Email notification to Brandon Starr's blog has been shown to reduce bad cholesterol in two-toed sloths, and has been used as an effective exfoliant.
|
|
Friday, October 15, 2004
Remember that voter fraud in Nevada... Greenspan: oil prices not as damaging as in 1970s
Greenspan: oil prices, while not helpful, not as damaging at current prices as in the 1970s.
To which I say: no kidding.
In the 1970s, the price shot up because OPEC cut production, leading not just to high prices but also to shortages and gas lines. The problems with getting fuel was just as bad as the high prices. It was terribly inefficient to have so many people just sitting in line waiting for gas. And it really hammered home the problems in the economy, leading to very low consumer sentiment.
Here's the thing about oil prices and oil demand: they're not as elastic as people think. "Elastic" demand means that as the price goes up, the demand drops off. It's part of every supply and demand market equation, but the amount that demand drops off varies. For instance, cigarettes are raised regularly by both the tobacco companies and the government, yet the demand changes little due to its addictive nature. This is "inelastic demand." Where there is a substitute or high competition, for example in the auto industry, a rise in prices will more quickly skunk demand.
I believe oil is not as elastic as the market thinks. True, if gas REALLY goes up, folks will carpool more, take the bus, and eventually look for more gas-efficient autos. But gas has already risen 50% or more at the pump since the invasion of Iraq, and yet worldwide demand still is going up and up. Even in the U.S., oil product demand is up some. Carpooling, etc. has barely ticked up.
For some reason, the market is only allowing oil to creep up a dollar here, twenty cents there. Why? Because a lot of folks in the market think we should be going back down to "normal" levels. They keep selling the market short, because of this belief in normal prices. I'm telling you there is no such thing as a "normal" level--only a current level, based on supply and demand. Normal is a historical accident, and a perception problem. Prices stayed in a band for a long time, but that was because we have had the cooperation of OPEC since the oil crisis of the late 1970s to keep supply near demand. A lot of folks mistake this band for some sort of "natural" price for oil.
Major oil discoveries are happening less and less often. Technology is helping squeeze more oil out of previously "tapped" areas, but still, there is a finite number of barrels of oil underground in the entire world, and eventually they'll be gone. Though decades away, it's safe to say that crude oil is a dead-end energy source. It will be replaced, though by what it is still, sadly, too soon to say. We could be a lot further along in the search for the next energy source. Whether it's a true alternative energy like solar, or a replacement like crops turned into gasoline, either way at least we win from the standpoint of not being held hostage by foreign oil.
So, maximum supply is going up slowly, while demand is still strong, especially in the developing countries of China and India. Demand has over time caught up to where it is now ahead of maximum supply. Until supply is allowed to catch up, or until demand breaks (say, by a recession in China--unlikely, though their economy has slowed some), you won't see prices drop to those "normal" levels any time soon.
Full disclosure: though I recently dropped my long position in ExxonMobil, I do now have a position in Maverick Tube, a maker of pipeline for the oil industry. Why? Because I think the supply infrastructure needs to be improved, and also with high prices there will be more exploration and new wells also. Just my opinion, that isn't a recommendation for anyone else.
Small victory for the "tourist safety shirt"
I sold my first two "tourist safety shirts" today at Zazzle.com.
It must be striking a chord somewhere. Even though it is a design only 10 days old, it is my eighteenth-most-viewed design out of 114.
Still only one rating for it--a one out of ten. I still find that funny.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Nevada: charges of voter registration fraud Insurance disaster--brought on by the companies themselves
Spitzer to sue Marsh, other insurance brokers and carriers
I was in the financial services industry, so if you have questions about this story, please contact me. Email me at brandonstarr@yahoo.com, or use the tagboard if it's short, or maybe the comments (within a few days of this posting; I rarely check comments more than a week back.)
There are three basic ways to buy insurance:
1) Direct purchase from a carrer (a carrier is what you think of when you think "insurance company"--it's the company that's taking in people's money and pooling the risk). Spitzer's allegations would have nothing to do with this sort of insurance purchase.
2) Purchase from an insurance agent--that's a person licensed to sell insurance. You buy the insurance through them, and pay a commission. If they're any good, you're paying the agent for their knowledge and service, but they actually represent the insurance carriers. If they're not good, you get no service from them and the commissions are basically money down the toilet. Spitzer's allegations would have nothing to do with this means of insurance purchase either, as I understand the charges so far. However, though they require different licensing, I believe that it is possible for an agent to also be a broker, below.
3) Purchase from an insurance broker. This is the flip side of insurance agent: you go to an insurance broker, and the broker represents you, rather than the insurance carriers. You are paying them to go out and get bids for your insurance business. It is their fiduciary duty* to solicit the best bids they can and lay them out for you, along with information on differences between the carriers and their policies. THIS IS THE KIND OF INSURANCE PURCHASE SPITZER IS MAKING THE CHARGES ABOUT.
What he's saying is, there are brokers all over (he focused on the largest for this round of charges) which are taking money from the carriers to bump their insurance up the list. In other words, this is as sleazy as it gets in insurance sales--and it's sadly widespread, he alleges. You go to a broker; you pay money to get insurance bids--and the bids you get back are at least suspect and at most rigged, because they're making at least as much money from the carriers they DON'T represent as they are from you, whom they DO represent. Ugly, ugly, ugly.
AIG, a big insurance carrier named in the charges, is down over 5% today (later edit: now about 10%) on the news. Some of the companies named, I believe, are private companies. This will be a real earthquake in the world of insurance, believe me.
* If you knew how serious those words are from a legal perspective in the financial services industry, you'd have a shudder going down your spine even now.
On Google, you can find anything
Out of...boredom? I made up a word, "puppylicious," and Googled it.
Google found it in 36 different places, and asked me if I meant "pupalicious," which had several more!
Apparently someone calls themselves "Puppylicious," which was a big part of it, and then a few times someone looked at puppies and thought, "those are puppylicious!"
I don't know how I feel about this...
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Bill O'Reilly hit with sexual harrassment suit Kerry not aggressive enough, wins anyway
Kerry won the final debate, just as he and Edwards have won all the debates. It was closer than it should've been, though.
If you're intelligent and articulate, as Kerry is, it's impossible to lose if you have truth on your side. Bush hasn't told the truth in so long he forgets what it sounds like.
It's remarkable that Bush repeats the same lies in all three debates, and gets shot down by the press every time. Whenever he lies about Kerry's voting record, he uses the same lies that have already been debunked. Who is he trying to convince? Apparently the ill-informed. But they're already voting for him.
Bush success: insurgent weapon upgrade program
|
|
|
