Around the world, there is anguished hand-wringing about the high price of oil. But if political leaders and policymakers want lower oil prices, they should be promoting policies that strengthen the US dollar.
The implications of pricing oil in any single currency are more far-reaching than most people think. For example, some oil-producing countries ask their customers to pay in euros, but that does not mean that their oil is priced in euros. And even if US dollar prices were to be replaced by euro prices, the impact of single-currency pricing on the oil market would be the same.
While oil-exporting countries receive revenues in US dollars (or their euro equivalent), they use different currencies to import goods and services from various countries. Any change in the exchange rate of the US dollar affects the purchasing power of these countries, and therefore their real income.
Likewise, international oil companies sell most of their oil in US dollars, but they operate in various countries and pay some of their costs in local currencies. Any change in the value of the US dollar therefore affects their cost structure and profitability. In turn, it affects reinvestment in exploration, development, and maintenance.
The relationship between the value of the US dollar and oil prices is very complex. While they can feed on each other to produce a vicious cycle, their short-term relationship is distinct from their long-term relationship.
In the short-term, US dollar depreciation does not affect supply and demand, but it does affect speculation and investment in oil futures markets. As the US dollar declines, commodities — including oil — attract investors. Investing in futures becomes both a hedge against a weakening US dollar and an investment vehicle that could yield substantial profit, particularly in a climate of vanishing excess oil production capacity, increasing demand, declining interest rates, a slumping real estate market, and crisis in the banking industry.
OPEC might be correct to blame US policies and speculators for higher prices. It is also correct that if OPEC had excess capacity, it would have already used it to flush out speculators to bring oil prices down. OPEC can regain control in one of two ways: use its “claimed” excess capacity to flush out speculators, or use its financial surpluses to overtake them. Recourse to the latter option means that, even without excess capacity, OPEC can still be in the driver’s seat.
In the long run, however, statistical analysis of various oil industry variables indicates that a weaker US dollar affects supply by reducing production, regardless of whether oil is owned and produced by national or international oil companies. A weak US dollar also affects demand by increasing consumption. The result of a decrease in supply and an increase in demand is higher prices.
The lower US dollar also reduces the purchasing power of oil exporters. If nominal oil prices remain constant while the US dollar declines, the real income of the oil-producing countries declines, resulting in less investment in additional capacity and maintenance. The same is true of oil companies. Consequently, oil prices increase.
Indeed, because oil prices were rising while the US dollar was declining, capacity expansion by oil firms failed to meet forecasts for non-OPEC production in the last three years. Even oil production in the US has not matched the increase in oil prices, as rising import costs for tools and equipment — partly a reflection of the US dollar’s weakness and other factors — have forced project delays and cancelations.
Of course, the lower US dollar means cheaper oil in Europe, Asia, and all countries with appreciating currencies. Oil prices hit records in the US in 2004 and 2005, but not in Europe, which partly explains why economic growth there has not been affected. When Americans paid US$120 per barrel, Europeans paid only about 76 euros per barrel.
Several factors have prevented high oil prices from affecting the demand for petroleum products in the US in recent years, such as increased government spending, low interest rates, tax breaks, and an increase in real incomes.
To be sure, the weaker US dollar has forced some American families to spend their vacations in the US instead of Europe.
But since many Americans use gas-guzzling SUVs for their vacations, demand for gasoline has remained high.
Unless and until US consumption patterns change or a rebounding US dollar increases oil production, Americans will bear the brunt of single-currency oil pricing.
A.F. Alhajji is an energy economist and a professor at Ohio Northern University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with