Here's an interesting piece by Harvard's Martin Feldstein, who was Council of Economic Advisers head during the Reagan administration and is a pretty good economist. He argues that because the expected future price of oil causes those with supplies to keep it in the ground rather than sell it -- because they expect the price to be even higher in the future -- anything done now to reduce the expected future price of oil will have an immediate impact on the current price of oil. He notes that steps to reduce demand -- higher CAFE standards, for example --would help, as would steps expected to increase supply, even if the expected new supply wouldn't actually come online for a while. Thus, I infer (he doesn't say it directly) that just announcing that we're going to start drilling offshore or in ANWR should have a downward impact on the price of oil now.
I find the argument quite persuasive. The same argument applies to food. Announcing that the ethanol program would be ended or suspended for a few years should place immediate downward pressure on the price of corn. It might well end up higher than a year or so ago -- increased demand due to increased affluence in China, India and the Gulf states would still be a factor, as would the drought in Australia that to my knowledge hasn't ended yet -- but it still should go down noticeably. The greatest impact would be on those on the edge of dire poverty in underdeveloped countries.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Bush cancelled the executive order earlier this week. We got the biggest one day drop in the price of oil since 1991, and 2 more consecutive days of price drops (so far). I would say that is at least strong evidence to support this theory. If congress will get out of the way, we may see a large drop.
Post a Comment