You ever say something, then find that you keep having to double back as more information comes in? Even if it is to restate what you've said before? That's the sort of thing I'm looking at with my comments about our plummetting gas prices. Shelly in Seattle has sent me this link from yesterday's Slate which combines the Goldman Sax argument with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve argument and comes up with pretty much the same conclusion I did: Maybe yes, maybe no.
Actually, the article seems to give the administration more of the benefit of the doubt than I, or than the majority of the American people, who smell something foul in the air that is not just hydrocarbons. The author trots a number of other influences reducing gas prices that range from incorrect (The 'Potential Big Find" of oil in the Gulf of Mexico sort of went away on further review) to arguable (I haven't noticed people fleeing in droves from buying trucks and SUVs - In fact most of the articles I've seen have been to the tune of "Despite High Prices, Americans love their gas-guzzlers"), to kind of scary (The US Economy is heading for yet another recession - oh, yeah, if I was in charge, that would be how I would want to manipulate the economy). So while the article states the administration is benefitting from some sort of dumb economic luck, it actually makes a pretty good case for somebody rigging the numbers somewhere.
Anyway, the question remains open for me, since all this manipulation seems to be bringing MORE ire down on the administration than when prices were higher. But further updates on this front will be handled by our newly-formed Grubb Street Strategic Petroleum Reserve Desk, which happens to be located over at Shelly in Seattle's journal.
Take it away, Shelly! :)
Why use “yet” in this phrase? - I saw a billboard the other day advertising the House on the Rock. If you’ve been there, you know what it’s like. If you haven’t, perhaps you’ll make plans...
12 hours ago