Archive for May 29th, 2008

The Road to $200 Oil

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

By Paul Van Eeden of www.paulvaneeden.com

When the crash dummies up on Capitol Hill see crude oil at $130 a barrel, they cry “Manipulation!” and start looking around for someone to blame. The funny thing is; they’re right. Manipulation is causing the oil price to soar…manipulation of the U.S. dollar. As for finding someone to blame, well, taking a stroll over to the Federal Reserve building might be a good place to start.

By increasing the supply of dollars the government devalues every dollar in existence by an equivalent amount. The impact of this inflation is not uniform through the economy or markets but, with time, it does filter through to everything. If we look at the price of oil in US dollars and simultaneously look at the inflation of the dollar we can see that oil has in fact not gone up in value at all – it is the dollar that has declined in value. So the manipulation is clearly evident, but it is not the supply of oil that is being manipulated, but the supply of dollars, to decrease the dollar’s value on the assumption that that would stimulate spending and economic activity. That is the cause of the rise in the oil price.

If we look at the exchange rate of the US dollar against the euro, and the twelve currencies that comprise the euro before its launch, we see that in January 1970 it took 1.151 “euros” to buy a dollar. Today it takes 0.644 euros to buy a dollar. For the sake of simplicity let’s use the euro-dollar exchange rate as a benchmark for the dollar’s devaluation on foreign exchange markets. From this exchange rate we can see that the oil price would have been 44% lower today were it not for the decline of the US dollar exchange rate. That would make the oil price, not $120 a barrel, but only $67 a barrel. In other words, the oil price is approximately 80% higher today than it would have been if the government was not so hell-bent on destroying the dollar.

For those who cannot fathom that it’s as simple as this, or that inflation of the money supply directly affects the value of the dollar, consider these words from Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, in a speech he made on November 21, 2002 before the National Economists Club in Washington, D.C.: “Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services.”

Aside from the fact that the assumption that inflation can create economic activity is entirely false, the idea that OPEC is somehow to blame for the rise in the oil price is absurd. Look at the chart below that shows the oil price in US dollars and the increase in the supply of dollars as measured by M3. We see that the oil price is trying desperately to catch up with the dollar’s inflation. In fact, if anything, oil companies and oil producers have been subsidizing American gasoline consumers for the past 22 years!

The manipulation is clearly in the dollar. By rapidly increasing the money supply and thereby decreasing the value of the dollar, the government is directly and solely responsible for the increase in the oil price.

On another front, a proposal was tabled in the Senate this week to mandate higher cash collateral for energy futures trading. The thought is that since energy speculators must be responsible for driving up the price of oil, the government should increase the cost of such trading, thereby making it harder for energy speculators to engage in futures transactions.

This proposal again demonstrates the complete lack of any fundamental understanding of how a market works, and will have exactly the opposite effect to what its proponents have in mind. Professional speculators are seldom the cause of unjustified price increases or decreases (although they can be). Quite the contrary — if speculators deem prices too low they will buy a commodity thereby preventing prices from falling further. Similarly, if they deem prices too high they will engage in short sales thereby mitigating price spikes. The end result is less volatility, not more volatility.

Now, I am not going to try and argue that speculators as a group are always right, or that they do not sometimes get carried away and drive prices too high or too low — they are still human. But when speculators make such serious mistakes they typically lose their own capital, or the capital entrusted to them, and so the market eliminates them or, at least, “educates” them to make better decisions in the future. However, taken over a longer period of time and across a spectrum of commodities, speculators as a group undoubtedly reduce volatility in prices. In the rare instances when speculators do drive prices far too high, or too low, it is usually the result of unsophisticated “retail” gamblers trying to get rich quick at the end of a market cycle.

In the case of oil, the incredible inflation rate of the US dollar, as measured by M3, is clearly devaluing the currency and causing the oil price, and many other commodity prices, to soar. By making it more expensive and difficult for speculators to participate in the market, legislators will achieve only an increase in price volatility and the loss of market share to foreign exchanges that do not impede speculators from doing their work.

Notwithstanding anything said thus far, the oil price had a good run and so in the short term a pull back in the price of oil should be expected. But this would merely be normal market volatility, as we are currently seeing in the gold price. Over the long term the price of oil is going up. The days of $50 or $55 oil are gone forever.

Blame the manipulators!…the ones with reserved parking spaces at the Federal Reserve.

“FAR FROM NORMAL”

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

Dear Reader,

Those were the words that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke used to describe the financial markets (and by extension the economy) these heady spring days when everybody else with a rostrum, it seems, has pronounced the so-called liquidity crisis contained. There’s a great wish for American finance to return to business-as-usual – raking in fantastic fees for innovating new modes of tradable paper, and engineering mergers and buy-outs that generate huge fees plus $100 million kiss-offs for corporate CEOs in the noble struggle to dismantle America’s productive capacity – but apparently events are still out of hand.

The Federal Reserve itself has been instrumental in promoting abnormality by doing everything possible to prevent the work-out of bad debts in the system. Since money is loaned into existence, and loans are debts, the work-out of bad debt suggests the discovery that a lot of money has disappeared – which is exactly the case. The Fed has postponed the work-out by sucking up truckloads of impaired, untradable securities in exchange for loans to giant banks who don’t have enough cash on hand to pay their janitors.

Personally, my theory has been that the specter of peak oil pretty clearly implies the inability of industrial economies to continue producing real wealth in the customary way. In the face of this, either consciously or at a more mystical level, the worker bees in banking recognize that, in order to maintain their villas in the Hamptons, money has to be loaned into existence some other way (than in the service of industrial productivity).

We’ve tried just about everything else. There was the so-called service economy, an attempt to replace manufacturing with hamburger sales. Then there was the information economy, in which work would be replaced with knowing about stuff. Then there was the tech thing, which was about bringing internet companies that existed only on the back of cocktail napkins to the initial public offering stage of capitalization – which allowed a few-hundred-or-so thirty-year-old smoothies to retire to vineyards in the Napa Valley, while hundreds of thousands of retirees lost half the value of their investment portfolios. Then there was the housing boom, which was all about the creation of more suburban sprawl under the theory that houses (or “homes” in the jargon of the realtors) represent an obvious sort of wealth, and therefore that using houses as collateral would allow humongous sums of money to be loaned into existence – along with massive fees for structuring the loans into bundles of bond-like thingies.

This has all failed now because the racket went too far. Every possible candidate for a snookering got snookered. Too much collateral for which there were no takers went into the ground. The insane run-up in house values made a downward price movement inevitable, and as soon as the turnaround happened, it fell into the remorseless algebra of a deflationary death spiral. More importantly, however, this society ran out of tricks for loaning money into existence and instead began to experience the pain of money thought-to-be-in-existence being defaulted into a vapor – and worse, these defaults led to logarithmic chains of money destruction in its places of origin, the investment banks that had created the racket.

The important part of this is that the money is gone. What makes matters truly eerie is that the “bubble” in suburban houses has occurred at exactly the moment in history when the chief enabling resource for suburban life – oil – has entered its scarcity stage.

The logical conclusion of all this is not what the American public wants to hear: we have become a much poorer society and are now faced with the unavoidable task of making major changes in how we live. All the three-card-monte moves at the highest level of finance lately amount to an effort to avoid the unavoidable, acknowledging our losses. Certainly the political fallout of all this will be awesome. But it’s not about politics, really. It’s about the entire society’s inability to form a workable new consensus of reality.

It’s hard to predict how long these institutions at the heart of our economic system can linger in the “far from normal” limbo of pretending that money has not been defaulted out of existence. Since the same process is underway in Great Britain and Spain, places beyond the control of Bernanke, Secretary Paulson, and the Boyz on Wall Street, and since actions and reactions there will affect the destiny of money here, its hard to escape the conclusion that we’re at most months away from the brutal recognition that Wall Street has managed to bankrupt itself (and, by extension, the United States). This is dark heart of the matter of which no one dares speak.

Meantime, on the ground, everyone in the land sees the gas pumps levitate beyond the $4 hash mark, and notes with bugged-out eyes the double-digit price stickers on common supermarket items, and feels the rush of blood from the extremities when some check-out clerk at the Wal-Mart declares that a certain proffered credit card is maxed out, and some strangers in overalls – the neighbors say – managed to hot-wire the GMC Sierra in the driveway, and took it away….

The candidates for president will have a lot to talk about. I wonder if they’ll dare to.

Regards,

James Howard Kunstler