Page added on September 24, 2012
For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world’s economies.
The countries guzzling the most oil are taking the biggest hits to potential economic growth. That’s sobering news for the U.S., which consumes almost a fifth of the oil used in the world every day. Not long ago, when oil was $20 a barrel, the U.S. was the locomotive of global economic growth; the federal government was running budget surpluses; the jobless rate at the beginning of the last decade was at a 40-year low. Now, growth is stalled, the deficit is more than $1 trillion and almost 13 million Americans are unemployed.
And the U.S. isn’t the only country getting squeezed. From Europe to Japan, governments are struggling to restore growth. But the economic remedies being used are doing more harm than good, based as they are on a fundamental belief that economic growth can return to its former strength. Central bankers and policy makers have failed to fully recognize the suffocating impact of $100-a-barrel oil.
Running huge budget deficits and keeping borrowing costs at record lows are only compounding current problems. These policies cannot be long-term substitutes for cheap oil because an economy can’t grow if it can no longer afford to burn the fuel on which it runs. The end of growth means governments will need to radically change how economies are managed. Fiscal and monetary policies need to be recalibrated to account for slower potential growth rates.
Oil provides more than a third of the energy we use on the planet every day, more than any other energy source. And you can draw a straight line between oil consumption and gross-domestic- product growth. The more oil we burn, the faster the global economy grows. On average over the last four decades, a 1 percent bump in world oil consumption has led to a 2 percent increase in global GDP. That means if GDP increased 4 percent a year — as it often did before the 2008 recession — oil consumption was increasing by 2 percent a year.
At $20 a barrel, increasing annual oil consumption by 2 percent seems reasonable enough. At $100 a barrel, it becomes easier to see how a 2 percent increase in fuel consumption is enough to make an economy collapse.
Fortunately, the reverse is also true. When our economies stop growing, less oil is needed. For example, after the big decline in 2008, global oil demand actually fell for the first time since 1983. That’s why the best cure for high oil prices is high oil prices. When prices rise to a level that causes an economic crash, lower prices inevitably follow. Over the last four decades, each time oil prices have spiked, the global economy has entered a recession.
Consider the first oil shock, after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ Arab members turned off the taps on roughly 8 percent of the world’s oil supply by cutting shipments to the U.S. and other Israeli allies. Crude prices spiked, and by 1974, real GDP in the U.S. had shrunk by 2.5 percent.
The second OPEC oil shock happened during Iran’s revolution and the subsequent war with Iraq. Disruptions to Iranian production during the revolution sent crude prices higher, pushing the North American economy into a recession for the first half of 1980. A few months later, Iran’s war with Iraq shut off 6 percent of world oil production, sending North America into a double-dip recession that began in the spring of 1981.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait a decade later, oil prices doubled to $40 a barrel, an unheard-of level at the time. The first Gulf War disrupted almost 10 percent of the world’s oil supply, sending major oil-consuming countries into a recession in the fall of 1990.
Guess what oil prices were doing in 2008, when the world fell into the deepest recession since the 1930s? From trading around $30 a barrel in 2004, oil prices marched steadily higher before hitting a peak of $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008. Unlike past oil price shocks, this time there wasn’t even a supply disruption to blame. The spigot was wide open. The problem was, we could no longer afford to buy what was flowing through it.
There are many ways an oil shock can hurt an economy. When prices spike, most of us have little choice but to open our wallets. Paying more for oil means we have less cash to spend on food, shelter, furniture, clothes, travel and pretty much anything else. Expensive oil, coupled with the average American’s refusal to drive less, leaves a lot less money for the rest of the economy.
Worse, when oil prices go up, so does inflation. And when inflation goes up, central banks respond by raising interest rates to keep prices in check. From 2004 to 2006, U.S. energy inflation ran at 35 percent, according to the Consumer Price Index. In turn, overall inflation, as measured by the CPI, accelerated from 1 percent to almost 6 percent. What happened next was a fivefold bump in interest rates that devastated the massively leveraged U.S. housing market. Higher rates popped the speculative housing bubble, which brought down the global economy.
Unfortunately, this pattern of oil-driven inflation is with us again. And world food prices are being affected. According to the food-price index tracked by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the cost of food rose almost 40 percent from 2009 to the beginning of 2012. And since 2002, the FAO’s food-price index, which measures a basket of five commodity groups (meat, dairy, cereals, oils and fats, and sugar), is up about 150 percent.
A double whammy of rising oil and food prices means inflation will be here sooner than anyone would like to think.
Rising inflation rates in China and India are a clear signal that those economies are growing at an unsustainable pace. China has made GDP growth of more than 8 percent a priority but needs to recalibrate its thinking to recognize the damping effects of high oil prices. Growth might not stall entirely, but clocking double-digit gains is no longer feasible, at least without triggering a calamitous increase in inflation. If China and India, the new engines of global economic growth, are forced to adopt anti-inflationary monetary policies, the ripple effects for resource-based economies such as Canada, Australia and Brazil will be felt in a hurry.
Triple-digit oil prices will end the lofty economic hopes of India and China, which are looking to achieve the same sort of sustained growth that North America and Europe enjoyed in the postwar era. There is an unavoidable obstacle that puts such ambitions out of reach: Today’s oil isn’t flowing from the same places it did yesterday. More importantly, it’s not flowing at the same cost.
Conventional oil production, the easy-to-get-at stuff from the Middle East or west Texas, hasn’t increased in more than five years. And that’s with record crude prices giving explorers all the incentive in the world to drill. According to the International Energy Agency, conventional production has already peaked and is set to decline steadily over the next few decades.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be any more oil. New reserves are being found all the time in new places. What the decline in conventional production does mean, though, is that future economic growth will be fueled by expensive oil from nonconventional sources such as the tar sands, offshore wells in the deep waters of the world’s oceans and even oil shales, which come with environmental costs that range from carbon-dioxide emissions to potential groundwater contamination.
And even if new supplies are found, what matters to the economy is the cost of getting that supply flowing. It’s not enough for the global energy industry simply to find new caches of oil; the crude must be affordable. Triple-digit prices make it profitable to tap ever-more-expensive sources of oil, but the prices needed to pull this crude out of the ground will throw our economies right back into a recession.
The energy industry’s task is not simply to find oil, but also to find stuff we can afford to burn. And that’s where the industry is failing. Each new barrel we pull out of the ground is costing us more than the last. The resources may be there for the taking, but our economies are already telling us we can’t afford the cost.
Today, the world burns about 90 million barrels of oil a day. If our economies are no longer growing, maybe we won’t need any more than that. We might even need less. Maybe the oil trapped in the tar sands or under the Arctic Ocean can stay where nature put it.
11 Comments on "How High Oil Prices Will Permanently Cap Economic Growth"
Plantagenet on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 12:39 am
The cheap oil is all gone. Luckily,President Obama says we’ve still got a 100 year supply of cheap natural gas.
Cloud9 on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 1:30 am
Sad thing is everything I drive runs on gasoline.
BillT on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 1:55 am
Sad thing. Most everything I ride runs on gasoline, natural gas, electric, or pedal power. But, since I do not own a car and all of its attached expenses, my transportation is cheap even at $5 gas and $100 oil. My transport costs are less than $200 per month and that includes a round trip flight from Manila to Philly every year. Drop that out and I spend less than $200 per year on travel.
As for other prices rising, I just do with less or downgrade to a lessor substitute. An American can cut out 70% of his/her spending and still live a comfortable life. I know, I’m doing it.
Gale Whitaker on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 2:09 am
It makes a lot of sense to convert cars to natural gas but the oil companies will not allow any government policy that would pay for adding the infrastructure to support natural gas distribution because they are making so much money selling gasoline. The folks who run the oil companies could care less about the well being of Americans, they only care about short term profits.
Beery on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 2:55 am
Everything I drive runs on bread, eggs, chicken, pork, green veggies, tomatoes, onions, pasta, cheese and anything else I stuff into my mouth. I never got into the habit of buying fuel because I could see 30 years ago that motoring was a fool’s game. Cars cost thousands of dollars per year to maintain and run. My vehicle costs maybe $100/year in maintenance costs, and because my vehicle is the most efficient mode of transport ever devised, the fuel intake is no different than what I’d be eating if I was walking everywhere.
BillT on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 3:38 am
Gale, why convert? Just do without. That is what is coming anyway. Besides, it took decades and many billions of cheap oil dollars to build the current gasoline distribution system of 100,000+ stations. Who is going to pay to rebuild one for NG? Certainly not you or I. And if it is not profitable, it will not be built. The NG bubble is going to soon burst anyway and then it will be no cheaper or available than gasoline.
Solarity on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 3:48 am
‘The more oil burned, the faster the economy grew,’ to be truly correct (past tense). The generalized statement (hypothesis) is: energy consumption feeds economy growth.
The pundits and politicians in Washington believe money causes economic growth. We now have an increasing M2 money supply without a commersurate increase in crude production! The outcome is predictable: high-inflation.
DC on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 7:56 am
Is that a Bloomberg article, the same outfit that call Yergin an ‘energy expert’? I thought I was reading something from EB. Maybe it just a got a little cooler in hell..who knows?
But the part about interest rates is flat out wrong. He mentions interests rates are ‘bad’, but we now have basically a zero-rate policy for savers and a 20% interest rate for say, CC debt, and home loans, even if the rates are somewhat low, it hardly matters since the bubbles allready burst and low interest rates going in years now have done little to ‘help’. He shoulda touched on that, but I guess admitting even zero interest rates arent helping is going too far for Bloomberg…
Sharpie on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 2:41 pm
Slow growth. Accelerated growth. Makes no difference since economic growth in general will be our undoing.
Kenz300 on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 3:13 pm
The era of cheap oil is over. It is time to end the oil monopoly on transportation fuels and give people options at the pump. Bring on the electric, flex-fuel, hybrid, CNG, LNG and hydrogen fueled vehicles.
Every individual, city and country needs to develop a plan to deal with higher energy prices and reduced supplies.
The energy mix is changing. Long haul truckers are converting to CNG and LNG. WalMart, Staples, Waste Management, UPS, FedEx and others are converting their fleets to a mix of electric, flex-fuel, CNG and LNG vehicles. Some people and companies will lead the change others will follow.
` on Mon, 24th Sep 2012 6:03 pm
The era of cheap oil is a mantra. It doesnt mean anything at all. Oil is going up primarly because the buying power of the currency oil is measured in, the dollar, is going down.
If you measure oil in Oz of gold things are pretty much as they were.
The point is, there is enough oil, there always has been. The price of oil, when measured in dollars, will become infinite if the dollar becomes worthless, but the oild will still be there and always will be.
Its simple, if you want to protect yourself against an inflating dollar buy things with real value. Anything at all. Just dont save dollars.