I've always wondered why Tom Friedman of The New York Times often invokes such venom. He has always seemed to be a cool, moderate observer of trends both political and economic; maybe that's why he's so reviled by people on the far fringes of American political thought. Somebody on the far left figures somebody on the far right is just nuts, but somebody who's moderate -- who sometimes agrees with them -- is more of an apostate, thereby drawing more venom. And vice-versa.
Consider this passage on a website criticizing a Friedman column: "He is the imperial chronicler, the man responsible for promoting the narrow interests of elites and transforming the crimes of the empire into a narrative of generosity and goodwill. If one can decode Friedman's bi-weekly hieroglyphic, they can also understand how elites use the media to manage public perceptions."
Wow. A whole list of pieces critical of Friedman can be found if you scroll down through this article.
But I think he nailed some of the challenges facing the energy supply-demand balance, and the calls for conservation, in his most recent column (now available for free, with the Times this week closing its TimesSelect pay service.)
Every month's IEA report has figures that vary, but ultimately tell the same story: demand in non-OECD nations may be affected at the margin by the high price of oil, but its direction remains straight up, at annual rates in excess of 5%. It's sobering to ponder what sort of price would be needed to put the brakes on it.
Leave a comment