Teaching Moments: brought to you by NYTimes

This one's for John, as he should have a field-day with the incorrect usage of the economic jargon.

Enjoy, The General

Comments

[John Whitehead]

I'm not reading past the first paragraph:

As oil prices soared to record levels in recent years, basic economics suggested that consumption would fall and supply would rise as producers opened the taps to pump more.

As oil prices rise, quantity demanded rises and quantity supplied falls. I'm fine with replacing the clunky quantity demanded with consumption; heck , I've even suggested it! But, quantity supplied is a movement along the supply curve whereas an increase in supply suggests a decrease in oil prices (don't short oil futures based on this prediction [did I use "short" in the correct way? likely not]).

[Mike Giberson]

Wow, that is some article.

Speak of your 'teaching moments,' I felt like I was reading a freshman essay.

[Steve Salmony]

Is UNBRIDLED Economic Globalization a material breach of God's Creation?

Perhaps the time is coming when government officials stop employing every ruse under the sun to protect the selfish interests of over-consumers and hoarders, and start by choosing to do the right thing?

Life and human institutions like national economies are utterly dependent upon the Earth for existence; but too many of our leaders view the Earth as some kind of thing to be manipulated, dissipated, and ravaged secondary to their adamant practice of a religion called Endless Economic Growth. This clear and obvious object of their idolatry is the soon to become unsustainable expansion of the leviathan-like, global political economy. What a colossal sham. What a shame. What a shambles for our children to confront.

Always with thanks,

Steve

[odograph]

Economists. ;-). It's one thing to miss the forest for the trees, but it's another to miss the forest for the map.

Semantics aside, the article communicates the key message that this ain't your father's gas crisis.