is able to adjudicate and defend property claims”.
alan jacquemotte | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Surely writing off environmentalists concerns(as if they all agree with one another anymore than all Libertarians or Republicans do) about off shore drilling is unfair to them. If the largest oil reserve ever was found in the valley of Yosemite even those without the “environmentalist” label would be strongly opposed to drilling there. Those without the labels may still wonder if it isn’t quite likely that there are better solutions to the artificial petroleum shortages.
The idea that a free market could solve this problem is a pipe dream. Free markets, a necessity for an healthy economy, are workable only in the context of a higher ethical presupposition. It may be that off shore drilling violates that presupposition.
Dan Classen | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Dan Classen,
Environmental concerns are indeed entirely legitimate, as is discussed in Re-Thinking Green and our many our many books, studies and articles on the subject. The point however is that environmental problems arise from a “tragedy of the commons” when resources are collectivized in a “commons” administered by government bureaucracies which because of sovereign immunity are not held accountable and whose incentives are to make decisions which circumvent environmental, economic and ethical principles. When choices and responsibilities are socialized, individuals act irresponsibly to shift costs and responsibility onto others. As Public Choice economists have noted, socialization results in a redistribution of wealth and opportunities from the many to the few with costs, liability, and responsibility redistributed from the few to the many—a result hardly in keeping with any “higher ethical presupposition” I believe you or I would support.
It is indeed cruelly ironic that the very “commons” upheld by most environmental organizations as “solutions” regarding air, water, land, species, and other issues are exactly the cause of environmental degradation. And your question regarding the U.S. National Parks is an excellent one to examine. For example, Alston Chase has documented the catastrophic results of the federal government’s management of the Yellowstone National Park “commons” in his seminal book, Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America’s First National Park.
And the poor management of Yosemite and other national parks is well-documented.
Meanwhile, private ecological systems have proven to be far superior in every respect. And to address your question about Yosemite, even many of those managed by private environmental organizations include oil drilling. As economist Dwight Lee notes in his article, “To Drill or Not to Drill: Let the Environmentalists Decide” (The Independent Review, Fall 2001):
“[T]he Audubon Society owns the Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary, a 26,000-acre preserve in Louisiana. . . . [It] has allowed thirty-seven wells to pump gas and oil from the Rainey Sanctuary. In return, it has received royalties of more than $25 million. . . . One should not conclude that the Audubon Society has acted hypocritically by putting crass monetary considerations above its stated concerns for protecting wilderness and wildlife.” (pp. 218-19)
“Because of private ownership . . . the Society has a strong incentive to consider the benefits as well as the costs of drilling on its property. Certainly, environmental risks exist, and the society considers them, but it also responsibly weighs the costs of those risks against the benefits as measured by the income derived from drilling. Obviously, the Audubon Society appraises the benefits from drilling as greater than the costs, and it acts in accordance with that appraisal.” (p. 219)
“[T]he Nature Conservancy of Texas owns the Galveston Bay Prairie Preserve in Texas City, a 2,263-acre refuge that is home to the Attwater’s prairie chicken, a highly endangered species. The conservancy has entered into an agreement . . . to drill for oil and natural gas in the preserve.” (pp. 220-21)
“[E]nvironmentalists would immediately see the advantages of drilling in ANWR if they were responsible for both the costs and the benefits of that drilling. . . . The environmentalists might easily conclude that although ANWR is an ‘environmental treasure,’ other environmental treasures in other parts of the country (or the world) are more valuable; moreover, with just a portion of the petroleum value of the ANWR, efforts might be made to reduce the risk to other natural habitats, more than compensating for the risks to the Arctic wilderness associated with recovering that value.” (p. 221)
“Environmentalists are concerned about protecting wildlife and wilderness areas in which they have ownership interest, but the debate over any threat from drilling and development in those areas is far more productive and less acrimonious than in the case of ANWR and other publicly owned wilderness areas.” (p. 222)
“[C]onsider seriously what [an environmental group] would do if it owned ANWR and therefore bore the costs as well as enjoyed the benefits of preventing drilling. . . . [T]he willingness of environmental groups such as the Audubon Society. . . .to allow drilling for oil on environmentally sensitive land they own suggests strongly that their adamant verbal opposition to drilling in ANWR is a poor reflection of what they would do if they owned even a small fraction of the ANWR territory containing oil.” (p. 224)
Moreover, we should not be surprised that the “higher ethical presupposition” of natural law precepts that upholds private property rights and the freedom to exchange property peacefully is exactly the solution for environmental stewardship. In other words, free markets do not just work to more efficiently allocate resources but are essential in order to preserve and protect them.
David Theroux | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Dear all those who disagree with David Theroux,
I think the main lesson to come from this post is that we must end American empire overseas as well as the senseless wars it perpetuates. Not only does American aggression push up oil prices, it has also destroyed civil liberties at home.
The imperfections with free-market environmentalism are secondary to returning to a constitutional foreign policy, where America maintains a strong national defence focused on protecting her national borders, rather than the borders of other countries across the world.
Even though I’m a libertarian, I’m happy to maintain the status quo on all domestic policy issues so long as everyone is united on ending the present foreign policy madness which will surely lead to World War III.
Sukrit | Jul 21, 2008 | Reply
Hi David,
I have to agree with you and also add that other energy choices such as wind power, generating fossil fuels from marine phytoplankton (demonstrated by the university of Alicante in Spain), and a whole host of other options would be a lot more feasible if the level of supply was higher.
The control in the hands of a few limits the options and dictate what the consumer must choose.
The market is hungry for something new. As a market we use what is provided by the corporations from each industry. The population is addicted to whatever is available to them which makes their daily lives easier.
Lead | Jul 22, 2008 | Reply
“…it’s only “their property” because the state has allocated it to them”?
You’re being cynical, right? You’re trying to describe the reality of the current system, rather than reality? “The state” is not some abstract, it is a bunch of individuals, individuals who cooperate collectively to force their will upon weaker people. If they are allocating property, it is only because they have first stolen it, not because they created it. Neither is it because the concept of property cannot exist independent of “the state.” To argue such is the equivalent of claiming that one’s self cannot exist independent of a recognition of God, a rationale with only the purpose of depriving atheists of their humanity.
Seth | Jul 23, 2008 | Reply
Alan and Seth,
Seth is correct that private property rights are not determined by governments. In contrast, the utilitarian believes that property rights are pragmatically determined by governments that institutionally create and permit such rights based on some calculation. Natural law advocates claim that property rights are the justly (i.e., peacefully) acquired physical assets of any individual, and the natural moral law tradition shows that property rights are intrinsic and necessary to human life, regardless of the edicts of rulers or forms of positive law that may exist. Natural law scholars from Thomas Aquinas to John Locke to Heinrich Rommen make this very clear. In this regard, I would especially recommend Rommen’s book, The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy.
Seth is also correct in noting that such rights and natural law are universal. In this regard, every person has an innate sense of the natural law (e.g., the Golden Rule; opposing murder, rape, theft and fraud; etc.) that defines us as human beings, regardless of our choices or metaphysical worldviews, and to deny this for anyone is indeed to deprive them of their humanity. However, while the natural law means that both the atheist and theist have full natural rights, if such rights only exist because of God’s creation of the natural moral law that makes humanity possible, then one can say that one’s self and subsequent rights cannot exist independent of the existence of God, regardless of one’s beliefs.
Furthermore, while the atheist’s beliefs may well deny the existence of God, this in itself says nothing about God’s existence (just as the denial by the socialist of the existence of property rights says nothing about whether such rights exist). People believe all sorts of things, but this in itself is irrelevant to what may in fact be true. As C.S. Lewis notes in his book, The Problem of Pain, “A man can no more diminish God . . . by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.” One may choose in fact to scribble away, but the light from the sun is unaffected.
David Theroux | Jul 23, 2008 | Reply
David; very well reasoned responses, I find I agree with you 100%. As an individual, I am very concerned about the environment, but I also realize that by respecting the property rights of others, resources can be safely exploited in a responsible manner. The government has a reputation for failing again and again on this count. Those who favor government solutions place far too much faith in the government, and far too little faith in individuals and the market (the free market, not the interventionist market presently run by the state). Good to know so many of us are on the right side.
Marc | Jul 26, 2008 | Reply
It’s interesting you chose 1947 as a starting point for one your charts. We and Saudi Arabia established a $1.30 a barrel price for oil purchased in 1947. I see the 1973 spike in oil prices as the Saudis “catching up” with 1947-73 US inflation.
I agree, ANWR can be drilled with minimal environmental effects. Similarly, drilling off California and Florida shores.
I am not sympathetic to concerns over our Mideast adventures and the effects on the price of oil. Unfortunately I belive war is a reality we face, holding with aynrand.org’s position. Islam and Christendom have been at war since 711 when the Moslems crossed into Spain from Africa. If we must go to war with them, so be it.
I conclude the alternative to not going to war with Iran today will be a bigger war tomorrow. We in the West err: we think everyone thinks as we do. “If only we … If only Israel … ” No, many Moslems divide the world into the dar al’Islam and dar al’Harb. So should we.
So far the only thing our adventure in Iraq has done is turn Iraq into a suzerainty of Iran. Brilliant strategy!
We withdraw from Iraq. Now? Iran walks in and restricts Iraqi oil production and oil prices increase. We have no good options here.
Independent Accountant | Jul 27, 2008 | Reply
There are always political events falling close to the dates of major economic news. This makes very difficult not to link them as related items. I would like to propose a simple quantitative view, which has no political events just the evolution of some (better or worse) measured variables.
My approach is very simple – to plot the difference between CPI and individual price index such as energy, food, etc., versus time.
This view allows to distinguish long periods of linear behavior in the differnces. Specifically, the difference between core CPI and the index for energy (linearly through time)increased from -10 in 1980 to +80 in 1997. After 2001, the difference has been decreasing from its peak value to the current value of -20 (June 2008). One can consider thsi behavior as price recovery – the years of low oil price growth rate have been compensated by the years of high growth rate. The point reached in June 2008 is below but close to that in 1980. I would expect that the difference (core CPI – Energy price index)will turn in near future to repeat the cycle betwen 1980 and 1997.
Some illustrations in my posts:
http://inflationusa.blogspot.com/search/label/CPI
Additional support to this approach comes from other individual indices – they demonstrate the same behavior.
kio | Jul 29, 2008 | Reply
The recent development in the world oil market boosted by the incomplete media reports mistakenly indicates that speculative motives are the driving force of higher oil prices. However, the fundamentals of microeconomic theory suggest that there are two driving forces of change in the product market equilibrium. First, the demand for oil changes when price of oil is established again as well as when certain events, such as earthquakes, entirely shake the oil market. Small elasticities of demand for oil created by a soaring demand from emerging market economies and a limited supply of oil explain the most of the recent price surges. Empirically, the price of oil is correlated with marginal changes in demand and supply. Given staunch government intervention in the world oil market, we can see that government-managed prices lead to distortions. For example, economic policies in emerging market economies superficially boosted output growth as catch-up effects and lower interest rates accelerated the aggregate demand which, in turn, sparked the demand for oil as oil companies expanded their market setup enabled by cheaper loans. Lower real interest rate, which turned negative in China for instance, also added a huge pressure on the rate of inflation. However, the relative price for oil can hit above 200 USD per barrel only if an earthquake deploys oil plants in the Middle East. In the future, I believe, emerging market economies will have to realize that their currencies will appreciate sooner or later and that it is an illusion to believe that currency depreciation may boost output growth through export channel. Such a flaw would only add to the inflation spiral. Also, the future oil price development will be greatly affected by technological solutions that will economize the use of oil resources around the world and ensured demand stability as output growth rates in emerging markets will diminsh marginally.
Rok Spruk | Aug 6, 2008 | Reply
What are the tax laws that are beneficial for doing this?
donate cars | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later ..
Barry | Apr 30, 2009 | Reply