Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David Roffey is a Webdiary columnist and Webdiary's General Manager. David Roffey's SMH Webdiary archive is here.

by David Roffey

Every year some friends engage in a round of predictions for the year to come. My own contribution, on 2 January this year, had this to say about the economy - most of the group are in the UK, hence their concentration on UK interest rates and house prices, but you could substitute Australia for the UK without much change:

 

Economy: well, it all depends on the US (UK politicians have only marginal input to interest rate outcomes). US Treasury bond futures still indicating that US rates will go up another 1-2% over the year, which isn’t big enough to HAVE to play out into other people’s rates BUT ...

1: The US twin budget and trade deficits will continue to balloon – 1) any action to stop that will certainly bring a worldwide recession (instead of only maybe if they don’t), and 2) God has told GWB to make his daft tax cuts permanent.

2: That will tend to keep the trends going as they have since the re-election, ie stock market up (in the US anyway) and US dollar down. The Chinese won’t take the yuan/renminbi peg off, so the dollar devaluation won’t make any big difference to US imports, except to transfer yet more of it to Asia from Europe. The consequent slowdown in the European (inc UK) economies MIGHT be enough for the Eurozone to abandon the “stability pact”, thus meaning that Euro interest rates might actually come down, meaning even less upward pressure on sterling rates. Expect the $2 Euro and the $3 pound by year end.

3: The Japanese and Chinese will start quietly putting some of the profits from US trade into Euros, which will begin to push US rates up by much more than that 2% mentioned above.

4: At some point a tipping point will come in US consumer confidence, and people will start saving and reducing debt (same thing for economic purposes). When it comes, stock markets and US house prices will go into free fall. It might not be in 2005, but (this being economics, not rationality) it will happen as soon as enough people believe it is going to happen in the future. Once it happens all bets are off.

5: My stock market prediction for end 2005 is therefore FTSE at 5500 if the tipping point isn’t reached and 3000 or less if it is: could be either: invest for the former but keep your broker’s number handy for selling everything before the market opens if the Dow falls more than 300 overnight.

6: UK house prices will be somewhere in the same region as they are now, say 10% either way.

Those perennial optimists who were saying 6 months ago that there was no way that the oil price could go up to $40 a barrel will soon be celebrating the fact that it has settled at a stable rate of around $42-45. By June, big oil companies will start major investments in alternative energy (by big I mean billions of dollars). This has complex interactions with the “tipping point” problem that make my head hurt. Longer term this is all to the good, though a $60 or even a $100 barrel (say £1.50 a litre at the pump) would be better.

Now, clearly I was wrong about some of this - the oil price didn't stabilise at $42-5 for long for example - but the question posed today around that group is: is point 5 above now imminent? And if so, what would be the trigger?

Commentators at the positive end had already started writing their "why the world economy survived Katrina" pieces within a week or so of the disaster. The (economic) question is - will US consumer confidence (and market confidence generally) survive Rita? I leave for others the shorter term questions around whether the US authorities learned enough from the Katrina debacle to ensure that far more Americans personally survive Rita. As I write, Texans are evacuating.

A second Cat. 4/5 storm in the Gulf within a few days is a very different thing for public sentiment to cope with than a single, not unprecedented event - two Cat 4 storms in a year last happened in 1915, when 275 died in Louisiana when Lake Pontchartrain broke its banks and 275 in Galveston, Texas a little later ... Note that storms L-Q have passed by already in the last few weeks - Maria, Nate, Ophelia and Philippe all reached hurricane strength, but all stayed in the Atlantic (Ophelia hit Nova Scotia: ). Even if, as we all hope, Rita passes or fades without the dramas and human suffering of Katrina, the fact that it existed at all is going to change how people feel, and potentially push them toward saving for a rainy day rather than spending. That will at least take the world economic foot off the accelerator, and may slide it toward the brake.

Oil

As Rita reaches Cat 5 and roars across the Gulf of Mexico, it is all but certain that, even if a miracle happens and it fades before reaching the coast, it will compound the damage to offshore oil facilities in the Gulf. Many platforms were severely damaged by Katrina but survived - will Rita push them over the edge? If Rita does reach land, it will certainly add to the damage to refinery and distribution infrastructures in the US south. Many commentators have pointed out that refinery capacity is more of a contraint on oil supplies than is the rate of production.

So, almost certain increased damage to oil platforms, and possible increased damage to refining. What is the world's capacity to react?  This week's OPEC (temporary) increase of 2 million barrels per day (mbd) is essentially irrelevant. OPEC nominal quotas total 28mbd, but according to the IEA, OPEC has been pumping more than 29mbd for the last year, and in practice they are at capacity for light crude production, though the Saudis could increase pumping on some heavy sulphurous stuff that no-one wants. They have been running close to flat out to try to keep prices stable. The only OPEC country with substantial spare capacity is Iraq, and maybe now that peace has returned there to the point where British soldiers feel able to demolish a jail and release 140 insurgents, that can be brought on-stream? Even if Iraq stabilises further, it is uncertain how much work and time is needed to restore all its production facilities.

In fact, again from the IEA estimates (Monthly Oil Market Report dated 11 August 2005), world demand for oil at 83.3mbd was already running up toward supply at 84.5mbd. The IEA predicts demand will reach nearly 86mbd next quarter, and 87.6mbd in Q42006. Release of reserves as agreed post-Katrina could perhaps have kept the lid on the price a while longer, but Rita may blow the steam vent off the pressure cooker. Mad e-mail-distributed boycott schemes will have zip impact on this.

As it is, oil futures prices have persistently been predicting ongoing rises for the last few months, as the price for future delivery has been above the spot price. This state, known by the wonderful name of contango, is normally seen as implying that the forward price will fall to the spot price, but the persistence of this effect suggests that the opposite is more likely. I've found it more interesting watching the longer term prices here, which have been pretty steadily trending up. Oil for delivery in 2011 is currently trading at above $60 - it isn't traded much, but it hasn't fallen as much as the spot price when it falls, and relatively goes up a bit more than it falls in each cycle. In sum: the market doesn't think the price is going to fall significantly any time soon.

Back to Rita: what impact will it have on oil prices? Hard to say, but it isn't going to be downward.

The economy

High resource prices have been good for the ASX most of this year, but the ASX isn't the economy, and not many of us gain from (or work for) those gains. The impact on the rest of us is at best mixed, and will certainly be negative if the steam goes out of US spending. Commentators have been making sure to get their caveats in so that if this happens they can say "we told you so", though they've mostly been buried at the end of rosier pieces under an exculpatory "of course ..." that is the equivalent of a knowing wink and a smile that says "but don't worry". Notable more cautious exceptions from Alan Kohler and Ross Gittins recently. [Sadly, the Alan Kohler piece A therapeutic shock to the global system is now 8 days old, so will cost you $2.20 from Fairfax]

Doomsayers have been wrong too often to be worth adding to the literature now - but just because some have been saying "the end is nigh" for a while doesn't mean that it isn't on its way, just that it isn't here yet. Will this weekend be it (or at least the tipping point that starts it)? Right now I'd say more likely than not, but the market is sentiment not rationality, and sentiment has kept reality out for a long time already. There is a lot more that could be said here, but this is the Web, you can find it all said elsewhere - more importantly, what do you lot think?

Disclosure note: the author sold all his shares that weren't bound up in option schemes in 1998, when the FTSE was 5750: this means he lost out on the last 10% of the rise into 1999, but the FTSE closed last night at 5370 - and some of those shares fell a lot more than that and got replaced in the index by others. You will spot that he's been predicting this for a while, and put his money where his mouth is - also that he didn't lose out at all by being premature!

left
right
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David Roffey I was wondering if a regular contributor would produce such an analysis of the effects of Rita, in closely following Katrina, on oil production and OPEC's response. I posted the below, far less lucid and detailed note, yesterday in the original Katrina thread.

"Jay White, I am fully aware that in another thread you have indicated you are no longer interested in contributing to Webdiary, but I am hopeful you may at least still be reading?

I am posting this whilst thinking of your petrol price prediction, and would honestly appreciate your thoughts on the potential outcomes of Hurricane Rita, if you would care to contribute to a considered dialogue?

This report from the BBC (It's a new link, with now no direct quotes) is on the US Oil Industry, understandably, evacuating personnel from their rigs in the Gulf.

Parts of the report state:

"Officials are hoping that Rita will be less destructive than Katrina, which last month destroyed 46 platforms and rigs, and damaged 18 more.

"The US Minerals Management Service said that Rita has caused 15 rigs to be evacuated so far, cutting daily output from the Gulf of Mexico by about 877,000 barrels of oil.

"According to the Minerals Management Service almost 60% of crude oil production had been shut down on Tuesday, with about 35% of natural gas output also closed."

As well as:

"The price of crude oil fell back on Tuesday after concerns about the potential damage from Rita caused a 7% surge in costs on Monday.

"What had concerned investors was that Rita would hammer already damaged production facilities as well as hitting new ones in Texas.

"Texas is home to about 25% of US oil refinery capacity."

Now I am fully aware that your prediciton is for Xmas, which is still a long way off. But if US Production is badly hit - and the hurricane season lasts until November - do you think there'll be a bit of 'panic' buying, as it were? If US demand for foreign oil increases dramatically, for an extended period, due to a lack of local production, how do you think the oil price will be affected?

How will OPEC deal with this issue?"

Ed. David: BTW, to save you all a search, Jay's prediction was fuel back to $1 a litre by Christmas

In case anyone is wondering, my brother got back into New Orleans, but I believe he has had to evacuate again due to Rita flood fears. His house is reasonable, but his ex-wife's house is totalled. He's been living on Army supplied MRE's, bottled water and - no doubt, knowing my brother - beer.

An e-mail from his ex-wife's sister states:-

"Looks like she has lost just about everything. There was about 18 inches or so that made it into the house. She lost about three fourths of the roof which caused most of the ceiling in her son's room to fall. Due to the length of time the water was in the house and it being closed up there is mold all over. He had to climb in through the bathroom window because the doors had expanded and the couldn't get them open. I understand that he did finally get them open but there was no way they would close. He was able to register with the Army Corps of Engineers to have them but a tarp on the roof but we don't know when it will happen. We are hoping before it starts to rain. Once we know that it is safe to get in, as they are saying that the air is still not in a safe zone."

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

See also CNN money's Rita could equal $5 gas: "The timing and strength of the latest storm could cause worse spike at the pumps than Katrina did." The conversion chain is US$5=A$6.50, US Gallon=3.78 litres, US$5/barrel = A$1.72 per litre. US fuel is normally cheaper than in Australia.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

I predict that the spot oil price will take a temporary high, and then depending on refinery damage, will adjust accordingly. If there is little damage, the price will fall gradually over time, if there is moderate, prices will stabilise at current levels, if heavy then they will rise and stay high until alternate sources or facilities are introduced.

I also predict that Japan will continue to recover, being the world's strongest (not largest, just strongest) economy. The US will continue to chew up US and world savings, money will continue to pour out of the net savings countries to search for heigher returns in the US compared to Europe and greater safety in the US than Asia or the ME. Revenue raising or cost cutting measures will have to be taken into the medium term before levels of debt become unpayable, and unless Europe and Asia are ready to take up the slack in global growth, there will be a mild crunch.

Europe will stagnate under unaffordable welfare systems, rusted economies, high unemployment, growing immigration issues and a political malaise that has been affecting the Continent for a decade. The EU stability pact will have to be thrown away by any country willing to kickstart its economy. A German revival will probably be the only hope in Western Europe (considering the French are going backwards faster than they would care to) with a flat tax system and welfare shakeup probably part of that. However, the German elections have not left a clear winner, so this may take some time before something actually happens, one way or another. Eastern Europe will continue to stick its nose up at W.Europe as it rides its way to prosperity with high growth fueled by competition, low government intervention and flat taxes encouraging a shift of people and businesses to these countries.

Africa will continue to slide - North Africa into religious, tribal and political conflicts while contributing little economically, and Sub Saharan Africa into poverty, disease and despair. More people will die in Africa from conflict and disease than from any other two continents combined. Perhaps the whole world combined. South Africa and Zimbabwe will continue to piss away their advantages as they run their respective economies into the ground.

China will be hoping and praying for world stability and moderate growth, for the house of cards that is the Chinese economy will collapse without constant foreign investment and at least reasonably strong markets to sell to. Without one or the other, the economy stumbles badly as growth collapses, probable deflation due to overproduction that can no longer be sold, and unemployment as those ineffecient corporations (state or private owned) finally feel the pinch of harder economic times and are unable to hide their flaws as effectively. Both together could very well bring down the economy, and even the government.

India will continue to throw off the ghost of socialist government's past and modernise its economy, acting as a possible counterweight to China, though more stable. Due to a reasonably large educated class, more and more services will continue to move there due to cheaper costs, bringing investors to the country, especially if China hits a rocky patch.

South America will ocntinue to rot in corruption, bad debts, and poor choices. The various private army's that populate the countrysides, especially when you get close to Central America, will cause their usual chaos, and impinge upon their nations just enough to keep their growth prospects low.

Anyway, that's my quick overview. I'm sure others will disagree on some, if not all, of the points.

Ed David: great (and fast) starter, Stuart!

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

A timely discussion indeed. It’s my view that Katrina and Rita will have devastating impacts on the US economy. American debt is clearly out of hand. For years internet publications such as the Privateer and Peak Oil have been warning us about the dangerous times we have now entered. In fact I was laughed at when based on my web reading a couple of years ago I suggested that $80 oil could be on the cards by 2010. The worsening explosive Middle East cocktail continues unabated. Iran is now reported to be threatening to use its oil as a bargaining chip in the high stakes duel over its nuclear facilities. According to Jeddah's Arab News, Iran is busy preparing for war.

I’m afraid that someday soon the Oz and US zombie consumer societies will discover that buying goods simply to divert their attention away from pressing national and international problems will end with a thud. Well, it’s probably already begun. Talk back radio has a procession of furious callers wondering how it’s come about that their sacred right to buy cheap fuel has ended. It may dawn on them that it’s because their elected politicians are not visionaries, just manipulators thinking only in terms of electoral cycles. The two car Mac mansion commuters could find themselves facing diminishing capital as these jumbo structures lose their value. Daunting fuel expenses will exercise their minds in a new way. And every citizen will pay more for all goods and services.

Baghdad to the Gulf of Mexico and down to Australia. That’s globalisation.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

By the by, David, you really need to look at the effect on the spot oil price effect of disasters versus the longer term implications, especially on upcoming long term negotiations with oil sales. For a large amount of the spike is in a large part due to the speculatory effect of the traders on the market, not really the actual overall damage done to the oil supply market.

David: ah, well that's the key opinion really, isn't it. My own view is that the speculators are right, the supply constraints were going to hit the demand curve in Q4 anyway, and the hurricanes just pull that forward a couple of months. The only thing that will bring the oil price down is a major recession, IMO

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Following up one of Stuart's paragraphs, see Timothy Garton Ash: Germany and France are the new sick men of Europe "With paralysis following the German election, the EU's claim to be the world's leading economy looks increasingly absurd" - from today's Guardian.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David... Many thanks for this timely and honest assessment. It's particularly nice to see some careful macroeconomic thought on Webdiary - especially since you are forthright in discussing the difficulties of forecasting, and have included your own earlier predictions. I look forward to future contributions from you...

As to the substance, well... the problem here - as you well know - is the respective weighting we accord individual factors, all of which are causally interlinked anyway. This is what can make well-informed researchers - with essentially the same information and approaches - so easily come to radically different conclusions. I'm reminded here of the great physicist Max Planck, who said - from memory - that he wasn't smart enough to theorise economic problems... by this meaning any approach to same that delivered the rigor of physical theory.

Prior to Katrina, I held views similar to Paul Krugman... who argued that the current (unstable) situation would persist until the US housing bubble collapsed. Now, with Rita in process to boot, I suspect that oil prices will be the trigger... with the housing bubble collapse riding directly in its wake.

Responsible journals - rather than booster opinion - which deal with business & macroeconomic matters have been examining the housing bubble with increasing alarm in recent times. The Economist is a prime example. How all this plays out once the tipping point is reached, however, is in the lap of the gods...as the situation is highly unstable over such a wide variety of factors that the upcoming sequence of events is intractably contingent.

Longer term, however, may I recommend (again) the work of the distinguished historian David Hackett Fischer - review here.

Fischer's arguments - based upon price sequences going back almost a thousand years - is particularly relevant to the social/political outcomes which are likely to emerge from a crash. They are one of the (very) few arguments which have kept me guardedly optimistic over all these years of increasing wealth disparity and democratic decline - based as they are on impeccable scholarship and theoretical caution - and I think that Webdiarists of all stripes would be fascinated to understand just how much our current situation echoes earlier crisis points. And how this can give us all some well-supported reasons for longer-term optimism...

All the best.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

I can confirm that as of yesterday CNN and Fox were reporting the latest hurricane as a category 5 storm. 25% of the oil producing capacity of the gulf is in the direct path of the storm and Galverston including the entire gulf coast of Texas extending to New Orleans has been ordered to evacuate. It's not a forced evacuation however, if people choose to stay it is being reported that no emergency services, like 911 fire or ambulance will be available during and immediately after the storm hits. So it's stay at your own risk.

As for the US economy post Katrina, well Bush has made his pledge of billions, and already the Republicans are fighting about how they will afford it and in particular how they will off-set it all. Of course the clean up job in New Orleans was pretty much handed to - you guessed it - Haliburton and other contractors have been side tracked with cheaper deals. This has caused a ruckus in and of itself. (The staggering nepotism just keeps rolling on and Bush/Cheney are making billions from all this - they can afford to make inept decisions cause they keep benefiting in the hip pocket - they will both leave office billionaires). One must remember that the US economy is already surviving on borrowed money (mainly from China), and as one CNN commentator said yesterday with a grimace either way you look at it, its more debt on top of debt.

In fact the commentators all around yesterday looked stern faced and concerned to say the least the whole thing is a fiasco - nature made or otherwise.

All to say the US economy is in serious, serious trouble, this latest storm is bad news for them. The American commentators are wishing it will change course with one saying they hoped it hits a remote area instead. I can only assume they mean they wish it hits Mexico instead of the US of A.

I note Bush now appears only to address the nation on his own, and when he is shown on the news he is with military personnel only. The distinct impression I get is that there is not much support for him at present either within his party or elsewhere.

Reports about the inept response by the US government to Katrina are right on the mark. The general feeling is that New orleans is full of poor black folk who were simply abandoned, and left to suffer on their own. There is a term for this type of ineptitude its called politcal suicide. Many thought his speech to the nation the other night (a whole two weeks after the disaster) was going to be, in fact, his resignation speech. Instead it was his grovel with borrowed monies speech. Stay tuned, and expect more of the same to come.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

The Dow fell 103.49, or 1%, to 10,378.03 overnight yet Aussie stocks ride back into black. At the close, the S&P/ASX200 index was up 9.5 points at 4561.9 and the All Ordinaries was 9.8 points stronger at 4511.6.

Why? ABN Amro Morgans adviser Tony Russell said the Australian market was able to buck the downwards trend of offshore markets because of investor confidence. Nothing else? Why do they call these guys analysts and advisors?

Anyhow I hope it is well founded confidence. I'm no bear but I'm no bull either. My ear is to the ground and I've seen what you've seen David - the tell tale knowing wink and a smile paragraph here and there.

I have an ear to the ground and the other primed to hear my broker answer my call.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart Lord, what we could do is hope that the resistance can send the US terrorists and their allies packing from Iraq with their tail between their legs so that Iraqis themselves can sort out the mess that has been created. Perhaps then the ‘bombings’ will stop on account of the real perpetrators having been sent packing.

Perhaps then the likes of the Lying Tyrant Bush and his lunatic neoconservative allies will have learnt their lesson and retreated back to where they belong – at home. That way the world can get back to a semblance of normalcy where it isn’t threatened with Anglospherian terrorism!

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

John, an excellent review of Fischer's work, but I'm struggling to find your "well-supported reasons for longer-term optimism", particularly in the last passage you quoted:

"Those who believe in the beneficence of a free market are correct in one tenet of their faith. It is true that the play of the market will in time correct almost any imaginable price-distortion. But to put our trust in the market is to ignore some hard historical facts. The free market restored equilibrium in the fourteenth century, but only after the Black Death. It did so again in the seventeenth century, but not until a general crisis had destroyed the peace of Europe. The free market recovered its equilibium in the Victorian era, but only after the slaughter of the Napoleonic Wars. In short, the laisser-faire prescription, 'let the free market take its course' has in the past eight hundred years created human suffering on a scale that is unacceptable. It is also unnecessary. A second historical fact also tends to be missed by believers in the free market. In economic history, equilibrium is the exception rather than the rule.... In the full span of modern history, most free markets have been in profound disequilibrium most of the time - often dangerous and destructive disequilibrium."

The Peak Oil cummunity are referring to the imminent post-peak period as the Greater Depression, ie 'greater' than the Great Depression. I'm sure that a handful of people will do just fine on permaculture in the coming decades, but I don't think that the several billion deaths that will likely result from war, starvation, disease and general socio-economic collapse give cause for too much optimism.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

I been thinking for a few years now what would happen if we had a cluster of mega natural disasters on the scale we are now witnessing?

Ok the Tsunami is likely a one off in our lifetime, but what if these large hurricanes become a yearly event, one of the major mega earthquakes hit in Tokyo or Los Angeles or the bird flu pandemic hits during a time of high world oil prices, huge US deficits, more weather extremes and with terrorism and the nightmare of a dirty bomb.

It’s one thing to recover after a financial meltdown and depression during a stable climatic period, it should be very interesting do it again during a phase of global warming with more extremes of weather and mass migrations of refugees. When Bangladesh makes New Orleans look like a training drill or the our recent boat people experience like a pleasant dream.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Kat Boothroyd you know, I think we can do one better. We can reconstruct the country to the wonderful way it was before the wars or the sanctions. We can give the Iraqi army all the modern gear it can handle.

And then we can put Saddam and the Baathists back in power for them too. And then leave the Iraqi people to their own fate, as a 'sovereign nation'. The US can go isolationist, so that if and when Iraq decides to invade another country, there won't be any blood on Western hands from protecting anyone, or having to go to war.

Then we can sit back and feel good about ourselves.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

If, as seems possible, the extreme weather in the Gulf of Mexico is fed to an extent by global warming, then the soaring oil prices might just do something to ameliorate the greenhouse effect.

It has a certain grim poetry...

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

"If you want to help us rebuild our country, help us end the occupation of our country by the United States and its allies" - Farouk Isma'al, press briefing in Quezon City, the Phillipines

Farouk Isma'al, International Relations Officer of the Iraqi General Union of Oil Employees (GUOE), is presently on a speaking tour of Australia's east coast supported by Stop the War Coalition, among other organisations.

Farouk will be speaking about what life is like for Iraqis under occupation, how the GUOE is fighting the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry, and how ordinary Iraqis are struggling to end the occupation of their country by the US and its allies.

Although the US and Australia trumpet the "democracy" they are bringing to Iraq, the GUOE, despite representing 23,000 workers continues to be considered illegal, just as it was under Saddam Hussein.

Farouk has recently toured the US and the Philippines and his presentations promise to be incredibly interesting and powerful.

Below are a list of tour details for Farouk and some more info about him and the GUOE:

Sydney
7pm, Thursday 22 Sept
Tom Mann Theatre
136 Chalmers Street, Surry Hills. (With Jack Mundey and Tim Anderson.)

3pm, Saturday 24 Sept
Parramatta Town Hall, Parramatta.

Canberra
3pm, Sunday 25 Sept
Hayden Allen Tank, ANU.

Melbourne
7pm, Wednesday 28 Sept
Brunswick Town Hall

7.30pm, Monday 3 Oct
Trades Hall,
cnr Lygon & Victoria Sts, Carlton South.

Brisbane
7pm, Thursday 6 Oct
Trades and Labour Council Building,
16 Peel St, South Brisbane.

Links
Corpwatch.org article
Zmag article
MP3 of Farouk's interview on ABC Radio National's Late Night Live
General Union of Oil Employees in Basra

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Too much false sophistication and economic jargon masks the real questions.

What is the physical economic capacity and potential of our nation?

Does the economic policy and money system honestly reflect and distribute dividends and living circumstance according to contribution and moral inheritance?

Why do intelligent people tolerate policies that vandalise the abundance and security of our generous physical wealth in the name of vandalised globalist free trade economic theory.

Are we getting the future we want and is possible, or something altogether different?

How should we react? What is to be done?

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

I was listening to an investment programme on Sunday morning radio which said that China was growing at an average of 8% per annum. However, it was a terrible place to invest (for the average punter) in because businesses kept falling over. Why is that?

Stuart, why is it then that the Australian govt. seems so set on linking our economies?

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart, although I agree with a lot of what you say I think that the Fed has in conjunction with the massive spending inherent in the US's foreign policy ambitions and other US federal government mismanagement left them and the global economy facing significant downside risks.

I think Richard Doughty from the Daily Reckoning (www.dailyreckoning.com) is correct when he says that there could be significant financial consequences should the massive US debt force a reconsideration of the USD as the de-facto global reserve currency.

See A Modern Timon of Athens, by The Mogambo Guru

(extract)

“This is just one of many, one of mucho many, one of mucho many thousands of reasons why I loudly proclaim, ‘Hurricane Katrina? Ha! The Federal Reserve is the biggest disaster ever to hit the United States of America!’”

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

The Dow Jones industrial average rose 44.02, or 0.42 percent, to 10,422.05 after losing nearly 264 points since Monday and falling 27 more points Thursday.

Why? Investors bid stocks up as oil prices declined.

From the ABC News (US version not ours):

"It's all about oil," said Paul McManus, senior vice president and director of research, Independence Investment LLC. Traders sent their clients weather updates and lists of oil rigs at risk Wednesday morning. "Everyone is just sitting back and watching their weather maps," McManus said.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

The high oil price may go further to prevent 'Global warming', than all paper treaties (Rio, Kyoto, etc) have ever done combined. But then I'm a "silver lining" kind of guy! ;-)

On a serious note, I think the oil price will remain high (2005 dollars) $US50+ for the next 3-5 years, but eventually demand-destruction, demand-substitution, and increased supply from the renewed investment in exploration/drilling will start to come on line, and the price should gradually fall. It will become a drag on global growth, but I doubt a full-scale recession is inevitable - and even then, likely no more severe a correction than others in recent decades eg '83, '91.

I think the biggest dangers on the horizon are instability from a bursting of the US housing bubble, and the rapidity plus effects of China de-pegging the yuan.

I don't buy into the peak-oil/'die-off' scenarios, although they are so lurid they are somewhat entertaining. ;-)

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart McCarthy... many thanks for your praise. On longer-term optimism, though, I'd stand by my comment. Looking back over the history of price inflation in the West, Fischer notes that each wave as it crested brought crisis, true... On the other hand, he also notes the fact that - taken as a series - these crises were each less severe (in terms of death/suffering) than their predecessors... and that this was basically due to political/economic changes driven from below in the aftermath of said crises, which redistributed power/wealth/legitimacy away from social elites to some extent.

Sure, such redistribution is then eroded away - over the next period of price inflation - but, as he argues, there are strong residuals at the structural level which turn the process into a ratchet-effect (two steps forward and one step back)... witness the fact that political legitimacy is now 'democratic' rather than feudal, even if said 'democracy' is in many ways a mere figleaf.

In addition, Fischer clearly understands that the so-called 'free' market is also a figleaf... an ideological cover excusing the exercise of unwarranted power by existing players under the pretense of fair competition. However, he also notes that such figleaves invariably fall during crises... as will this one in the very near future. If anything, as John Ralston Saul documents in The Collapse of Globalism, it has already markedly slipped. The (total!) dominance of theorists of market imperfection amongst recent Nobel Prize winners (preceding 9/11, what's more) is a very strong sign that this is an ongoing process.

On 'Peak Oil', have you yet had a look at Thomas Gold's The Deep Hot Biosphere - Gold being a highly-original and important scientist whose innovative ideas have already had a deep impact on the mainstream of several disciplines, after long resistance. This is by no means crank stuff, and - since it actually happens to be better supported by evidence than the mainstream assumptions - casts severe doubt on the whole 'Peak Oil' argument. If you doubt this, please account for the fact that NO chemist has ever come up with a physically-plausible (let alone reproducible) process by which vegetation could be reduced to hydrocarbons under the conditions which prevail deep in the Earth's crust. In contrast, Gold's hypothesis is simple, clear, and in accord with what we have now learned about extremophile bacteria - which were not even discovered when he first raised this idea!

So, we probably can't expect 'Peak Oil' to save us from the likely effects of global warming...

What might well help, however - and Fischer gives us hope here - is a grassroots turn away from the governing superstitions of today - 'The Free Market' and such - towards economically/ecologically workable market designs, along with a redesign/renewal of egalitarian democracy. And, given that under such conditions one can easily expect a much fairer world economic order, I feel your doomsaying is likely overstated. If it were not, however, your assumption that "a handful of people will do just fine on permaculture" is foolish. In situations such as you describe, the only people who do 'just fine' are those thugs who effectively organize/legitimise their depredations (see the origins of feudalism). Isolationalist self-sufficients are merely their prey...

On the other hand, if the electorates of the West insist on a different order - as has happened before - and we learn to balance growth and security at base, the world might well manage things better than you predict. And it is here that Fischer gives us some real reasons for hope.

All the best.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart McCarthy, it seems you are laying the blame for the Black Death and the Napoleonic Wars at the door of 'free markets'. Huh? I mean, other than the fact that protectionism ruled the roost right up until the end of the 19th Century, how on Earth can you blame markets for a contagious disease and a rampaging nutty imperialist?

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Gareth Eastwood, what makes Japan the strongest? Reformed (or at least partly reformed) financial institutions, a strong savings base, a large and advanced manufacturing system, high levels of R&D, stable (if extremely flat) growth, clear economic direction, good trade links with neighbours, an educated population with strong technical skills (essential especially in times of crisis - think about it. In times of war or threat of war, who would you want? An engineer, or a humanities educator?), strong local manufacturing industry, and a competitive outlook for the future in regards to economic stability and growth.

John Henry Calvinist, the interconnected world finds a 'currency of choice' useful due to the fact that it is easily convertable to investments in what has been the best place to receive returns on investments over a large part of the past 50 years - the US economy.

That and the inherent convenience in trading in one set currency.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David, you were wrong about more than just the oil price. In point 2 you predict the continued decline of the US dollar. In reality the dollar is up against Sterling by 7.62% (24 Sept.) and the Euro is down 1.76% (against Sterling). For most of this year the Euro has been even weaker against both Sterling and the US currency.

Two dollar Euro and $3 dollar pound? I hope you aren't relying on your currency speculation to fund your retirement. You may need to get a job.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart Lord, I'd like to know just why you seem to think that the world economy requires a "currency of the world"? Especially in the current situation facing financial markets. On the contrary, I think China's recent move away from the $US peg is, if anything, overdue... but I don't see ANY reason why the Euro - or Yen - will, or should, replace it.

To my mind, the current situation is simply a hangover from the Gold Standard era... and a necessarily unstable one - as it encourages the fiat currency issuer (the USA) to do exactly what it is doing, which is living on credit drawn from the world trading system. And this - of course - eventually leads the rest to move away from the $US as a standard... which is exactly what we are seeing today.

How exactly this'll play out is worrying, but I don't think that - whatever happens - anyone will be seriously talking of the $US as "the world currency" in twenty years. And for this, I suggest, we have Alan Greenspan and George W Bush (in particular) to thank.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

The ever intrepid Asia Times online correspondent Pepe Escobar writes today about Iran oil. His article is important reading for anybody wondering where we might be heading. Here’s an excerpt:

“This is the first time the Iranian leadership has publicly established a direct, sensitive link between nuclear policy and oil. Of course, it's all part of psychological warfare. But it set alarm bells ringing. Analysts in Europe tend to agree that were Iran to resort to an oil embargo in the next few months, the barrel of oil could easily reach US$100. According to Thierry Demarest, chief executive of TotalFinaElf, "the world cannot live without Iranian oil."

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart Lord, most of your points are on the money IMO, but what is it exactly about Japan that makes it the "strongest" economy in the world?

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

There is another significant risk factor for oil prices and the global economy: Conflict with Iran. Forbes reports:

The head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards warned that the imposition of sanctions on the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme could push the price of oil to 100 usd a barrel.

"Any sanction against Iran can make the oil price reach 100 dollars a barrel," General Yahya Rahim Safavi said in a speech to worshippers attending Friday prayers in Tehran.

Should the conflict degenerate into combat, my guess is that the Straits of Hormuz would be blocked before you can say 'catastrophe'.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Jenny Stirling, because no matter how hard China bounces, it still needs our resources. And if they don't, someone else will. Not to mention the tech and specialties we can provide.

Even if China hits the wall, the fact is that the rest of Asia, especially India, is now getting on a better footing. We may take a small to medium hit from a drop in demand if China's demand slows or collapses, but there are always others waiting to use them. I would forsee a simple stabilising of commodity prices if that happened, not a fall. An end to bumper growth in those industries most closely tied, but not fall. Because Australia isn't investing in China directly as much, rather simply trading resources and sci/tech for goods. And if Japan starts moving again, and India can stay away from competition stifling governments, we are in real business, even without China.

But my biggest worry with China is the effect of the one child policy - tens of millions of males with no chance of finding a partner in future generations due to the demographics of more families choosing to have their one child a boy to provide for his parents in old age. Some say this could rise to up to 90,000,000. A nucleus for an army the world has never seen, isn't it? Especially if China goes nationalist and decides it has to expand.

But anyway, we can do well out of China with freer trade, but we are not intricately tied through investment that will carry us under if China tanks.

Rob Wearne, I don't think the USD will stop being the currency of the world, simply due to the fact that there is no other to take its place.

The Euro is strong, but its strength is part of the reason the EU has been stagnating for so long. And they simply don't have the growth rates to make investment attractive. Ditto Japan. And can you see any other currency taking over?

And anyway, if the US currency does truly tank, it will take all of Asia down with it as the trillions of dollars in bond and treasury notes that banks and governments in Asia hold, let alone those held in the oil states, Japan and parts of Europe become almost worthless, and the economy of the world grinds to a halt anyway. In which case the only thing we will be adjusting to is mass unemployment.

You know that old saying - 'owe the bank a dollar, it owns you. Owe the bank a million, you own it'?

America owns the 'world' bank. The rest of the world can't see it fail, not spectacularly, because if it does, they go with it, and probably will fall harder, especially those economies geared up to sell and buy from the US, or hold large amounts of assets there. And since that covers almost everyone who counts, nobody who is anybody can afford to see the US go down.

Christopher F Brooks, you ask questions, rather open ended ones at that, without a hint of an answer, and probably not a clear idea of what a decent answer would be. I could be wrong of course.

Perhaps you could give us your own views on your own questions?

Damian Lataan, no. Probably not.

Martin Davies, who was to blame? We played most of this out, though Iraq got involved stupidly.

I would suggest that you may look at the misappropriation of funds for the levees in Louisianna, the pork barreling by the state legislature, the complete failure for state or local authorities to carry out any kind of an evacuation plan, the governors' unwillingness to hand over power to the federal agencies or ask for help until it was too late, the complete inadequacy of the New Orleans police force, and the stopping of the Red Cross and other NGO's prepositioning supplies in New Orleans for those trapped inside by the state authorities, before we start looking to Bush for blame.

But it's Bush, right? Oh yeah. We don't have to worry about others' responsibility when it is so easy and suits the agenda to blame him.

Craig Rowley, you know, there are other market indicators other than oil. And they can be good, especially when the US is growing more than twice as fast as most of Europe, more than that faster than Japan, etc. And after the profit taking of recent days, the money has to go back in somewhere.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

I heard an interesting discussion on the ABC with the leader of the independent rig owner-drivers who are blocking so many roads this school holidays. (Don't they ever learn this ain't the time?!)

He said, someone else may correct me, that in the recent past the oil refiners had taken 4 to 8 cents per litre mark up. Now it is 20 cents. This is supported by the oil company profit margin leaping away, suggesting it is not the raw product that is rising in cost - or their profits would shrink - but rather the middle oil persons, the companies, under the mask of oil disruption. My understanding is that the amount of oil pumped by OPEC nations hasn't dropped.

Salt to the wound, Venezuela offers $35 a barrel.

A while back Margo, you ran a three pronged argument about the results of oil running out and the possible scenarios. One way of managing this was to increase the price now, early, but not too much to stifle economies.

As the amount of oil pumped hasn't dropped, but actually risen, as there appears to be a bottle neck in the refinement stage (ours is mainly Singapore I understand-no?) perhaps this is orchestrated a little with a increase in the refining price and a boom to the oil companies coffers. The increase in price from 4-8 to 20 cents is significant and should be addressed.

The demand is mainly for transport and burnt.How narrow minded our leaders are. The car plants in Adelaide are only still running due to gov money, cut the money and buy the factory shell and produce gov made electric/mixed engines for vehicles to be exported to China (or to be replacement units in already made cars, not hard really, a thousand bucks and an engine and no petrol worries), which has already a huge problem with oil demand and hardly wants billions of new cars to use it up too.

Where are our entrepreneurs? Easy dropped in electric/mixed engines would be in huge demand. Can send to any market. US Prius sellers can't meet demand.

I am amazed how these issues are building up in the background and so many warn governments, yet no action is taken until crisis point. If I remember rightly the government did its best to knacker the car gas system producers about three years ago too.

Accidents we all understand, but incompetence is unforgivable in management, especially in government.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

John Henry Calvinist you'll have to wait for Monday, friend. But the USA has consistantly been the place for the best returns on capital vs stability for half a century. Just look at current growth rates. So people invest, primarily in the intelligence and ability and resourcefullness of the American people and their economy, and feed the deficit.

Privatising social security would have been an enormous step towards reducing debt. Over here, we call it 'compulsory private superannuation'. Unfortunately it has probably been left a decade too late at least, so the baby boomer generation will never have enough time or spare cash to save for retirement on their own. This will chew up further hundreds of billions as productive workers retire to become mostly unproductive pensioners (I don't begrudge them that, but it's a fact) in lost revenue and payments and transfers. Bush has the right idea, but he missed the boat. Clinton could have just managed it if he did privatise social security at the beginning of his presidency, but that would be against his party ideology, I guess. George Bush had a chance, but I think he was voted out of office before he could do so. Either way, there is a reasonable chance that there will be a reasonably hard landing at some point. The US is saved the coming crisis in Europe due to the fact that in the US they have an expanding population, however they are still in trouble when large numbers of the working population retire.

David Roffey Gold and other precious metals, etc, are often the best places to put your cash in times of crisis, for they will always maintain and regain most of their value. And if they do not, the world is in a lot of trouble anyway.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David Roffey replies:

Michael: I did say "clearly I was wrong about some of this", and though the Euro at $1.20 is still way over it's intended value of $1, it will only get to $2 this year if the US economy tanks fast. The question that is uppermost in my mind - as it was in the original post - is this: post-Rita, will US consumer confidence fall such that US consumers stop spending and start saving? If so, all bets on stock markets, house prices, currency values, etc are into wholly new territory - precisely because there will be a new (for recent times) answer to Stuart's point that "the money has to go somewhere". If the money goes to the modern equivalent of under the mattress, the statistically implausible current simultaneous bubbles in all these markets will indeed deflate fast.

The complication here is that the market outcomes will be path-dependent, which is to say that whichever of stock, bond, property, foreign currency prices start to fall first, the money will tend to wash into the others, potentially inflating their bubbles while the first-mover deflates faster than it otherwise would. No amount of rational analysis will tell you where to put your money in advance of the events. No safe haven but cash in the currency you spend your money in, I suspect.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Michael Ekin Smyth, please try accurately reading (and thinking about) posts before you try 'replying' to them. Stuart McCarthy - in the passage you so inaccurately attack - was merely quoting from a passage by David Hackett Fischer, from a book/review I strongly recommended earlier in this thread.

This is clearly marked in his post - as you should might have noted before responding! - and, this is NOT to mention your misreading of Fischer's text...

PLEASE, if you want to comment on same, try thinking before you do...and, try reading the source beforehand here, as I suspect that you'll find Fischer's work very close to your own position re power - to judge by another thread in this forum...

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart Lord, your reply here (clearly) assumes that the USA will continue to be "the best place to receive returns on investments", an assumption which I truly doubt... particularly if current attitudes toward foreign debt continue in that nation - and, neither major party appears at all willing to address this serious problem.

Not that I have any money but - for years now - I've considered India the very best place for long-term investment, and the USA well down the list (except in very specific sectors)... and dropping, even as I write.

And, I'd have to say, any experienced financial market player would have little time for your assumption that "the inherent convenience in trading in one set currency" is a major factor... unless said currency is both stable and backed by the FULL range of economic indicators - as well as being the currency of the world's leading trader...

My commentary here - most of which you appear to have glossed over - concentrated upon the undoubted fact that the $US no longer fulfills all of said criteria, and that (as a fiat currency) its position as the world reserve currency is particularly under (well-justified) threat from its abuse of this position to - and I quote YOU here - "chew up US and world savings"...

I'd genuinely be interested to read a full answer on this issue, since - as I'm sure you now realise - your initial response hardly addressed the key points in my query, whilst making assumptions that I (and, I suspect, many other readers) find somewhat dubious, to say the least...

All the best.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart Lord, yes indeed there are market indicators other than the price of oil (and oil futures). I know and watch these indicators as I have a six-figure sum invested in the stock market Stuart. I put my money where my mouth is - do you?

Perhaps you miss the point I make with my comments on 23/09/2005 7:22:01 AM and 22/09/2005 10:15:14 PM, so I need for your benefit to spell it out clearly.

Investor confidence is the key and that is actually more about psychology than economics. Movement in the Dow at the moment is being explained by analysts and advisers by pointing to oil prices and the weather. Whether the oil price and/or the weather is the key lead indicator or not, the point is that when the market watchers with megaphones start calling the market a particular way people listen, and they react. Again and again we've seen that many people act irrespective of what other indicators may be signalling in ways that are ultimately against their own interests.

Do you remember Stuart when Alan Greenspan, the great Bubble Man, spoke of 'irrational exuberence'? It happened within the memory of most (and even the most forgetful should not yet have lost their memory of it yet), do you remember it Stuart? Do you recall what he actually said?

But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values which then become the subject of unexpected and prolonged contractions, as they have in Japan over the past decade?

There within what may have been taken at surface value as merely a question - perhaps just some hypothesising - was an important message for the market at that time. The message was that Wall Street could well be in the grip of irrational exuberance and on the evidence it certainly was. The evidence is presented in a clear and easy to read way in Peter Hartcher's Bubble Man: Alan Greenspan & the missing 7 trillion dollars if you'd like to get your head around it Stuart. One prime example is that whilst only 1% of of the professional stock analysts employed by the Wall Street investment banks and brokerages carried 'sell' ratings when the bubble burst, there was evidence they should have seen because it was plain to see. Evidence like the fact that whilst investors drove the stockmarket value of all listed US corporations up by $7.3 trillion, the aggregate profits of those corporations when down by $50.6 billion. As a share of the economy corporate profits had fallen sharply, from 2.5 per cent to 7.1 per cent. As Hartcher puts it - "The stockmarket screamed 'boom', but corporate profits squealed 'bust'."

There is something else I recommend for your reading related to the issues touched upon in this thread Stuart. This weekend's AFR Perspective has a very interesting cover story called "Bush's Financial Storm". According to the author, Tony Walker, George W Bush's big-spending ways are alienating conservative supporters and feeding fears the massive and growing US deficit will destabilise the global economy. Could it be that old irrational exuberance manifest in another form?

On the effect of Bush's pledge to spend "whatever it takes" to fix the Gulf of Mexico coast the Conservative economist Stephen Moore is quoted in Walker's AFR article. "Alas," he says, "in the world of compassionate conservatism, the quaint notion of limited federal power has fallen by the wayside in favour of an ethic that has Uncle Sam as first, second and third responder to a crisis."

Walker writes:

Ultimately, the question is whether Bush is a big-spending liberal conservative at heart or whether he's simply inattentive and lazy, prefering to marshal his energies for his crusading beliefs such as spreading democracy to the heathen masses.

For me the ultimate question is whether the power block behind the Bush administration indulges itself in irrational exuberance about what those crusading beliefs will achieve and whether this kind of irrational exuberance will be even more harmful to the global economy than the one Alan Greenspan knew was the cause of the bubble of 1996-2000.

That bubble that burst after the Dow climaxed at 11,722.98 points has been referred to as the Great American Madness where to invest credulity or, worse yet, money in that market was an act of faith. What shall we call the period we're living through now? Bush's Blind Faith Blow-out?

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Actually, if the petrol stations can source their petrol from any group, not just their franchise, if there is a certain percentage difference, that would maybe return competition to the point of supply rather than screw the service station owners, already suffering. The 4-8c change up to 20c helps me understand the 8c Coles express discount. Remember the ACC investigation by Alan Fels, in the courts now. Such collusion in prices must be investigated.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David R, I did note your get out of jail free card - 'Now, clearly I was wrong about some of this' - but thought it so broad brush that it should be ignored.

It is true that, back last December, many analysts were bearish on the dollar. However they weren't so bullish on the Euro either and I haven't found anyone who ever predicted 2:1 US/Euro or 3:1 US/Sterling.

That sort of idea has to be more a reflection of political views than of any underlying facts.

Could US consumer confidence collapse? Sure. But, why should it? US unemployment is low, wages are up, manufacturing is booming – the index is up 40-something months in a row now. Asset prices are high - but that may just be a reflection of the general good conditions.

Now, look at Europe - where Germany is stuck in a form of political stagflation with soaring unemployment; Italy is facing a looming financial crisis which threatens to tear the Euro apart, and France is - well, what is France doing? Slipping back into protectionist sloth and not adapting to the 21st Century all that well.

Ultimately currency values are determined by underlying economic fundamentals. The US fundamentals are good, the European mostly bad. So, the Euro is sinking. By the way, as far as I can recollect, there was never any stated aim of creating a 1:1 ratio between the dollar and the Euro.

The extraordinary buoyancy of Sterling is more of a mystery. Perhaps it is some reflection of the long fading tail of empire. The Poms still benefit from unwarranted and un-earned seignurage. Such is the way of the world.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

I find it strange that people come up with the 'Euro will kick $US butt' argument because the US government has a deficit of ~5% for just 2-3 years (and in the middle of a war!), when European countries like Germany, France and Italy have been running budget deficits of 3-4% year after year after year after year after year (and in peacetime, too). Even the European 'Stability Pact' (supposedly to limit deficits to a max of 3%) has been useless at making them curb their spending.

In a crisis, the US has a lot more flexibility to fix this imbalance faster. The Europeans, on the other hand, have been trying and failing for many years.

It doesn't surprise me that the money-markets have shown more faith in the USA than Europe.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

John, yes, I am familiar with Thomas Gold’s abiotic oil hypothesis published in The Deep Hot Biosphere. Your claim that this is "better supported by evidence than the mainstream assumptions" is rather dubious. You should read these articles by Jean Laherrere and Richard Heinberg for a summary of the abiotic oil controversy. Even if the hypothesis is right, which it may well be, your belief that the inevitable, imminent discovery and production of vast quantities of abiotic oil will soon save us from our own folly is about on par with that of a remote Pacific island cargo-cult. One significant difference, however, is that Pacific island cargo-cultists can feed, house and clothe themselves without relying on an abundance of cheap oil, whereas most of us here in the industrialised world no longer can.

Herein lies the problem with applying Fischer's 'wave' thesis in the present circumstances, and your own hope of moving rationally "towards economically/ecologically workable market designs". In the previous crises societies were able to restore 'market equilibrium' without the constraints imposed by an impending exhaustion of natural resources. The situation that we face today is that, despite the earlier warnings of Hubbert and the Club of Rome, is that every aspect of modern industrialised society is now completely underpinned by an abundance of cheap oil. If we had heeded these warnings decades ago and developed the mindset to reduce energy consumption and the infrastructure necessary to rely on renewable energy we could have avoided the Peak Oil scenario. Instead we have embarked on an orgy of consumerism, privatisation, corporatisation and economic rationalism, never questioning the underlying assumption of infinite cheap energy.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the agricultural industry, where we seem to have forgotten that food is something that we need to eat in order to survive, rather than merely an export 'trade' commodity. Few seem to realize how much of an impact rising oil prices will have on industrial agriculture, which relies on cheap oil not only for planting, harvesting and transport (the average item on our table travels a couple of thousand kilometres), but also fertilisers and pesticides.

Had we heeded the warnings we would have started the decades long process of preparing for declining oil production by developing genuine public transport infrastructure rather than freeways, localising food production instead of industrialising it and encouraging individuals to become more self-reliant with renewable energy instead of privatising and pork-barreling the energy sector. In the process the public might have been educated about the problem rather marching like lemmings towards the cliff. Truck drivers, for example, might have gradually been re-employed in rail transport instead of blockading highways when fuel prices hit $1.40 per litre (imagine when it hits $5.00 per litre!).

The principal flaw in conventional economics is that its supply vs demand 'price mechanism' takes no account of energy efficiency. Free-market people like Stuart Lord and E Burrows have a pseudo-religious belief that if the demand is sufficiently high then 'the market' will somehow 'find' more oil reserves. Yet the largest oil reserves (or any other fuel for that matter) are completely useless if they consume more energy to tap, transport and refine than they yield. There is a point at which 'economic viability' becomes irrelevant. Even if the oil price hit, say, $200 per barrel, if it takes 1.5 barrels of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil then it's simply not viable in terms of energy. The laws of thermodynamics will ultimately trump the so-called 'laws' of economics.

I am a great admirer of John Ralston Saul. I agree with his 'collapse of globalism' argument. Where we differ, however, is that I see a sudden collapse in the global economy sparked by an oil/energy crisis and exacerbated by the bubble in currency/real-estate/everything-else speculation, whereas he (and you?) postulate a gradual re-emergence or nationalism, either positive or negative. His logic, however, is compelling. My favourite passage from The Collapse of Globalism, towards the end of the book, is:

"It is hard for any society that slips into a vacuum to admit that it is no longer advancing in any particular direction. This is particularly difficult for those individuals who hold power. Their vocabulary, their image of themselves, even their skills have all been honed to fit the certainty of a direction that no longer prevails.

"The sign of mediocre leaders is that they believe things will continue as they have. Why do they insist on believing this? Because they compensate for their lack of talent or ethical center or intelligence or courage with a conviction that the forces of inevitability are at work. These forces may be said to be divine or they may be something else treated as a divinity – rationality, for example, or technology or market forces.

"The danger in such a situation is that people begin seeking sensationalist ways out of the confusion … instead of trying to cope with the reality. The habitual tools of public sensationalism include false populism, war, encouraging divisions between civilizations, racism, calling God in as the ultimate consultant to justify your actions."

The words of the first two paragraphs rang in my ears as I watched John Howard's response – the ethanol panacea – to the petrol price 'debate' last week. His response to what will gradually become the greatest socio-economic problem faced by the country in a generation – pork barreling an unsustainable industry that occupies a few marginal electorates in north Queensland (not to mention its damage to the environment) and a company that makes major financial contributions to his political party. Politically brilliant but in substantive terms an absolute disaster. If you give any kudos to this ethanol drivel you need to consider the point I made above regarding energy efficiency. Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it yields. Otherwise, the cane growers and ethanol producers would use ethanol to power their trucks, harvesters and machinery. David Pimental from Cornell University, who chaired a US Department of Energy panel that investigated ethanol production a few years ago referred to ethanol production from corn as 'unsustainable, subsidized food burning'.

The sentiment of the third paragraph gives rise in part to my earlier reference to "war, starvation, disease and general socio-economic collapse", particularly the war bit. George W Bush and his 'mate' John W Howard seem only too well acquainted with John Ralston Saul’s "habitual tools of public sensationalism". In relation to the other bits the reality that, without an abundant supply of cheap oil the earth can only sustain a population of about 2.5 billion.

My comment about permaculture may have been a little glib. To an extent I agree with you about thugs and their 'organized depredations', but I would make a couple of further points. Permaculture and most other post-Peak Oil proscriptions are hardly isolationist; on the contrary most see the re-establishment of community life as crucial. You would also concede that in the feudal era 'organized depredation' was possible primarily because the 'thugs' owned all of the land and their victims were prevented from doing so, whereas private land ownership is central to today's society. Finally, for some of the reasons described above, I feel that many of today's power-brokers will go under in the coming collapse while those preparing themselves and their communities for declining oil production will be much better placed to look after themselves.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

E Burrows, the US economy has been in structural deficit since 1979, and budget deficit most of that time. The Euro is up 20% against the dollar. Being sold down from the point where it was 30% up doesn't mean the markets have faith in the dollar. You presumably would be in the camp that rejoices every time the oil price falls a dollar or two, and tell us with glee that the oil price is down and we can stop worrying.

Michael ES, well of course I could have edited my January predictions to make it look better - that's what the average business page journalist would have done. Self-evidently it cannot be that no-one was predicting the dollar falling that much, since I did: but I was only following on from a number of US commentators who were predicting a fall in the value of the dollar by 50% or more if the Asian support were to be withdrawn. Check out various columns at the useful Project Syndicate site, particularly Robert Shiller and J Bradford DeLong - also a good place to find Jeffry Sachs and Joe Stiglitz' articles before the AFR deigns to print them.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David, this was broadcast on Radio Free Europe in 2000 and this was reported in the Guardian in February 2003.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

I have searched and searched for a commentary I read in one of our broadsheets (perhaps Washington Post or NY Times), regarding the intention of the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein to shift from US dollars to Euros for benchmark pricing of oil. The consequences of this for the US were so catastrophic that war was inevitable to prevent the US economy drom imploding. Did any Webdiarists read same or have any information on that thread?

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

G'Day. See Why We Should Care About Oil Prices by Sebastian Mallaby in The Washington Post:

When people talk about oil shocks, they worry mainly about consumers. Television serves up pictures of Mr. Frazzled Householder filling up his SUV; the slumped shoulders supposedly foretell a slump in the economy. Of course, this image has its place: One of the questions posed by costly oil is whether U.S. households, whose saving rate turned negative in July, might suddenly panic and set money aside, slowing growth alarmingly. But the scariest thing about expensive oil is not that it is going to shock people into saving. It's actually the opposite...

This is the real danger in the oil shock. The longer energy prices stay high, the greater will be the temptation to continue reckless borrowing. The oil shock creates an incentive to borrow -- suddenly we can't afford what we could afford before -- and it simultaneously creates a chance to borrow at beguilingly cheap interest rates. Yet the longer Americans carry on borrowing, the more they build their lives on foundations that can't last. Easy money has fueled a housing boom that's allowed families to grow richer even while saving pretty much nothing. But if house prices fall or even level off, families' sense of financial security will crumble. The scramble to save might set off a recession.

In a rational world, the nation's leaders would be on to this. The Fed is doing its part: Alan Greenspan has warned that house prices may be headed for a fall, and last week the Fed yet again raised short-term interest rates. But the Bush administration and Congress seem determined to make the oil shock worse than it need be. By embarking on a post-hurricane spending splurge, they are piling debt upon debt. They should pause a moment to recall the lesson of the 1970s.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David R, duh! You get things dead wrong then you advise people to follow the path that lead you to making those mistakes. What sort of logic is that?

Jeffry Sachs may have some insights but, due to his political prejudices, he is wrong more often than not. Forget Joe Stiglitz. He's a dead head.
If you actually want to learn something about what is going on in the world, start monitoring the wisdom of the many, not the ignorance of the few. Monitor the markets and how they express the collective wisdom.
So, check out NYMEX, HedgeStreet and Intrade.

Then you'll start learning something, your analysis will improve - and perhaps you'll even begin to make some accurate predictions.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Stuart McCarthy, I'd like you to retract your baseless claim re 'my', "belief that the inevitable, imminent discovery and production of vast quantities of abiotic oil will soon save us from our own folly," since it has no basis whatsoever in anything I wrote. In fact, I argued the contrary - that we could not expect permanantly high/rising oil costs to save us from our folly re greenhouse warming. I said nothing about "inevitable, imminent" discoveries, nor claimed that oil prices would drop. I merely argued that the 'Peak Oil' scenario was flawed.

Retraction, please?

Once I get a chance to study the work you recommend re Gold's hypothesis, I'll get back to you on that, but I'd be surprised if these counter-arguments were convincing. The full scale of Gold's evidence - detailed in his book - is extremely convincing... and much more so than the conventional account which, as I stated earlier, is highly implausible in chemical terms.

And, I'd have to say that you need to look at Fischer more carefully. "Exhaustion of natural resources" was a key part of all the crises he examined... albeit it was forests/firewood rather than oil on the energy front. Most of the rest of your argument I agree with (albeit with the 'Peak Oil' scenario replaced by more expensive oil, but not on the scale you envisage). This makes your unfounded attack in the first paragraph rather puzzling.

Oh, and feudalism was largely based upon land seizure/redistribution. Existing long-term land holdings - if small - stood no chance of remaining independent unless totally isolated. And... history is very clear as to what happens when far too many people struggle for too few resources. The only communities which win are those composed of predators and their ideological mates. In the situation you envisage, I wouldn't hold out much hope for any key aspect of "current society" that got in their way...

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David Roffey wrote "E Burrows, the US economy has been in structural deficit since 1979, and budget deficit most of that time."

My point is not that the US is a model of fiscal angelichood - merely that the Europeans have performed, and are still performing, even worse!

There is ample room to critisize the US's policies, but the "Euro is gonna replace the Greenback" argument just doesn't seem to stack up.

"The Euro is up 20% against the dollar. Being sold down from the point where it was 30% up doesn't mean the markets have faith in the dollar."

The Euro is up 20% against the dollar? Since when? Over what time-frame are you referring to?

This is a graph of the Euro versus the $US over the last 12 months. As you can see, far from rising the Euro has in fact slid 12% against the Greenback since the beginning of 2005. In fact, barring a week or so in early July, 2005 the Euro is at its lowest point for over a year...

So I find you your "20% up" claim rather mystifying...

But wait - I now see that you earlier wrote "...the Euro at $1.20 is still way over it's intended value of $1, it will only get to $2 this year if the US economy tanks fast."

Well, that explains it. You are under the impression that Euro=US$1.00 (ie. parity) is the "intended value". Why do you think this?

When the Euro was introduced in 1999, it's value was US$1.18 not US$1.00!

Thus, the Euro's value today is only a measly 2% higher than it was 6 years ago (and that's after major fluctuations). That's hardly earth-shattering, David...

DR: "You presumably would be in the camp that rejoices every time the oil price falls a dollar or two, and tell us with glee that the oil price is down and we can stop worrying."

Sorry to dispel that presumption, but I actually don't pay much attention to the day-to-day fluctuations in the oil-price, let alone react "gleefully".

Though yes, it is fair to say that I am not particularly worried about it.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Jay White have you heard about the NRMA's new Petrol Watch web site?

It's showing the average price in Sydney today as 126.5 cents per litre.

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

The petrol price was 1.22 today folks down from around 1.30 last week. Dont give up just yet.

I must be the only one left with hope?

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

Bill Buckler of the Privateer newsletter (subscription required):

"The U.S. new orders index fell from 69.6 to 46.5. The US. production index dropped from 70.5 to 56.2. The measure of prices paid by manufacturers for materials rose from 61.3 to 62.9. The employment index dropped from 56.1 to 51.7. The Chicago purchasing managers business barometer fell to 49.2 from 63.5. U.S. median household income stood at $U.S. 44,389, unchanged from 2003. These are the economic numbers of an economy stripping all its gears."

re: Rita, Katrina, Oil and the Economy

David Messiter Oh, you mean the shift of the petro Dollar to the petro Euro?

As I remember, even Paul Krugerman, the resident 'progressive' economist at one of the worlds most 'progressive' papers, the New York Times, said that the collapse of the economy over the petrodollar was a myth. And he makes economic sense in his argument, at least in my eyes, which is an interesting experience. The article is here - link here. And since the Coalition is giving both control of the oil and the wealth it generates to the Iraqi's, it kinda doesn't make sense, does it, that the whole thing was over money or oil? Wars, especially high tech wars, will always cost more than any net benefits. Especially with a reconstruction effort involved. Keep that in mind.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner