Toro

A big part of the rise in gas prices is stability of supply concerns. There are questions about how stable the oil supply is in Saudia Arabia (new king), Venezuela, Russia, Iraq... The Saudia Arabian concerns appear to have been unfounded. Venezuela and Russia are slowly getting better. Not guaranteeing it will go down, but that is my guess... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's part of it, but the real story is demand. From 1980-2000, global oil demand grew a little under 2%. Supply grew slightly faster. That's why the price traded within a band for 2 decades. But over the past few years, demand has been in the 3-4% range, which is why oil prices have gone up so hard.

Its a commodity. Commodities go up and down. If you look at the history of commodity prices, they tend to have long price movements. So we're in a bull market in commodities now, but that will change one day.

I still have The Economist article arguing that oil was going to $5 and staying there.

Well you could make that argument against any law or punishment then. The fact that a law doesn't stop criminals, any criminals, from committing a crime doesn't invalidate the law. And yes, I certainly do think it is more likely to change behavior. If your choices are $300 million and the risk of 20 months in jail or $300 million and the risk of 20 years in jail, then it certainly is going to effect the behavior of some individuals. Its also in the interests of management to goose the stock up so they can exercise their options and dump their stock on the market. Listen, I've had CEOs that you probably have heard of look me straight in the eye and outright lie about their company. And they all made hundreds of millions of dollars through options. This is a problem, which I'm sure you're aware of, called the agency problem. Managements act in their own best interests, which aren't always in shareholders' best interests. I totally disagree. The cost of fraud to shareholders in the 1990s alone has run into the hundreds of billions. Its hard to think that the costs of greater prison time and stricter disclosure laws would be more. There will always be bad people but good deals will occur if people are honest, full stop. The laws are hardly onerous and its already tough enough to convict guys who almost certainly committed fraud, i.e. Richard Scrushy and Walter Forbes. Besides, if you send the poor black kid who stole $300 for the local corner store to prison, then you can send the rich white guy who stole $300 million from the market to prison.

I lived for 6 years in the South before I even heard the term, "cracker". A cracker was the guy who cracked the whip over the slaves on the plantations.

But they are making a false claim. As an investor, I rely on the information provided by the corporation to be truthful and honest. You are correct that I must be sceptical of what management tells me, but that's why we have laws which require managements to be truthful and honest. This dissemination of information increases trust for investors, which is enormously important in the functioning of a financial market. I totally agree that there is risk in financial markets, but when I'm putting down a significant amount of capital, I rely on audited financial statements to make that decision. In every annual filing, there is a statement from the auditors. And if the auditors say they cannot vouch for the numbers, I absolutely will not buy the stock. Full-stop. If a corporation is using false numbers, that is fraud, and managements should go to prison for it. Otherwise, what's the point in even having fraud laws since you could make the argument about every other product besides financial services? Annual turnover on the Nasdaq is over 100%. The average money manager turns over his portfolio at around 100%. That ain't long-term investing. I work for an organization that is larger than Ontario Teachers or the Caisse. We are actively pushing to increase corporate governance because it is in our interests to do so.

Not when you paid $20,000 for the shares! Oh man, August, he sandbagged shareholders! The price of the stock never got back to the initial price before it was de-listed. I work in financial markets and have participated in many of these deals, and I don't believe for a second that Black didn't know he was going to cut the price of his paper before the offering, especially since the Times cut its price before the offering. The stock of Hollinger International was dirt cheap compared to the other US newspaper companies because nobody trusted Black. And rightfully so.

This is the best part of the article. So I guess we better send a cable to the Danish government and ask them that if they are going to invade Hans Island, at least have the decency to do so in June or July.

I believe that charges have been filed against Felderhof

I honestly have no idea. I think that Felderhof living in the Cayman Islands and never coming home tells you something.

I didn't own a share in Hollinger, and I told everyone to stay away, from both the bonds and the stocks. Back in 1990 or 1991, Black listed the Telegraph on the the London Bourse, raising millions from shareholders. A month afterwards, he slashed the price of a daily newspaper from 70p to 30p as he and Murdoch engaged in a price war. He totally screwed anyone who bought stock as the price fell 60% on the news. He treated shareholders with disdain, and now he's probably going to prison for it.

For those of you who think that all cultures are equal or shouldn't be judged. http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/...executes_2.html http://www.outrage.org.uk/dynimg/39.jpg http://www.outrage.org.uk/dynimg/37.jpg

But the punishment hurts us as well. Trade wars benefit no one. The idiotic softwood lumber tariffs hurt Americans too as it slaps an extra $1,000 onto the cost of a house. Putting tariffs on west coast agricultural products hurts Canadian consumers. I certainly sympathize with the Canadian government as the US is 100% totally in the wrong. But a trade war hurts all parties.

Grant Devine has an MBA, a M.Sc. and a Ph.D. What is Layton's Ph.D.?

Hahahaha. That was pretty funny when I read that. Bashing big oil companies gets you play no matter where you are. The Republican AG who is running for governor here in Florida was doing the same thing not too long ago.

theloniusfleabag That may be. And certainly, you raise interesting points about small firearms elsewhere in the world. However, as the article you link points out, there is fierce opposition to both gun control laws AND multinational organizations interfering in the internal affairs of the US. Because it is difficult for the UN to be an effective organization without the United States, policies that alienate American lawmakers makes its more challenging for the UN to be more effective in the world.

mirror Though I think your idea of paying down the debt is a good idea, tax cuts to the middle and lower classes do not penalize the poor since it lets them keep more of that money. Its progressive if the taxes that the poor and middle class were paying were used for an unnecessary government expenditure.

err I believe the GST replaced a manufacturers excise tax. It did not replace an income tax.

Well, Lefties, what do you think of this line? I think its great. The irony is beautiful. That goes in my sig. I am amazed at how politically tone deaf Martin is. This is a bad political move. What did he gain, exactly? He appointed an immigrant - and immigrants are usually Liberal voters - from Montreal - who are also usually Liberal voters. What is the point? Did he think it would win him back some of the Quebecois vote? I have no idea, but aren't the Liberals way, way behind off the island of Montreal? Was he trying to win soft NDPers, the type who live in the Beaches area of Toronto? How many of those urban progressivers are there up for grabs anyways? The Tories, if they're smart - and they often aren't - should find a way to use this in the rural areas of Ontario and the Maritimes, the 905 belt and out West to batter Martin.

August. This is not a fallacy unto itself. I think it must be understood in context before you can determine whether it is a fallacy or not. I think the proper terminology for a fallacy would have been "Competent governments always have budget surpluses." At times, a budget surplus is a sign of a competent government. At others, it is not. Yah, that's a good one.

Self-defence and hunting. But that's besides the point. If the UN really is proposing this - and it would boggle my mind if they did - they are going to make themselves less relevant in the world.

Regina has a pro-business, anti-union mayor. Good Lord. Will wonders ever end?

August I never hear it where I live but they do list it on their program schedule http://www.npr.org/programs/ So some stations must pick it up somewhere.

The UN wants to ban guns? Are you serious? Does anyone have a link to that? First they want to tax the Internet, now this? What are they trying to do, make themselves even more irrelevant? The UN ain't too popular down here in the States. This would be a gift to the GOP. They could go back and say, see, I told you we needed to appoint John Bolton. But I can't believe that any high-level UNers would be stupid enough to propose this.

Hey, I'm fine with it. Besides, what is Canada going to do, not receive the world price of oil? Currency appreciation gives the BoC more breathing space anyways. If conditions get tight, they can halt or lower interest rates.