CORRECTION: On February 24, 2011 - I actually wrote $86 (not $87)

CORRECTION: In my June 23, 2011 post (http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/06/get-out-of-your-short-position-on-oil.html) I made an error. I erroneously mentioned that on February 24, 2011 - (http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/02/oil-at-100-seems-really-highshort-it.html) I wrote $87 was my target price. The correct number was $86. And my June 23, 2011 advice is to get out before the target in order to "book the win" so my consistently profitable prediction streak continues. But don't forget that my prediction was nevertheless still good since following my advice would have netted you a nearly 9% profit in 4 months. NOTE - I include my errors, corrections and bad predictions on my blog to further prove the integrity of the posts. .

Get out of your short position on Oil

CAVEAT: I am not a professional financial adviser. Please consult one before you consider taking any of my advice. This blog is for entertainment purposes only. On February 24th, 2011 - I advised selling oil short (when it was $100 a barrel). http://corpania.blogspot.com/2011/02/oil-at-100-seems-really-highshort-it.html "Oil at $100 seems really high since the fundamental use (demand) and availability (supply) substantially haven't changed (IMHO)." Well it's June 23rd, 2011 - And now that oil is at $91.04 I'm advising you to get out of your short position and book the roughly 9%+ profit in 4 months. My amazingly great oil price prediction streak continues. Has anybody noticed or fully appreciated that? BTW - It could go lower still but I love the validation of making consistently profitable recommendations. So even though I originally said sell at $87, I'm saying now book the win and be content. .

Words Invisibly Recalibrate: Another Reason Testing Predictions is More Valuable Than Reviewing History

I'm a longstanding proponent of using science over history in determining future policy. The Scientific Method insists on "Testing Predictions" which enables crucial falsifiability. Whereas History can be cherry-picked for only the confirming data. This is much like con-artist tarot card readers whose "cold reading" techniques use "confirmation bias" to trick suckers into thinking supernatural/paranormal powers exist. But this post is about how "Words Invisibly Recalibrate". When you were a small child you probably thought regular black pepper was "spicy". As you got older you probably recalibrated to simply consider it a "seasoning" and then you thought that jalapenos were spicy. If you grew up in a home that enjoyed a lot of Spanish or Indian cuisine then you probably don't think that jalapenos are that spicy. And so maybe a Habanero chili pepper or Bhut Jolokia is your new defining spicy ingredient. The Scoville Scale scientifically measures "spiciness". Here are some examples: Pimento: 100 - 500 Scoville units Tabasco Sauce: 2,500 - 5,000 Jalapenos: 2,500 - 8,000 Habaneros: 100,000 - 350,000 Now if I quoted you as having said "Black Pepper is the spiciest thing in the world." That shouldn't mean much if you were 7 years-old at the time and have since gone on to taste much spicier foods. Similarly, when we quote historical figures we should be equally skeptical even when they use the same words we use today. Consider these powerful words : Freedom, Free-Trade, Socialism, Protectionism Recall your own quotes about them. What if they meant something different back then? Surely they did, if only with respect to context and their particular factors. NOTE - I have previously blogged about "Republicans' Shifting Definition of Socialism". When you read The Old Testament of The Bible there are grandiose-for-the-time phrases like "the land flowing with milk and honey" to communicate abundance. When today virtually every single first world country (and surely every Western country) does indeed "flow" with milk and honey. Why didn't The Bible describe the comparatively much more glorious cornucopia of bounties in a modern, standard Costco? Penn Jillette is among the skeptics who say something to the effect of: "If the average Vegas magician did his act 2000 years ago he would have been heralded as a god." And don't forget Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." History necessarily uses the same words (or translations) when the contextual differences have rendered the thoughts moot. That's because history as a social science is most flawed at "isolating the variable for measurement". Another historical term that offends me (even though I'm Agnostic) is the term "King of Kings". As if the power differential between a human king to a regular person would be at all equivalent to that of an Omnipotent Supreme Being compared to a human king. Though I'm sure it was a useful comparison in the time of kings. But that's my point - communication is meant for its time and its desired audience. To take quotes out of that context is to make any statement that was possibly "valid-for-the-circumstances" potentially vulnerable to complete or partial invalidation. For example: 1) Ptolemy vs. Copernicus 2) The original U.S. Constitution protected freedoms & voting rights for only white men who owned property. Whereas today we recognize that as absurdly narrow and unfair. Next time someone attempts to assert the supposedly unassailable authority of our Founding Fathers you can dismiss him because he used to think black pepper was spicy. .