I never bother reading most Op/Eds, because I like to form my own opinions. But a recent WSJ piece made me scratch my head:
"We keep hearing the word "bubble" to describe industries with rapid and unsustainable rising prices. Hence, the Internet bubble, the telecom bubble, stock market bubble, and now, some analysts believe, a housing bubble. Yet for some mysterious reason no one speaks of the oil bubble — though prices have tripled in two years to as high as $70 a barrel." (emphasis added)
The Oil Bubble
REVIEW & OUTLOOK,
WSJ, October 8, 2005; Page A6
Really? Aside from the fact that its been mentioned several times by yours truly here as well as in print (Business Week, L.A. Times), why don’t we go to Google: 40,800 hits for the phrase "Oil Bubble". Search for just the two words Oil Bubble (no quotes), and you get 4,630,000 hits
WTF? Is this just lousy research? Mere stupidity? Or simply malicious publishing with blatant disregard for the truth?
Here’s the bottom line: The enemy of truth is the enemy of investors.
My rule of thumb is that if you need to make shit up to prove your point, than you are less than worthless: You are actively involved in obscuring reality, polluting the memestream, misleading investors. That moves the WSJ Op Ed page to the top of my "pages to avoid for investors" list.
Shame on them.
Category: Financial Press
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.