Here’s Obama on the campaign trail: “The problem is … speculators and people make various bets, and they say, you know what, we think that maybe there’s a 20% chance that something might happen in the Middle East that might disrupt oil supply, so we’re going to bet that oil is going to go up real high. And that spikes up prices significantly.”

While blaming economic conditions on speculators is the common stock in trade of demagogues and politicians of all stripes, what is the president actually saying?

People who need energy to keep their businesses working, business that make modern life possible, look around at world events and grow concerned that the U.S. government and others may conspire to interrupt the flow of oil. Behaving like good stewards of their enterprises, they and their agents seek to assure needed oil supplies in an uncertain future by contracting for tomorrow’s oil needs today.

While Obama deprecates the activity, saying that those trying to prepare for future conditions, are “betting,” most oil users would actually prefer stable prices and would just as soon forego the guessing game about future prices. It’s a game that costs them if they are wrong and only allows them to stay in business if they are right. Most are happy that someone – those speculators politicians love to vilify – are willing to take on the risk of being wrong about future price movements for the rewards of being right. The real oil users can then count on liquid markets when they need them and keep their attention – and their capital – focused on delivering the blessings of modern life instead of betting on the movement of prices.

And there is something wrong with this? Hold the phone a moment!

It’s not as though those seeking to secure oil for their future needs are making something up. They’re not concerned about some fantasy development, some exogenous agent like space aliens appearing out of nowhere to suck up all of earth’s oil. This isn’t science fiction. They’re trying to keep things working in the face of very real and very familiar government threats to our way of life.

Maybe they should be praised, not condemned.

While one administration bureaucrat has claimed there is a “Wall Street premium” on the price of oil, it takes government to make a war. Speculators trying to anticipate future prices in the event of a war don’t impose embargoes. Nor do they launch airstrikes.

In The Dollar Meltdown, I estimated that during the constant saber rattling and elective wars of the Bush years, the fear premium on the price of oil may have run from $20 to $40 a barrel, depending on developments. It was, in any case, a huge transfer of wealth from the American people to the oil sheikdoms, Putin’s Russia, and Chavez’s Venezuela.

If Obama is prepared to further de-capitalize the American people and deliver another blow to an economically-depressed world by supporting an Israeli strike on Iran and risking the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, isn’t it a good thing that he has to confront at least some of the cost of such recklessness?

He’s a politician. He should pay a political price.

George W. Bush never did. But we would be better off economically if he had to reckon with the price for his elective war.

Might Bush have been dissuaded from his unnecessary war if he had known that it would cost not under $50 billion, as his administration claimed, but more like $5 trillion?

Would Bush have given up plans for his counterproductive war on Iraq – a war that has only consolidated Iran’s Shi’ite power bloc in the region – if he had known that he would preside over an explosion of the nation’s visible debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion?

Would Bush have foregone his wasteful war justified by forged documents and phony intelligence if he had known that its cost would help trigger the steepest downturn in America since the Great Depression, even as the cost of the Vietnam War helped create the stagflation decade of the 1970s?

If he had known the costs and the outcome, would Bush have been capable of better decisions?

Nah. Bush was not capable of forethought or making wise decisions. When he ran for reelection in 2004, Americans still hadn’t come to terms with the monstrosity of his bogus war. And his opponent, John Kerry (“Reporting for duty!”) wasn’t willing to risk defeat by opposing the prevailing war fever. Had he done so, he would have still lost in 2004, but could have easily been elected on the “told you so” platform by the time people began seeing through Bush’s war in 2008.

Whatever Obama’s real view about war with Iran, he at least has enough foresight to know that it will result in even higher gas prices.

At his first press conference of 2012, Obama responded to a question about gas prices with a question of his own, asking the reporter, “Do you think the President of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? Is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?”

Obama knows that the price at the pump can cost him the election.

If it is wariness about the political cost of higher oil prices that has Obama preferring “engagement” to bombing Iran, it is a good thing. If it is speculators buying oil against future possibilities that keep Obama from reacting as Romney and the neocon Republicans egg him to start another needless and ruinous war, then we owe speculators a debt of gratitude.

Regards,

Charles Goyette

I Love Oil Speculators was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

It’s simple for a senator to blame high oil prices on speculators. But don’t hold your breath to hear a long discussion of the taxes on every gallon of gasoline and heating oil that the government collects each time we fill up our tanks. Perish the thought.

So who are these speculators, and why and how could the high prices of commodities be their fault? Of course, those are the real questions. But the conversation never really gets that far. The cameras are turned off before the detectives hit that crime scene.

Beyond the Sound Bites: Hoping for Real Answers

To say we are in a crisis is a massive understatement. It’s like saying there was a little fire on the Hindenburg. As oil prices surge and the ebb and flow of trading begins to catch up with the world’s growing population, we can expect to see these prices continue to climb — maybe exponentially.

Meanwhile, the fools in Washington, and those political candidates hoping to get into that asylum, continue to talk the same smack they have for years. Essentially, they’ll say whatever they need to in order to get elected. What else is new?

The problem this time, however, is that the situation is simply too dire. We should not waste time trying to find scapegoats. That won’t solve the problem. It will just distract attention while politicians hope for answers.

But let’s face it. The blame game works. The politicians have an easy target in speculators. After all, the average American imagines Gordon Gekko-type characters slashing and burning their way through Wall Street and making the everyday man’s life more expensive while they water-ski behind their yachts.

So for senators and other politicians, it’s not a tough putt to get the general public to latch on and want to lynch every speculator out there.

But Gordon Gekko was not a speculator. He was a manipulator. He used information he should not have had to do things he should not have done.

That does not matter to the politicians, however. They want to paint every speculator with a broad brush. To the politicians, every legitimate speculator is an unlawful manipulator.

The problem is this: If the politicians restrict legitimate speculation, they will cripple the free market and actually cause prices to surge even higher. Politicians have confused things pretty badly.

Speculation shapes the margins of the markets. Many markets cannot function correctly without some element of speculation at the margins. Few politicians seem to understand that. Or they do, but won’t acknowledge it. Either way, it’s a critical mistake to be focusing on witch-hunts, rather than real answers.

Liquidity, Liquidity, Liquidity

In real estate, it’s location, location, location. In trading, it’s liquidity, liquidity, liquidity.

In case a number of U.S. senators don’t know, one of the most important elements in a free market is a provision of liquidity. It is possible to discover an “active price” only when the market is free and open. This is the job that speculators perform. Without speculators, there cannot be free market capitalism.

Yet even in the face of clear evidence that speculators perform this vital service, all we hear about is how speculators are causing the run-up in energy prices. And then we hear how speculators need to be more “regulated.” It’s absurd and dangerous.

As Richard Rahn of the Cato Institute writes in a great article for The Washington Times, “Many members of Congress make up ‘solutions’ to things they do not understand and cause problems where there are none or make real problems worse, which explains the current run-up in gasoline prices.”

Amen.

If You’re Not Part of the Solution, You’re Part of the Problem

You may be reading this and saying, “Of course you’re saying this. You’re a speculator!”

Very true, but I am also a consumer who has to buy gasoline and heating oil, just as you do. I also know the risks of assuming any position in these volatile markets. And that risk is calculated each time I trade. There are no guarantees. (How I wish there WERE some guarantees when I lay my cash on the line!)

The other very important factor here is to realize that speculators are not beholden to one side of the market. They are married to movement, not direction.

As far as my trading portfolio goes, I couldn’t care less if oil were moving higher or lower. As long as there is movement, we have trading opportunities.

The problem with blaming speculators is the damage done to the free market can be irreversible.

Richard Rahn goes on to say, “Speculators are not the problem; they are part of the solution, by reducing the risk for producers, refiners and other oil market participants. This risk reduction results in more production of oil, other fuel, food and metals where futures markets exist.”

Once again, he has hit the nail on the head. Reducing the number of speculators in the free market actually has the reverse impact. It drives prices much, much higher.

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Let me just say that I am one of the biggest advocates of free, open, transparent markets. So are almost all speculators. The integrity of any market is only as good as its participants. And in some cases, I can see the need for more regulation. But the best regulator of the commodity market is usually the market itself. Markets punish unwarranted excesses.

Did you notice that back in July — when oil prices slipped from record highs and even had their biggest one-week drop in history — nobody was calling for speculators’ heads? There were no congressional hearings into the matter, just silence.

The fact of the matter is that speculators were just as active on the way down as they were on the way up, providing the service they do. With or without speculators, prices will continue to climb. The solutions, however, will be much harder to come by without speculators. The speculators are the ones who add liquidity and discover the best free market prices every day.

We must set aside all of the election-year rhetoric and demand better from our politicians, energy producers and even ourselves. We all have to take some responsibility if we hope to find solutions. Simply blaming one group of people is not going to work. The challenges of Peak Oil — if not Peak Everything — remain. Banning speculation means just losing a critical piece of the early warning system.

Regards,
Kevin Kerr
August 4, 2008

P.S.: While speculators might have gotten their feelings hurt shouldering the blame for high oil prices, many don’t mind at all. You see, the commodities boom is making a lot of them very rich. And nothing is stopping you from taking their lead and playing the game. These guys have been trading in a secret, and very profitable market for years.

Oil Speculation was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

Speculators are speculating because there is something about which to speculate. (Let me thank my sixth-grade English instructor for teaching me how to compose that sentence.)

Remember when oil ran up back in 1979 and 1980, when the entire Iranian oil industry collapsed in the wake of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution? About five million barrels of oil per day simply left the world marketplace. It was gone — poof! Not there. No tankers.

Even though five million barrels went away, people could still look to places like the North Sea, Alaska, Angola and elsewhere. And they could feel certain that sooner or later, there would be future oil supplies flowing down the pipelines.

But that’s not the case today. When people look ahead now, they don’t see from where the oil of the future will come. Most of the world’s current large oil fields are in decline.

As for the so-called oil speculators, they are just defending the value of their money. They are looking forward a few years. What do they see? All of the current energy development projects will just barely replace the oil that will NOT be coming from declining oil fields. So peering ahead, there’s no net increase in future oil output. We’re looking at a plateau in output, if not the backside of the Peak Oil curve.

But we are looking at growing energy demand, as well as demand for other resources. So investors have placed hundreds of billions of dollars into energy and other commodity funds during the past two years. They are both hedging against dollar inflation and anticipating future supply shortfalls.

Long term, this is great news for one of my Outstanding Investments recommendations, a Canadian tar sands company. This company is facing higher capital costs, as well as higher costs for inputs like natural gas. And it suffers from a raw political bias (suicidal, in my view) against synthetic crude oil because of the carbon dioxide emissions.

Along those lines, some politicians in the U.S. want to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that includes Canada. Word to the wise: Don’t go there!

Really, if the U.S. renegotiates NAFTA with the Canadians, our friends to the north will have some surprises in store. The U.S. will rue the day that it tore up NAFTA with the Canadians, because that will just plain shut off many of the valves on a lot of pipelines.

Seriously, the Canadians have eager buyers for their energy resources, and they don’t need us Yankees. Just keep in mind that downstream, people will demand oil, and companies that have it will make money.

Getting back speculation, those “speculators” are not the problem. Speculators are sending a message that policymakers had better heed. American politicians better get serious about finding pathways through the “energy issue.”

Although I do have political opinions, I try to keep them private, especially careful not to hurt the feelings of any of my readers.

But that does not mean that I don’t have opinions within areas of my own expertise. If you are reading this, you must know that oil prices have doubled in the past year. There are profound supply issues looking forward. (I’ve been writing about Peak Oil and related issues for Agora Financial for four years.) And world demand is still rising, despite the very slight pullback in U.S. oil usage in the first half of 2008.

Whoever wins the race had better be ready to think in terms of energy. And I mean from day one.

Energy is not just “another issue.” It’s not as if a politician could “do energy” and then move onto other important items on the agenda — like appointing your friends federal judges and handing your political donors prestigious ambassadorships.

Energy will be the defining issue of the next president’s term of office. This is already baked into the cake. Nothing will change it, short of a major war. And even fighting a major war will be controlled by the energy issue (as was World War II, by the way — another long story). The U.S. won’t go to war over most things. But we’ll fight over energy. Or where have you been?

Every U.S. president has had something associated with his term of office. It might be good. It might be bad. But it’s the shorthand way in which we remember the guy. When I think of Lyndon Johnson, I think of the Vietnam War. When I think of Richard Nixon, I think of Watergate. When I think of Ronald Reagan, I think of him meeting with Gorbachev and winding down the Cold War.

The next president’s big issue is already on the table. It’s energy. It has been decided.  The gods and fates have so dictated. Everything else is window dressing. Everything else is just the White House Easter egg hunt. Nothing else will control the outcome of the next president’s term of office. Energy, that’s it.

Energy. Take it or leave it. Except you can’t leave it. The nation needs to get energy right. We can have energy supplies for the economy. Or we can just decide to wind down the 232-year-old experiment called the United States of America. We can hop, skip and jump into James Howard Kunstler’s The Long Emergency. It’s that stark.

Here is the slogan for the next White House Situation Room: “It’s the energy, stupid.” Practice is over. It’s game day. It’s time to suit up and play. What’s your plan?

And we can’t just do 20 more years of energy research. Really, suppose that nobody ever filed another patent for a new and better invention in the field of energy. We could spend the next century just rewiring the nation based on what we already know how to do. The future is one of systems engineering. The future is all about taking the ideas and technology that’s already out there. Bring them down off the shelf and make them work to run the country.

So if the next president-elect is not ready to tackle the energy issues of this nation, he just ought to stay home on Inauguration Day. Don’t waste our time.

Until we meet again…
Byron W. King
July 8, 2008

P.S.: It’s become clear that oil and energy have become the dominant issues in this closely contested election. The sky-high prices along with increased media attention mean that solving this problem is paramount to many politicians and innovators alike. That’s why we’ve seen some incredible improvements recently that could go a long way toward solving this problem. One of the best inventions we’ve seen in a decade is finally being released and could be the solution we’ve been looking for.

Oil Speculation was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.