I cannot be bothered to look at them because I know what they're saying.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Right. Did you read the links or did you just skip them again? Let me elaborate what I'm saying again and again. On one of them, there's an oil economics specialist stating that the oil prices would be 1/3rd of what they're now if the Iraq war didn't happen.
|
Yes. And? The Iraq war did happen. The base price has been set. This has little to do with the reasoning behind the
rise in oil prices currently. I find your complete inability to look at the present quite disheartening. You're spending far too much time worrying about the history, rather than focusing on what is affecting the present.
Quote:
|
First, speculation is the symptom, the market mechanism, that adjusts the price, but it's not something that happens standalone in this magnitude. Now, while speculation can create a self-fulfilling prophecy, I doubt this speculation on the oil prices would have happened had the scenario with the Iraq gone different as by Dr. Salameh.
|
Why bother quoting things that agree with me? My entir arguments has been on the basis that the current speculation, is based on an entirely new set of factors, differing from the past. Why are you continuing to argue about the base price? This Dr Salameh is simply saying that had the Iraq war not happened this speculation would have not happened. Fine, but the Iraq war did happen and the speculation is happening. We're arguing about the speculation, NOT about the base price pre-speculation.
Quote:
|
Now, if someone was to believe the opinion of a) a known controversional Princeton professor b) a UN/WTO oil economics specialist or c) an anonymous internet poster who isn't stating any references to his claims, which would be the pick? I'm going to link you another chief-economist text to read here.
|
The reason i've continued this debate is because I am fully willing to accept that there are always two sides to an argument. There are those that believe that the rise in oil prices are to do with speculation, and there are those that believe that speculation has nothing to do with it. I was enjoying a healthy debate. I had no intentions of changing your mind, instead I was more interested in your way of thinking.
I have not posted any links that back my argument of speculation, because I know full well that there are those who do not think it has anything to do with speculation. This is the beauty of an argument. Everyone has an opinion.
However, your continued pursuit in posting these links, and your continuing attempt to try and end your argument based on the rationale of professors who believe in your side of the argument is nothing but unfounded arrogance.
There are always two camps. I'm on the side that backs the theory of speculation, you are on the side that backs that believes otherwise.
However, next time a hedge fund manager calls me - I shall point him to this link and state clearly that I have discovered a person named Tietäjä (who has not even worked in Investment Banking) has come up with the solution and he has provided evidence to support his argument. I'll make it clear to him that all those arguments between the speculative band camp, and the other side have been solved.
Congratulations!