I see your point - from my understanding, Shale oil needs to be sold at a minimum of $70 a barrel to be profitable. We're far below that which means shale oil will either lose money, or simply not be produced, putting many people out of work.
But I see Craig's point as well - Shale related jobs make up a tiny percentage of the total jobs. Yet virtually EVERY worker (and the unemployed) are benefiting from lower oil prices. When looking at the American work force (and overall economy) as a whole, wouldn't these benefits outweigh the damage? Or in even more basic terms, isn't it better that one industry suffers for so many other industries to prosper?
Thanks for the links, I'll read more on this to gain a better understanding.
"The more intelligent Europeans approved this drug... yet the FDA have put this on a prolonged clinical hold since around the same time."
Aren't you concerned that there could be a reason for the FDA not approving this drug other than a lack of intelligence? Perhaps their process is simply more stringent or thorough. But it could be that the FDA discovered something of concern that the Europeans missed.
Nicely done Mr. Halliday, what other countries might you recommend investing in? I'd rather diversify than risk having all my eggs in one basket. Thank you.
I think you cut through the fluff and dove right into the heart of the matter. I'm not a fan of Obama, but I do believe he has a point that 50 years hasn't changed much and more can be achieved through engagement. In that regard he is correct. But I too believe the decision was made for political gains.
It reminds me of how Obama was against gay marriage as long as the majority of Americans were as well. But the second the polls tipped in favor of gay marriage, he changed his position to match the majority. But perhaps I'm not being fair - I think most (but not all) politicians would behave in the same way.
Latest Comments
Oil And Gasoline Inventories Continue To Climb, Could Be Pointing To Economic Weakness
I see your point - from my understanding, Shale oil needs to be sold at a minimum of $70 a barrel to be profitable. We're far below that which means shale oil will either lose money, or simply not be produced, putting many people out of work.
But I see Craig's point as well - Shale related jobs make up a tiny percentage of the total jobs. Yet virtually EVERY worker (and the unemployed) are benefiting from lower oil prices. When looking at the American work force (and overall economy) as a whole, wouldn't these benefits outweigh the damage? Or in even more basic terms, isn't it better that one industry suffers for so many other industries to prosper?
Thanks for the links, I'll read more on this to gain a better understanding.
How To Build A "Lifetime" Portfolio - Step 1
Thanks for taking so much time to answer everyone's articles, Joseph. When can we expect Part 2 from you?
Recession Not Expected Due To Oil Price Collapse
Great charts, and thanks for allaying my concern about those preaching doom and gloom.
How To Build A "Lifetime" Portfolio - Step 1
Thanks!
How To Build A "Lifetime" Portfolio - Step 1
Great chart, where is it from?
Cardiome Pharma: Why This Bio Gem Could Be An Easy Double This Year
"The more intelligent Europeans approved this drug... yet the FDA have put this on a prolonged clinical hold since around the same time."
Aren't you concerned that there could be a reason for the FDA not approving this drug other than a lack of intelligence? Perhaps their process is simply more stringent or thorough. But it could be that the FDA discovered something of concern that the Europeans missed.
Forget About China… I’m Investing In India!
Nicely done Mr. Halliday, what other countries might you recommend investing in? I'd rather diversify than risk having all my eggs in one basket. Thank you.
Pass The Cigars: US Lifts Some Restrictions On Cuba; Why Now?
I think you cut through the fluff and dove right into the heart of the matter. I'm not a fan of Obama, but I do believe he has a point that 50 years hasn't changed much and more can be achieved through engagement. In that regard he is correct. But I too believe the decision was made for political gains.
It reminds me of how Obama was against gay marriage as long as the majority of Americans were as well. But the second the polls tipped in favor of gay marriage, he changed his position to match the majority. But perhaps I'm not being fair - I think most (but not all) politicians would behave in the same way.
Not Just Oil: Guess What Happened The Last Time Commodity Prices Crashed Like This?
Great article, I've become quite a fan of your work here.
Quicksands
Nice touch with Janet... LOL!!!!