Morning:
8°c
SOME would have it that the recent rise in the oil price is evidence of optimism - a sign that the global economy is getting stronger and that the prospects of recession turning into depression have dimmed.
Oil yesterday rose to a six-month high of more than $66 a barrel - something to do with better-than-expected US economic numbers and signs that the UK housing market is recovering, went the theory.
That's a long way off the all-time high of $147 of last year but nearly double recent lows of $35.
However, it is more likely that these price rises are to do with the falling dollar. Oil producers sell crude in dollars. As the dollar declines, the producers' purchasing power in international markets using those dollars is hit, so the oil price is driven up as compensation.
Also, since some Opec countries peg their own currencies to the dollar, a fall in its value hurts their revenue - putting up the price of crude helps them hedge against the loss. In turn, this means they get enough cash coming in to keep investing in oil fields so that they have a steady supply of the black stuff to sell.
So rising crude probably isn't a sign of investor giddiness.
Even if it were, it seems hard to make the case that much higher oil prices are positive for the economy.
For one thing, they raise the immediate likelihood of rising prices at the pumps.
The AA warned yesterday that another summer of "petrol madness" lies ahead. Motorists initially absorb higher petrol prices but before long they are forced to make cuts in the family budget.
The Government is hoping that a newly confident consumer base will drive the spending that brings health back to the High Street.
It is also expecting to see more money flow into Treasury coffers from higher fuel duty, which in turn will bolster precarious public finances. Pricey petrol throws all this into doubt. "It will reduce the potential for consumers to re-stimulate business," says the AA.
For one industry in particular - aviation - a return to oil at $100 a barrel could spell disaster. Last year, several small players went bust because they couldn't cope with fuel costs and the credit crunch.
This year the bigger players, such as British Airways and Ryanair, have coped - sort of - with the plunge in passenger numbers because oil prices were low.
Still, BA made a loss for the last 12 months of £401 million, thanks to fuel costs of £3 billion and a lack of high-end flyers. Chief executive Willie Walsh is working for nothing in July to show he's sharing the pain of investors - he might have to get used to not receiving a salary if oil does seriously spike.
Airlines like to say that they hedge against dramatic rises, or falls, in oil. Their track record does not inspire. Ryanair, which reports full year results today, has hedged in the wrong direction more than once in the past 12 months.
So what's a "good" oil price? Since oil costs around $30 a barrel to get out of the ground, it has to be more than that for the oil explorers to bother. At $80 or above, too many businesses are so stifled that investment in other things becomes impossible. Today's price of $66 may not be evidence of a return to economic health. But it may be roughly the best price for it to stay in all of our interests.
We lose in the supermarket war no one seems to win
IF you believe the supermarkets' marketing spiel, they are engaged in a perpetual battle for our custom.
The competition in this industry is so cut-throat that if they dared raise prices for even a second, we'd decamp to a rival.
Sir Terry Leahy at Tesco is discounting like mad; Justin King at Sainsbury's is feeding your family for a fiver -with help from Jamie Oliver -while Asda's Andy Bond is "saving you money every day".
The supermarket bosses say - and genuinely seem to believe - that UK consumers are blessed beneficiaries of this fierce face-off.Two pieces of entirely anecdotal evidence call the notion that we've never had it so good into question.
First, if Sir Terry and the rest are right, weekly food bills should be falling. I can't find anyone who thinks this is so. Second, if you go abroad - Spain, say - you quickly reach the conclusion that food is cheaper there despite the fall in the pound.
Europeans eat better and for less than we do.
Spanish supermarkets are superior to ours in other ways - the produce tastes of something, for a start.
The big four supermarkets keep individually insisting that they are stealing market share from each other - clearly they can't all be right.
In fact, market-share statistics have been stable for years: Tesco has 30%, Asda 17%, Sainsbury's 16% and Morrisons 11%.
It's a tricky time for MPs to suggest an overseas jaunt to investigate food prices but I think they should go.
Harvard's 'leaders' who certainly made a difference
THE collapse of General Motors is another addition to the wall of shame that should be decorating the front entrance to the Harvard Business School in Boston.
Here's a very short list of Harvard alumni turned corporate catastrophes: Jeff Skilling (Enron), Andy Hornby (HBOS), Christopher Cox (Securities and Exchange Commission), Stan O'Neal (Merrill Lynch) and John Thain (also Merrill Lynch).
To that can be added Rick Wagoner and Fritz Henderson, the former and present chief executives of the car company that has just driven itself off a cliff after 101 years.
Both men hold MBAs from Harvard - a qualification that was supposed to indicate levels of brilliance so high that the holder could successfully run any business, anywhere.
Wagoner and Henderson rose through the ranks at GM from the finance arm - they understood how to make money from loaning people money to buy cars. Making cars anyone might want to buy wasn't their field.
Once the credit crunch bit and running a bank that happened to sell cars on the side became untenable, nearly all of their experience and supposed expertise was worthless.
One positive fallout from the collapse of these businesses may be that in future people who spout MBA jargon won't get to the top of important organisations so regularly, but that's probably wishful thinking.
As for Harvard itself, its mission is to "educate leaders who make a difference". It should consider this accomplished and can now stop.
