Robert Pollin is Professor of
Economics and founding Co-Director of the Political Economy Research
Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His
research centers on macroeconomics, conditions for low-wage workers in
the U.S. and globally, the analysis of financial markets, and the
economics of building a clean-energy economy in the U.S. Most recently,
he co-authored the reports Job Opportunities for the Green Economy (June
2008) and Green Recovery(September 2008), exploring the broader
economic benefits of large-scale investments in a clean-energy economy
in the U.S. He has worked with the United Nations Development Programme
and the United Nations Economic Commission on Africa on policies to
promote to promote decent employment expansion and poverty reduction in
Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. He has also worked with the Joint
Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress and as a member of the Capital
Formation Subcouncil of the U.S. Competiveness Policy Council.
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington.
What are the alternatives? And why is the cost of oil so high? And
joining us to talk about all this now is Bob Pollin. Bob is the
cofounder/codirector of the PERI institute in Amherst, Massachusetts,
and he joins us now from there. Thanks for joining us again, Bob.
ROBERT POLLIN, PROF. ECONOMICS, UMASS AMHERST: Thank you very much for having me, Paul.
JAY:
So let's start first of all with this issue of if there was more
domestic drilling and production and more pipelines, the price of gas
would come down. Is there some truth to that?
POLLIN: No.
The price of oil is spiking again, just like it spiked last summer and
just like it spiked in 2008 right before the recession, and those spikes
didn't have anything to do with supply and demand imbalances. The price
spikes had to do with the role of speculation on the commodities
futures market, which has expanded by about 400 percent relative to ten
years ago. And because of the high level of speculation in the market,
any small changes in supply and demand get hugely magnified.So,
yes, we do have right now a small-blip reduction in supply, less than 1
percent of total oil supply, due to the embargo with Iranian oil. But
that less than 1 percent decrease in supply cannot itself explain this
spike up in price, which is heading again towards $4 at the pump. So
what happens is you have this tiny effect on supply, and then you have
the oil traders trading on the expectation of the upward movement in
supply, and that becomes an upward momentum that the speculators hope to
see prices keeping going up, and then that feeds back in today's price.
That's the same dynamic that we have experienced the last two months,
that we experienced last spring, and then in 2008.
JAY: One
thing I don't get why this isn't being more unpacked in the mainstream
media is that if you increase the supply of oil production in the United
States by more drilling and you get more of the Canadian tar sands oil
down to American refineries and all the rest, I have not heard the
Republicans suggest that they're going to have a special American price
for American-produced oil. I mean, unless I'm missing something here,
it's still all going to be at competitive world global prices. They're
not going to create a special American market for American oil, are
they?
POLLIN: No, of course not. So the American oil,
if—let's say it's roughly 10 percent of total global supply. So that
means the other 90 percent is going to be set by everything else that
goes on in the world, including especially the increasing significance
of speculation on the commodities market, which overwhelms any small
impacts relative to supply and demand adjustments.
JAY:
Now, this whole thing, too, about supply and demand like there's some
natural force at work here, we're talking about a faucet that the Saudis
say over and over again they could easily make up for any loss of
Iranian oil. I mean, all the OPEC producers and all the other oil
producers on the whole could actually just increase their output if they
wanted to.
POLLIN: Well, of course they could. I mean, the
oil reserves now, at 42 years of proven reserves, are at its peak
relative to the last 40 or 50 years. So the oil is there.There
are, you know, short-term issues, yes. If the Iranians say, we're going
to block the Strait of Hormuz, okay, so that could create some
disruption in the oil coming out of the Middle East. They have not done
that, by the way. But nevertheless we've got a price spike.And
the price spike is based on what's going—how this news gets digested
via the speculation on the markets, which pushes up price. Okay. And
then, when the price goes up, then speculators think the price is going
to go up even further. That pushes up the futures price even more. And
then today's price, the price in the market today, the spot price,
follows the futures price. That's a pretty well-established pattern.And
this—people have to understand that there has always been an oil
futures market. It just that the size of this oil futures speculation is
fourfold greater than it was just a decade ago. So these effects from
the futures markets, the speculative market, the financialization of
commodities, of oil in particular, is a new phenomenon.
JAY: And the other part of this supposed supply and demand—I say supposed
because of course it's real, but how manipulated it gets—is that you
have oil traders buying oil and then sticking it in oil tankers floating
at sea, dozens, perhaps hundreds. I mean, I have yet to have been able
to find an exact number, because I talked to a guy who ran this
operation for Texaco, and it's a big secret how many oil tankers are at
sea—at least a secret from the general public. I suppose people in the
business know how to find out about it. But they just let the oil sit in
tankers waiting for future contract dates, and they know that these
future contract dates are a higher price than today's spot market, and
then they deliver the boats then.
POLLIN: Yeah. So, of
course, I mean, why wouldn't you do that? If the price today is $100 a
barrel and we already have futures contracts at $105, that's a 5 percent
return just by letting the oil sit in the tanker for a month. So that's
the kind of thing that's going on, and those are the things that
are—those effects are being pulled by the fact that we have this
hyperspeculative oils futures market.
JAY: And what do you
make of President Obama's response? Because I know he's mentioned
speculation. He sort of had a few nods in the direction that it should
be investigated even by Eric Holder, but nothing has happened. But on
the whole he seems to kind of accept the logic, yes, we need to produce more domestic oil. He adds to that, and alternative energy sources,
which the Republicans don't say much of. But he doesn't actually talk,
really, about the issue of speculation, about position limits, the whole
financialization, as you say. We don't hear much of any of that from
him.
POLLIN: Well, the reason, of course, is because
there's a lot of money being made on Wall Street doing the kind of oil
speculation that we're talking about. So it is an extremely volatile
political issue. It is being—we've talked about it before—it's been
fought over.
You know, the Dodd–Frank financial regulatory law that was
put in place in 2010 on paper has some fairly decent, strong regulations
as regards the commodities futures market.But what has
been fought over ever since the thing got passed in June or July 2010 is
how exactly we implement these laws. And that is still being fought
over. And Wall Street, of course, is not going to go down without a big
fight, because they don't want to have this extremely lucrative market
regulated, and Obama is trying to stay out of that fight. And most
people don't understand what's going on. That's why it's very important
that you all have been covering this almost alone among independent
journalistic outlets.
So that's—I mean, these are extremely important
issues.And the impact of the speculative market far swamps
what could actually happen as result of drilling in Alaska for building
the pipeline. The effects of those things, of course, in any case, are
only going to occur over a matter of several years, and meanwhile we
don't see any significant supply and demand imbalances.And,
also, the thing that we should be doing, if we really are concerned
about disruptive oil supplies, is start thinking about building a more
energy-efficient economy. That's the biggest source of control that we
can develop over the problems with the oil market.
JAY:
Well, that's another piece of this that rarely gets talked about, which
is: what is the real cost of oil? I mean, we know there's this
speculative influence, we know the manipulation of markets through
supply and demand and manipulation of supply and demand, but there's a
whole another piece to this, which is the cost of a carbon oil based
economy that isn't taken into account, because the rest of society pays
in many other ways, but not directly in how it affects the price of oil.
So what is that all about?
POLLIN: Well, what it's really
all about is—obviously, this is extremely unpopular position, and Romney
has already said he's going to pounce on Obama on this point, which is:
the price of oil should be higher. The price of oil should be higher to
reflect the social costs, the environmental costs of consuming oil and
emitting greenhouse gas emissions and creating global warming. So that
needs to happen.Now, it is—I mean, Romney has already said
this is one of his top five issues running against Obama, that he's
going to say that Obama wants the price of oil to be higher.Now,
I don't really know what Obama wants. I do know that over time the
price of oil in the United States should be higher. But at the same time
that the price of oil should be higher, it shouldn't be higher as a
result of the power of Wall Street, of the financialization of the
commodities market. It should be higher as a result of trying to control
for greenhouse gas emissions, so at the same time that we are raising
the price of oil and other fossil fuels, we also need to be much more
aggressive in terms of building out much more energy efficiency measures
that are easy to do, that are at our fingertips, and investing
increasingly in renewable energy.
JAY: I mean, if you took
out the superprofits being made through speculation and manipulation,
maybe you don't even need a higher price of oil; you just need that
difference to go into developing alternative energy sources, if you
could eliminate this skinning the cat two and three times that takes
place now.
POLLIN: Well, okay. We should eliminate the
skinning the cat. But we also should have a price of oil—. I mean, you
know, in Europe and the rest of the world, people pay—I mean, we're
paying $4 a gallon now, and the rest of the world, it's probably in the
range of $5 to $6, and most of that is the tax that reflects the fact
that they—countries, other countries, don't want to have people
consuming so much petroleum. They're not suppliers themselves, and they
recognize the social costs embedded in burning fossil fuels much more
than we do.
JAY: But it's a fairly regressive tax, isn't
it? I mean, ordinary people that have to get to work, in terms of the
percentage of their income they spend on transportation—.
POLLIN:
Yes, obviously. So we would have to have some compensation. I mean, my
colleague here at UMass, Jim Boyce, has actually developed agenda for
having a tax on fossil fuels, and more generally on carbon emissions,
but then having the money that is earned by the tax rebated back to
people on a per capita basis, which would then make it actually very
progressive, and it would not be very hard to implement. That's one
idea.The other idea, you know, when the price of oil goes
up, you do get some adjustment in terms of efficiency. People do start
using public transportation more. The trouble is that for the most part
our public transportation systems aren't any good. And the argument
about that is, oh, yes, yes, it'll take forever to build, you know,
another great subway system like New York. Maybe. But, you know, buying
buses and putting more buses on the road is actually something that we
could do very quickly. And if you have decent bus lines, more people
would use public transportation.I mean, in Japan last
year, as a result of the embargoing of Iranian oil, they actually cut
oil consumption by about 20 percent, even though they had actually also
had to cut their nuclear power because of the disaster there.So
there are a lot of opportunities for increasing energy efficiency in a
pretty rapid way if we would just kind of get focused on it and see it
as the first solution within the framework of problems that we have.
JAY:
Of course, the fossil fuel industry ain't so keen on efforts in that
direction, and they seem to have been quite successful up till now to
slowing it down.
POLLIN: Yeah. Well, they're there. That's
for sure. So that's—we have to fight that. And, you know, I mean, they,
obviously, the fossil fuel industry—. The fossil fuel industry, by the
way, the oil companies don't particularly like the Wall Street traders
skimming off what they deem is their proper profits and them getting
portrayed as the bad guys alone, the oil companies, when in fact some of
it is coming out of the speculators. So there may be opportunities to
find fractures between various segments of business on this point. After
all, Ben Bernanke has said that, you know, he desperately doesn't want
to see another oil spike. And neither does Obama. So maybe this is
something that, you know, we can get focused on, at least for the short
term, is recognizing the centrality of oil speculators in spiking the
price of oil now.
JAY: Thanks for joining us, Bob.
POLLIN: Okay. Thank you very much, Paul.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.