When LewRockwell.com published my article, The Coming Collapse of Oil Prices back in May, crude oil was selling for roughly $135 per barrel. Almost every oil pundit was then predicting that prices would soar even higher. I strongly suggested, however, that prices would likely fall sharply, probably into the $80 dollar range. Well, since then the price of crude oil has declined sharply and (absent some new Mid-east war) they are likely headed even lower in the weeks and months ahead.
My thesis about the near-term direction of oil prices was that declining world demand (due to near recessions in several national economies) and generous profits associated with oil production would inevitably lead to sharply falling prices. The long 150-year history of oil prices is that short-run increases in price are (almost) ALWAYS followed by just as dramatic reductions in price. This scenario has played out in the late 19th century, during and after World War 1, World War 2, and most dramatically after the price hikes of late 1970s and early 1990s. Oil prices first increase sharply, then the tumble.
The only apparent exception to this almost Iron Law of Oil Prices is the period 19331941, when real oil prices (adjusted for inflation) increased sharply and stayed uncharacteristically stable for years. Yet the proximate cause of that period of sustained high prices was government regulation, not the free market. During the Great Depression, several oil producing states (led by Texas) placed quotas on oil production (pro-rationing) and the federal government cooperated by initiating tariffs and quotas on imported foreign oil. In short, government regulation subverted normal market forces and politically savvy producers benefited artificially at the expense of consumers. Thus, this episode became the exception that proves the rule.
Current oil market pundits, of course, were convinced that this time around the oil barrel, things would be very different. We were told repeatedly that the world was running out of oil; that oil production had peaked and future supplies must fall; that we were hopelessly addicted to oil (our President and both presidential candidates asserted this); that higher prices would not curb consumption substantially; and that the oil industry was not competitive anyway and would simply not allow prices and profits to fall...ever. All of this, of course, was (and is) dangerous nonsense, belied over and over again by economic theory and the facts of history. Yet these notions have now become conventional wisdom and policy makers employ them in order to subsidize and regulate energy markets regardless of common sense or cost.
I experienced some of this nonsense first-hand shortly after my op/ed appeared. Ive written hundreds of op/eds over the years but few sparked more of an email assault than that one. Letters came from here in the U.S. and abroad, from businessmen, teachers, financial analysts, and even from local legislators, instructing me that I was either an idiot, a shill for the oil industry, or likely both. I was told on the best authority that oil prices were going straight to $200 per barrel, and then even higher, and that any talk of lower prices was, well, idiotic. Yet when I challenged one alleged oil expert to a Julian Simon-style wager that oil prices would be lower (in real terms) ten years from now, he never replied. My guess is that he is currently risking his clients money, not his own, on the near-term prospect of $250 oil. Good luck.
Could currently falling oil prices increase again? Of course. And one of the new reasons, ironically, might be that the alternative energy crowd now requires higher and stable oil prices in order to make energy alternatives economically viable. So Ill be interested to see whether Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (or even Sen. Obama and John McCain) might be willing to support a government floor on crude oil prices in order to promote the development of solar and wind energy. Stay tuned.
This originally appeared in the Vero Beach Press Journal.
|Dominick T. Armentano is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford (Connecticut), and author of Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure.|
Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com
ANTITRUST AND MONOPOLY: Anatomy of a Policy Failure
Is antitrust law a necessary defense against the predatory business practices of wealthy, entrenched corporations that dominate a market? Or does antitrust law actually work to restrain and restrict the competitive process, injuring the public it is supposed to protect? In this breakthrough study, Professor Armentano thoroughly researches the classic cases in antitrust law and demonstrates a surprising gap between the stated aims of antitrust law and what it actually accomplishes in the real world. Instead of protecting competition, Professor Armentano finds, antitrust law actually protects certain politically-favored competitors. This is an essential work for anyone wishing to understand the limitations and problems of contemporary antitrust actions.