For those of you who are vexed by talk of such things, skip this post. And for those of you who chide me for not posting when I'm doing a media spot, here is a heads-up: I'm guesting tomorrow on Erin Burnett "Street Signs" on CNBC. I think it's around 2:10 EST.

Is fuel conservation a a new source of risk? I have twice recently been on planes that had to turn around after long taxis/queuing to go back to the ramp for more fuel, and then this story today about a San Diego-bound Amtrak train that ran out of fuel. Amtrak is running things a little more tight wrt fuel fill-ups, as are most major U.S. airplanes.

Relatedly, here is Amtrak bragging about being more fuel stringent.

Some worth watching economics videos from last week's Nobel laureates conference in Germany. In particular, check out Joe Stiglitz's presentation, and the Sholes/Stiglitz panel.

You won't disagree with all/most/any necessarily, but it is intermittently provocative stuff.

There is a sure to be fight-starting cover piece in the current New Scientist arguing that there is no global water crisis. The gist of the argument: Water is poorly managed, with too much going to agriculture in the wrong places, but, properly allocated, there is enough water almost everywhere to go around and drive global economic growth.

Wait a minute. How can that be, you wonder. There is drought everywhere, depleted aquifers, salt-poisoned farmland, and so on and on.

Well, the problem, according to the piece's author, is that most calculations of water scarcity/sufficiency are broader than they arguably should be:

The main problem with Falkenmark's figures is that they refer to the amount of water required for a country to be self-sufficient in food production in a semi-arid region. Agriculture is among the most water-intensive human activities, particularly where crops need irrigation. According to the report Water Footprints of Nations, published in 2004 by the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, producing a kilogram of wheat takes more than 1300 litres of water, for example. For rice, the figure is almost 3000 litres.

The solution? Agricultural trade.  By substituting food shipments for domestic water consumption you are creating "virtual water"; that is, increasing your domestic water supply without actually having to find an aquifer under a rock somewhere.

So, if you take agriculture out of the picture, and adjust water consumption to reflect water savings through prudent domestic usage, how much water per capita do most countries need for growth? The New Scientist piece argues it's close to 135 litres per person per day (which is waaay lower than the usual figure (including agriculture) of 4,654 litres per person/day).

At this lower level which countries are truly water stressed? Just Kuwait and the UAE, and both make up the difference via desalination. Water crisis? What water crisis? What we do have is an agricultural trade crisis.

More reading:

• Looming water crisis simply a management problem (NS)
• Minimal water requirements for social and economic development (Desalination)

Some quick links other people may find interesting:

• New investing survey shows people are as clueless about saving for retirement as they are about ... almost everything (Schwab)
• Inadequate shipping and storage conditions are costing millions of bushels of U.S. crops per year (Stormwire)
• Stupendously good set of goosebump-inducing photos from the Beijing Olympics (Boston Globe)
• Sign of the Google apocalypse: The company is allegedly cutting back on free food (Valleywag)
• Citadel seeking to raise $1-billion for global macro fund (Bloomberg)

[Update] According to various sources -- you know, the kind that do reporting and call people and all that icky stuff -- my "allegedly" comment in the above mention of Google's free food was appropriate. The truth seemingly is that Google, for reasons of its own, has merely closed one dinner place on the Mountain View campus. Decide for yourself what, if anything, it means, and why people are so worked up about the subject.

Some fascinating data from a new Unilever study on how U.S. consumers are adjusting spending in the face of the current economic malaise:

In short, they will cut back on air fresheners, but they can't bear the idea of trimming pet food spending. So their houses may smell dreadful, but at least their pets will still be paunchy.

In an article dismissing current weakness in Euro markets comes this candidate for dumb-ass throwaway economic comment of the year:

...the eurozone’s strengths are too often hidden. Here is the clincher: eurozone countries together won more medals at the Beijing Olympics than either China or the U.S.

I'm going to call bullshit on this supposed economics indicator.

[via FT]

If you picked today to get back from holidays and re-commence messing about in the capital markets, I'm guessing you wish you hadn't. The indices all tanked, with everything from oil to the financials doing a Fearless Freep dive into nothingness.

Then again, there were some bright lights out there. Matter of fact, two stocks (indicated by white arrow below) that have lost billions in market capitalization, that are the subject of non-stop news chatter, that are rumored to be set to take down Western Capitalism (sic.), were up big today. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were up 10.4% and 18.2%, respectively.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we are deep into strange, strange market territory when these two neutron bombs not exploding yet is the sole sources of market cheer.

[via Finviz]

Here are the top twenty countries in terms of GDP/gold medal at the Beijing Olympics. In other words, this is the list of countries that spent, loosely speaking, the most for the least.

And here is the opposite list: Countries with the lowest GDP/gold medal ratios. Jamaica and Ukraine really stand out.

[via Symworld]

The papers and agenda from this year's Kansas City Fed meetings at Jackson Hole are now up. Why they can't post the agenda before the event, I have no idea. What, are they worried that economists won't show without a little program suspense? Yeesh.

Anyway, follow the link to the papers. I am personally fond of William Buiter's punchy (and long) effort, as well as Alan Blinder's rejoinder. Yves at NakedCapitalism has a typically thoughtful take on the Blinder/Buiter contretemps.