Categories
Economics

[1744] Of crude oil prices may not continue to fall for long

Before we get the party going in celebration of falling crude oil prices, beware. This decrease could well be just a pause before prices march to yet another record.

I am suspecting so not because I subscribe to Malthusian logic. Malthusians all over fail to notice that humanity has an amazing capability to adapt. As prices of typical energy rise to a sufficient level, the search and utilization of substitute sources will take place. As a result, the demand for expensive source of energy will fall, bringing along its prices down.

The prices will stay down, given all else being equal, if technological, or rather increase in efficiency in consumption of the energy occurred. Improved efficiency produces a situation where fewer fuel is required for the same amount of production.

I suspect that it is possible that we may be seeing merely a dip in prices of crude oil because I am unconvinced at how the recent fall in prices is caused by structural changes.

On the surface, three factors seem to be causing crude oil prices to fall. They are contracting demand curve probably due to high crude oil prices, appreciating greenback and the slowing down of several world’s major economies. All factors are possibly cyclical and none is structural. When I refer to cyclical changes, I refer to changes in volume and when I refer to structural changes, I refer to changes in efficiency.

The relationship between crude oil price and the health of the global economy is easy to pinpoint.  A slowdown causes demand for crude oil to decrease. While the relationship may well be the reverse, the point is that it is a matter of typical business cycle and has nothing to do with improvement of technology.

The strengthening of the US dollar also has little to do with improvement in technology. To understand how stronger dollar leads to cheaper crude oil, it is important to understand the mechanics that works between trade and exchange rate. Weaker dollar causes cheap export and cheap export causes foreigners purchasing more US product. With weak dollar, the strength of the USD has to return as improvement in net export accumulates capital. If theory does not convince you, then let the number must do the job: the US trade deficit already dropped for the month of June.[1] With stronger dollar and with crude oil priced in riyal or some other currencies, fewer dollars is required to buy the same volume of oil.

Now, the third factor — contracting demand curve — may come closest to encouraging structural changes. The problem is however, I am not convinced that there is a actual improvement in technology. What I see is people using smaller instead of larger vehicles, public transportation, etc. But that is merely temporary lower consumption because once prices become sufficiently low, consumers would abandon small cars and public transportation and anything that only reduce volume of crude oil consumed rather than substituting it.

While there is indeed greater usage of electricity, natural gas and biofuel to replace crude oil, I am unsure how widespread it has been. Besides, the fall in crude oil prices have been too drastic in such a short time that I have trouble accepting the fall is caused by technology.

Why after all the adoption, the decreases in crude oil prices come only now and in such a dramatic pattern? Effects from structural changes should come gradually due to various lags that exist in the real world, not abruptly.

This has led me to speculate that the trend we are seeing is caused by merely and mostly reduction of consumption with little substitution energy consumed as replacement. It is likely that what we are seeing is merely reduction in volume rather than increase in efficiency. If my take is correct, then once prices reached a level somewhere down below, consumption would return to assume its record breaking rise performance which we saw weeks earlier as volume would go up while efficiency level would stay constant. This might be so due to little structural change in the global economy.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly fell in June as exports advanced to an all-time high, offsetting another big surge in oil imports.

The Commerce Department reported Tuesday the trade imbalance dropped to $56.8 billion in June, down by 4.1 percent from a revised May deficit of $59.2 billion. It was the smallest deficit in three months and much better than the $61.5 billion deficit Wall Street had been expecting.[June trade deficit shrinks as exports climb. Martin Crutsinger. Associated Press. August 12 2008]

Categories
Economics

[1706] Of when to extract oil?

I tend to get excited when I see familiar things.

At the WSJ, the famed Feldstein explained why prices of crude oil are up. Among the explanation written how the decision to extract oil from the ground comes about and how it affects prices:

Unlike perishable agricultural products, oil can be stored in the ground. So when will an owner of oil reduce production or increase inventories instead of selling his oil and converting the proceeds into investible cash? A simplified answer is that he will keep the oil in the ground if its price is expected to rise faster than the interest rate that could be earned on the money obtained from selling the oil. The actual price of oil may rise faster or slower than is expected, but the decision to sell (or hold) the oil depends on the expected price rise.

There are of course considerations of risk, and of the impact of price changes on long-term consumer behavior, that complicate the oil owner’s decision — and therefore the behavior of prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (the OPEC cartel), with its strong pricing power, still plays a role. But the fundamental insight is that owners of oil will adjust their production and inventories until the price of oil is expected to rise at the rate of interest, appropriately adjusted for risk. If the price of oil is expected to rise faster, they’ll keep the oil in the ground. In contrast, if the price of oil is not expected to rise as fast as the rate of interest, the owners will extract more and invest the proceeds. [We Can Lower Oil Prices Now. Martin Feldstein. Wall Street Journal. July 1 2008]

This is real economics, not a hunt for scapegoats, i.e. blame the speculators.

And oh, it is familiar because that is exactly what my environmental economics professor taught me back in Ann Arbor.

Categories
Economics

[1684] Of we must face economic reality

After years of plugging a pinky into a hole of an imperfect dike, the rising tide behind it has grown sufficiently large that the dike can no longer withstand the pressure on the other side. The dike was not supposed to be there in the first place and now reality looms. In reaction to the recent removal of fuel subsidy, already there are voices on the street blaming the Abdullah administration of mismanaging the economy. This is a most unfair assessment. On the contrary, the subsidy reduction will benefit our society in the long run.

This accusation has history that goes well past June 5. Higher cost of living was one of the reasons cited why the Barisan Nasional lost significant votes to the Pakatan Rakyat candidates on March 8. In convincing voters to vote for the Pakatan candidates, Anwar Ibrahim had proposed to reduce retail prices of fuel to a level seen in 1990s.

Despite rhetoric, I absolutely doubt a Pakatan government could increase the size of fuel subsidy without hurting the economy in times when real crude oil prices are at record levels. In short, Pakatan’s argument against any kind of subsidy reduction is grounded on populism and not economic reality.

Malaysians so far have been lucky, from a certain point of view, that we are shielded from the harsh reality outside. That shield of subsidy, however, is costly and is definitely an inferior way of spending precious resources.

Instead of artificially fuelling consumption, these resources could be better spent to build capabilities, especially in education and research. More efforts need to be channeled to areas which could structurally improve the economy. A subsidy does nothing of this and it in fact only delays the inevitable march to move beyond petroleum at a very costly manner.

While lucky, I do not think we are learning from the past. We have been at this juncture before and there are lessons to be learned. In the 1970s and the early 1980s, high crude oil prices encouraged greater fuel efficiency. As demand fell with respect to supply due to increased awareness and requirement for conservation, prices dropped significantly and continued to stay low until around 2003.

I am confident that with the right policies in place, the structural changes that brought upon low energy prices in the past can happen again. The key phrase here is the right policies and one of such policies is elimination of the fuel subsidy.

The subsidy we have been enjoying masks the actual cost of consumption and the associated problems like pollution and over-consumption.

With everything masked, it is really hard to rectify any problem in the economy. It is like a noisy generator placed behind a blast door, operating at its breaking point where we do not have to hear the insufferable noise it produced. Despite the state of the generator, it continues to deliver power to us and it gives the perception that everything is fine and dandy when in fact, it is not.

We get the benefit but we are not paying for the cost. Thus, there is a grave disconnect in our cost and benefit model. By the time we find out that something is wrong, it would already be too late to do anything. A subsidy is that blast door and it prevents a signal of impending disaster from reaching us.

Truth be told, Malaysia is not the only country phasing out its fuel subsidy policy. Indonesia is on the same path as Malaysia’s while India and Taiwan are another two. It cannot be that all four different countries conspire to make the life of its own citizens harder. It cannot be that all four different countries are mismanaging their economy. The truth is that a lot of governments in the world are realizing the cost of fuel subsidy regime.

One argument puts forth that since Malaysia is an oil producer country, we should not be paying astronomical retail fuel prices. A tempting point but it fails to grasp the idea of trade-off. Pray tell, with fuel prices much higher, should we consume the fuel as if it is dirt cheap, or sell it to the world market and buy more education, more infrastructure that offer some guarantees of actual economic growth and if we could, buy a more sustainable economy?

The rise of fuel prices is a global phenomenon and the Abdullah administration has no power to dictate world prices. Whether we believe it or not, governments around the world are at the mercy of the invisible hand.

Blaming the Abdullah administration as the cause of higher fuel prices ignores the reality out there. An honest person is not interested in finding scapegoat but rather, is more interested in searching for the best policy fit given the current world scenario.

Higher global fuel prices require the structural transformation of our economy and the first step in transforming the economy is by accepting the fact that crude oil is no longer as cheap as it was in the early 1990s.

A continual upholding of subsidy policy delays the inevitable transformation required and the sooner we realize this, the better will we be prepared for the future. It is time for us to take the bull by its horn rather than sweeping the dust under the carpet by continuing to adopt a policy burdened with a huge deadweight loss, as if the world has not changed.

In Malaysia, there is always a cynical saying about how we have first world infrastructure but third world mentality. Well, this crisis is a great opportunity for us to ditch third world policy for a first world and superior policy.

Besides, the Malaysian government is running on a budget deficit. That means you and I and a lot of Malaysians out there owe somebody money. We should be thinking on how to repay these debts.

By supporting fuel subsidy, however, we are basically swiping our credit cards liberally to finance our expenditure on food, fuel and none on investment for the future. How are we going to pay for these debts if we keep spending our resources so recklessly? Do we pass these debts to our children?

I vehemently say no. We are certainly more responsible than that. We must be more responsible than that.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — a version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics

[1676] Of are you bitching about higher fuel prices?

I have a suggestion: quit smoking.

I suspect that if you stop smoking, your may be able to maintain your expenditure to pre-June 5 level.

As for me, while I have some reservation at how the prices were raised, I cannot wait for August 2008 when local fuel retail prices are expected to achieve parity with world prices. Please raise your glass to a good economic policy.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — this entry is meant for Malaysian audience. As pointed out in the comment section, this idea does not apply in other places.

Categories
Economics

[1436] Of USD250 per barrel?

What the… ? Via:

Energy consumers and speculators are scrambling to take out options contracts to insure themselves against oil prices rising above $100 a barrel — a further sign of growing expectations of a spike in the crude market.

Some have even taken out contracts to protect themselves against prices rising to $250 a barrel in the next two years… [Scramble to insure against more oil price rises. Financial Times. November 5 2007]

I wonder when the famed Simon-Ehrlich wager will be invoked!