[Marxism] question on seeming Contradiction in the WSJ and Oil

Prem K Govindaswamy govi0006 at umn.edu
Thu Nov 10 20:16:49 MST 2005

    Glancing at the Wall Street Journal, I found something which didn't
seem to make sense. In one article, on Nov. 11, Titled "U.S. Trade Deficit
Swells to a Record", it is said that oil prices have recently gone up,
causing problems with the trade deficit. According to the quoted "expert"
of the High Frequency Economics Ltd. of Valhalla, N.Y., responding to the
large trade deficit, and the low gross-domestic profit-growth, "The rise in
oil prices was always likely to hit these number with a vengeance,". Yet on
the day before, in an article titled "Stocks Rally on Consumer Hopes", the
author explains the rising stock market numbers:

    "Light, sweet crude fell $1.13 to $57.80 a barrel on the New York
Mercantile Exchange, oil's lowest settlement since July 21, after the
International Energy Agency trimmed its world oil demand view by 60,000
barrels in 2005 and 140,000 barrels a day in 2006"  
    A wave of unseasonably warm weather in the Northeast has also pushed
energy prices down recently. Crude oil has declined more than 17% since
peaking at about $70 a barrel after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf
Coast in late August", 


Oddly enough, according to William Blum:
     "From the Washington Post: 
April 9 - "Stocks fell yesterday even though oil prices were down for a
fifth straight day."
May 12 - "Stocks bounce back as oil prices decline"."

Something doesn't seem right. I have a question. In the first article, they
refer to the results of the "third quarter", presumably July, August, and
Sept., which might make their reporting consistent as they reported high
oil prices in that time period. This is a little confusing, that's all. 

More information about the Marxism mailing list