The Price of Oil: Altered Perspectives

Whenever commodity prices slump I have been inclined to retort:  (a) "if in doubt, go short" - the old Enron trading motto - because there's always more stuff out there than most people realise;  and (b) well these days, just like GB as a whole I'm a big net consumer, so it suits me just fine.

Flippant stuff, eh?  But there's no backing off the wisdom of the first of those.  Extraction technology always gets better, and there is just so, so much stuff.

Hands Up!

As for the second, that basic 'consumer' situation is unlikely to change.  But does it suit me to have commodity prices so low?  Returning from W.Africa, at $50 oil I see the Nigerian situation getting more and more dire by the month.  For ever increasing numbers of Nigerians the solution will be to hit the emigration trail.  There are nearly 180m of them.  They speak English ...

It's clear enough, based on fundamentals the price of oil should never have stayed long above $100.  At those levels it was a tax on the oil consumers of the world, levied enthusiastically by OPEC, Russia et al: and likewise the metals producers etc.  The producer-nations have become pretty hooked on these 'taxes', and look at the roll-call.  How many of them can fall back for long on their reserves and SWF's?  Even the Aussies will be decamping soon  -  and they speak English, too (sort-of).  I've often described capitalism + open markets as the most effective means of allowing arbitrage to resolve inefficiencies and imbalances ...

This isn't the only large-scale wealth-transfer event on the horizon.  At the ghastly green Paris-Climat jamboree in the run-up to Christmas the third world will be demanding the West pays for 'climate change' - in hard cash, straight into their leaders' pockets.  And M. Hollande seems minded to gratify them.

So: with the demographic tectonics on the move, how do I want to pay my tax - in higher prices and direct cash transfers, or in economic migration?  If there was any choice it would be an interesting dilemma.

ND

Is the UK media really right-wing biased; the European Migrant crisis suggests not

So yesterday the Prime Minister makes some statements about the immigration crisis. Britain can;t take too many more he said, it send sthe wrong signals, we should really be dealing with things in Syria, Shcengen is the problem, etc. etc.

All perfectly reasonable positions to take.

Same day, Labour leadership candidate, Yvette Cooper says we should take 10,000 at least - not even specifying whether that was a day, month or year. Andy Burnham makes some noises about this sort of thing too, without allowing himself actual facts to use.

And lo, today, I read wall to wall media coverage about how the UK is not doing enough, UKIP are Nazis for not wanting to take a million Syrian refugees, Cameron is awful and we should be opening up the Chunnel to every passing Syrian. Not just the BBC and Guardian, but the Telegraph, Sky says Britain is shamed.

Al in all, a classic media somthing-must-be-done-panic. But it is a left wing stance here, accepting all immigrants, not caring about our own people or our way of life and putting internationalism first. The right-wing, conservatice view is branded as uncaring (in my view, it is very caring of the people who elected the Government over others with no claim) and linked to pure evil.

I don't buy the Country is dominated by a Righ-Wing press, the media elites are all Liberal and Lefty at heart these days. As soon as the Laboru Candidate picked a side, they happily followed it agains the Government line, same day and clear for all to see.