Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

The Speculation Explanation: Framing the Energy Crisis

By Matthew S. Miller, AlterNet. Posted June 28, 2008.


The speculation explanation blurs the issues involved in our present energy crisis.
Advertisement

"There is nothing in that equation that says oil should cost what it costs today. Nothing! With one exception -- speculation." -- Mike Norman, Fox News Central

"A major contributor (to high oil prices) is the rise in speculation." -- Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., to CNNMoney

"Perhaps 60 percent of today's oil price is pure speculation." -- F. William Engdahl, Global Research

The $11 spike in the price of crude oil on Friday, June 6, pasted a great big exclamation point on the sentence, "Something is wrong with oil prices" banging around in the worried minds of America's happy motoring hoi polloi. With the national average for a gallon of liquid mobility hovering around four bucks, fear, now the only motive for action among the populace of fortress America, inevitably initiated some reflection among them. Such instinctive fear-inspired attention developing around the plug-in of the matrix must be deflected, and so it was: Enter the speculation explanation.

The speculation explanation blurs the issues involved in our present energy crisis by suggesting the wrong semantic frame to truthfully explain high oil prices and the likely consequences of depletion. Oil futures speculation is only tangentially relevant to an honest discussion of the price of oil. In fact, it is harmful because it undermines and replaces a reality-based appraisal of the problem. This meme arose simultaneously from a variety of sources by institutional necessity from within the propaganda apparatus to serve the interests of the military-industrial-congressional-cultural complex. Those interests are "business as usual" at all costs. The story will sound familiar.

The speculation explanation filtered through the media system like a virus; the cable TV culture conduit showed footage of it being uttered by corporate shills, politicians, kings and think tank pundiots until it became common knowledge. It was repeated like the pledge of allegiance, everyone marching in lockstep, in exactly the fashion predicted in the propaganda model of media. It was the version of events created for public consumption.

Pairing the words oil and speculation ubiquitously and uncritically, the usual cable news talking heads faithfully disseminated the meme to the masses. The cacophony reached new heights in congressional hearings last week. Politicians from the auto state opined repeatedly about speculation for an obvious reason -- the inverse relation between high gas prices and Michigan's economic survival. The notion of speculation as the principle cause of recent price spikes also found a defender from among those who also believe that oil comes from a magic oil fairy that lives at the center of the Earth and abiotically refills oil reservoirs as they deplete (making the 60 percent speculation quotient easier to estimate presumably?). So what is the average American to make of this?

Economists employ the term speculation to refer to a specific kind of market activity. Markets generate wealth in four ways: profit from direct financing of business activity or investment; profit through risk minimization or hedging; profit from price differences between two distinct markets, or arbitrage; and profit through price differences in a single market, known as agiotage, or speculation. The speculator tries to buy low and sell high, thereby profiting from the market uncertainty about the future supply. Speculation and market manipulation are two different things. The speculator is simply betting the price will go up.

Oil is a fungible commodity in a global market. Used to be that speculation was never a problem for the oil market, since world supply steadily grew year on year, and if the price ever got too high "somebody" would just turn on the pump and flood the market with cheap crude. Call it supply-side price controls. In the early days of the 20th century, that somebody was Uncle Sam and his nephew Standard Oil.

Since the '70s, the world's swing producer has been the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This macro-manipulation of the price of oil, neo-liberal reservations aside, never garnered a congressional or popular objection, as long as it was the United States or our ally in the desert doing the manipulation in order to keep things humming right along for the disaster capitalists.

While the Saudis announced plans last week to increase their production by a quarter of a million barrels, they -- or even a unified OPEC -- cannot lower price by increasing supply. The proposed increase represents a mere quarter of a percent of daily world production, and it has no chance of making even a minor dent in price. Considerable doubt remains about whether such an increase can be sustained for long. The Saudis cannot increase supply to match demand in any event, so that's it for supply-side price controls. It should come as no surprise that even Abdullah joined the speculation sing-along lest he witness his vast dollar-denominated assets devalue further.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: triple crisis, energy crisis, peak oil, speculation, oil



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
An Excellent Analysis of the Oil "Problem"
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 29, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question is now : What do the powers that be intend?

1. Is this just a political ploy for the up coming elections so that when they are over our "leadership" will explain the problem the world has with Peak Oil and embark on a true Apollo Program for energy?

or

2. Are the powers that be waiting for the chaos and the economic meltdown to begin another war, use the "Shock Doctrine" of "Disaster Capitalism" here at home in America or both to consolidate their iron grip on us?

My answer is #2. War or no war, the powers that be will do anything to keep their power. People will soon understand that the pols, the security agencies, the military and chosen industries have all known about Peak Oil for years. They have game played this scenario. It couldn't have been a secret after US production peaked in 1970, making Hubbert peak theory a proven fact.

Just Friday, the SF Chronicle printed Preparing for the unthinkable - nuclear attack

It is also interesting that the Telecom Immunity Act came up giving the Administration carte blanche for domestic spying ... Originally they were going to sneak this quietly through after the election and before the new term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speculation is a distraction
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jun 29, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A futures contract requires both a buyer and a seller. What we have now are index funds buying oil futures as a protection against a falling dollar. They aren't "speculating". It's the short side of the contract that's doing the speculating, and they're now caught in a classic "short squeeze", depending on nit wits like Joe Lieberman to attack the index funds to bail out the short side speculators.

Attacking the index funds is much easier than attacking the Fed for their cheap dollar policy. Of course, this is all mute since the foreign central banks are now going to pull the props from under the Fed by dealing with their own inflation problems. The Fed is toast!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Read the following Posted by: ReallyBearish
Speculation vs Supply & Demand
Posted by: Alter2008 on Jun 29, 2008 11:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speculation vs Supply & Demand

"The speculation explanation filtered through the media system like a virus" and following "exactly the fashion predicted in the propaganda model."

The same "propaganda" model is basically true for the supply and demand explanation.

The polarization this debate takes on what is causing the "Crisis", without any meaningful changes being enacted on either side, is quite disgusting.

However, it seems that all the ones who argue "Supply & Demand" seem to have the most to gain in the short term aspects of this "Crisis".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

speculation
Posted by: willd4change on Jul 1, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a good artical but only a small part of the problem.
Global warming is a hoax, a scare tactict to go green. Temperatures and climate change were worse in the 1930's. The earth is actually cooling since 1995. The weather patterns are crazy now but will settle in the future. check the 2008 climate summit at heartland.org
The stock market controls in part the price of oil because of the agreament in 1970 with OPEC to only deal in US dollars. The problem is OPEC wants to start dealing in other currency and by golly G.W. can't have that. With the housing crash the investors need to make back that money some how why not oil. Now that we have Iraq under the thumb we can up production there. Iraq is at maybe half it's max production (so says the bush administration). I think it would be a whole lot easier to use 1 year of the money spent on the wars and build an infrastructure (mass transit)in the USA that would leave us less dependent on cars, but thats just me.
If it is supply and demand our government is sticking to the foreign policies to protect our overseas intrests (oil) that has been the topic since 1979.
So lets point fingers, speculators- nope, supply and demand- nope, weak dollar- nope, AAHHH I know good ole american politics. What do you think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Realistic framing
Posted by: wjfaust on Jul 3, 2008 7:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations on an excellent article--very realistically framed. Speculation may be driving the price up but it is grounded in a deeper reality--peak oil. Our corporate masters certainly understand how much we want to avoid systemic change. Thanks for the comprehensive overview.

We used to call framing "establishing the context". I guess Lakoff has given framing more cachet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Neo-Liberal Explanation to a Neo-Liberal Problem
Posted by: CounterCorp on Jul 5, 2008 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since Matt Miller and other Clinton-era centrists are as enthralled by the so-called "free market" as the conservative Republicans they claim to oppose, they find it impossible to admit that participants are constantly trying to manipulate/"game"/subvert markets, and that popular recognition of that fact cannot simply be attributed to ignorance, conspiracy theories, or wishful denial.

That Miller is forced to resort to blaming the economically unjustified jump in oil prices to linquistic framing (!) shows just how desperately the free market clique is grasping for any excuse that allows them to preserve their unquestioning belief in the sanctity and divine perfection of their market-deity.

After a rambling and discursive preamble, Miller finally slips his key sentence into the twelfth paragraph: "There is no oil bubble, only a widening gulf between the amount of oil available and the amount of oil we want to use." There you have it, folks: Supply and Demand, the Holy Grail of orthodox economics. With that economic law of gravity underlying one's analysis, who needs facts, history, or more plausible explanations?

Miller than goes on to explain that, "Since world supply has remained flat since 2005, prices have risen" — as if "the amount of oil on the market" and "world supply" are the same thing; the very existence of OPEC, an oil producers' cartel designed specifically to control the global amount/price of oil proves that 1) there is no such thing as a free market for oil, and 2) the supply/price of oil is being kept artificially high by (and for the benefit of) oil producers and sellers.

Moreover, the price has risen sharply over the last several months — a much shorter amount of time than Miller deliberately avoids examining — and thus does not reflect the steady but gradual increase in demand over several years; demand for oil in China and India did not suddenly increase in the last month to justify the sudden and sharp increase in oil prices during that time.

If anything, the financial crisis in the U.S. and Europe (also triggered by the kind of market manipulation and fraud that Miller insists do not exist) has actually reduced demand from the two largest global consumers of oil, thereby offsetting (or at least mitigating) the increase in Chinese and Indian demand.

Moreover, steadily rising Chinese and Indian demand does not explain recent sharp, multiple-dollar jumps in world oil prices. Much as those who claim that the closing daily stock-market index average is an accurate barometer of the larger, long-term economy — despite off-setting rises and falls on successive days — Miller's analysis implies that traders get new information indicating that demand for deliveries of oil in the future will jump several percentage points — in the midst of a global economic slowdown — from one day to the next.

While it may well be true that oil will not go back down in price any time soon (if ever), and peak oil may be just around the corner (if it's not already happening), neither would cause contracts for future deliveries of oil to rise so sharply from one day to the next — that's classic price-bubble speculation.

(The whole point of the peak oil thesis is that the supply of oil won't abruptly end, but rather that it will reach a point at which its accessibility will begin to gradually but inexorably diminish, and thus its price will begin a steady but unarrestable rise.)

Besides, Miller himself claims that hedgers actually reduce price volatility and smooth out rapid, unpredictable price fluctuations that make financial planning and investment difficult and risky. If that's true, why isn't there less volatility in the oil market, and fewer sudden jumps in the price from one day to the next?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]