Another example, according to Dawson: the free market and oil. The mantra is, it's best to let the market determine the price of oil. Economist Dawson is doubtful, because oil price swings create economic havoc.
Consider the predicament airline, delivery, and related executives who manage businesses that have a major fuel cost face: you know that this year the price of oil is going to be somewhere between . . . $30 and $110. "Now that clarifies things," Dawson laughs. "Piece of cake."
Also, consider what oil industry executives face: try making and managing a 5-year or 10-year exploration budget. What's the price of oil going to be in three years? $20? $50? $75? $150? "Nobody knows, and it's creating havoc in exploration circles," Dawson said.
Oil Friday at mid-day traded down $2.05 to $39.65 per barrel. Oil has fallen an astounding $100-plus since hitting a record high of $147.27 in the summer of 2008. In current dollars, oil has cycled between $20 and $100 per barrel three times since 1973.
Dawson says market absolutists have asserted that 'the free market' has been the most effective mechanism for price discovery and product delivery in oil, but the reality is far from that. In fact, he says, the market has created wild, unpredictable boom-and-bust cycles that have disrupted -- and in some cases ruined -- exploration operations, and economic growth in the United States. And, of course, this year 'the free market' created a leverage-assisted bubble that pushed oil to ridiculous levels -- $147 per barrel -- and helped choke-off the U.S. economy, before the price of oil collapsed when the bubble burst this fall.
"Under the free market, we've let the world's economies, include the United States economy, be vulnerable to wide, volatile, arbitrary swings in the price of its most important commodity, oil. It's pretty absurd, when you think about it," Dawson said. "It's no way to plan, and it's hard to believe we'd let a $14 trillion economy be subject to such a volatile, unpredictable variable."
Smoothing out oil's ups and downs
Dawson argues he has a better way: an oil price shock absorber.
Here's how it would work: the federal government sets an optimal level for the price of oil, for example $50-70.
When the market price rises above $70, the government, on a graduated basis, starts paying subsidies to consumers and starts taxing oil producers to both cushion the effect, or 'shock' on consumers and redirect windfall profits from oil companies to societal goals.
Conversely, when the market price falls below $50, the government, on a graduated basis, pays a subsidy to oil producers, to support their income, and raises taxes on oil at the consumer level (gasoline, diesel, heating oil, etc.) to maintain and encourage conservation.
The benefits? Oil producers receives a set price for their product, and can formulate long-term research and exploration budgets with confidence -- without fearing a sudden oil price collapse like the one that occurred this year. Consumers are also protected from gasoline shocks if oil rises above $70, and society maintains conservation levels by ensuring that gasoline prices do not drop to very low levels.
Economic Analysis: Like economist Dawson, the view from here argues that the U.S. economy would be better off with an oil price shock absorber at $50-70.
One could argue that a free market price for oil leads to the best outcomes, if you believe executives and consumers can effectively plan for oil between $30 and $110 per barrel.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-09-2009 @ 5:34PM
Ray said...
This would be a nightmare. Government is not the answer to anything accept maybe Hamas.
Great post though!
http://crudeoiltrader.blogspot.com
1-09-2009 @ 6:12PM
Jack said...
Great idea actually, I have been mulling similar thoughts for several years. Since many of the US marginal developments (tar sands and deep and/or offshore reserves) require long term planning and investment. The only way to accomplish the national security and environmental alternatives is to ensure oil is just expensive enough to spur development and at the same time drive greener alternatives. We have to have more US oil and gas, we need to limit imports of oil and exports of capital and we need to develop real transportation and heating alternatives. I see the current major exporters hating this idea, I see long term US real benefits to secure pricing. Similar programs have worked well for agriculture (corn, wheat, sugar) and in the past when we had import tariffs to protect US labor (which is another idea that should be brought back to stimulate the economy, with higher corporate taxes to stimulate capital investment in US manufactureing)
1-09-2009 @ 6:41PM
u have too be kidding said...
if i remember correctly "big oil" still made money when oil was trading between $20-40 bl. I dont remember mobil, sunoco exxon declaring bankruptcy. they just make obscene money when it trades above that. this idea does not promote conservation or the continued expansion of non oil energy concepts. it just keeps the oil co's making a steady profit and smooths out the govt' revenue. if and when oil goes back to 100 we will then resume the demand for opening up drilling areas and as any free market does figure out cheaper ways to provide energy
1-09-2009 @ 6:45PM
Carl M. Welch said...
Government intervention is not the answer. When did government ever "discover" the right price for any commodity? Much lower volatility could be obtained by allowing only accredited players into the futures markets. Only actual producers and first consumers would be allowed to play. The non-industry speculators could return to the casinos where they belong.
1-09-2009 @ 9:12PM
AndyB said...
Consumers and producers can already control their prices going forward by hedging in the futures markets. Why would the government be any better at choosing the "appropriate" price of oil than the hundreds of market participants in the global oil markets?