Saturday, December 19, 2009, 9:32AM ET - U.S. Markets Closed.

Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D. The Future for Investors

Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D., The Future for Investors

Oil’s Not Well in the U.S.

by Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D.

Very Good (617 Ratings)
3.625602/5
Posted on Friday, May 30, 2008, 12:00AM
What seemed virtually impossible just six months ago has turned into a harsh reality. Oil has crossed $130 a barrel and could be headed much higher. We know that oil price increases benefit oil producers and hurt oil users. But how does this all balance out and what is the overall impact of this spectacular rise in the price of crude oil on the US economy?

Since the US is a net importer of oil, higher oil prices hurt our economy. The United States produces about 8 million barrels of oil a day, but we consume over 20 million barrels. That means that we are net importers of 12 million barrels of oil a day, which, at $130 a barrel, comes to about $1.5 billion. This is the amount that we fork over to foreign oil producers every day. At current prices our yearly oil purchases will total $570 billion this year and account for the lion's share of our trade deficit.

Because US GDP, the total value of what we produce in a year, is about $14 trillion, the cost of importing oil at current prices is just over 4% of our total output. Since a year ago oil was about $70 a barrel, the extra amount we pay for oil will eat up an extra 2% of our GDP.

To put this in perspective, the long term rate of productivity growth in the US is just over 2% a year, so rising oil prices will negate a whole year's improvement in our standard of living.

Worse Than the Housing Slump

This loss in real output is significant and exceeds the drop in the housing construction since the real estate boom ended. At the end of 2005 the US was spending over $600 billion on residential construction. That has now shrunk to less than $400 billion and has been a major contributor to the slow growth of GDP.

But there's a critical difference between housing and oil that makes the impact of higher oil prices much worse. The housing bust is due to a slowdown in the demand for housing, not in the supply of a critical commodity, such as oil.

This means that many of the resources that had previously gone into the housing industry, such as labor and materials, can now be released to other sectors of the economy. In contrast, rising oil prices are an outright cost that does not release other resources into the economy.

Adjustments to Estimate

The above calculations are a "first round" estimate of the cost of rising oil prices to the US economy and assume that we consume the same quantity of oil at $130 a barrel as we did at $70. This is unlikely, as higher prices will encourage many to cut back on oil. Economists call the response of the quantity purchased to a change in price, the elasticity of demand. The higher the elasticity, the lower the impact of rising oil prices on the economy.

Unfortunately, the elasticity of demand for oil is small, especially in the short run. First, there are not good substitutes for oil, and many of the substitutes that do exist have also shot up in price. Even those who are lucky enough to be able to use natural gas instead of heating oil to warm or cool houses have seen prices rise more than 40% over last year. The rising cost of all forms of energy reduces the ability of consumers to avoid higher energy costs.

Furthermore, there are also factors that increase the impact of oil costs beyond the $1.5 billion that we pay to oil producers every day. Even if the US were lucky enough to produce enough oil so we didn't have to import oil, there will be short-term negative effects from rising oil prices.

Although the extra costs to consumers of rising oil prices will be offset by the higher returns earned by oil producers, there is still a painful adjustment that the economy must make to the change in relative prices.

Certain industries, such as the auto, trucking, airline, and transportation would bear the brunt of higher energy prices. Not only would these firms realize lower profits, but there would be a significant loss of jobs.

It's true that other industries, such as those involved in extracting, exploring, and conserving oil would see higher profits and likely seek out more workers. But it would take considerable time before all the workers laid off in, say, the auto industry to be absorbed by energy producers.

In the meantime, total output would slump and unemployment would rise. This adjustment means that the total cost of a sharp increase in oil prices is higher than the amount we pay to foreign producers. In short, the oil price shock could keep the economy growing at a snail's pace through the rest of the year.

What Can be Done?

For many of us, the use of oil is a necessity over which we have little choice. Nevertheless, we can minimize the impact of rising oil prices by taking shorter trips, using public transportation and carpooling, among others actions. In fact, Americans have already changed their behavior. The US Department of Transportation just reported that in the 12 months ending in March the number of miles driven has fallen for the first time in 25 years.

If oil prices continue to rise, I recommend that the government release some oil from its strategic reserve and perhaps raise the margin requirements on oil future markets to reduce speculation. I certainly do not blame speculators for the surge of oil prices, as I believe there are many fundamental forces at work raising energy prices. Nevertheless, such moves could break the inflationary psychology and warn speculators that the price of oil can go down as well as up.

Summary

The rise in oil prices has shocked Americans into realizing that fossil fuels are not unlimited. In the long run I am optimistic that conservation and alternative fuels will significantly blunt the impact of rising oil prices and not constrain economic growth. But getting to that long run will require painful adjustments in the short run and, to that end, higher energy prices may be a blessing in disguise.

Rate This story

Very Good (617 Ratings)
3.5/5
Sign-in to rate!

177 Comments

Showing comments 1-5 of 177Next >>
Sort: last to first
  • Korean_Stock... - Monday, June 2, 2008, 5:32AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    You don't get it...High oil prices are GOOD for America. Otherwise we'd be looking at massive deflation. Is that what America wants? High oil means we can print our deficits away at the expense, of course, to our friendly trading partners who have been lending to us for god only knows how long. It also means that we are exporting inflation to our friends...Let it be known, America will be a most hated nation in a few years (if not already).

  • Dog - Monday, June 2, 2008, 5:55AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    I agree with the idea of raising margin requirements to speculators. I dis-agree with tapping the strategic oil reserve. The former action would put additional pressure on these jack-ass "investors"; the latter action would have virtually no useful impact on US gas prices, which is what this action supposedly addresses. (A "reserve" should ONLY be utilized in cases of emergency. Higher gas prices being paid by over-consuming Americans does NOT constitute an emergency.)

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, June 2, 2008, 6:29AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Though it may make something to keep writers busy in financial circles, I'm going with the contrarian view that there really isn't an oil shortage, and that this is a political and market timing issue. It seems that every year gas prices rise towards Memorial Day and then drop down. That makes predictability for market timers and entrenches the cycle which causes prices to go historically higher. The elitist political circle that insists that all attention/energy be focused upon itself, would like nothing better than to have everyone feel that the average person must feel more desperately dependant upon it, thus innovations on their part doesn't suit their egomaniacal needs. With changes in leadership, resolution and innovation may occur. This writer has cheesily caught the tailend/worst of the sector cycle, and all his ratings will be in before evidence will point to the weakness of his point.

  • RobertM - Monday, June 2, 2008, 7:07AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Good, but obvious. One huge mistake is releasing oil from strategic reserves. This is the only issue in which I agree with George W, we should be still filling it and then expand further. Jeremy should consider what a real oil shortage looks like

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, June 2, 2008, 7:24AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    The US has high productivity, and the cost of energy (including oil) makes up a lower percentage of the total cost of goods and services than in many other countries. If the US consumer feels the pain of high gas prices, many other countries' consumers feel the pain more acutely, and their economies suffer even more, even if this is tempered by their currencies' rise against the dollar and by government subsidies. The rising cost of oil and other commodities can slow global, not just US, economic activity. The threat of high oil prices is thus greater than implied in the column. I also agree with two other comments by Yahoo users: 1) Strategic oil reserves should only be used for true emergencies (and we must recognize that the reserve works only for short term situations); 2) We benefit from the commodity/oil-driven inflation, otherwise the housing bust would potentially lead to a lot more painful deflation, similar to the one Japan experienced, At any rate, we are entering a 70's style stagflationary era, and need to adapt to it. It's not a happy perspective, but deflation would be worse.

Showing comments 1-5 of 177Next >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Jeremy Siegel

What's happening in the economy? And how will that impact your portfolio?

Find out what Wharton Professor Jeremy Siegel says.

Have his timely newsletter sent by email each week and be the first to learn what's moving the markets and why.

Subscribe now at www.JeremySiegel.com

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.