Anatole Kaletsky
Your last chance to get tickets to Top Gear Live
Just as the credit crunch seems to be ending, the world faces a much more serious economic threat: the explosion of oil prices and the possibility of a return to 1970s-style inflation. Inflation is a more dangerous economic ill than deflation because it is so much harder to cure. Falling prices can be cured easily enough. All governments and central banks have to do is cut interest rates, cut taxes and boost public spending. These are popular steps that readily win political and business support.
The policies required to deal with inflation are, by contrast, always painful and unpopular - raising interest and taxes; cutting government spending and curbing public employees' pay. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that only one country in the world - Japan - has faced a serious deflation problem since the 1930s, while inflation crises have afflicted every market economy in the postwar era and have triggered almost every big recession since 1945. The question, now that the focus of attention is moving beyond the credit crunch, is whether this sad history is likely to repeat itself in the year or two ahead.
The answer depends largely on how governments and central banks worldwide respond to the oil shock. The challenge most discussed in recent weeks is the one facing central banks. If the surge in oil prices causes accelerating pay growth and then a second round of price rises in goods and services not directly exposed to oil, central banks will face stark alternatives: either deliberately to create recessions and mass unemployment by raising interest rates even amid the present property slump, or to accept 1970s-style wage-price spirals, which will have to be cured eventually with even deeper recessions, higher unemployment and greater financial grief.
The other, even bigger, challenge of the oil shock is the one presented to governments. This is the question of what can be done to reverse the rise in oil prices. This question is even more important than the central banks' inflation-deflation dilemma and yet is hardly discussed. Most politicians, economists and financiers simply assume that the trebling of oil prices in the past few years has been a natural phenomenon that must be accepted as an act of God - or at least an inexorable judgment by the markets. However, are there really no policy changes that could restore the more benign conditions in which oil prices of $40 or $50 were seen as normal?
The standard answer is “no” - oil at $100-plus must be accepted as inevitable and natural because growth in global oil production cannot keep up with growing demand, especially from China and the developing world. However, even if this were so - and statistical facts about the “peak-oil” limit to global production capacity are ambiguous, to put it mildly - it begs the question of whether oil consumers could soon take steps that would drastically reduce demand.
Specifically, there are four big steps that governments in oil-consuming regions could take once they recognise the existential economic threat of a $100 oil price.
The first and most urgent step is for developing countries, now responsible for all the growth in world oil demand, to reduce and ultimately eliminate energy subsidies. Once Asian consumers face global oil prices, they will change their behaviour - for example, buying smaller, more fuel-efficient cars - far more quickly than European and American consumers, since $100 oil is much more of a burden relative to total income for poorer consumers. Indonesia and several smaller Asian countries have begun this process and last week the Indian Prime Minister announced plans to reduce energy subsidies over time. China will surely follow. Once China and India made clear their aim to move towards global oil prices, the impact on oil prices would probably be very big and immediate, even if abolition of subsidies were spread over several years.
Today's high oil prices are largely sustained by expectations of huge Chinese demand growth. Mere announcement of a plan to align Chinese and global market prices could have a huge effect on long-term futures market prices, which have been driving up physical oil's price.
The second big step would be for financial regulators in the United States, Britain and Europe to reduce the artificial demand for long-term oil-hoarding created by pension funds, insurance companies, endowments and other long-term investors. These investment institutions have been piling into commodities recently in the same way they did into technology shares in the late 1990s and into mortgage-based credit derivatives from 2003 to 2006. Last week there were signs that US commodity market regulators may close loopholes whereby these long-term investors can accumulate immense positions far larger than those permitted to ordinary commodity speculators. Just like banking authorities in the sub-prime mortgage boom, US commodity regulators initially have been reluctant to interfere with market forces, but under political pressure from Congress a tightening of both regulations and tax rules seems to be on the cards.
Such a touch on the regulatory tiller might well, on its own, reverse the most recent spike in the oil price.
The third step to cut long-term oil demand is up to the US Government. A political consensus seems to be forming to end America's costly reliance on oil imports. This consensus could lead America towards European-style energy taxes, offset by lower taxes on income and employment. Any such shift would have a huge effect on global oil demand. If US oil usage could be reduced gradually to today's European level - perfectly plausible, given the similar populations and levels of development of these two continental economies - the cut in global oil demand would be almost equivalent to China's oil consumption.
The fourth big step in reducing global oil dependence would be for Europe and Britain, as well as the US, to create far greater financial incentives for renewable and nuclear electricity generation.
The ultimate aim should be a shift from oil-based to electricity-based technologies in all industries and throughout the global economy.
If such measures are adopted, there can be no doubt that the price mechanism will cut long-term oil demand drastically. So much so that the peak oil thesis about the inevitable dwindling of global oil production will almost certainly stay untested and unproven; for, in the end, a large part of the world's oil supplies will be abandoned for ever, virtually worthless, in the ground. The effect of price on demand was summarised during the last energy shock by Sheikh Yamani, then Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister, when he told greedier Opec colleagues that they would encourage replacement of oil by other energy sources. “Remember,” he said, “the Stone Age didn't end because the cavemen ran out of stone.”
If oil stays anywhere near $100 a barrel, the price mechanism and the political economy of national survival will ensure that the oil age ends long before the world runs out of oil.
Anatole Kaletsky writes for The Times Comment pages on Thursdays. One of the country's leading commentators on economics, he was formerly Economics Editor and is now an Associate Editor of The Times. He has won many awards for his financial and political journalism. Before joining The Times, he worked for 12 years on the Financial Times
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2008
£44,990
2008
£48,489
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
Some of the finest Apts & Penthouses
Across London
Great Investment, River Views
Luxury properties within exclusive development in
Chislehurst Kent
A new experience in Luxury Living
Multi–Centre
from Only £829pp
With Ramblers Worldwide Holidays!
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - search houses for sale and rooms and property to rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Economists still cannot get there head around the limited supply of oil supplies from now on can they? Even if in the short terms we dig up more oil and bring prices down demand will just use it up quicker. Open ended economics with no strategy will be the demise of itself.
Pete Best, Northampton, UK
Mr Kaletsky still hasn't learned that higher oil prices do not cause inflation! Inflation is "the expansion of money and credit" and the consequence thereof is higher prices! The guilty parties are at Threadneedle Street and Constitution Avenue!
Mario, London,
It would be interesting to know what % of the UK and US total petroleum spend is consumed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, what would be the likely effect on fule prices if these wars were ceased.
Maybe that data, if nothing else, could bring the voting populace to its senses.
Bill, Faro, Portugal
Before US can tax oil consumption, there needs to be significant development of infrastructure to supply public transportation. This would be several years in the making. A better solution is to demand developing nations to stop subsidizing oil, put restrictions on speculation, up interest rates.
Jean, Austin, Texas, USA
"The ultimate aim should be a shift from oil-based to electricity-based technologies in all industries and throughout the global economy."
How? Electricity is not a fuel, but merely a means of transmitting energy, and electricity generation typically has efficiencies of 25%, the rest being lost.
DrJames Thompson, London, uk
There is enough oil on this planet. The challenge is in the infrastructure and recovery. Although at a lag, these can be speeded up quickly. We do need to vastly improve on our oil recovery rates and with innovation we can meet this challenge.
The US is still an energy powerhouse with their reserve
S Kelly, Calgary,
Oil is just in a bubble. Every man and his dog were convinced dot com was a one way bet in 99, houses a one way bet in '07, now its commodities turn. Well, if you wan't to stop bubbles, get money supply down. How hard is it to understand? IF YOU PRINT MORE MONEY IT WILL BUY LESS STUFF. Duhh!
Mike, Tauranga, New Zealand
The only realistic way to slow down the oil prices is to switch from dollar-based trading to other currencies. Any stable currency will do, but dollar-based traiding is madness.
Alexander, Berlin, Germany
First thing they need to do as a goverment is to expose the price fixing being caused by organisations such as the Bilderberg group who cause these rises in oil.
What has happened that has caused the price of oil to go from $25-30 a barrel in 2000 to $135 a barrel in 2008. Over a 400% increase?
Andy T, North East, England,
Anatole is an economist of the school that says things like high inflation needs higher interest rates but whose idea is that? Has it ever worked?
Peak oil or not the real long term value of oil is not in burning it but in using it for all the chemicals and pharmaceuticals we need.
Shaun Hexter, London,
I don't agree with your issue to use nuclear energy. That industry hasn't been around long enough to develop a catastrophic failure rate over time. More importantly, the development of energy sources such as hydrogen fuel cells and switch grass will create business opportunities for people.
Steve, Chico, US
sorry anatole but you display a lack understanding of inflation, deflation, stagflation, fractional reserve banking, profit, money, credit and dept. this crisis has nowhere near played out yet and if you do a little research and dig deep you will realise that this is going to be the BIG one.
brian king, coventry, england
Fred Keeling for Prime Minister...simple and elegant idea
john, glasgow,
Given what we could buy with (i.e. half of $100) when Labour came to power in 1997 and what it can buy now, what is today's $120 barrel of oil worth in those terms? i.e. What, in today's terms, did a barrel of oil cost in 1997?
cadzow, Greater London, UK
Nuclear Energy is the answer for the UK .One problem David Cameron can not make his mind up to support it.Cameron you will have to come off the fence and dump Zak Goldsmith,you know it was only good PR for you 6 months ago now its history along with your other guro Steve Hilton.
Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall
You can synthesize oil from coal at a cost of $50 a barrel, and there's lots of coal.
peter, birmingham,
Brilliant article but with a Westerner's bias. The West has financed its prosperity by corruption and conquest which people like the Venezuelans are challenging. Also removing subsidies would create a revolution in India which is in the process of hatching out of its economic egg. FAIRNESS PLEASE!
LAKSHMAN PARDHANANI, GOA, India
The answer is to eat more pork. Methane from the pigs can be captured and used as fuel.
michael clarke, kensington, london
To expect US consumption to fall to EU levels is a pipedream. Centres of population in Europe are rarely separated by more than 100-200km. In the US its more like 500-600km, often more. By definition this is going to require more oil consumption for a given level of economic activity.
Sean , LOndon,
Further, the climate in the US is generally more severe than in Europe with hotter summers and colder winters. Ergo, more energy consumption.
Sean , LOndon,
China spends 1% of GDP on oil subsidies - almost nothing really.
The Chinese goverment has piles of dollars it cannot sell without hitting the dollar (which would devalue its own reserves). So it hands them out as cheap petrol to keep the people happy.
Sounds like a winner to me - why stop now?
Lee, London,
The first step should be to stop the devaluation of US dollar. If the dollar keep devaluating, how can the oil price fall?
Xiaowei Huang, Beijing,
It used to be said, and it is even now possibly still true, that the USA used 60% of all world energy alone. If this is true then it is a most irresponsible position for the USA to find itself in. Come on America, sharpen up your act! The world's policeman should get on with some home maintenance!
Ian SISLEY, Arras, France
A very logical article and a great quote to end it with . So nucear energy is the only answer
Michael Harrison, Nungwi, Zanzibar, Tanzania
I hope you are right and I look forward to the reality, though I don't see why we sould expect developing countries to take the first step when we can easily take it ourselves.
Sam, Carlisle,
"Falling prices can be cured easily enough. All governments and central banks have to do is cut interest rates, cut taxes and boost public spending. "
Seriously? have you heard of Japan?
David Holden, Sheffield, England
Buy a smaller car, don't make public buildings so cold with air conditioning that you have to wear a coat but wear a jumper at home rather than heat it so that you only need a T shirt. If all of that were done a ot of energy would be saved and energy=oil. But are there less SUVs. etc. etc. ?
Roger Corfield, Arusha, Tanzania
This is not about oil price but about automated trading by companies calling themselves banks (thus permitting them to use all the savings of the Western world to automatically trade). Free trade is about a real trade between a real supplier and a real user of the product setting price at purchase.
Chris Coles, Medstead, Alton, United Kingdom
The Fed's policy of lowering interest rates has backfired. This liquidity has resulted in a commodity price bubble. Oil is particularly sensitive to this type of asset price inflation since it is invoiced in dollars. Like the man said: 'infaltion is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.'
Frank L, London, UK
Peak oil IS a reality. The new provinces coming on stream won't compensate for the current decline in mature fields elsewhere.
There will be riots, and not just in the third world, when people realise they can't afford to get to work or eat - assuming there is work.
The old economy is dead.
C Smith, Norwich, UK
"and statistical facts about the peak-oil limit to global production capacity are ambiguous."
There is nothing ambiguous about the fact 1978 was the last year we discovered more oil than we consumed. So for the last 30 years, each year we have been consuming more oil than we discovered.
Paul Price, Warrington, UK
Excellent article Anatole. In particular I agree that deflation is the lesser of two evils, if only because maintaining the value of the currency is an essential element for stability
The oil price will self correct as the US consumer demand moderates,as is is already beginning to do.
WAB, Londonistan, EUSSR
Gradually the reality of geology seeps through to the guardians of neoliberal orthodoxy who continue to assert that the free market works.
Policy suggestion no. 5 (when the other four have failed): create a sustainable low-growth economy without commercial airlines and business class lifestyles.
Daniel, London, Uk
Peak Oil has been used as a scare tactic to save 'Big Oil' and the jobs of those geologists you speak of. There is no 'crisis' that requires $130 oil and the China/India excuse is wearing thin as demand is actually slowing with world growth and u.s. consumers cutting usage!
Kv, London,
Inflation has been cured in many economies world-wide, albeit with some paid. Deflation in Japan has proved incredible hard to solve. Deflation is rarer, but NOT easier to fix. Once interest rates go to 0, then there's nowhere to go.
Nick, France,
The trading of derivatives related to oil in the face to face unregulated market, could easily stopped. Just declare that unregulated derivatives related to commodities were not legaly enforceable as debt. That is precisely what gambling was in this country all those years ago
David Nammory, Liverpool,
The oil price is a speculative bubble inflated by financial flows on the run. Even the Chinese cannot tolerate $120 oil as this impacts both their $-linked-currency production costs and the spending capacity of their Western customers, to ultimately reduce demand. $120 oil is unsupportable and what is unsupportable will fall. New supplies coming on stream from Brazil, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and the Sudan later in the year will speed the process.
John Scott, Gateshead, UK
Isn't this what the Stern Report was about, in part?
Attempting to control the cost of oil was the root cause of the US invasion of Iraq. What resulted? The $US went down, the $Oil rose to more than compensate.
That worked well, didn't it?
termite, Brisbane, Australia
There will be problems with people understanding the need to find substitutes for fossil fuels, for as long as there are people who think that "peak oil" is a mining company.
termite, Brisbane, Australia
To blame developing countries is ridiculous. US and Western European consumption is a large multiple of that in China. At the same time we want them to revalue their currency and stop their oil subsidies - isn't that tantamount to the same thing?
Peak Oil is a reality. Ask any geologist.
Alfred, Isle of Wight, UK
I think that Anatoles point is that no on knows how much oil there is left, demand will fall at 100 per barrel, let alone 130, and subsidies will fall, being un affordable, 5 billion people can not all have their own cars.
Matthew Bramall, Wadhurst, East Sussex
I have not read such utter rubbish in years. There is not enough room here to condemn completely but here are a few reasons:-
1. Deflation is more serious than inflation and after 15 years Japan still has it.
2. If subsidies end there will be mass riots.
3. Cheap peak oil is proven.
MGrelton, London, UK
The basic, and frightening, fact is that ENERGY costs are rising, leading to rising food costs also, partially because of resource depletion, but also because of climate change. This is an unprecedented situation - we have never faced this combination of factors before. It is beyond just economics.
jonathan, Sydney,
How about pricing oil/commodities in currencies other than the most overrated, volatile currency in the world, the fiat currency, the US dollar? True to form the US is devaluing it's currency again and again exporting the resulting inflation to the rest of the world.
Vivien, Toronto, Canada
Ohh! What a news!!!
Carlos Norberto Mugrabi, Roma, Italia
For individuals to justify energy savings in their own homes capital intensive projects with a long payback time are unattractive. Why not let citizens tap into their own pension funds for such projects and enjoy their retirement without fearing massive energy cost inflation.
fred keeling, almunecar, spain