Graphing The Huge, Exponential Bakken Boom
Click to enlarge.
HT: The chart was inspired by a similar one at the EIA's website.
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
HT: The chart was inspired by a similar one at the EIA's website.
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Quotation of the Day
- Homebuilder Confidence Highest Since Feb. 2007, Ho...
- July Industrial Production Highlights; Factory Out...
- Oil Prosperity Delivers Economic Stimulus to TX
- America’s New No. 2 Oil State – North Dakota – Set...
- Ten Tuesday Afternoon Links
- Markets in Everything: Research Validation Service
- Markets In Everything: Eyesight for the Blind
- The Best Movie I've Seen in Years
- The Significant Medal Inequality of the Olympics
84 Comments:
Eee Zee, Boss. You're still only talking 600,000 bbl/day. Thunderhorse, alone, produced almost that much in its first year.
As I said, before, it's a good thing, and it came along at good time, but we're Still Importing 15 Times that much every day.
We're importing? Disaster.
I import 100% of all the oil I use. Not a single petroleum-based product is produced by the Methinks household.
(natural gas is another story).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methinks:
"I import 100% of all the oil I use. Not a single petroleum-based product is produced by the Methinks household."
But petro companies reciprocate by buying products from the Methinks household, right? Please tell me you don't run a trade deficit with those evil oil companies.
"(natural gas is another story)."
Surely they buy products from "Methinks Methane Inc.", right?
Yeah, I bet them Swiss ATMs are just a'burning up from all those Saudi Princes, and Russian Oligarchs withdrawin' money to spend with good ol' "Methinks, Inc."
I know I can't go to the door without it being a representative of Ol' King Saud tryin' to buy something from me.
I've noticed that when the farmers around here have a good year everyone seems to have a good year.
But, when ol' King Saud has a good year? Well, it seems to have the opposite effect.
Maybe I'm just superstitious.
more than doubling every two years...at that rate it will swallow the planet by the end of the century...
Rufus:
"Yeah, I bet them Swiss ATMs are just a'burning up from all those Saudi Princes, and Russian Oligarchs withdrawin' money to spend with good ol' "Methinks, Inc."
I know I can't go to the door without it being a representative of Ol' King Saud tryin' to buy something from me."
It's really hard to imagine what you think the problem is. You gave Ol' King Saud $100 and he gave you a barrel of oil. The exchange was entirely voluntary, uncoerced, and you were both better off afterward. You both have something you want more than what you exchanged for it.
Why do you care what King Saud now does with the money? It's now his, and no longer of your concern.
You bought from him because on that day his was the lowest price around. If you hadn't taken advantage of the good deal someone else would have - perhaps that guy in China or the company in Zimbabwe. Maybe tomorrow the cheapest barrel will be from Canada or West Texas.
Oil being the global commodity it is, you could even imagine every oil seller dumping theirs into a common tank from which you buy as needed.
By the time it is refined and hits your gas tank you have no idea where it came from.
The notion of "energy independence" is a myth perpetrated by politicians to arouse emotional responses, and gain votes, and you fall for it. It certainly has no sound economic basis. Wise up.
"I've noticed that when the farmers around here have a good year everyone seems to have a good year.
But, when ol' King Saud has a good year? Well, it seems to have the opposite effect.
Maybe I'm just superstitious."
Maybe you're just easily fooled by your own biases.
You have no idea whether "everyone" is having a good year.
"Maybe you're just easily fooled by your own biases.
You have no idea whether "everyone" is having a good year"...
Exactly ron h...
Guess we won't be seeing rufus in one of these television commercials...:-)
No, I live in the real world. When those farmers sell that corn, soybeans, and cotton, I can literally follow that money around with my own eyes.
Machinery starts disappearing from the local Deere Dealer's lot, and his salesmen are seen down at the local Chevy dealership, and those car salesmen are parked down in front of the local "fine dining" establishment, and so on, and so forth.
I see the waitress's car down at the garage getting new brakes, and the mechanic's wife out buying shoes for the kids.
Parking lots all over town have more cars. Bias ain't got nothing to do with it.
juandos
"Guess we won't be seeing rufus in one of these television commercials...:-)"
LOL
Not likely.
They're bashing him for "heavy spending," when Real Government Spending is less than it was when he took office?
Baseline Spending - 3rd chart
No, I reckon you won't see me in one of those ads.
"No, I live in the real world. When those farmers sell that corn, soybeans, and cotton, I can literally follow that money around with my own eyes."
Newsflash, Rufus, the "real world" is bigger than the one you can see with your own eyes. You have no clue.
Do you really believe that self sufficiency makes everyone better off?
You seem to have no grasp of basic economics, but that's not a recent development.
Rufus>>Machinery starts disappearing from the local Deere Dealer's lot,<<
You do realize that most of the machinery purchases you see are made to take advantage of accelerated depreciation-(avoid income tax) don't you?
"They're bashing him for "heavy spending," when Real Government Spending is less than it was when he took office?
Baseline Spending - 3rd chart"
Too bad your guy doesn't cite the source of his data.
Economics, schmeckonomics; I'm not stupid enough to believe that money spent in Saudi Arabia is as valuable as money spent in my home town.
But, just to play the stupid "economics" game, let's say that after 50 years, or so, that money actually did wend its way back from Saudi Arabia to my little home town - What would it be worth after 50 years of inflation?
Sometimes you just have to take "theory" with a grain of salt.
"They're bashing him for "heavy spending," when Real Government Spending is less than it was when he took office"...
What?!?! Are you're sure its the 3rd chart you're refering to?
This 3rd chart?!?!
You're kidding rufus, right?
Have you been reading Rex Nutting?
Actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen
"Economics, schmeckonomics; I'm not stupid enough to believe that money spent in Saudi Arabia is as valuable as money spent in my home town."
Don't confuse me with reason or logic, sez Rufus.
What do you suppose a barrel of oil would cost if it was produced in your hometown? Your neighbors are probably better off trading corn, soy beans and cotton, which they are good at and have in abundance, for something Ol' King Saud is good at and has in abundance. Everybody wins.
While there are factions in this country bubbling over with rage and ignorance that the Saudis is robbing them by selling them oil, there is a faction in Saudi Arabia screaming bloody murder because the West is...wait for it...buying Arabian oil. The smartest among them scream that the oil is bought too cheaply.
I have no idea when we'll run out of "cheap" (whatever that means) oil, but the world seems to have an infinite supply of cheap idiots.
note: that grammatical error was intended.
Professor Duy received his B.A. in Economics in 1991 from the University of Puget Sound, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Economics in 1998 from the University of Oregon. Following graduate school, Tim worked in Washington, D.C. for the United States Department of Treasury as an economist in the International Affairs division and later with the G7 Group, a political and economic consultancy for clients in the financial industry. In the latter position, he was responsible for monitoring the activities of the Federal Reserve and currency markets. Tim returned to the University of Oregon in 2002. He is the Senior Director of the Oregon Economic Forum and the author of the University of Oregon Statewide Economic Indicators, Regional Economic Indicators, and the Central Oregon Business Index. Tim has published in the Journal of Economics and Business and is currently a member of the Oregon Governor's Council of Economic Advisors and the State Debt Policy Advisory Commission
Tim Duy - University of Oregon
Grammatical error?
What grammatical error? :)
"I have no idea when we'll run out of "cheap" (whatever that means) oil, but the world seems to have an infinite supply of cheap idiots"...
Oh ouch!
I could here that slap all the way out where I am...:-)
rufus how about a temporary but entertaining diversion?
And, yes, I am quite certain that we would be big money ahead by adding value to that corn ( and, stover) by turning it into ethanol, and using the ethanol.
"Professor Duy received his B.A. in Economics in 1991 from the University of Puget Sound, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Economics in 1998 from the University of Oregon"...
That idiot Krugman is supposedly a sharp economist too rufus...
Methinks:
"I have no idea when we'll run out of "cheap" (whatever that means) oil, but the world seems to have an infinite supply of cheap idiots."
The fuel of the future! Trouble is, I have a restrictor in my gas tank filler tube that prevents me from using them at present. Maybe with a little illegal modification...
Doctor Duy is just graphing Fed data, J.
Things aren't "always" as presented in the right-wing press.
Surely they buy products from "Methinks Methane Inc.", right?
Whether they like it or not, Ron H.!
I'm not sayin' "the Saudis is robbin' us."
I'm just sayin' "we could do better - esp. a few years down the road."
"Doctor Duy is just graphing Fed data, J"...
Ahh yes, the unsubstantiated claim...
juandos
"Rufus how about a temporary but entertaining diversion?"
Heh! I liked it, but it hasn't apparently diverted Rufus at all in his quest to out himself as an economic pygmy.
@Rufus II:
Thunderhorse never got remotely close to 600,000 bbl/day. Its maximum production reached 250,000 bbl/day, including all oil equivalents.
Source
"Doctor Duy is just graphing Fed data, J."
If Dr. Duy is as well educated as you describe him, he should know better than to present a graph with out describing his data source and methods. Others should have an oportunity do duplicate his results.
Did he previously work with Michael Mann?
Rufus, if by "we can do better" you mean we can get the hell out petroleum companies' way by not freaking out every time they need to frac rock or build a pipeline or drill off the coast of Santa Barbara, then I agree. Get Obama out of the oil business and focused on something he has expertise in - nothing.
If you're rabbiting on about "energy independence" then I prefer you run that self-sufficiency experiment on your own family.
My mistake, unknown. I thought at one point Thunderhorse produced quite a lot more than that. (I might be mistaking Thunderhhorse, alone, with something I was reading a couple of days ago, that tied Thunderhorse in with a group of other platforms. I was aware that the decline had been remarkable.
But, when ol' King Saud has a good year? Well, it seems to have the opposite effect.
Oh, poor Rufus. If a tree fell in the forest he doesn't think it made a sound unless it bashed his skull in on the way down.
On the other hand, Metinks, If I do get my head bashed in I don't have to read a book to know I'm all cut up, and bloody as hell.
Professor Duy received his B.A. in Economics in 1991 from the University of Puget Sound, and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Economics in 1998 from the University of Oregon. Following graduate school,....
So, what you're telling us is that Duy ought to know better. Spending today is 5% higher than in 2008. I do find it particularly hilarious that he has 2012 figures already. I suppose he got those from the ever reliable Miss Cleo?
Federal spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2002_2022USr_F0f
If I do get my head bashed in I don't have to read a book to know I'm all cut up, and bloody as hell.
That's handy, Rufus, since your brain is likely to be as scattered as it seems to be now.
Methinks, Professor Duy's chart is in 2005 dollars, I think it was, whereas your numbers are "Nominal."
Also, it looks like his chart encompasses numbers through the 1st calendar quarter of 2012, not the whole year.
The first comment above:
"Eee Zee, Boss. You're still only talking 600,000 bbl/day. Thunderhorse, alone, produced almost that much in its first year."
What?
Often overlooked in these theories are the two li'l words: Ceteris Paribus. However, as most all us rednecks know, the ceterii ain't usually parabii.
I bet you think this is a very insightful thing to say, don't you?
In the case of ethanol vs. Saudi oil, one big cetirii is: The cost of Transportation from the Persian Gulf to N. Mississippi vs. virtually no transportation cost for the homemade stuff.
You're the only person who knows this. The difference in transportation costs has been overlooked by the entire greedy energy industry.
Another factor is: by using our own Capital to build our own refinery we get the benefits of "Value Added. Also, we get to put to economic use certain products which would otherwise go to waste (stover, landfill trash, grass clippings, johnson grass, etc.)"
The greedy corporations haven't figured any of this out either. Thank God we have you to guide us.
What's most often overlooked by people with lots of opinions about what "we" should do is that they don't seem to be doing anything.
If you've got such a great "value added" scheme, then why aren't you sinking every last redneck cent into it? Go get rich Rufus!
Yeah, I already paid my mea culpas for that lash-up, Bruce. :)
I made my excuses upthread.
Methinks, Professor Duy's chart is in 2005 dollars, I think it was, whereas your numbers are "Nominal."
Yes, I forgot to account for the massive inflation we've had since 2008. Federal spending is 5% above 2008 in REAL dollars.
Metinks, Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009.
Sorry, 5.6% and I forgot to post this link:
http://cafehayek.com/2012/06/on-krugman-on-spending.html
""
Big money for your neighbors, no doubt. How about the rest of us? Why should we pay for their enrichment?
No thanks. Your neighbors will have to make ethanol a cheaper option with no subsidies or mandates of any kind, then I'll consider it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to buy the best fuel for me from Ol' King Saud. Choice is great, ain't it?
"Get Obama out of the oil business and focused on something he has expertise in - nothing."
Wait. That's not quite true. as a community organizer he was very successful at getting people upset about things they didn't previously know they *should* be upset about until they marched on City Hall demanding "justice". As is usual in such situations, City hall threw some taxpayer money at them and they went away until the next time.
You mean the year Obama and Nancy Pelosi jacked up spending 11% in a single year?
Right Rufus. Remember when these words left your fingertips:
"They're bashing him for "heavy spending," when Real Government Spending is less than it was when he took office?"
So, it seems that the comparison should be to 2008 since we're comparing today to before he took office, huh? Real spending has increased 5.6% in REAL dollars since then. Do the math. Your Duy is pulling numbers out of his ass.
Wait. That's not quite true. as a community organizer he was very successful at getting people upset about things they didn't previously know they *should* be upset about until they marched on City Hall demanding "justice".
Oh please! He can't hold a candle to Revrun Al Sharpton when it comes to launching a "No Justice, No Peace" march on city hall. Obama's only expertise is in getting his party voted out of office in the worst shellacking since the 1930's. Oh hey! We just found him a job!
Here, Methinks, I should have specified, as Professor Duy did on his graph: Government Spending on Consumption and Investment. This does Not include Transfer Payments.
Government Purchases: This is the specific term referring to actual expenditures on final goods and services, or gross domestic product, by the government sector. It specifically excludes transfer payments.
Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment: This is the official measure of the government purchases component of aggregate expenditures used in the calculation of gross domestic product. This term reflects the fact that the government sector purchases both consumption goods and capital goods.
Actually, Unsubsidized, Wholesale, 114 Octane Ethanol IS selling for $0.50/gal less than 84 Octane gasoline.
"In the case of ethanol vs. Saudi oil, one big cetirii is: The cost of Transportation from the Persian Gulf to N. Mississippi vs. virtually no transportation cost for the homemade stuff."
Poor old Rufus is confused again. If Saudi oil plus transportation cost more than domestic oil to the same place no one would buy any would they?
Also I don't live in Mississippi, so I might suffer some transportation costs for ethanol.
If you are making my argument that everyone should pay the lowest possible for motor fuel, then I don't know what your point is. It would be really interesting to see what would happen to the ethanol industry without mandates. after all, it never caught on as a motor fuel in the last 100 years, but for some strange reason you think it will now.
For now my best choice is gasoline, and sometimes that comes courtesy of King Saud.
The chart above shows just how important the Bakken region of North Dakota has been to the state's exponential growth in oil production over the last six years.
Yes it does. But what you need is a chart showing cash flows from Bakken operations or the average well production for horizontal wells drilled after 2004.
The Bakken may have helped ND and the suppliers of the producers but it has not helped investors make any money from actual production. From where I stand the shale industry still looks the mortgage finance industry in the mid 2000s.
We have to import 9 Million bbl/day just to meet demand at the current price.
I was just trying to point out that if you try to simplify economic theory too much the wheels start falling off.
My contention is that I have valid economic reasons for believing home-grown ethanol would be a better thing for me than imported Saudi Oil. If you feel you can do better with the Saudi product, more power to you.
Methinks, Total Government Spending was up 3.7% in Nominal Dollars from Bush's last budget (2009) till the estimated end of 2012. I'm not sure what the rate of inflation was during that period, but you are right; real spending Is up under Obama.
But, not much :)
"Rufus II said...
Yeah, I bet them Swiss ATMs are just a'burning up from all those Saudi Princes, and Russian Oligarchs withdrawin' money to spend with good ol' "Methinks, Inc."
Ha, ha. Very nice sarcasm Rufus and poignant.
No, by golly, it looks like we've had about 6% inflation since Sept, '09. I win.
CPI Index, Historic
Treas dot gov
We agree Rufus, you have the right to believe in what you like and to act however you want economically. Buy all the ethanol you want. Even try to talk everyone who will listen to you into buying ethanol. Take out ads telling the whole country that they should buy ethanol. Do whatever you want ......except lobby the government to use tax dollars to subsided it or to use it's power to mandate that we all use ethanol. That we don't agree that you should be allowed to do. Do you understand the difference?
Subsidize it not subsided it, dumb autocorrect
Why not? The oil companies spend millions every year lobbying Congress.
They mandate that those that don't have "flexfuel" cars (identical to all other cars except for a tweak in the computer program) use a fuel mix that's 85%, or higher, Petroleum.
Paul Ryan gets considerable family income from leasing land to oil companies, and yet he votes to keep Their Subsidies in place.
Why shouldn't I have the same rights as Paul Ryan, and the Oil Companies?
Rufus, the point is that spending is up, not down.
"Often overlooked in these theories are the two li'l words: Ceteris Paribus. However, as most all us rednecks know, the ceterii ain't usually parabii."
Your comment makes no sense as written, and you appear to be going off the rails here. We are discussing the global price of oil. What theories are you talking about?
We agree oil companies should be free do produce oil and to sell as much as they want. They can try to talk as many people as they want into buying their oil. They can take out ads telling the whole country to buy their oil. They can do whatever they want......except lobby the government to use tax dollars to sudsidize oil or to use it's power to mandate that we all use oil. That we don't agree that they should be allowed to do.
Now do you understand the difference?
No, Methinks, not in "real" (inflation corrected) dollars it isn't.
Spending in Bush's last budget (2009) was 3,521,734.
2009
Spending this year is estimated to be 3,652,596.
Spending 2012
That is an increase of 3.7%, and the CPI increased by 6%.
Spending is Down from Bush's last budget in inflation-adjusted terms.
I am disagreeing with those that would take half a page out of the Austrian playbook, and call me an idiot for not understanding that there is no real difference between buying a product from a Kingdom 9,000 miles away, and from buying the same product from my next-door neighbor.
All ceterii ain't paribus.
The thing is, gimmeefreedom, all the powers in the world aren't going to stop Exxon from lobbying, and I'd be a fool to not fight back.
"We have to import 9 Million bbl/day just to meet demand at the current price."
Why is that a problem?
How many other things do we "have to import" a great deal of that doesn't cause any one to sh*t their pants?
Bauxite? There are no significant sources of bauxite in the US. About 1/2 of all aluminum used in the US is imported as metal and the other 1/2 is made from imported ore. As with most global commodities including oil, ore and aluminum are imported from dozens of other countries, but mostly from Canada and Russia.
The US can NEVER BE ALUMINUM INDEPENDENT! Does that scare you Rufus?
There are hundreds of other materials not available in the US and thousands of things from rare earth elements and bananas that are imported because they are *cheaper* than making or growing them in the US.
This is the very nature of trade, and we are all better off because of it.
Don't be afraid of those "furriners", Rufus.
"Here, Methinks, I should have specified, as Professor Duy did on his graph: Government Spending on Consumption and Investment. This does Not include Transfer Payments."
That isn't on his 3rd graph, and the word transfer doesn't appear anywhere on the page you linked to. Try again.
"No, Methinks, not in "real" (inflation corrected) dollars it isn't."
I just love it when Rufus schools Methinks on business and finance and how to read a graph. This is as much fun as when Larry schools morganovich.
Does nothing embarrass you Rufus?
"I am disagreeing with those that would take half a page out of the Austrian playbook, and call me an idiot for not understanding that there is no real difference between buying a product from a Kingdom 9,000 miles away, and from buying the same product from my next-door neighbor."
But there is no difference Rufus, except that your neighbor doesn't have that product. What do you think the difference could be? Besides we're just talking very basic economics that isn't particular to Austrians in particular. All economic schools understand the benefits of trade.
I have no idea when we'll run out of "cheap" (whatever that means) oil, but the world seems to have an infinite supply of cheap idiots.
What would you expect from the Don Boudreaux Hall of BS.
The U.S. is now down to pressure washing oil rock ("tight oil") with water and sand and assorted chemicals. Between 2005 and 2011, global crude oil and condensate supply has increased by a rounding error.
Peak oil is now (conventional oil production peaked 10 years ago), notwithstanding industry advertising the narrative that U.S. will be oil independent in 10 years. Mark J. Perry will have egg all over his face. Just like when he yacks about all the proposed capex projects due to shale gas but can't produce the evidence in the NIPAs or the INDPRO. (The chemical sector of manufacturing production is flat year over year).
There is plenty of private land to be leased near Rifle, Colorado to heat out the kerogen oil in the Green River formation. Have at it boys.
It seems to me that over the last 18 months, the U.S. fossil fuel industry has spent more money on the boob tube than their annual tax subsidies. Another reason to cut them off from Uncle Sam.
Ron H., it's way worse than that. He's not schooling me he's schooling Don Boudreaux and Don's numbers and the deflator he used are linked in his post - to which I provided the link. So, unlike this whacky Duy character, we actually know how Don arrived at his conclusion.
Rufus inartfully attributes Obama's spending in 2009 (when Obama and Nancy jacked up spending 11% in a single year) to Bush in an attempt to...lie(?). Probably to himself more than to anyone here.
But, you know, there will be silly people babbling about Ceteris paribus because they don't understand what purpose Ceteris paribus serves in analysis and have wild opinions about how things should be done - but always with other people's money. The market, in its wisdom, never seems to reward these jeenyuses with enough resources to bring their grand ideas to fruition.
Marmico,
If that's all true and we're about to run out of oil, then what are you doing here?
Shouldn't you be taking this opportunity to use your claimed expertise to come up with some genius alternative? As we squeeze the last drops of oil out of mother earth the price will spike and your invention will become a viable alternative. You would be rich. And then you could use your riches to help whichever political overlord you favour obtain power.
Or are you here just to prove beyond a doubt that my statement is correct?
The thing is, gimmeefreedom, all the powers in the world aren't going to stop Exxon from lobbying, and I'd be a fool to not fight back.
As usual, you mix up cause and effect. Exxon needs no lobbying to make a profit. It needs lobbying to protect its profits from the thieves that want them.
Of course, all this goes away if we take away the government's power to meddle in voluntary transactions. Once it cannot subsidize or mandate anything, consumers making purchasing decisions in the free market will decide which producer benefits and which is destroyed.
Rufus II said...
I am disagreeing with those that would take half a page out of the Austrian playbook, and call me an idiot for not understanding that there is no real difference between buying a product from a Kingdom 9,000 miles away, and from buying the same product from my next-door neighbor.
No one called you an idiot Rufus. More so than most other groups of people, we would fight for your right to act and think like an idiot without interference from the government. So carry on as you have been. We will argue with you when you post idiotic statements though.
Is it oil from the Kingdom that you object to or oil from anywhere outside of the US?
"Did he previously work with Michael Mann?"...
Ooh! ron h that was just a bit of high sticking if you'll pardon the pun...
Speaking of Mann and his moronic disciples did you see what Gov. Moonbeam has done now?
California! What a fantasy land...
The state doesn't have enough money to buy a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of and yet they're still pushing the AGW/green energy scam...
Here's the state trying 'educate' the so called deniers...
Climate Change Just the Facts
juandos
High-sticking? LOL that's a good one. :)
"Climate Change Just the Facts"
Yikes! I've just traveled back in time. Wasn't all this debunked a long time ago?
But what would you expect. It's Gov Moonbeam after all. At least he didn't spend much money developing a new website, he just threw one back up he had *lying* around if you'll pardon the pun. :)
"Here's the state trying 'educate' the so called deniers..."
None of that will work any more with "deniers", I think it's aimed at people who have been asleep for the last 6 years.
How about using actual 'exponential' graphs, please.
Methinks
"But, you know, there will be silly people babbling about Ceteris paribus because they don't understand what purpose Ceteris paribus serves in analysis and have wild opinions about how things should be done - but always with other people's money. The market, in its wisdom, never seems to reward these jeenyuses with enough resources to bring their grand ideas to fruition."
You're right as usual, but I worry about that apparently inexhaustible supply of other people's money.
Post a Comment
<< Home