[Skip to the end] The ‘demand destruction’ still leaves a net increase in demand, just smaller than anticipated. While the US is using a tad
[Skip to the end] (an email exchange) > > On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Scott wrote: > > crude moves further in backwardation. >
[Skip to the end] (an email exchange) > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Prof. P. Arestis wrote: > > Dear Warren, >
[Skip to the end] (an email) > > W > you can tell everyone it is vitol but don’t give the source. > looks like traditional speculation; not
[Skip to the end] > > On 8/3/08, Craig wrote: > > Ok. And the irony is as prices fall, demand increases again. > Until consuming governments get
[Skip to the end] Just saw that the house just rejected this. Looks like it was one more reason for technical weakness in crude, along
(an email exchange) > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Russell wrote: > > Brad Setser, at Follow the Money, presents a couple of
[Skip to the end] Seems like a sale ahead of possible Congressional action to limit ‘speculation’. Not sure how big the dip might be, but
[Skip to the end] This is the deflation argument. (See below) Never seen a split quite like this with calls for both accelerating inflation and
Bank deputy chief warns of market trouble to come by Ben Russell, Political Correspondent and Sean O’Grady Britain is facing the risk of renewed turmoil