Anyone who has paid any atention to discussions about oil prices knows the huge part India and China have played in that just as they have with steel prices (which obviously aren't impacted significantly by Iraq). So explain to me why a astute prize winning economist would miss/misrepresent that. The answer is obvious. BIAS. I see no obvious reason to doubt the other add ins and have no doubt the war was far more costly than the initial 100 to 200 billion estimated. I just have a real big problem with people using credentials to float such an obvious load of crap with regard to the oil issue.

Regards,
Mark