from www.washingtonpost.com
Russia's Strike Shows The Power Of the Pipeline
By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, August 13, 2008; D01
It was surely not lost on Russia's bully in chief, Vladimir Putin, that the oil giant BP decided to shut down the pipeline that runs through parts of Georgia controlled by Russian troops. Indeed, that was one of the aims of the cross-border incursion.
Putin understands better than anyone that oil and gas are the source of Russia's resurgence as a military and economic power and his own control over the Russian government and key sectors of its economy. It is oil and gas that provide the money to maintain Russia's powerful military, along with a vast internal security apparatus and network of government-controlled enterprises that allow the president-turned-premier to maintain his iron grip on the levers of political and economic power.
A little pipeline history: It was just as Putin was coming to power in 1999 that an agreement was reached to create the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline. The project would allow Azerbaijan and its production partner, BP, to bypass Russia and transport their newly drilled oil instead through Georgia and Turkey to a port in the eastern Mediterranean.
Because of its control of the only pipeline system linking former Soviet republics with the West, Russia had been able to extract most of the profit from any oil and gas that these newly independent countries could produce. But with BTC, which had the active support of the U.S. and European governments, Russia would lose its monopoly chokehold, opening the way for Western oil companies to make multibillion-dollar investments in the energy-rich Caucasus states.
No sooner was BTC completed, however, than Western officials began exploring the possibility of other pipelines that could reach beyond Georgia and Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan, which was thought to have some of the world's largest gas reserves. Their interest was not only in "energy security" and the prospect of oil riches for Western energy companies, but also in promoting Western-style democracy and free-market capitalism in the former Soviet republics.
In time, much of their efforts focused on a $12 billion project known as Nabucco, named after the Verdi opera, that would take gas across the Caspian sea, through Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, finally reaching a terminal near Vienna. With Europe already dependent on Russia for a quarter of its natural gas, and that number set to rise with construction of a new northern pipeline running under the Baltic Sea to Germany, European leaders were keen to find alternative sources of natural gas. The effort took on greater urgency in winter 2006 after Russia briefly cut off supplies in its gas-pricing dispute with Ukraine.
Nabucco also became a top priority of the Bush State Department -- in particular, of Matt Bryza, a deputy assistant secretary of state, and C. Boyden Gray, a Bush family confidante who was named a special envoy for Eurasian energy, who began actively courting the leaders of Azerbaijan.
Putin, quite correctly, viewed Nabucco as part of a larger campaign by Washington to contain and isolate Russia and limit the expansion of its burgeoning energy empire. With Gazprom, the state gas monopoly, Putin launched his own competing proposal called South Stream to build a new pipeline to the Caucasus.
Suddenly the Russians were offering to pay Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan multiples of what they had previously offered to secure long-term supply deals. They penned an agreement with Italy and its oil company, Eni, to build a pipeline that would run under the Black Sea from Russia to Europe and end up at the same Austrian terminal as Nabucco. And Russian officials offered highly favorable transit agreements, ownership shares and guaranteed gas supplies to secure transit agreements from Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary.
To industry observers like Ed Chow, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Nabucco has always looked more like a diplomats' pipe dream than a viable economic project. Its promoters had not only failed to secure supply and transit agreements but also had yet to identify an oil company eager to champion the project and finance the pipeline. Now, with its successful military incursion, Russia has raised serious doubts in the minds of Western lenders and investors that a new pipeline through Georgia would be safe from attack or beyond control of the Kremlin.
What we've been reminded once again is that Vladimir Putin is perfectly willing to sacrifice the rule of law and the good opinion of others to protect the Russian empire and the energy monopoly that sustains it. The techniques he used to bring Georgia to heel, while more lethal and destructive, have the same thuggish quality as the techniques Putin uses to silence domestic opposition and to expropriate the energy assets of Yukos, Shell and BP.
For the United States and Europe, this ought to be sufficient warning about the folly of extending membership in NATO or the European Union to every one of Russia's neighbors, particularly when they are unwilling to back it up with military action.
But it also is a reminder of the futility of trying to co-opt Putin by offering him a seat at the G-7, membership in the World Trade Organization or the honor of hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics. We may not be willing to send troops to Tbilisi, but at the least we should be willing to deny Russian companies the right to raise capital on Western stock exchanges, extend their pipelines into Western markets or use their energy profits to buy up major Western companies.
Vladimir Putin thinks he has looked into the soul of the West and discovered that we need him more than he needs us. It's time to convince him otherwise.
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
not the first and not the last of the upcoming Age of Energy Wars. Unless we heed Gore and become a non-carbon based economy. I am not holding my breath.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Stone age and the Shortage of Stones.
July 18, 2008
Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts.
“The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,” Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. “The future of human civilization is at stake.”
Mr. Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal. He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.
“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Mr. Gore said in his remarks at the conference. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”
Although Mr. Gore has made global warming and energy conservation his signature issues, winning a Nobel Prize for his efforts, his speech on Thursday argued that the reasons for renouncing fossil fuels go far beyond concern for the climate.
In it, he cited military-intelligence studies warning of “dangerous national security implications” tied to climate change, including the possibility of “hundreds of millions of climate refugees” causing instability around the world, and said the United States is dangerously vulnerable because of its reliance on foreign oil.
Doubtless aware that his remarks would be met with skepticism, or even ridicule, in some quarters, Mr. Gore insisted in his speech that the goal of carbon-free power is not only achievable but practical, and that businesses would embrace it once they saw that it made fundamental economic sense.
Mr. Gore said the most important policy change in the transformation would be taxes on carbon dioxide production, with an accompanying reduction in payroll taxes. “We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.
The former vice president said in his speech that he could not recall a worse confluence of problems facing the country: higher gasoline prices, jobs being “outsourced,” the home mortgage industry in turmoil. “Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse,” he said.
By calling for new political leadership and speaking disdainfully of “defenders of the status quo,” Mr. Gore was hurling a dart at the man who defeated him for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush. Critics of Mr. Bush say that his policies are too often colored by his background in the oil business.
A crucial shortcoming in the country’s political leadership is a failure to view interlocking problems as basically one problem that is “deeply ironic in its simplicity,” Mr. Gore said, namely “our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels.” “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,” Mr. Gore said. “Every bit of that’s got to change.”
And it can change, he said, citing some scientists’ estimates that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth in 40 minutes to meet the world’s energy needs for a year, and that the winds that blow across the Midwest every day could meet the country’s daily electricity needs.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, immediately praised Mr. Gore’s speech. “For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat,” Mr. Obama said.
A shift away from fossil fuels would make the United States a leader instead of a sometime rebel on energy and conservation issues worldwide, Mr. Gore said. Nor, he said, would the hard work of people who toil on oil rigs and deep in the earth be for naught. “We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry,” he said by way of example. “Every single one of them.”
“Of course, there are those who will tell us that this can’t be done,” he conceded. “But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, ‘The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.’ ”
This is a gutsy speech. Trillions of dollars are at stake here. There are carbon based energy sources that are becoming viable as energy prices rise: in tar sands, shale etc. Gore is calling for a complete transformation in 10 years. The size and the scope of his call is absolutely TRANSFORMATIVE and breathtaking. I for one am sceptical. Can you truly within 10 years replace all carbon sources???? Show me the actual plan of how this can be done. If it can - HOLY COW - where do I sign up. Its an absolute no brainer.
Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts.
“The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,” Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. “The future of human civilization is at stake.”
Mr. Gore called for the kind of concerted national effort that enabled Americans to walk on the moon 39 years ago this month, just eight years after President John F. Kennedy famously embraced that goal. He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.
“This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative,” Mr. Gore said in his remarks at the conference. “It represents a challenge to all Americans, in every walk of life — to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”
Although Mr. Gore has made global warming and energy conservation his signature issues, winning a Nobel Prize for his efforts, his speech on Thursday argued that the reasons for renouncing fossil fuels go far beyond concern for the climate.
In it, he cited military-intelligence studies warning of “dangerous national security implications” tied to climate change, including the possibility of “hundreds of millions of climate refugees” causing instability around the world, and said the United States is dangerously vulnerable because of its reliance on foreign oil.
Doubtless aware that his remarks would be met with skepticism, or even ridicule, in some quarters, Mr. Gore insisted in his speech that the goal of carbon-free power is not only achievable but practical, and that businesses would embrace it once they saw that it made fundamental economic sense.
Mr. Gore said the most important policy change in the transformation would be taxes on carbon dioxide production, with an accompanying reduction in payroll taxes. “We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.
The former vice president said in his speech that he could not recall a worse confluence of problems facing the country: higher gasoline prices, jobs being “outsourced,” the home mortgage industry in turmoil. “Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse,” he said.
By calling for new political leadership and speaking disdainfully of “defenders of the status quo,” Mr. Gore was hurling a dart at the man who defeated him for the presidency in 2000, George W. Bush. Critics of Mr. Bush say that his policies are too often colored by his background in the oil business.
A crucial shortcoming in the country’s political leadership is a failure to view interlocking problems as basically one problem that is “deeply ironic in its simplicity,” Mr. Gore said, namely “our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels.” “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,” Mr. Gore said. “Every bit of that’s got to change.”
And it can change, he said, citing some scientists’ estimates that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth in 40 minutes to meet the world’s energy needs for a year, and that the winds that blow across the Midwest every day could meet the country’s daily electricity needs.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, immediately praised Mr. Gore’s speech. “For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat,” Mr. Obama said.
A shift away from fossil fuels would make the United States a leader instead of a sometime rebel on energy and conservation issues worldwide, Mr. Gore said. Nor, he said, would the hard work of people who toil on oil rigs and deep in the earth be for naught. “We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry,” he said by way of example. “Every single one of them.”
“Of course, there are those who will tell us that this can’t be done,” he conceded. “But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, ‘The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.’ ”
This is a gutsy speech. Trillions of dollars are at stake here. There are carbon based energy sources that are becoming viable as energy prices rise: in tar sands, shale etc. Gore is calling for a complete transformation in 10 years. The size and the scope of his call is absolutely TRANSFORMATIVE and breathtaking. I for one am sceptical. Can you truly within 10 years replace all carbon sources???? Show me the actual plan of how this can be done. If it can - HOLY COW - where do I sign up. Its an absolute no brainer.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Uranium Baby!
Uranium Soon Fetches $90 as India Reactors Drive Global Demand
By Yuriy Humber
June 23 (Bloomberg) -- The uranium industry's worst year is about to collide with a nuclear construction program in India and China that rivals the ones undertaken during the oil crisis of the 1970s.
The result is likely to be a 58 percent rebound in uranium to $90 a pound from $57 now, according to Goldman Sachs JBWere Pty and Rio Tinto Group, the third-biggest mining company. Uranium plunged 57 percent in the past year as an earthquake damaged a Japanese nuclear plant that's the world's largest and faults shut down reactors in the U.K. and Germany.
Plans for India and China to end electricity shortages will ripple from northwest Canada to the Australian outback and the flatlands of Kazakhstan, the primary sources of uranium. India will start up three reactors this year, with another six due in 2009, in India, China, Russia, Canada and Japan. Uranium demand worldwide will rise as fast as oil this year, or 0.8 percent, Deutsche Bank AG forecasts.
``The first wave of growth is going to come from the emerging economies,'' said John Wong, fund manager with CQS UK LLP in London, which has $10 billion under management including $150 million of uranium investments. ``People are starting to look at coal, at gas, at oil and seeing the energy prices go up, they wonder about uranium.''
The yearlong decline in uranium contrasts with record prices for oil and coal as Asian energy demand expands and concern mounts that emissions will cause global warming to worsen. The world needs to build 32 new nuclear plants each year as part of measures to cut emissions in half by 2050, the Paris-based International Energy Agency says.
2007's Drop
Because malfunctions shut reactors in Japan, the U.K. and Germany, nuclear power production and uranium use dropped 2 percent in 2007, only the third time consumption has fallen since the 1970s, according to data compiled by BP Plc, Europe's second-largest oil company by market value. Prices are so low that some uranium mines are close to being unprofitable, says Merrill Lynch & Co., the third- largest U.S. securities firm.
``If you look at what is necessary to sustain increased production, to make the kind of projects that everyone is talking about fly, prices better not get much lower or those projects are going to fall over,'' says Preston Chiaro, chief executive of Rio Tinto's energy unit. ``I don't think that spot price is indicative of what prices will look like through the course of the year.''
Iran's Reactor
In India, Nuclear Power Corp.'s 220-megawatt Kaiga plant in the southern province of Karnatka and another at Rawatbhata in the northern state of Rajasthan are due to come on line this year. China started two units in 2007 and will bring on three more through 2011, says the World Nuclear Association. Iran plans to begin generation this year at its 950-megawatt Bushehr reactor, which is at the center of the nation's conflict with the West.
``China is just on the verge of a second rapid phase of expansion,'' says Ian Hore-Lacy, director of public communications for the WNA in London. ``Each year China seems to raise their sights further.''
To be sure, safety concerns remain the biggest risk to nuclear construction and uranium's revival. Proposed reactors were canceled in the 1970s because of environmental protests, while accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986 further eroded support. In Japan, new projects face delays as utilities improve earthquake resistance to restore confidence after the closure of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki Kariwa and revelations that companies falsified safety records.
Safety Risks
``It is worth remembering that this is an industry that can be brought to its knees overnight by one major mishap or one well-executed terrorist action,'' Paul Hannon, an analyst at London-based commodities research company VM Group in London, wrote in a report this month.
Uranium demand was 66,500 metric tons last year, according to data from Denver-based consultant TradeTech LLP. Consumption may jump 55 percent to 102,000 tons by 2020, forecasts Macquarie Group Ltd., Australia's biggest securities firm.
Uranium use now is 69 percent greater than the 39,429 tons that was mined in 2006, the most recent data from the WNA show. The balance comes from inventories and decommissioned weapons. A Russian accord to export fuel recovered from warheads to the U.S. expiries in 2013.
Nuclear Converts
``Secondary supplies are finite and rapidly being depleted,'' Deutsche Bank analysts led by Michael Lewis said in a June 20 report. ``Continual supply issues and the likelihood of increased demand from utilities should drive the spot price higher during the third quarter of this year.''
Demand is set to increase as existing reactors are brought back on line, while nuclear energy gains converts.
South Africa, which is struggling to meet electricity demand, plans to award a contract for construction of a 120 billion-rand ($15 billion) nuclear plant. In the U.K., the Labour government wants more atomic capacity to reduce its emissions.
U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain said last week he will push to almost double the number of nuclear reactors to lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, also backs nuclear power. There are 104 reactors operating in the U.S., though the last to come on line was in 1990, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Production Costs
Prices will have to increase if uranium production is to meet the rising demand, said Kevin Smith, head of uranium trading at New York-based commodities brokerage Traxys.
Canada's Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium producer, reported it spent a total of about C$45 ($44) to produce a pound of uranium in the first quarter, compared with its average realized price of C$40.85 a pound. While Cameco, which also mines gold, still posted a profit for the quarter, lower uranium prices are a problem for other companies developing new mines, according to Smith.
``There are a lot of production projects that are feeling the pain,'' Smith says.
To contact the reporter on this story: Yuriy Humber in Moscow at yhumber@bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 22, 2008 19:01 EDT
By Yuriy Humber
June 23 (Bloomberg) -- The uranium industry's worst year is about to collide with a nuclear construction program in India and China that rivals the ones undertaken during the oil crisis of the 1970s.
The result is likely to be a 58 percent rebound in uranium to $90 a pound from $57 now, according to Goldman Sachs JBWere Pty and Rio Tinto Group, the third-biggest mining company. Uranium plunged 57 percent in the past year as an earthquake damaged a Japanese nuclear plant that's the world's largest and faults shut down reactors in the U.K. and Germany.
Plans for India and China to end electricity shortages will ripple from northwest Canada to the Australian outback and the flatlands of Kazakhstan, the primary sources of uranium. India will start up three reactors this year, with another six due in 2009, in India, China, Russia, Canada and Japan. Uranium demand worldwide will rise as fast as oil this year, or 0.8 percent, Deutsche Bank AG forecasts.
``The first wave of growth is going to come from the emerging economies,'' said John Wong, fund manager with CQS UK LLP in London, which has $10 billion under management including $150 million of uranium investments. ``People are starting to look at coal, at gas, at oil and seeing the energy prices go up, they wonder about uranium.''
The yearlong decline in uranium contrasts with record prices for oil and coal as Asian energy demand expands and concern mounts that emissions will cause global warming to worsen. The world needs to build 32 new nuclear plants each year as part of measures to cut emissions in half by 2050, the Paris-based International Energy Agency says.
2007's Drop
Because malfunctions shut reactors in Japan, the U.K. and Germany, nuclear power production and uranium use dropped 2 percent in 2007, only the third time consumption has fallen since the 1970s, according to data compiled by BP Plc, Europe's second-largest oil company by market value. Prices are so low that some uranium mines are close to being unprofitable, says Merrill Lynch & Co., the third- largest U.S. securities firm.
``If you look at what is necessary to sustain increased production, to make the kind of projects that everyone is talking about fly, prices better not get much lower or those projects are going to fall over,'' says Preston Chiaro, chief executive of Rio Tinto's energy unit. ``I don't think that spot price is indicative of what prices will look like through the course of the year.''
Iran's Reactor
In India, Nuclear Power Corp.'s 220-megawatt Kaiga plant in the southern province of Karnatka and another at Rawatbhata in the northern state of Rajasthan are due to come on line this year. China started two units in 2007 and will bring on three more through 2011, says the World Nuclear Association. Iran plans to begin generation this year at its 950-megawatt Bushehr reactor, which is at the center of the nation's conflict with the West.
``China is just on the verge of a second rapid phase of expansion,'' says Ian Hore-Lacy, director of public communications for the WNA in London. ``Each year China seems to raise their sights further.''
To be sure, safety concerns remain the biggest risk to nuclear construction and uranium's revival. Proposed reactors were canceled in the 1970s because of environmental protests, while accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986 further eroded support. In Japan, new projects face delays as utilities improve earthquake resistance to restore confidence after the closure of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Kashiwazaki Kariwa and revelations that companies falsified safety records.
Safety Risks
``It is worth remembering that this is an industry that can be brought to its knees overnight by one major mishap or one well-executed terrorist action,'' Paul Hannon, an analyst at London-based commodities research company VM Group in London, wrote in a report this month.
Uranium demand was 66,500 metric tons last year, according to data from Denver-based consultant TradeTech LLP. Consumption may jump 55 percent to 102,000 tons by 2020, forecasts Macquarie Group Ltd., Australia's biggest securities firm.
Uranium use now is 69 percent greater than the 39,429 tons that was mined in 2006, the most recent data from the WNA show. The balance comes from inventories and decommissioned weapons. A Russian accord to export fuel recovered from warheads to the U.S. expiries in 2013.
Nuclear Converts
``Secondary supplies are finite and rapidly being depleted,'' Deutsche Bank analysts led by Michael Lewis said in a June 20 report. ``Continual supply issues and the likelihood of increased demand from utilities should drive the spot price higher during the third quarter of this year.''
Demand is set to increase as existing reactors are brought back on line, while nuclear energy gains converts.
South Africa, which is struggling to meet electricity demand, plans to award a contract for construction of a 120 billion-rand ($15 billion) nuclear plant. In the U.K., the Labour government wants more atomic capacity to reduce its emissions.
U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain said last week he will push to almost double the number of nuclear reactors to lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, also backs nuclear power. There are 104 reactors operating in the U.S., though the last to come on line was in 1990, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Production Costs
Prices will have to increase if uranium production is to meet the rising demand, said Kevin Smith, head of uranium trading at New York-based commodities brokerage Traxys.
Canada's Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium producer, reported it spent a total of about C$45 ($44) to produce a pound of uranium in the first quarter, compared with its average realized price of C$40.85 a pound. While Cameco, which also mines gold, still posted a profit for the quarter, lower uranium prices are a problem for other companies developing new mines, according to Smith.
``There are a lot of production projects that are feeling the pain,'' Smith says.
To contact the reporter on this story: Yuriy Humber in Moscow at yhumber@bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 22, 2008 19:01 EDT
It is worth considering adding a Uranium ETF such as NLR in your long term portfolio. This is a good entry point as Uranium prices have fallen recently. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell anything including NLR. Do you own research. This blog is not responsible for any losses.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Saudi Arabia may increase supply
from www.bloomberg.com
Saudi Arabia Boosts Oil Supply, May Pump More Later
By Ayesha Daya and Glen Carey
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia may raise its oil production beyond a planned 200,000 barrel-a-day increase in July if the oil market requires extra supply, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told consumers at a summit in Jeddah.
Saudi Arabia's commitment to government and business leaders to pump 9.7 million barrels a day next month came after crude rose to a record $139.89 in New York on June 16. Saudi King Abdullah said at today's summit that his country, the world's biggest oil exporter, seeks ``reasonable'' prices. OPEC President Chakib Khelil said a Saudi boost is ``illogical'' because refiners don't need more crude.
The International Energy Agency estimates that world oil use this year will climb 800,000 barrels a day, or 1 percent, as demand climbs in emerging markets. Stagnating production from Russia and the North Sea and disruption in Nigeria are also contributing to higher prices, which have touched off strikes, riots and accelerating inflation in nations around the world.
``Saudi Arabia is prepared and willing to produce additional barrels of crude above and beyond the 9.7 million barrels per day, which we plan to produce during the month of July, if demand for such quantities materializes and our customers tell us they are needed,'' Naimi said.
Saudi Arabia's capacity will be 12.5 million barrels a day by the end of 2009 and may rise to 15 million after that if necessary, he said.
Speculators Blamed
The president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Khelil, blamed $135 oil on speculative investors, the subprime credit crisis and geopolitics, rather than a shortage of supply. Khelil, who is also Algeria's oil minister, today dismissed the argument voiced by consuming nations that possible supply shortages are driving up prices.
``The concern over future oil supply is not a new phenomenon,'' he told reporters in Jeddah. Asked if oil prices would fall after the meeting, he replied: ``I don't think so.''
More than 35 countries, seven international organizations and 25 oil companies took part in today's summit in the Saudi Red Sea port, including U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson.
OPEC Divided
The Saudi King and other producer-nation officials including Kuwaiti oil minister Mohammed al-Olaim also called for greater regulation on oil market investors. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is currently investigating the role of index-fund investors in the doubling of oil prices during the past year.
OPEC itself is divided. While Saudi Arabia is boosting output, other OPEC members including Libya, Algeria, Iran, Venezuela and Qatar are opposed to higher production, saying refiners aren't asking for more crude.
Libya's top oil official, Shokri Ghanem, said after the meeting ended that the Saudi output boost wouldn't affect the oil price, and yesterday said his country may have to cut its own production in response to the Saudi move.
Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez, also asked whether the oil price was likely to fall after the Saudi move, said: ``I don't think so because it's not a problem of supply.''
Kuwait, OPEC's fourth largest producer, said it's ready to join neighboring Saudi Arabia and raise output, if needed.
Dollar Hedge
Oil rose to $139.89 a barrel on June 16 as investors bought commodities to hedge against a weakening U.S. dollar and concern mounted that demand is growing faster than supply. Gasoline retail prices over $4 a gallon in the U.S. are raising concern that the economy may slip into recession. Crude oil for July delivery closed June 20 in New York at $134.62 a barrel.
U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman rejected calls to put greater control on markets, and said a shortage of supply was responsible for high prices. He disputed the view that speculators are leading the markets to record levels.
The market needs between 3 million and 4 million barrels a day of spare oil production capacity, compared with the 2 million barrels a day currently available, Bodman said. OPEC says the world's spare capacity is about 3 million barrels a day, with two-thirds of that in Saudi Arabia.
``Market fundamentals show us that production has not kept pace with growing demand for oil resulting in increasing, and increasingly volatile, prices,'' Bodman said in a speech today.
More Supply
Italy's Minister of Industry Claudio Scajola and Brazil's Energy Minister Edison Lobao were among consumer-nation officials attending the Jeddah summit that said more supply was needed to ease prices. ``We expect Saudi Arabia to open the taps,'' Austrian Economy Minister Martin Bartenstein said in an interview two days ago. ``One third of inflation in the euro zone comes from energy and inflation is now of importance.''
Speaking in Jeddah today, the Austrian minister said: ``We would like to see more oil on the market. That is the only action I can think of that can discourage the speculators.''
Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank AG, and other analysts maintain that consumers will need to curtail demand before prices head lower. The biggest drop in prices in 11 weeks came on June 18, after the world's second-biggest oil consumer, China, raised gasoline, diesel and power prices to rein in energy use.
Saudi Arabia will increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day of oil by the end of next year and could add a further 2.5 million barrels a day if needed, from some new giant fields, Naimi said.
Zuluf, Shaybah Fields
``The Saudi announcement of a possible increase in capacity to 15 million barrels a day is a robust statement; it would be a huge increase,'' ENI SpA Chief Executive Officer Paolo Scaroni said in an interview in Jeddah today. ``The world is worried about the shortage in spare capacity and any improvement will change this sentiment.''
The further daily capacity includes 900,000 barrels from the Zuluf field, 700,000 barrels from Safaniyah, 300,000 barrels from Berri, 300,000 barrels from Khurais and 250,000 barrels from Shaybah, Naimi said.
U.K. Prime Minister Brown said in Jeddah today he will open Britain's energy industry to investment from oil producing nations as a way of keeping a lid on crude prices and paying for measures to clean up the environment. Further talks may be held between producers and consumers this year in London, he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Ayesha Daya in Jeddah adaya1@bloomberg.netGlen Carey in Jeddah gcarey8@bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 22, 2008 12:12 EDT
Saudi Arabia Boosts Oil Supply, May Pump More Later
By Ayesha Daya and Glen Carey
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia may raise its oil production beyond a planned 200,000 barrel-a-day increase in July if the oil market requires extra supply, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told consumers at a summit in Jeddah.
Saudi Arabia's commitment to government and business leaders to pump 9.7 million barrels a day next month came after crude rose to a record $139.89 in New York on June 16. Saudi King Abdullah said at today's summit that his country, the world's biggest oil exporter, seeks ``reasonable'' prices. OPEC President Chakib Khelil said a Saudi boost is ``illogical'' because refiners don't need more crude.
The International Energy Agency estimates that world oil use this year will climb 800,000 barrels a day, or 1 percent, as demand climbs in emerging markets. Stagnating production from Russia and the North Sea and disruption in Nigeria are also contributing to higher prices, which have touched off strikes, riots and accelerating inflation in nations around the world.
``Saudi Arabia is prepared and willing to produce additional barrels of crude above and beyond the 9.7 million barrels per day, which we plan to produce during the month of July, if demand for such quantities materializes and our customers tell us they are needed,'' Naimi said.
Saudi Arabia's capacity will be 12.5 million barrels a day by the end of 2009 and may rise to 15 million after that if necessary, he said.
Speculators Blamed
The president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Khelil, blamed $135 oil on speculative investors, the subprime credit crisis and geopolitics, rather than a shortage of supply. Khelil, who is also Algeria's oil minister, today dismissed the argument voiced by consuming nations that possible supply shortages are driving up prices.
``The concern over future oil supply is not a new phenomenon,'' he told reporters in Jeddah. Asked if oil prices would fall after the meeting, he replied: ``I don't think so.''
More than 35 countries, seven international organizations and 25 oil companies took part in today's summit in the Saudi Red Sea port, including U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson.
OPEC Divided
The Saudi King and other producer-nation officials including Kuwaiti oil minister Mohammed al-Olaim also called for greater regulation on oil market investors. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is currently investigating the role of index-fund investors in the doubling of oil prices during the past year.
OPEC itself is divided. While Saudi Arabia is boosting output, other OPEC members including Libya, Algeria, Iran, Venezuela and Qatar are opposed to higher production, saying refiners aren't asking for more crude.
Libya's top oil official, Shokri Ghanem, said after the meeting ended that the Saudi output boost wouldn't affect the oil price, and yesterday said his country may have to cut its own production in response to the Saudi move.
Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez, also asked whether the oil price was likely to fall after the Saudi move, said: ``I don't think so because it's not a problem of supply.''
Kuwait, OPEC's fourth largest producer, said it's ready to join neighboring Saudi Arabia and raise output, if needed.
Dollar Hedge
Oil rose to $139.89 a barrel on June 16 as investors bought commodities to hedge against a weakening U.S. dollar and concern mounted that demand is growing faster than supply. Gasoline retail prices over $4 a gallon in the U.S. are raising concern that the economy may slip into recession. Crude oil for July delivery closed June 20 in New York at $134.62 a barrel.
U.S. Energy Secretary Bodman rejected calls to put greater control on markets, and said a shortage of supply was responsible for high prices. He disputed the view that speculators are leading the markets to record levels.
The market needs between 3 million and 4 million barrels a day of spare oil production capacity, compared with the 2 million barrels a day currently available, Bodman said. OPEC says the world's spare capacity is about 3 million barrels a day, with two-thirds of that in Saudi Arabia.
``Market fundamentals show us that production has not kept pace with growing demand for oil resulting in increasing, and increasingly volatile, prices,'' Bodman said in a speech today.
More Supply
Italy's Minister of Industry Claudio Scajola and Brazil's Energy Minister Edison Lobao were among consumer-nation officials attending the Jeddah summit that said more supply was needed to ease prices. ``We expect Saudi Arabia to open the taps,'' Austrian Economy Minister Martin Bartenstein said in an interview two days ago. ``One third of inflation in the euro zone comes from energy and inflation is now of importance.''
Speaking in Jeddah today, the Austrian minister said: ``We would like to see more oil on the market. That is the only action I can think of that can discourage the speculators.''
Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank AG, and other analysts maintain that consumers will need to curtail demand before prices head lower. The biggest drop in prices in 11 weeks came on June 18, after the world's second-biggest oil consumer, China, raised gasoline, diesel and power prices to rein in energy use.
Saudi Arabia will increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels a day of oil by the end of next year and could add a further 2.5 million barrels a day if needed, from some new giant fields, Naimi said.
Zuluf, Shaybah Fields
``The Saudi announcement of a possible increase in capacity to 15 million barrels a day is a robust statement; it would be a huge increase,'' ENI SpA Chief Executive Officer Paolo Scaroni said in an interview in Jeddah today. ``The world is worried about the shortage in spare capacity and any improvement will change this sentiment.''
The further daily capacity includes 900,000 barrels from the Zuluf field, 700,000 barrels from Safaniyah, 300,000 barrels from Berri, 300,000 barrels from Khurais and 250,000 barrels from Shaybah, Naimi said.
U.K. Prime Minister Brown said in Jeddah today he will open Britain's energy industry to investment from oil producing nations as a way of keeping a lid on crude prices and paying for measures to clean up the environment. Further talks may be held between producers and consumers this year in London, he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Ayesha Daya in Jeddah adaya1@bloomberg.netGlen Carey in Jeddah gcarey8@bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 22, 2008 12:12 EDT
Friday, June 13, 2008
Prices Higher - Food and Energy
from www.nytimes.com
June 14, 2008
Oil and Food Push Consumer Prices Higher in May
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Inflation hit hard in May as prices for a wide swath of consumer goods rose at their fastest pace in six months, underscoring warnings from central bankers and adding to a growing consensus that the Federal Reserve might raise interest rates by the end of the year.
The Consumer Price Index, which measures prices of a batch of common household products, rose 0.6 percent last month, as Americans were forced to cope with a sharp increase in fuel costs. The report, released Friday by the Labor Department, is considered a benchmark measure of inflation.
On Wall Street, the major stock indexes rose after the report, with the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index up 0.76 percent in afternoon trading. The Dow Jones industrials, which had gained more than 140 points, in morning trading was up about 80 points.
The index, which rose more than economists had forecast, comes on the heels of repeated warnings about inflation from the world’s central banks. Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, joined other top officials this week in focusing on higher prices, citing the economic damage wrought by the record run-up in food and oil prices around the world.
The speeches have fueled a growing sense on Wall Street that the Fed has shifted its focus from supporting growth to fighting inflation. The May C.P.I. will probably heighten expectations that higher interest rates, which tend to hold down prices, may be in the offing.
In May, gasoline prices rose 5.2 percent, and were up 21 percent compared with a year ago, according to the report. They may rise again in June: the nationwide average for gasoline topped $4 a gallon last weekend as the price of oil leaped to a new high.
The cost of eating rose, as well, as Americans paid 5 percent more for foods and beverages in May than a year ago.
On an annual basis, inflation worsened for the first time in three months, reversing a downward trend. Inflation ran at 4.2 percent in May compared with a year ago.
High oil prices also pushed up costs for other products, as businesses, squeezed by higher shipping and production costs, sought to raise the prices paid by their customers. Prices for transportation, commodities, tobacco and utility fuels all increased for the month. Excluding the cost of food and gasoline, inflation ran at 0.2 percent for the month.
“Both consumers and financial market participants are becoming sensitized to large headline price rises, and were especially ready this month amid heightened inflation anxiety,” Peter Kretzmer, an economist at Bank of America, wrote in a note.
Consumers, however, do not appear content with rising prices. A measure of Americans’ confidence in the economy fell to its lowest level since 1980, another period of high inflation and slow growth. The University of Michigan’s consumer confidence survey dropped to 56.7 in June, the fifth consecutive month of decline.
June 14, 2008
Oil and Food Push Consumer Prices Higher in May
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Inflation hit hard in May as prices for a wide swath of consumer goods rose at their fastest pace in six months, underscoring warnings from central bankers and adding to a growing consensus that the Federal Reserve might raise interest rates by the end of the year.
The Consumer Price Index, which measures prices of a batch of common household products, rose 0.6 percent last month, as Americans were forced to cope with a sharp increase in fuel costs. The report, released Friday by the Labor Department, is considered a benchmark measure of inflation.
On Wall Street, the major stock indexes rose after the report, with the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index up 0.76 percent in afternoon trading. The Dow Jones industrials, which had gained more than 140 points, in morning trading was up about 80 points.
The index, which rose more than economists had forecast, comes on the heels of repeated warnings about inflation from the world’s central banks. Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed, joined other top officials this week in focusing on higher prices, citing the economic damage wrought by the record run-up in food and oil prices around the world.
The speeches have fueled a growing sense on Wall Street that the Fed has shifted its focus from supporting growth to fighting inflation. The May C.P.I. will probably heighten expectations that higher interest rates, which tend to hold down prices, may be in the offing.
In May, gasoline prices rose 5.2 percent, and were up 21 percent compared with a year ago, according to the report. They may rise again in June: the nationwide average for gasoline topped $4 a gallon last weekend as the price of oil leaped to a new high.
The cost of eating rose, as well, as Americans paid 5 percent more for foods and beverages in May than a year ago.
On an annual basis, inflation worsened for the first time in three months, reversing a downward trend. Inflation ran at 4.2 percent in May compared with a year ago.
High oil prices also pushed up costs for other products, as businesses, squeezed by higher shipping and production costs, sought to raise the prices paid by their customers. Prices for transportation, commodities, tobacco and utility fuels all increased for the month. Excluding the cost of food and gasoline, inflation ran at 0.2 percent for the month.
“Both consumers and financial market participants are becoming sensitized to large headline price rises, and were especially ready this month amid heightened inflation anxiety,” Peter Kretzmer, an economist at Bank of America, wrote in a note.
Consumers, however, do not appear content with rising prices. A measure of Americans’ confidence in the economy fell to its lowest level since 1980, another period of high inflation and slow growth. The University of Michigan’s consumer confidence survey dropped to 56.7 in June, the fifth consecutive month of decline.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Bernanke strikes again!
from http://www.federalreserve.com/
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Remarks on Class Day 2008
At Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
June 4, 2008
It seems to me, paradoxically, that both long ago and only yesterday I attended my own Class Day in 1975. I am pleased and honored to be invited back by the students of Harvard. Our speaker in 1975 was Dick Gregory, the social critic and comedian, who was inclined toward the sharp-edged and satiric. Central bankers don't do satire as a rule, so I am going to have to strive for "kind of interesting."
When I attended Class Day as a graduating senior, Gerald Ford was President, and an up-and-coming fellow named Alan Greenspan was his chief economic adviser. Just weeks earlier, the last Americans remaining in Saigon had been evacuated by helicopters. On a happier note, the Red Sox were on their way to winning the American League pennant. I skipped classes to attend a World Series game against the Cincinnati Reds. As was their wont in those days, the Sox came agonizingly close to a championship but ended up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. On that score, as on others--disco music and Pet Rocks come to mind--many things are better today than they were then. In fact, that will be a theme of my remarks today.
Although 1975 was a pretty good year for the Red Sox, it was not a good one for the U.S. economy. Then as now, we were experiencing a serious oil price shock, sharply rising prices for food and other commodities, and subpar economic growth. But I see the differences between the economy of 1975 and the economy of 2008 as more telling than the similarities. Today's situation differs from that of 33 years ago in large part because our economy and society have become much more flexible and able to adapt to difficult situations and new challenges. Economic policymaking has improved as well, I believe, partly because we have learned well some of the hard lessons of the past. Of course, I do not want to minimize the challenges we currently face, and I will come back to a few of these. But I do think that our demonstrated ability to respond constructively and effectively to past economic problems provides a basis for optimism about the future.
I will focus my remarks today on two economic issues that challenged us in the 1970s and that still do so today--energy and productivity. These, obviously, are not the kind of topics chosen by many recent Class Day speakers--Will Farrell, Ali G, or Seth MacFarlane, to name a few. But, then, the Class Marshals presumably knew what they were getting when they invited an economist.
Because the members of today's graduating class--and some of your professors--were not yet born in 1975, let me begin by briefly surveying the economic landscape in the mid-1970s. The economy had just gone through a severe recession, during which output, income, and employment fell sharply and the unemployment rate rose to 9 percent. Meanwhile, consumer price inflation, which had been around 3 percent to 4 percent earlier in the decade, soared to more than 10 percent during my senior year.1
The oil price shock of the 1970s began in October 1973 when, in response to the Yom Kippur War, Arab oil producers imposed an embargo on exports. Before the embargo, in 1972, the price of imported oil was about $3.20 per barrel; by 1975, the average price was nearly $14 per barrel, more than four times greater. President Nixon had imposed economy-wide controls on wages and prices in 1971, including prices of petroleum products; in November 1973, in the wake of the embargo, the President placed additional controls on petroleum prices.2
As basic economics predicts, when a scarce resource cannot be allocated by market-determined prices, it will be allocated some other way--in this case, in what was to become an iconic symbol of the times, by long lines at gasoline stations. In 1974, in an attempt to overcome the unintended consequences of price controls, drivers in many places were permitted to buy gasoline only on odd or even days of the month, depending on the last digit of their license plate number. Moreover, with the controlled price of U.S. crude oil well below world prices, growth in domestic exploration slowed and production was curtailed--which, of course, only made things worse.
In addition to creating long lines at gasoline stations, the oil price shock exacerbated what was already an intensifying buildup of inflation and inflation expectations. In another echo of today, the inflationary situation was further worsened by rapidly rising prices of agricultural products and other commodities.
Economists generally agree that monetary policy performed poorly during this period. In part, this was because policymakers, in choosing what they believed to be the appropriate setting for monetary policy, overestimated the productive capacity of the economy. I'll have more to say about this shortly. Federal Reserve policymakers also underestimated both their own contributions to the inflationary problems of the time and their ability to curb that inflation. For example, on occasion they blamed inflation on so-called cost-push factors such as union wage pressures and price increases by large, market-dominating firms; however, the abilities of unions and firms to push through inflationary wage and price increases were symptoms of the problem, not the underlying cause. Several years passed before the Federal Reserve gained a new leadership that better understood the central bank's role in the inflation process and that sustained anti-inflationary monetary policies would actually work. Beginning in 1979, such policies were implemented successfully--although not without significant cost in terms of lost output and employment--under Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. For the Federal Reserve, two crucial lessons from this experience were, first, that high inflation can seriously destabilize the economy and, second, that the central bank must take responsibility for achieving price stability over the medium term.
Fast-forward now to 2003. In that year, crude oil cost a little more than $30 per barrel.3 Since then, crude oil prices have increased more than fourfold, proportionally about as much as in the 1970s. Now, as in 1975, adjusting to such high prices for crude oil has been painful. Gas prices around $4 a gallon are a huge burden for many households, as well as for truckers, manufacturers, farmers, and others. But, in many other ways, the economic consequences have been quite different from those of the 1970s. One obvious difference is what you don't see: drivers lining up on odd or even days to buy gasoline because of price controls or signs at gas stations that say "No gas." And until the recent slowdown--which is more the result of conditions in the residential housing market and in financial markets than of higher oil prices--economic growth was solid and unemployment remained low, unlike what we saw following oil price increases in the '70s.
For a central banker, a particularly critical difference between then and now is what has happened to inflation and inflation expectations. The overall inflation rate has averaged about 3-1/2 percent over the past four quarters, significantly higher than we would like but much less than the double-digit rates that inflation reached in the mid-1970s and then again in 1980. Moreover, the increase in inflation has been milder this time--on the order of 1 percentage point over the past year as compared with the 6 percentage point jump that followed the 1973 oil price shock.4 From the perspective of monetary policy, just as important as the behavior of actual inflation is what households and businesses expect to happen to inflation in the future, particularly over the longer term. If people expect an increase in inflation to be temporary and do not build it into their longer-term plans for setting wages and prices, then the inflation created by a shock to oil prices will tend to fade relatively quickly. Some indicators of longer-term inflation expectations have risen in recent months, which is a significant concern for the Federal Reserve. We will need to monitor that situation closely. However, changes in long-term inflation expectations have been measured in tenths of a percentage point this time around rather than in whole percentage points, as appeared to be the case in the mid-1970s. Importantly, we see little indication today of the beginnings of a 1970s-style wage-price spiral, in which wages and prices chased each other ever upward.
A good deal of economic research has looked at the question of why the inflation response to the oil shock has been relatively muted in the current instance.5 One factor, which illustrates my point about the adaptability and flexibility of the U.S. economy, is the pronounced decline in the energy intensity of the economy since the 1970s. Since 1975, the energy required to produce a given amount of output in the United States has fallen by about half.6 This great improvement in energy efficiency was less the result of government programs than of steps taken by households and businesses in response to higher energy prices, including substantial investments in more energy-efficient equipment and means of transportation. This improvement in energy efficiency is one of the reasons why a given increase in crude oil prices does less damage to the U.S. economy today than it did in the 1970s.
Another reason is the performance of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve and other central banks have learned the lessons of the 1970s. Because monetary policy works with a lag, the short-term inflationary effects of a sharp increase in oil prices can generally not be fully offset. However, since Paul Volcker's time, the Federal Reserve has been firmly committed to maintaining a low and stable rate of inflation over the longer term. And we recognize that keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored is essential to achieving the goal of low and stable inflation. Maintaining confidence in the Fed's commitment to price stability remains a top priority as the central bank navigates the current complex situation.
Although our economy has thus far dealt with the current oil price shock comparatively well, the United States and the rest of the world still face significant challenges in dealing with the rising global demand for energy, especially if continued demand growth and constrained supplies maintain intense pressure on prices. The silver lining of high energy prices is that they provide a powerful incentive for action--for conservation, including investment in energy-saving technologies; for the investment needed to bring new oil supplies to market; and for the development of alternative conventional and nonconventional energy sources. The government, in addition to the market, can usefully address energy concerns, for example, by supporting basic research and adopting well-designed regulatory policies to promote important social objectives such as protecting the environment. As we saw after the oil price shock of the 1970s, given some time, the economy can become much more energy-efficient even as it continues to grow and living standards improve.
Let me turn now to the other economic challenge that I want to highlight today--the productivity performance of our economy. At this point you may be saying to yourself, "Is it too late to book Ali G?" However, anyone who stayed awake through EC 10 understands why this issue is so important.7 As Adam Smith pointed out in 1776, in the long run, more than any other factor, the productivity of the workforce determines a nation's standard of living.
The decades following the end of World War II were remarkable for their industrial innovation and creativity. From 1948 to 1973, output per hour of work grew by nearly 3 percent per year, on average.8 But then, for the next 20 years or so, productivity growth averaged only about 1-1/2 percent per year, barely half its previous rate. Predictably, the rate of increase in the standard of living slowed as well, and to about the same extent. The difference between 3 percent and 1-1/2 percent may sound small. But at 3 percent per year, the standard of living would double about every 23 years, or once every generation; by contrast, at 1-1/2 percent, a doubling would occur only roughly every 47 years, or once every other generation.
Among the many consequences of the productivity slowdown was a further complication for the monetary policy makers of the 1970s. Detecting shifts in economic trends is difficult in real time, and most economists and policymakers did not fully appreciate the extent of the productivity slowdown until the late 1970s. This further influenced the policymakers of the time toward running a monetary policy that was too accommodative. The resulting overheating of the economy probably exacerbated the inflation problem of that decade.9
Productivity growth revived in the mid-1990s, as I mentioned, illustrating once again the resilience of the American economy.10 Since 1995, productivity has increased at about a 2-1/2 percent annual rate. A great deal of intellectual effort has been expended in trying to explain the recent performance and to forecast the future evolution of productivity. Much very good work has been conducted here at Harvard by Dale Jorgenson (my senior thesis adviser in 1975, by the way) and his colleagues, and other important research in the area has been done at the Federal Reserve Board.11 One key finding of that research is that, to have an economic impact, technological innovations must be translated into successful commercial applications. This country's competitive, market-based system, its flexible capital and labor markets, its tradition of entrepreneurship, and its technological strengths--to which Harvard and other universities make a critical contribution--help ensure that that happens on an ongoing basis.
While private-sector initiative was the key ingredient in generating the pickup in productivity growth, government policy was constructive, in part through support of basic research but also to a substantial degree by promoting economic competition. Beginning in the late 1970s, the federal government deregulated a number of key industries, including air travel, trucking, telecommunications, and energy. The resulting increase in competition promoted cost reductions and innovation, leading in turn to new products and industries. It is difficult to imagine that we would have online retailing today if the transportation and telecommunications industries had not been deregulated. In addition, the lowering of trade barriers promoted productivity gains by increasing competition, expanding markets, and increasing the pace of technology transfer.12
Finally, as a central banker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the contribution of monetary policy to the improved productivity performance. By damping business cycles and by keeping inflation under control, a sound monetary policy improves the ability of households and firms to plan and increases their willingness to undertake the investments in skills, research, and physical capital needed to support continuing gains in productivity.
Just as the productivity slowdown was associated with a slower growth of real per capita income, the productivity resurgence since the mid-1990s has been accompanied by a pickup in real income growth. One measure of average living standards, real consumption per capita, is nearly 35 percent higher today than in 1995. In addition, the flood of innovation that helped spur the productivity resurgence has created many new job opportunities, and more than a few fortunes. But changing technology has also reduced job opportunities for some others--bank tellers and assembly-line workers, for example. And that is the crux of a whole new set of challenges.
Even though average economic well-being has increased considerably over time, the degree of inequality in economic outcomes over the past three decades has increased as well. Economists continue to grapple with the reasons for this trend. But as best we can tell, the increase in inequality probably is due to a number of factors, notably including technological change that seems to have favored higher-skilled workers more than lower-skilled ones. In addition, some economists point to increased international trade and the declining role of labor unions as other, probably lesser contributing factors.
What should we do about rising economic inequality? Answering this question inevitably involves difficult value judgments and tradeoffs. But approaches that inhibit the dynamism of our economy would clearly be a step in the wrong direction. To be sure, new technologies and increased international trade can lead to painful dislocations as some workers lose their jobs or see the demand for their particular skills decline. However, hindering the adoption of new technologies or inhibiting trade flows would do far more harm than good over the longer haul. In the short term, the better approach is to adopt policies that help those who are displaced by economic change. By doing so, we not only provide assistance to those who need it but help to secure public support for the economic flexibility that is essential for prosperity.
In the long term, however, the best way by far to improve economic opportunity and to reduce inequality is to increase the educational attainment and skills of American workers. The productivity surge in the decades after World War II corresponded to a period in which educational attainment was increasing rapidly; in recent decades, progress on that front has been far slower. Moreover, inequalities in education and in access to education remain high. As we think about improving education and skills, we should also look beyond the traditional K-12 and 4-year-college system--as important as it is--to recognize that education should be lifelong and can come in many forms. Early childhood education, community colleges, vocational schools, on-the-job training, online courses, adult education--all of these are vehicles of demonstrated value in increasing skills and lifetime earning power. The use of a wide range of methods to address the pressing problems of inadequate skills and economic inequality would be entirely consistent with the themes of economic adaptability and flexibility that I have emphasized in my remarks.
I will close by shifting from the topic of education in general to your education specifically. Through effort, talent, and doubtless some luck, you have succeeded in acquiring an excellent education. Your education--more precisely, your ability to think critically and creatively--is your greatest asset. And unlike many assets, the more you draw on it, the faster it grows. Put it to good use.
The poor forecasting record of economists is legendary, but I will make a forecast in which I am very confident: Whatever you expect your life and work to be like 10, 20, or 30 years from now, the reality will be quite different. In looking over the 30th anniversary report on my own class, I was struck by the great diversity of vocations and avocations that have engaged my classmates. To be sure, the volume was full of attorneys and physicians and professors as well as architects, engineers, editors, bankers, and even a few economists. Many listed the title "vice president," and, not a few, "president." But the class of 1975 also includes those who listed their occupations as composer, environmental advocate, musician, playwright, rabbi, conflict resolution coach, painter, community organizer, and essayist. And even for those of us with the more conventional job descriptions, the nature of our daily work and its relationship to the economy and society is, I am sure, very different from what we might have guessed in 1975. My point is only that you cannot predict your path. You can only try to be as prepared as possible for the opportunities, as well as the disappointments, that will come your way. For people, as for economies, adaptability and flexibility count for a great deal.
Wherever your path leads, I hope you use your considerable talents and energy in endeavors that engage and excite you and benefit not only yourselves, but also in some measure your country and your world. Today, I wish you and your families a day of joyous celebration. Congratulations.
He is right to focus on energy and productivity. An economy's affluence is directly co-related to increase in energy efficiency, increase in energy availability and increase in worker productivity. In the last couple of days he has made it amply clear that his focus (and therefore the Fed's) is now on Inflation regardless of a slowing economic environment. This is the right approach as the Fed should really be hiking rates at this point to stop inflation eating away at people's wages. However, with a strike on Iran on the cards by Israel before the end of the Bush presidency likely, the resulting oil spike if not controlled quickly would lead to massive global stagflation and a likely severe global recession.
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke
Remarks on Class Day 2008
At Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
June 4, 2008
It seems to me, paradoxically, that both long ago and only yesterday I attended my own Class Day in 1975. I am pleased and honored to be invited back by the students of Harvard. Our speaker in 1975 was Dick Gregory, the social critic and comedian, who was inclined toward the sharp-edged and satiric. Central bankers don't do satire as a rule, so I am going to have to strive for "kind of interesting."
When I attended Class Day as a graduating senior, Gerald Ford was President, and an up-and-coming fellow named Alan Greenspan was his chief economic adviser. Just weeks earlier, the last Americans remaining in Saigon had been evacuated by helicopters. On a happier note, the Red Sox were on their way to winning the American League pennant. I skipped classes to attend a World Series game against the Cincinnati Reds. As was their wont in those days, the Sox came agonizingly close to a championship but ended up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. On that score, as on others--disco music and Pet Rocks come to mind--many things are better today than they were then. In fact, that will be a theme of my remarks today.
Although 1975 was a pretty good year for the Red Sox, it was not a good one for the U.S. economy. Then as now, we were experiencing a serious oil price shock, sharply rising prices for food and other commodities, and subpar economic growth. But I see the differences between the economy of 1975 and the economy of 2008 as more telling than the similarities. Today's situation differs from that of 33 years ago in large part because our economy and society have become much more flexible and able to adapt to difficult situations and new challenges. Economic policymaking has improved as well, I believe, partly because we have learned well some of the hard lessons of the past. Of course, I do not want to minimize the challenges we currently face, and I will come back to a few of these. But I do think that our demonstrated ability to respond constructively and effectively to past economic problems provides a basis for optimism about the future.
I will focus my remarks today on two economic issues that challenged us in the 1970s and that still do so today--energy and productivity. These, obviously, are not the kind of topics chosen by many recent Class Day speakers--Will Farrell, Ali G, or Seth MacFarlane, to name a few. But, then, the Class Marshals presumably knew what they were getting when they invited an economist.
Because the members of today's graduating class--and some of your professors--were not yet born in 1975, let me begin by briefly surveying the economic landscape in the mid-1970s. The economy had just gone through a severe recession, during which output, income, and employment fell sharply and the unemployment rate rose to 9 percent. Meanwhile, consumer price inflation, which had been around 3 percent to 4 percent earlier in the decade, soared to more than 10 percent during my senior year.1
The oil price shock of the 1970s began in October 1973 when, in response to the Yom Kippur War, Arab oil producers imposed an embargo on exports. Before the embargo, in 1972, the price of imported oil was about $3.20 per barrel; by 1975, the average price was nearly $14 per barrel, more than four times greater. President Nixon had imposed economy-wide controls on wages and prices in 1971, including prices of petroleum products; in November 1973, in the wake of the embargo, the President placed additional controls on petroleum prices.2
As basic economics predicts, when a scarce resource cannot be allocated by market-determined prices, it will be allocated some other way--in this case, in what was to become an iconic symbol of the times, by long lines at gasoline stations. In 1974, in an attempt to overcome the unintended consequences of price controls, drivers in many places were permitted to buy gasoline only on odd or even days of the month, depending on the last digit of their license plate number. Moreover, with the controlled price of U.S. crude oil well below world prices, growth in domestic exploration slowed and production was curtailed--which, of course, only made things worse.
In addition to creating long lines at gasoline stations, the oil price shock exacerbated what was already an intensifying buildup of inflation and inflation expectations. In another echo of today, the inflationary situation was further worsened by rapidly rising prices of agricultural products and other commodities.
Economists generally agree that monetary policy performed poorly during this period. In part, this was because policymakers, in choosing what they believed to be the appropriate setting for monetary policy, overestimated the productive capacity of the economy. I'll have more to say about this shortly. Federal Reserve policymakers also underestimated both their own contributions to the inflationary problems of the time and their ability to curb that inflation. For example, on occasion they blamed inflation on so-called cost-push factors such as union wage pressures and price increases by large, market-dominating firms; however, the abilities of unions and firms to push through inflationary wage and price increases were symptoms of the problem, not the underlying cause. Several years passed before the Federal Reserve gained a new leadership that better understood the central bank's role in the inflation process and that sustained anti-inflationary monetary policies would actually work. Beginning in 1979, such policies were implemented successfully--although not without significant cost in terms of lost output and employment--under Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. For the Federal Reserve, two crucial lessons from this experience were, first, that high inflation can seriously destabilize the economy and, second, that the central bank must take responsibility for achieving price stability over the medium term.
Fast-forward now to 2003. In that year, crude oil cost a little more than $30 per barrel.3 Since then, crude oil prices have increased more than fourfold, proportionally about as much as in the 1970s. Now, as in 1975, adjusting to such high prices for crude oil has been painful. Gas prices around $4 a gallon are a huge burden for many households, as well as for truckers, manufacturers, farmers, and others. But, in many other ways, the economic consequences have been quite different from those of the 1970s. One obvious difference is what you don't see: drivers lining up on odd or even days to buy gasoline because of price controls or signs at gas stations that say "No gas." And until the recent slowdown--which is more the result of conditions in the residential housing market and in financial markets than of higher oil prices--economic growth was solid and unemployment remained low, unlike what we saw following oil price increases in the '70s.
For a central banker, a particularly critical difference between then and now is what has happened to inflation and inflation expectations. The overall inflation rate has averaged about 3-1/2 percent over the past four quarters, significantly higher than we would like but much less than the double-digit rates that inflation reached in the mid-1970s and then again in 1980. Moreover, the increase in inflation has been milder this time--on the order of 1 percentage point over the past year as compared with the 6 percentage point jump that followed the 1973 oil price shock.4 From the perspective of monetary policy, just as important as the behavior of actual inflation is what households and businesses expect to happen to inflation in the future, particularly over the longer term. If people expect an increase in inflation to be temporary and do not build it into their longer-term plans for setting wages and prices, then the inflation created by a shock to oil prices will tend to fade relatively quickly. Some indicators of longer-term inflation expectations have risen in recent months, which is a significant concern for the Federal Reserve. We will need to monitor that situation closely. However, changes in long-term inflation expectations have been measured in tenths of a percentage point this time around rather than in whole percentage points, as appeared to be the case in the mid-1970s. Importantly, we see little indication today of the beginnings of a 1970s-style wage-price spiral, in which wages and prices chased each other ever upward.
A good deal of economic research has looked at the question of why the inflation response to the oil shock has been relatively muted in the current instance.5 One factor, which illustrates my point about the adaptability and flexibility of the U.S. economy, is the pronounced decline in the energy intensity of the economy since the 1970s. Since 1975, the energy required to produce a given amount of output in the United States has fallen by about half.6 This great improvement in energy efficiency was less the result of government programs than of steps taken by households and businesses in response to higher energy prices, including substantial investments in more energy-efficient equipment and means of transportation. This improvement in energy efficiency is one of the reasons why a given increase in crude oil prices does less damage to the U.S. economy today than it did in the 1970s.
Another reason is the performance of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve and other central banks have learned the lessons of the 1970s. Because monetary policy works with a lag, the short-term inflationary effects of a sharp increase in oil prices can generally not be fully offset. However, since Paul Volcker's time, the Federal Reserve has been firmly committed to maintaining a low and stable rate of inflation over the longer term. And we recognize that keeping longer-term inflation expectations well anchored is essential to achieving the goal of low and stable inflation. Maintaining confidence in the Fed's commitment to price stability remains a top priority as the central bank navigates the current complex situation.
Although our economy has thus far dealt with the current oil price shock comparatively well, the United States and the rest of the world still face significant challenges in dealing with the rising global demand for energy, especially if continued demand growth and constrained supplies maintain intense pressure on prices. The silver lining of high energy prices is that they provide a powerful incentive for action--for conservation, including investment in energy-saving technologies; for the investment needed to bring new oil supplies to market; and for the development of alternative conventional and nonconventional energy sources. The government, in addition to the market, can usefully address energy concerns, for example, by supporting basic research and adopting well-designed regulatory policies to promote important social objectives such as protecting the environment. As we saw after the oil price shock of the 1970s, given some time, the economy can become much more energy-efficient even as it continues to grow and living standards improve.
Let me turn now to the other economic challenge that I want to highlight today--the productivity performance of our economy. At this point you may be saying to yourself, "Is it too late to book Ali G?" However, anyone who stayed awake through EC 10 understands why this issue is so important.7 As Adam Smith pointed out in 1776, in the long run, more than any other factor, the productivity of the workforce determines a nation's standard of living.
The decades following the end of World War II were remarkable for their industrial innovation and creativity. From 1948 to 1973, output per hour of work grew by nearly 3 percent per year, on average.8 But then, for the next 20 years or so, productivity growth averaged only about 1-1/2 percent per year, barely half its previous rate. Predictably, the rate of increase in the standard of living slowed as well, and to about the same extent. The difference between 3 percent and 1-1/2 percent may sound small. But at 3 percent per year, the standard of living would double about every 23 years, or once every generation; by contrast, at 1-1/2 percent, a doubling would occur only roughly every 47 years, or once every other generation.
Among the many consequences of the productivity slowdown was a further complication for the monetary policy makers of the 1970s. Detecting shifts in economic trends is difficult in real time, and most economists and policymakers did not fully appreciate the extent of the productivity slowdown until the late 1970s. This further influenced the policymakers of the time toward running a monetary policy that was too accommodative. The resulting overheating of the economy probably exacerbated the inflation problem of that decade.9
Productivity growth revived in the mid-1990s, as I mentioned, illustrating once again the resilience of the American economy.10 Since 1995, productivity has increased at about a 2-1/2 percent annual rate. A great deal of intellectual effort has been expended in trying to explain the recent performance and to forecast the future evolution of productivity. Much very good work has been conducted here at Harvard by Dale Jorgenson (my senior thesis adviser in 1975, by the way) and his colleagues, and other important research in the area has been done at the Federal Reserve Board.11 One key finding of that research is that, to have an economic impact, technological innovations must be translated into successful commercial applications. This country's competitive, market-based system, its flexible capital and labor markets, its tradition of entrepreneurship, and its technological strengths--to which Harvard and other universities make a critical contribution--help ensure that that happens on an ongoing basis.
While private-sector initiative was the key ingredient in generating the pickup in productivity growth, government policy was constructive, in part through support of basic research but also to a substantial degree by promoting economic competition. Beginning in the late 1970s, the federal government deregulated a number of key industries, including air travel, trucking, telecommunications, and energy. The resulting increase in competition promoted cost reductions and innovation, leading in turn to new products and industries. It is difficult to imagine that we would have online retailing today if the transportation and telecommunications industries had not been deregulated. In addition, the lowering of trade barriers promoted productivity gains by increasing competition, expanding markets, and increasing the pace of technology transfer.12
Finally, as a central banker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the contribution of monetary policy to the improved productivity performance. By damping business cycles and by keeping inflation under control, a sound monetary policy improves the ability of households and firms to plan and increases their willingness to undertake the investments in skills, research, and physical capital needed to support continuing gains in productivity.
Just as the productivity slowdown was associated with a slower growth of real per capita income, the productivity resurgence since the mid-1990s has been accompanied by a pickup in real income growth. One measure of average living standards, real consumption per capita, is nearly 35 percent higher today than in 1995. In addition, the flood of innovation that helped spur the productivity resurgence has created many new job opportunities, and more than a few fortunes. But changing technology has also reduced job opportunities for some others--bank tellers and assembly-line workers, for example. And that is the crux of a whole new set of challenges.
Even though average economic well-being has increased considerably over time, the degree of inequality in economic outcomes over the past three decades has increased as well. Economists continue to grapple with the reasons for this trend. But as best we can tell, the increase in inequality probably is due to a number of factors, notably including technological change that seems to have favored higher-skilled workers more than lower-skilled ones. In addition, some economists point to increased international trade and the declining role of labor unions as other, probably lesser contributing factors.
What should we do about rising economic inequality? Answering this question inevitably involves difficult value judgments and tradeoffs. But approaches that inhibit the dynamism of our economy would clearly be a step in the wrong direction. To be sure, new technologies and increased international trade can lead to painful dislocations as some workers lose their jobs or see the demand for their particular skills decline. However, hindering the adoption of new technologies or inhibiting trade flows would do far more harm than good over the longer haul. In the short term, the better approach is to adopt policies that help those who are displaced by economic change. By doing so, we not only provide assistance to those who need it but help to secure public support for the economic flexibility that is essential for prosperity.
In the long term, however, the best way by far to improve economic opportunity and to reduce inequality is to increase the educational attainment and skills of American workers. The productivity surge in the decades after World War II corresponded to a period in which educational attainment was increasing rapidly; in recent decades, progress on that front has been far slower. Moreover, inequalities in education and in access to education remain high. As we think about improving education and skills, we should also look beyond the traditional K-12 and 4-year-college system--as important as it is--to recognize that education should be lifelong and can come in many forms. Early childhood education, community colleges, vocational schools, on-the-job training, online courses, adult education--all of these are vehicles of demonstrated value in increasing skills and lifetime earning power. The use of a wide range of methods to address the pressing problems of inadequate skills and economic inequality would be entirely consistent with the themes of economic adaptability and flexibility that I have emphasized in my remarks.
I will close by shifting from the topic of education in general to your education specifically. Through effort, talent, and doubtless some luck, you have succeeded in acquiring an excellent education. Your education--more precisely, your ability to think critically and creatively--is your greatest asset. And unlike many assets, the more you draw on it, the faster it grows. Put it to good use.
The poor forecasting record of economists is legendary, but I will make a forecast in which I am very confident: Whatever you expect your life and work to be like 10, 20, or 30 years from now, the reality will be quite different. In looking over the 30th anniversary report on my own class, I was struck by the great diversity of vocations and avocations that have engaged my classmates. To be sure, the volume was full of attorneys and physicians and professors as well as architects, engineers, editors, bankers, and even a few economists. Many listed the title "vice president," and, not a few, "president." But the class of 1975 also includes those who listed their occupations as composer, environmental advocate, musician, playwright, rabbi, conflict resolution coach, painter, community organizer, and essayist. And even for those of us with the more conventional job descriptions, the nature of our daily work and its relationship to the economy and society is, I am sure, very different from what we might have guessed in 1975. My point is only that you cannot predict your path. You can only try to be as prepared as possible for the opportunities, as well as the disappointments, that will come your way. For people, as for economies, adaptability and flexibility count for a great deal.
Wherever your path leads, I hope you use your considerable talents and energy in endeavors that engage and excite you and benefit not only yourselves, but also in some measure your country and your world. Today, I wish you and your families a day of joyous celebration. Congratulations.
He is right to focus on energy and productivity. An economy's affluence is directly co-related to increase in energy efficiency, increase in energy availability and increase in worker productivity. In the last couple of days he has made it amply clear that his focus (and therefore the Fed's) is now on Inflation regardless of a slowing economic environment. This is the right approach as the Fed should really be hiking rates at this point to stop inflation eating away at people's wages. However, with a strike on Iran on the cards by Israel before the end of the Bush presidency likely, the resulting oil spike if not controlled quickly would lead to massive global stagflation and a likely severe global recession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)