Revista de economia by stephanie

From the editor While technology efficiently delivers news stories to our desktops, laptops and mobile devices, magazines are all about context—how ideas and images are presented in relation to one another and within a larger point of view. Magazines are about trust and partnership: We, the editors, will strive always to keep you engaged; you, the readers, are free to engage with us or to reject us. But enough theory: Let me tell you about this transitional August issue of W. Aug

et me introduce myself: I am W’s new Editor in Chief. And beginning with the September issue—redesigned and reimagined—we will learn from one another what a magazine is, and what it can be, in our always changing new world.To start, let me say that I am a magazine enthusiast, a junkie who from my earliest school days has been obsessed with flipping though the pages of magazines, first absorbed in their images and stories, later assigning and editing my own. I really believe that no matter whether a magazine is delivered to your doorstep or to your computer, printed on glossy stock or on cheap tabloid paper, appearing on your iPad or your cell-phone screen, it is still and foremost the work of an editorial team for a discerning audience, a beautiful and meaningful— we hope—package of ideas, words and images that a group of experts prepares for its readers. August is time for making decisions before fall starts, and our fashion team has selected the best coats, the best dresses and the best bags of the season, creating the perfect shopping wish list. Feminine and sexy are back (with a twist) in Alasdair McLellan’s “Sweet & Vicious,” in which Fifties glamour meets vixenish schoolgirl charm, and bright geometric accessories bring a bolt of energy and joy to the magazine’s pages—the perfect cocktail to start the new season.

-Stefano Tonchi, Editor-in-Chief

Table of contents Bernie Sanders and the Case for a New Economic Stimulus Package ll learn from one another what a magazine is, and what it can be, in ll learn from one another what a magazine is, and what it can be

The Climate Summit of Money

ll learn from one another what a magazine is, and what it can be, in ll learn from one another what a magazine is,

Oil Prices: Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Behind the Drop? Simple Economics

VWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Crisis Strategy: Forward, Reverse, U-Turn

ll learn from one another what a magazine is, and what it can be, in ll learn from one another what a magazine is, and what it can be

ll learn from one another what a magazine is, and what it can be, in ll learn.

INVERSOR MARZO 2016

MASTHEAD EDITOR IN CHIEF: Susan Goldberg DEPUTY EDITOR IN CHIEF: Jamie Shreeve MANAGING EDITOR: David Brindley EXECUTIVE EDITOR ENVIRONMENT: Dennis R. Dimick EXECUTIVE EDITOR DIGITAL: Dan Gilgoff DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY: Sarah Leen EXECUTIVE EDITOR NEWS AND FEATURES: David Lindsey CREATIVE DIRECTOR: Emmett Smith EXECUTIVE EDITOR CARTOGRAPHY, ART AND GRAPHICS: Kaitlin M. Yarnall DESIGN

NEWS/FEATURES

SENIOR DESIGN EDITORS: John Baxter, Elaine H. Bradley, Hannah Tak

EDITOR: Marla Cone,

DESIGN SPECIALISTS: Scott Burkhard, Betty Clayman-DeAtley, Sandi Owatverot-Nuzzo ADMINISTRATION: Cinde Reichard

WRITERS: Jeremy Berlin, Brian Clark Howard, CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: Robert Draper, Cynthia Gorney, SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS: Bryan Christy; Rachel Bale,

Bernie Sanders and the Case for a New Economic Stimulus Package An economist suggests that Bernie Sandersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s proposals would raise output, wages, and productivity.

arlier this week, the White House Council of Economic Advisers released its annual Economic Report of the President. “Claims that America’s economy is in decline or that we haven’t made progress are simply not true,” President Obama wrote in the foreword. The body of the report touted the 13.8 million jobs the economy has generated since the Great Recession, and projected that the gross domestic product, a measure of all the goods and services that the economy produces, would expand by 2.7 per cent this year, its fastest rate of growth in a decade.

he report and the accompanying statistical tables, however, the authors acknowledged that, in terms of output, productivity, and wage growth, the recovery, which began in the middle of 2009, has been a disappointment. Over the past six years, G.D.P. growth has risen at an annual rate of 2.1 per cent. That compares to average growth rates of 4.6 per cent during the six years after the recessions of 1980–1982, 3.6 per cent in the six years after the recession of 1990–1991, and 2.7 per cent after the recession of 2001. One reason why the economy isn’t growing as much as it did after past recessions is that the labor force isn’t expanding as rapidly as before. The population is aging, and more Americans are retiring. But that is only part of the story. Productivity growth, which is the ultimate source or rising wages and

incomes, has also slowed down—a lot. Since the end of 2007, the peak of the last business cycle, output per hour has grown at an annual rate of just 1.4 per cent. That compares to an average growth rate of 2.2 per cent between business-cycle peaks in the period from 1953 to 2007. In the past five years, productivity growth has been even more disappointing. Since the fourth quarter of 2010, the President’s report says, it has averaged just 0.7 per cent, barely a third of the historical average. Since productivity and wages often move together, it is not surprising that wages have also been stagnant. In the past five years, inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings have grown at an annual rate of just 0.6 per cent. (They did perk up a bit last past five years, inflation-adjusted average. 7

It is worth keeping this picture in mind when considering the brouhaha over Bernie Sanders’s economic program, which has been engaging the economics blogosphere for the past week or so. In case you’ve missed it, a number of prominent economists, including four previous chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have poured scorn on a paper by Gerald Friedman, an economist from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which suggested that Sanders’s tax and spending policies, if enacted, would produce a huge leap in output.

t is worth keeping this picture in mind when considering the brouhaha over Bernie Sanders’s economic program, which has been engaging the economics blogosphere for the past week or so. In case you’ve missed it, a number of prominent economists, including four previous chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have poured scorn on a paper by Gerald Friedman, an economist from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which suggested that Sanders’s tax and spending policies, if enacted, would produce a huge leap in output, wages, How huge? Friedman’s

paper claims that, over the next ten years, G.D.P. growth would average 5.3 per cent, labor productivity growth would average 3.3 per cent, and median wages—the wages earned by the household in the very middle of the income distribution—would rise at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent. By 2026, per-capita G.D.P. and median household income would be more than a third higher than they are now. The poverty rate would fall to its lowest level ever—six per cent. The federal budget would be in surplus.The federal budget would be in. age 3.3 per cent, and median wages—the wages

earned by the household in the very middle of the income distribution—would rise at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent. By 2026, per-capita G.D.P. and median household income would be more than a third higher than they are now. The poverty rate would fall to its lowest level ever—six per cent. The federal budget would be in surplus. tish Keynesian, and with P. J. Verdoorn, a Dutch economist. (In a footnote, Friedman cites both of them.) More recently, in the late nineteen-nineties we saw rav productivity growth appear in tandem. Some analysts would claim that

To break out of this low-growth trap, the economy needs policies designed to boost demand and push it onto a higher growth path: one in which rising investment, higher levels of productivity, rising rates of participation in the labor force, and higher wages all reinforce each other. With these conditions in place, companies would have more of an incentive to make capital investments, and as the price of labor rises they would also have an incentive to innovate and move up the value chain. Realistically, we can’t expect 5.3-per-cent G.D.P. growth and 3.3-per-cent productivity growth to persist for a decade. But we don’t necessarily have to settle for the 2.1-per-cent G.D.P. growth we’ve become accustomed to, or even the 2.3-per-cent rate that the Council of Economic Advisers has identified as its long-term potential. The U.S. economy has the resources and the ingenuity to do better than that. As Friedman points out, the idea that faster G.D.P. growth generates higher productivity growth (and higher wages) has historical support. Back when I was an undergraduate, it was associated with Nicholas Kaldor, the British Keynesian, and with P. J. Verdoorn, a Dutch economist. (In a footnote, Friedman cites both of them.) More recently, in the late nineteen-nineties we saw rapid rates of G.D.P. growth and productivity growth appear in tandem. Some analysts would claim that the latter generated the former, rather than vice versa, but that argument isn’t convincing. In a Kaldorian virtuous cycle, G.D.P. growth spurs productivity growth, which, in turn, spurs G.D.P. growth. Causation goes both ways. How could the United States turn up the throttle? In recent decades, the country has often relied on the Federal Reserve and the financial markets to gin up demand. Despite near-record low interest rates, and the Fed’s desire to move away from them, we may go down that route again.

As Martin Wolf pointed out in the Financial Times on Wednesday, we could even end up with the Fed and other central so-called helicopter drops of cash into people’s bank accounts—an option I discussed a few months ago in ne piece about Adair Turner’s book, “Between Debt and the Devil.” Sanders’s method of boosting demand is more orthodox: Keynesian stimulus. He is proposing a sizable infrastructure program—a trillion dollars over ten years—as well as raises in Social Security payments, extra outlays on paid medical leave, and free college tuition at state universities. Adding all of that together, Friedman estimates that the annual spending boost would be the same as the one contained in President Obama’s 2009 stimulus program.mates that the annual spending boost mates that the annual spending boost look.

“

Wolf pointed out in the Financial Times on Wednesday, we could even end up with the Fed and other central banks issuing so-called helicopter drops of cash into people’s bank accounts—an option I discussed a few months ago in a magazine piece about Adair Turner’s

An economist t Brandy Sanders’s CEO

“ 9

“

Wolf pointed out in the Financial Times on Wednesday, we could even end up with the Fed and other central banks issuing so-called helicopter drops of cash into people’s

Wolf pointed out in the Financial Times on Wednesday, we could even end up with the Fed and other central banks issuing socalled helicopter drops of cash into people’s bank accounts—an option I discussed a few months ago in a magazine piec Adair Turner’s book, “Between Debt and the Devil.” Sanders’s method of boosting demand is more orthodox: Keynesian stimulus. He is proposing a sizable infrastructure program—a trillion dollars over ten years—as well as raises in Social Security payments, extra outlays on paid medical leave, and free college tuition at state universities. Adding all of that together, Friedman estimates that the annual spending boost would be about the same as contained in President Obama’s 2009 stimulus program. Right now, unfortunately, the economy is trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle of slow G.D.P. growth, inadequate investment (public and private), and stagnant wages. As Larry Summers and others have pointed out, public-sector investment is running at, or near, historic lows. Corporations, seeing little sign of rising demand for their products, are failing to invest in new capacity—preferring, in many cases, to return 10

“

profits to their shareholders in the form of dividends or stock buybacks. Last year, according to the Economic Report to the President, real business fixed investment rose by just 1.6 per cent—less than G.D.P. When companies don’t invest in new capacity, their employees don’t get new technology to work with and productivity growth tends to lag. vgrowth, in turn, acts as a drag on wages and demand. To break out of this low-growth trap, the economy needs policies designed to boost demand and push it onto a higher growth path: one in which rising investment, higher levels of productivity, rising rates of participation in the labor force, and higher wages all reinforce each other. With these conditions in place, companies would have more of an incentive to make capital investments, and as the price of labor rises they would also have an incentive to innovate and move up the value chain. Realistically, we can’t expect 5.3-per-cent G.D.P. growth and 3.3-per-cent productivity growth to persist for a decade. But we don’t necessarily have to settle for the 2.1-per-cent G.D.P. growth we’ve become accustomed to, or even the 2.3-per-cent rate that the Council of Economic Advisers

The investor summit an climate risk aims to figure out bow to finance a two climate risk aims to figure out bow transition to clean energy, as set forth in the Paris Climate Summit, within the structure of fiduciary duty. Brandy Sandersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CEO

The Climate Summit of Money

“

An economist suggests that Bernie Sanders’s proposals would raise output, wages, and productivity.

etween 2002 and 2008, I had a day job as a recruiter at a quantitative hedge fund in midtown Manhattan. I was callow and loquacious, and I would wander from office to office at lunch asking the quants if I should buy an apartment. Everyone knew there was some sort of bubble—interest rates on mortgages were artificially low, and the cost of buying relative to renting was historically out of line—but almost no one imagined how bad it would turn out to be. My fear was not so much that, after committing every penny of my savings to the purchase, I might lose a little money on the deal, but that, when the bubble finally burst, I might end up deep underwater on my mortgage and lose everything. “If you ‘lose everything,’ ” I remember one quant telling me, “You will have much bigger

things to worry about than making mortgage payments because that will mean the world economy blew up.” Recruiter at a quantitative hedge fund in midtown Manhattan. I was callow and loquacious, and I would wander from office to office at lunch asking the quants if I should buy an apartment. Everyone knew there was some sort of bubble—interest rates on mortgages were artificially low, and the cost of buying relative to renting was historically out of line—but almost no one imagined how bad it would turn out to be. My fear was not so much that, after committing every penny of my savings to the purchase, I might lose a little money on the deal, but that, when the bubble finally burst, I might end up deep underwater on my mortgage and lose everything‘lose everything,’

vsed it, a number of prominent economists, including four previous chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have poured scorn on a paper by Gerald Friedman, an economist from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which suggested that Sanders’s tax and spending policies, if enacted, would produce. sed it, a num so chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have poured scorn on a paper by Gerald Friedman, an economist from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, which suggested that Sanders’s tax and spending policies, if enacted, would produce sed it, a number of prominent economists, including four previous chairs of the Council of. Economic Advisers, have

I was put in mind of this period of my life at the end of last month, when I attended the seventh Investor Summit on Climate Risk, co-sponsored by the U.N. Foundation and the nonprofit sustainability group Ceres, on the heels of the historic Paris Climate Summit. Five hundred investors representing twenty-two trillion dollars in assets convened at the U.N.’s iconic East Side headquarters, where they heard from some of the negotiations’ highest-profile players, including Christiana Figueres, the U.N. climate chief; Ségolène Royal, France’s minister of ecology, sustainable development, and energy; and Michael Bloomberg, who currently serves as the U.N. special envoy for climate change and cities. The event was, in essence, the Climate Summit of Money, and the question being posed was how to finance the clean-energy transition that Paris promised—a transition that scientists and economists agree must happ

quickly if the world is to avert the worst economic impacts of climate change—within the strictures of fiduciary duty. “The tools that you design, the financial structures that you develop, the blends that you are able to put together,” Figueres said, setting the agenda for the day in her address. “All of that, in the next five years, will decide the quality of certainly the energy and certainly the quality of the global economy for the next thirty-five years, and hhe quality of life for everyone else for hundreds of years.” The International Energy Agency has estimated that it will cost sixteen and a half trillion dollars for the world to meet its collective Paris goals, and the presenters at the conference sliced and diced this ambitious mandate from a variety of angles. Panels on the disruptive potential of electric cars cars took place alongside conversations cars took place alongside conversations.

Oil Prices: Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Behind the Drop? Simple Economics

This a complicated question, but it boils down to the simple economics of supply and demand.

uction has nearly doubled over the last several years, pushing out oil imports that need to find another home. Saudi, Nigerian and Algerian oil that once was sold in the United States is suddenly competing for Asian markets, and the producers are forced to drop prices. Canadian and Iraqi oil production and exports are rising year after year. Even the Russians, with all their economic problems, manage to keep pumping. There are signs, however, that production is falling because of the drop in good exploration investments. Wood MacKenzie, a consulting firm, identified 68

large oil and natural gas dprojects worldwide, with a combined value of $380 billion, that have been put on hold around the world since prices started coming down, halting the production of 2.9 million barrels a day. Meanwhile, RBC Capital Markets has calculated projects capable of producing more than a half million barrels a day of oil were cancelled, delayed or shelved by OPEC countries alone last year, and this year promises more of the same. There are signs, however, that production is falling because of the drop in exploration investments.

Wood MacKenzie, a consulting firm, identified 68 large oil and natural gas projects worldwide, with a combined value of $380 billion, that have been put on hold around the world since prices started coming down, halting the production of 2.9 million barrels a day.

Meanwhile, RBC Capital Markets has calculated projects capable of producing more than a half million barrels a day of oil were cancelled, delayed or shelved by OPEC countries alone last year, and this year promises more of the same more paying.

United States domestic production has nearly doubled over the last several years, pushing out oil imports that need to find another home. Saudi, Nigerian and Algerian oil that once was sold in the United States is suddenly competing for Asian markets, and the producers are forced to drop prices. Canadian and Iraqi oil production and exports are rising year after year. Even the Russians, with all their economic problems, manage to keep pumping. An economist t Brandy Sandersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CEO

There are signs, however, that production is falling because of the drop in exploration . A consulting firm, identified 68 large oil and natural gas projects worldwide, with a combined value of $380 billion, that have been put on hold around the world since prices started coming down, halting the production of 2.9 million barrels day. Meanwhile, RBC Capital Markets has calculated projects capable of producing more than a half

million barrels a day of oil were cancelled, delayed or shelved by OPEC countries alone last year, and this year promises more of the same. But the drop in production is not happening fast enough, especially with output from deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico and Canada continuing to build as new projects come online. On the demand side, the economies of Europe and developing countries are weak and

vehicles are becoming more energy-efficient. So demand for fuel is lagging a bit. Meanwhile, RBC Capital Markets has calculated projects capable of producing more than a half million barrels a day of oil were cancelled, delayed or shelved by OPEC countries alone last year, and this year promises more of the same. But the drop in production is not happening fast enough, especially with output from deep waters off the 21

Who loses? Meanwhile, RBC Capital Markets has calculated projects capable of producing more than a half million barrels a day of oil were cancelled, delayed or shelved by OPEC countries alone last year, and this year promises more of the same. But the drop in production is not happening fast enough, especially with output from deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico and Canada continuing to build as new projects come online. On the demand side, the economies of Europe and developing countries are weak and vehicles are becoming more energy-efficient. So demand for fuel is lagging a bit For starters, oil-producing countries and states. Venezuela, Nigeria, Ecuador, Brazil and Russia are just a few petrostates that are suffering economic and perhaps even political turbulence. The impact of Western sanctions caused Iranian production to drop by about one million barrels a day in recent years and blocked Iran from importing 22

the latest Western oil field technology and equipment. .In the United States, there are now virtually no wells that are profitable to drill. one million barrels a day in recent years and blocked Iran from importing the latest Western oil field technology and equipment. With sanctions now being lifted, the Iranian oil industry is expected to open the taps on production oil industry is expected to open the taps.

But the Saudis and their Gulf allies said no. They argued that if they cut production, they would merely lose market share to the surging American producers who were increasing daily production by a million barrels year in and year out with no end in sight. The decision effectively forfeited the cartel’s traditional role as the global oil swing producer — the one and only supplier with the volume of production to raise and lower prices by managing the cartel’s output. Continue reading the main story The decision came as a shock to the oil market. From the moment OPEC decided to keep its production constant at 30 million barrels a day, a fairly gradual price retreat that began in July morphed into a nose dive as commodity traders dumped their oil positions. Many independent American producers saw the move as a direct attack on them, but it was really a throwing in the towel to the new reality of growing American oil output. The demise of OPEC as the price manipulator is what virtually every American president since Richard Nixon had in mind when they promised to find a way to make the United States energy independent, not chained to Middle East or OPEC oil, after the oil embargoes of the 1960s and 1970s. Hydraulic fracturing, the blasting of oil and gas out of shale rock with water and chemicals, is the single most important factor of change in global markets in more than a decade, with an environmental outcry commensurate to its magnitude. As soon as railroads connected North Dakota’s Bakken shale field to East Coast refineries the last couple of years, imports from the Middle East and Africa dried up, forcing various OPEC producers to redirect their product to China and other Asian markets. There, they battled it out for market share by slashing prices. That is just one example of how shale drilling not only transformed the United States from dependent consumer to a robust producer, but is also transforming the price dynamics of the global market. Shale fields differ in several ways from conventional fields. Shale is not hard to find, but drilling is expensive because wells decline precipitously — by 60 to 70 percent in their first year. That means companies are obliged to drill well after well to keep production and revenue up. That is not always good for individual producers, especially small ones, when prices fall. But those characteristics give shale producers collectively more power to influence the market because it condenses the amount of time companies have to respond to the inevitable cycles of boom and bust. Oil producers operating in the United States have.

VW’s Crisis Strategy: Forward, Reverse, U-Turn “There was something like a tsunami,” Hans-Gerd Bode, Volkswagen’s communications chief since September, said in an interview. “Thousands of calls and emails coming in at the same time.” “A crisis like this, the company was not prepared for,” he said. With the company continuing to negotiate with foreign governments, “There was something like a tsunami,” Hans-Gerd Bode, Volkswagen’s communications chief since September, said in an interview. “Thousands of calls and emails coming in at the same time.”

crisis like this, the company was not prepared for,” he said. With the company continuing to negotiate with foreign governments, “We don’t know the right way out. In the months since it admitted it designed its diesel cars to cheat on tailpipe-emissions tests, the company has struggled with its messaging. A low point came last month when Matthias Müller, the new chief executive, visited the United States and told NPR, “We didn’t lie,” when VW clearly did. The outcry forced Mr. Müller to call NPR back and revise his statement.

governments, “We don’t know the right idn’t lie,” when VW clearly did with foreign governments, “We don’t know the right. . The outcry forced Mr. Müller to call NPR back and A low point came lamonth when Matthias Müller, the new chief executive, visited the United States and told NPR, “We didn’t lie,” when VW clearly did Theforced.” Mr. Müller to call NPR back and Matthias Müller, the new chief executive,bach United States and told NPR, “We didn’t lie,” when VW clearly did Theforced.” Mr. Müller to call NPR back and Iranian oil industry is expected to open the taps on production soon.

The reaction to the scandal has been swift. A recent Harris Poll of Americans’ attitudes toward the 100 most visible companies ranked Volkswagen dead last.ith its messaging. A low point came last month when Matthias Müller, the new chief executive, visited the United States and told NPR, “We didn’t lie,” when VW clearly did with foreign 25

The Emissions Tests That Led to the Emissions Tests That Led to the Discovery of VWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cheatingery of VWâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heating The on-road testing in May 2014 that led the California Air Resources Board to investigate Volkswagen was conducted by researchers at West Virginia University. They tested emissions from two VW models equipped with the 2-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder diesel engine. The researchers found that when tested on the road some cars emitted almost Foreign foes like Venezuela and Russia have been weakened by the falling price of oil, which dominate their economies. Iran may be willing to negotiate a deal to curtail its nuclear program to escape sanctions. But there is no sign that the Kremlin is less aggressive or dangerous. Falling oil prices should help the global economy,

but deflation could be a risk in some nations tomorrow. Environmentalists argue that the worst thing about low prices for oil and other hydrocarbons is that they encourage more consumption. Lower gasoline prices have pushed up sales of sport utility vehicles and other large cars. Lower oil and natural gas prices are

directly tied to the expanded production made possible by hydraulic fracturing, which is still considered risky by many environmentalists because of the escape of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere during exploration, production and transport, along with potential seepage of toxic fluids into water supplies.

The oil glut — the unsold crude that is piling up around the world — is a quandary and a source of investor anxiety that once again rattled global markets on Friday. As prices have dropped, the amount of excess production has been cut in half over the last six months. About one million barrels of extra oil is now being dumped on the markets each day. But that means the glut is still continuing to grow, and it could take years to work through the crude that is being warehoused, poured into petroleum depots or loaded onto supertankers for storage at sea. The shakeout will be painful, taking an even bigger toll on companies, countries and investors. Global stocks sank sharply on Friday, as the price of oil slipped below $30 a barrel. The glut was at the heart of the tumult, as investors worried that the demand from China would drop and supplies from Iran would But that means the glut is still continuing to grow, and it could take years to work through the crude that is being warehoused, poured into petroleum depots or loaded onto supertankers for storage at sea. The shakeout will be painful, taking an even bigger toll on companies, countries and investors. The oil glut — the unsold crude that is piling up around the world — is a quandary and a source of investor anxiety that once again rattled global markets on Friday. As prices have dropped, the amount of excess production has been cut in half over the last six months. About one million barrels of extra oil is now being dumped on the markets each day. But that means the glut is still continuing to grow, and it could take years to work through the crude that is being warehoused, poured into petroleum depots or loaded onto supertankers for storage at sea. The shakeout will be painful, taking an even bigger toll on companies, countries and

investors.Global stocks sank sharply on Friday, as the price of oil slipped below $30 a barrel. The glut was at the heart of the tumult, as investors worried that the demand from China would drop and supplies from Iran would The oil glut — the unsold crude that is piling up around the world — is a quandary and a source of investor anxiety that once again rattled global markets on Friday. As prices have dropped, the amount of excess production has been cut in half over the last six months. About one million barrels of extra oil is now being dumped on the markets each day.That means the glut is still continuing to grow, and it could take years to work through the crude that is being warehoused, poured into petroleum .depots or loaded onto supertankers.

“

An economist t Brandy Sanders’s CEO