What are the Economist's wild assumptions?
Oil has peaked. Again.
Captain, I'd shoot the last elephant.
What are the Economist's wild assumptions?
So neither one of you two clowns actually read the economist article.
If its and buts were fruit and nuts we'll all have a Merry Christmas.We believe that they are wrong, and that oil is close to a peak. This is not the “peak oil” widely discussed several years ago, when several theorists, who have since gone strangely quiet, reckoned that supply would flatten and then fall. We believe that demand, not supply, could decline. In the rich world oil demand has already peaked: it has fallen since 2005. Even allowing for all those new drivers in Beijing and Delhi, two revolutions in technology will dampen the world’s thirst for the black stuff.
I used to be in a band called "Rex Havoc and the D9 Cats".
.... Ummmm... That demand from the globe's 2 largest growing economies won't translate into a middle class with disposable income and want cars (that they have already proven that they do)?
This depends on what the standard should be for disposable income.
Relied? That's news to people in SK. Who knew?
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/little-panic-in-calgary-s-oil-patch-even-as-prices-plummet-1.2802068
When CBC Calgary sent a reporter to a recent pipeline conference to ask about the ongoing price drop, all we came back with was a collective shrug of the shoulder.
There is a driving force for students to go into journalism....it's called failing math.
Factoid- Around 11 per cent of Saskatchewan’s revenue, $1.56 billion, comes from oil sector royalties. Does that mean the other 89% of the SK economy is going to pack it in?
Tuk tuks are too comfortable and safe to let go of.The Indian public doesn't want them... An economist said so
Relative to those individual economies.
You are welcome to define it if you so choose?
PS - there is a highly subjective component in that above definition (being that it is up to the individual to make that choice).
Good luck!
So you'll need to prove that the Economist's version is a wild assumption then.
Depends on the context of the article.
I'm sure there are many articles that use probable qualifiers and they are not false depictions.
That's why there is discussion about the content.
Context and source. Biased sources are notoriously inaccurate.
The Economist could be a biased source on the economy, but considering that bias leans right, this is pretty extraordinary news.