IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, January 4, 2008

Why does oil cost $100?
(previous | next)

Key to "global innovation" -- the name of our new program here at PFF -- are global energy markets. Energy is the basis for life and it fuels all innovation and growth. Most innovations improve energy efficiency -- whether it's an innovation in transportation or information processing, new technologies allow us to do more with less. More output per unit input. But overall, as Peter Huber brilliantly demonstrated in The Bottomless Well, new efficiencies breed wealth, which leads to higher aggregate energy consumption. Global innovation, therefore, requires growing energy supplies.

The whole discussion over the "energy crisis" these past few years has been plagued by a fundamental misunderstanding. The conventional view, regurgitated yet again by Paul Krugman this morning, is that we're running out of oil at the same time Asia is using more of the stuff. Thus, one-hundred-dollar oil.

No doubt the second half of that equation is true, as far as it goes. The Chinese and Indians are big new petroleum consumers. But the prices of nearly all commodities and metals are at or close to all-time highs. Coffee, cattle, carbon-fiber, steel. A decade ago China produced hardly any steel and now it churns out more than any other nation. As demand for most of these commodities has risen, so have the supplies. Increased secular demand from Asia (versus inflationary demand), in other words, might account for a marginal increase in commodity prices, but not the 200-300% jolts we've seen these last few years.

The first half of the conventional equation, moreover -- that we're running out of oil -- is not even close to accurate. There's plenty of oil, and we're discovering ingenius ways to find, pump, and refine more of it all the time, from drilling miles under the ocean bed to cooking tar sands in Canada.

No, the chief cause of high oil prices (and high coffee, milk, copper, steel, and real-estate prices) is the value of the U.S. dollar, which has been weakened by an excessively loose Federal Reserve. Eighteen months ago I called this largely overlooked but crucial factor "The Elephant in the Barrel." That was in the last "energy crisis" of the summer of 2006. Most people dismissed this central monetary factor in all prices at the time, but now the argument has gained much wider support. The Wall Street Journal this morning does a good job explaining this dollar-oil link:

Since 2001 the dollar price of oil and gold have run in almost perfect tandem (see nearby chart). The gold price has risen 239% since 2001, while the oil price has risen 267%. This means that if the dollar had remained "as good as gold" since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 a barrel, not $99. Gold has traditionally been a rough proxy for the price level, so the decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a U.S. monetary that is supplying too many dollars.

We would add that the dollar price of nearly all commodities -- from wheat to corn to copper to silver -- are also surging, a further sign of a weakening currency. On Wednesday alone the price of wheat and soybeans increased 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. That follows a 75% increase in their price in 2007 -- which ran ahead of the oil price, which gained a mere 57% for the year. Neither OPEC nor China caused food commodity prices to rise like this. The main culprit here is a global loss of confidence in Federal Reserve policy and the dollar.

We should pursue all sorts of new entrepreneurial energy technologies -- nukes, solar, hybrids, wind (well, maybe not wind), and, yes, more petroleum and hopefully cleaner coal -- but any rational energy policy must begin by understanding the real price of oil.

posted by Bret Swanson @ 10:58 AM | Energy

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


"Any rational energy policy must begin by understanding the real price of oil" and that requires starting a complete costing of the outputs from using oil.

We don't use our front lawns and city parks as landfills for garbage. We don't use our rivers and lakes as untreated sewage repositories.

And we have to stop using the earth's atmosphere as our dumping grounds for fossil fuel contaminants.

The first step is pricing the total cost of oil, including it's previously unpriced pollution costs.

Secondly, any rationale energy policy needs to aggressively tap the national value of our largest, lowest cost, and cleanest un-utilized source of petroleum available today using current cost effective technologies:

That source is conservation. For those conservatives who don't understand the term conservation, feel free to use the word "efficiency".

Those two components, unmentioned in your blog, make up the most rationale, cheapest, fastest, and honest measures available.

Posted by: C. Meyer at January 6, 2008 11:08 AM

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation