Lower prices haven’t killed the argument that speculators manipulate the price of oil.

Remember the nasty fight over oil speculators?

Just a few months ago, politicians, economists, and some analysts claimed financial investors in oil futures were the market equivalent of warty trolls, operating in the shadows and screwing the unsuspecting American consumer by driving up the price of oil for investment gains. Legislators in Congress held hearings to denounce the speculators and their evil art.

Speculators' defenders—other economists, a handful of hardy columnists, and the bulk of bank analysts—called those critics nitwits who just plain don't understand how markets work. Millions of new car drivers in China and India and the world's dwindling supply of petroleum were to blame for oil's astonishing rise, they said.

Since then, oil prices have tanked about 70 percent. So can't we now concede that one side was right and one was wrong? Hah.

A financial layperson could be forgiven for assuming that such a steep and rapid drop, with a relatively minor drop in demand for crude, proves that the run-up was indeed a speculative investment bubble rather than driven by traditional supply-and-demand factors. A pox on speculators, then.

But putting an end to the debate is not so easy. Oil's drop, it seems, has mainly served to calcify the positions on both sides. Instead of coming to a consensus, they're both still convinced that they are right.