[was: Re: [PEN-L:13835] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Current implications
for South Africa]
Doug wrote:
> Prices [of oil] are still low, whether measured relative to average
> hourly wages or a price index.
real energy prices (the consumer price index for energy divided by the
over-all CPI for urban consumers) did see a big spike from 1999 to 2000
(first 11 months), one akin to those of 1973-1974, 1978-1979, and 1979-1980
in terms of size. But there was a big _fall_ going from 1996 to 1997,
though not as big as the one from 1985 to 1986. The ratio for 2000 (0.722)
is much lower than in 1981 (1.074) and lower than but roughly the same as
in 1958 (0.744). The overall series, from 1958 to 2000 shows a very slight
upward trend, which mostly seems to arise from the transitory rises of the
1970s: polynomial trends show a big hump followed by a slide. (Energy costs
refer to "Household fuels—gas (piped), electricity, fuel oil, etc.—and
motor fuel. Motor oil, coolant, etc. also included through 1982.")
BTW, I think that the word of the day may be _hubris_. The oil companies
are making money hand over fist (as part of the oil price spike), so their
men in Washington try to make those profits even larger, by raping the
Alaskan nature preserve, reducing environmental restrictions, etc. The
energy companies have been profiting royally off of the California energy
emergency, but they continue to press for more. The U.S. rich have seen a
major shift in the income & wealth distributions in their favor during the
past 25 years, but their boys in DC shower them with tax cuts. How much
gall can these guys have? I guess the loss of Jeffords to the GOP was a
warning sign, but my feeling is that they're riding for an even larger
fall. That doesn't mean that the good guys will rise, of course.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
