I’ve written a few times before about the risk of the current global recession interacting with energy price spikes in a dangerous way. Long story short, price spikes cause recessions, but currently there’s pretty good reason to believe that we’re in a situation where any resumption of growth will lead to a price spike. Amanda Logan and Christian Weller from the CAP econ team have a newreport out that takes a look at some of the broader problems with extreme energy price volatility, focused on the ways in which price spikes inhibit investment:
— There is an 83.3 percent chance that consumers will spend a smaller share of their disposable income on vehicles after they have just gone through a period of high price volatility. In fact, consumers buy about 1.6 percent fewer cars one year after experiencing a year-long episode of large energy price swings.
— Investment in residential structures — new home purchases and upgrades — dropped by 0.5 percentage points relative to gross domestic product on average after energy prices swung wildly for 12 months.
— There is a 91.7 percent chance that business investment in transportation equipment — such as trucks and tractors — as a share of gross domestic product will decline after extraordinary energy price volatility, largely because businesses will buy 11.0 percent fewer vehicles.
Logan and Weller argue for a strong renewable energy standard as part of the fix. I agree, and I’ll join Pat Garofalo who says “I’m still in favor of using the gas tax to smooth out the boom and bust cycle of prices, which, as Jason E. Bordoff and Gilbert E. Metcalf at the Brookings Institution write, would ‘provide a strong, stable price signal to encourage both conservation and alternatives to oil.’”
Obviously, there’s a political problem there. But it is worth underscoring the point that tax increases are going to be necessary in the medium term one way or another. And there’s not, as far as I’m aware, any easy-and-popular form of tax hike out there. But at the end of the day, while tax increases may not be popular (ask Bill Clinton in 1993) good economic performance is popular (ask Bill Clinton in 1996) so smart politicians are going to have to ask themselves what kind of tax measures can they put in place that will help facilitate good economic performance.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Until the CAP econ team addresses the manipulation in oil futures markets by Goldman-Sachs and friends, they will have no credibility on this subject.
For such outright thievery to be condoned by the Obama administration is a disgrace (Obama even appointed a Goldman-Sachs guy to head the CFTC).
June 25th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Good god. That’s the first thing you’ve ever written that literally made me question your judgment.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Matt-
Gas taxes can only smooth prices insofar as supply is elastic. If supply is fixed, the only effect of gas taxes is on the income of producers. Obviously, the supply of gas is not perfectly fixed, but it is quite inelastic, which means the incidence of gas taxes is mostly on producers, with only a very small impact on the price at the pump.
You really need to think about the economics a bit more if you are going to keep pushing this idea.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Are you taking into account that the people who put the report together do not understand basic math????
It is very hard to trust a report when it wouldn’t be accepted in my 10th grade physics class.
There is an 83.3 percent chance ….
There is a 91.7 percent chance ….
The simple answer is NO THERE IS NOT a chance that those numbers are accurate to three significant digits.
My guess is that they meant to say 5 out 6 times and 11 out of 12 times. I read through the report and there is no evidence that I could see that could justify such supposed accuracy.
I am not saying any of the conclusions are wrong. I am just saying that the people who wrote the report don’t understand the statistics they were using.