A contrary view
Jim Cramer has a different view than ours. He says Ag and Nat Gas Can Be Bought Up Here:
these moves speak to something so fundamental as to be outrageously obvious: Oil is not going back to $70, where ag plantings might be unclear and nat gas might be just a bit better than oil. It is not going back to $80, where it made good economic sense to get more fertilizer or drill for more natural gas. It may not even go back to $90, where food for oil is outrageously profitable and natural gas is a shoo-in. A retreat to $100 seems hard now. As someone who has been saying that oil is headed to $125 — been my thought now for two years — I have to say that these prices for these ag and nat gas companies are NOT TOO HIGH to pay.
We’ll just have to see which view of the world is correct.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
maybe people who follow this clown can invest their bear stearns profits in these new plays (he was pimping it the *day* before it croaked).
April 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am
If higher food costs–a euphemism for starvation or famine in the third world–are the price for subsidizing first-world agricultural special interests, political elites in the USA and Europe seem entirely willing to pay it.
These philosopher-kings dare not publicly refer to the implications of their policies for global “overpopulation”, but I wonder how many of their minds the thought crosses.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:28 am
In my previous comment, “subsidizing first-world agricultural special interests” should have been “fighting global warming and oil company greed”.
Tsk.