|
Thu May 8 21:37:23 2008 Bad Gas A bad idea that will likely make the problem worse. |
I've been reading a lot lately about the supply and demand of oil, and the
impact on gas prices. (See
High Oil and Gas Prices and
Peak Oil, for instance). In the 1970's, high gas prices made
consumers buy more energy-efficient cars, or back off on buying new cars
altogether. And the same thing is happening now.
Chrysler has gotten worried about that (not surprising, given their double-digit sales
declines). In response, they are now offering a guaranteed price of
2.99 per gallon for 3 years. That way, you can buy a car with low gas mileage, but not worry about your
fuel costs exploding in the future.
They have a few caveats. They don't let you buy more than a certain amount
each year. Premium gas costs a bit more. And they have attempted to limit
their own exposure by "using a
hedging strategy." Practically, that can only mean they are placing orders for
options to buy gas in the future at limited prices.
The idea is that consumers don't have to worry about gas prices anymore, so
people can go on buying cars again as if gas was still cheap! And as the article
notes, "...other carmakers will be watching the program closely as everyone
grapples with the negative effect of fuel costs on sales."
Chrysler may make some
money in the short term, especially if they are the first and only to market
for a while. It could be a way to shore up sales
while they update their product line with more gas-efficient models.
But in the long term, this is a bad idea for everyone. The high cost of oil
doesn't go away. Chrysler can hide it behind slightly higher auto costs, or
pass it on to other speculators via their hedging strategy. But if oil costs
keep climbing--and they probably will--then eventually Chrysler won't be able
to buy the options necessary to fund the program. Given the uncertainties in
supply, I suspect 3-year gasoline options will become
expensive very fast, especially if multiple automakers want to buy them in
volume.
So as a gimmick, this could work in the short term. But it just means more
people will buy less efficient vehicles for a while longer, and that will
ultimately push gas prices up even more.
Comments
|
Related:
> economics <
energy
Unrelated:
books
environment
geopolitics
lists
mathematics
predictions
science
|
|
Thu Apr 24 22:06:59 2008 High Oil and Gas Prices More dubious questions about high oil prices. |
In my April 1 post I talked about how the US Congress was grilling oil
executives about their profits. Now it's local!
Two Washington congresspeople, Senator Cantwell and Representative Inslee,
have
asked President Bush to set up a special task force to investigate the high prices. They claim "the price of oil and gas can no
longer be explained or predicted by normal market dynamics or their historic
understanding of supply and demand fundamentals."
Oh really?
I've given links (April 1, April 15, March 26) to multiple indications that
world oil demand is climbing while supply (oil production) is staying flat or
falling. On top of that, the US dollar is very weak, which doesn't help us in
the global market for oil.
High demand + falling supply + weak dollar = high prices.
I'm guessing Cantwell and Inslee are frustrated because the price of oil is
unrelated to the cost to produce it. But that's not unusual either: any time
that you have high demand and limited supply, the price (value) of an item is
only slightly related to the cost to produce it.
One recent example (for water prices, not oil) was when
China poisoned the Songhua river and the spill was carried by the river through multiple large cities and into
Russia. Almost 4 million citizens of the provincial capital
Harbin had their water supplies shut off when the authorities realized that the 100
tons of leukemia-causing
benzene might be dangerous.
Without water supplies, people started buying bottled water, which led prices
to skyrocket. Obviously, bottled water isn't very expensive to produce, so
the fact that prices shot up led to charges of "overpricing" and "price
gouging." (See
the USA Today story and
the IHT story.) Also see
this link for many on-the-ground anecdotes of people that went through it.
The idea is that greedy store owners started charging more for bottled water
when it was announced that tap water was poisonous. Therefore, they were
profiteers and price-gougers.
I only have one problem with that: the value of their water did go up!
How much would you pay for a bottle of water right now? Probably not much if,
like me, you are sitting only steps away from a perfectly good water tap.
Suppose you were told that the tap was shut off or poisoned, and the entire
city's water supply would be shut down for a week. Now how much
would you pay for that bottle of water? I'm guessing you'd pay more. You'd
probably pay a lot more.
Suppose a citizen of Harbin wanted to celebrate someone's birthday with a
monster slip-n-slide like
these guys. Before the disaster, great. But after it was announced that the city's
water supply had been poisoned, wouldn't it be irresponsible to hoard hundreds
of gallons of water for your slide? I think it would be irresponsible. And isn't that an indication that water is
worth more?
[Scary aside: the government knew about the crisis for days before it told
anyone! At first, it shut off the water supply without telling people why.
Government officials also apparently
told local bottled water producers to prepare days ahead of any official announcements while the benzene was drifting
downstream. So the "price gouging" could have been far worse if the
government hadn't acted--somewhat immorally--to jack up supply ahead of time.]
Anytime there is a scarcity of a needed item (water during a drought, food
during starvation), the value of the item--and therefore its price--goes up.
And the effect can be nonlinear! Just slight imbalances in supply and demand
can result in large price changes (especially for
inelastic supply such as oil).
So I have to believe that the current high prices are explained pretty
well by classic supply and demand curves. And the prices will just get worse
as demand increases (or stays high) while supply continues to fall.
Senator Cantwell and Representative Inslee will remain confused and
frustrated for many years to come.
Hopefully other members of Congress will do something productive to reduce the
demand side of the equation.
Comments
|
Related:
> economics <
energy
Unrelated:
books
environment
geopolitics
lists
mathematics
predictions
science
|
|
Sun Apr 20 21:49:45 2008 Best Books - Economics and Finance I list my favorite books on economics and finance. |
What are my current favorite books on economics and finance?
To make the list, a book had to meet these criteria:
Be interesting to read. This is hard for this subject! I just
wanted books that had an engaging style and narrative thread.
Give a solid big picture. Many books in this area are just
one recent author's attempt to sell the public on their latest
"winning" strategy. (Isn't it funny how for most of these
authors the best way to make
money is often just to sell books about making money?) I
wanted books that would give a coherent overview of how markets
worked, so an intelligent reader could figure out strategies on
their own.
Be reasonably objective. I wanted books where the author
realized that although they were experts, they didn't know
everything. Usually good authors compensate by presenting different
viewpoints, and clearly separating personal feelings and anecodtes
from facts.
So, flipping through my small library, here are my top picks (no particular
order):
Personal Finance: Easy, this has to be
A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Debunks a lot of the investment myths you hear about.
His simple (and very practical) advice on dollar-cost-averaging has gotten me
through two boom-bust cycles.
Economics: A favorite is
The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner. It is a combination of a History of Economics and a
primer all in one.
Macroeconomics: I'd pick
The World Economy Since the Wars by John Kenneth Galbraith. Maybe an odd choice, since I don't see many
other references to it! But I trust very few textbooks on macroeconomics
since I don't believe anyone really knows how it works. What I like about
Galbraith's book is that it is just him rambling about his experiences and
observations during the 20th century. He was not just an observer: he was a
participant, and held key posts in the US Government throughout World War II
and after. Great book. And speaking of Galbraith, that reminds me of
Busts: One of the most important things you can do, either as an
individual investor or the leader of a country or company, is to recognize
(and if possible ameliorate) boom/bust cycles. Unfortunately, most of those
in charge don't seem to be able to recognize busts until after they've
happened. If those in charge can't prevent them, at least a savvy investor can
take precautions to limit their exposure. And I know of no better way to recognize
these cycles than to study previous ones.
The Great Crash, again by Galbraith, is probably the best such book. It meets all of the
criteria, especially readability. Although Galbraith was better known for
other books such as
The Affluent Society and
The New Industrial State, I would not be surprised if The Great Crash became his biggest legacy, if
only because it remains timeless, whereas some of his other works were hugely
relevant in the 1950s but are less so now.
The other boom/bust book to read is of course
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay, first published in 1841. Not all of it is excellent, but
the chapters on The Mississippi Scheme, The South-Sea Bubble, and Tulipomania
are stunning. Even in 1841, he was writing about historical events, but those
chapters could be from the from the headlines of today. Later chapters on
Alchemy, Fortune Tellers, Magnetisers, and so on, just add to the point.
The bottom line: the clever have taken advantage of the foolish for all of
recorded history. Hopefully you can avoid being foolish by reading these, and
hopefully you have the integrity not to take advantage of those who have not
read them.
Comments
|
Related:
> economics <
lists
books
Unrelated:
energy
environment
geopolitics
mathematics
predictions
science
|
|
|