Oil prices will remain below $60 per barrel for the foreseeable future. At least this is what is being assumed by most oil producing companies. In the more distant future, prices may rise as investment in fracking, tar sands and new wells dries up. In meantime, however, marginal costs are sufficiently low as to make it economically viable to continue extracting oil from most sources at current prices.
The low prices are partly the result of increases in supply from large-scale investment in new sources of oil over the past few years and increased output by OPEC. They are also partly the result of falling demand from China.
But are low prices all bad news for the oil industry? It depends on the sector of the industry. Extraction and exploration may be having a hard time; but downstream, the refining, petrochemicals, distribution and retail sectors are benefiting from the lower costs of crude oil. For the big integrated oil companies, such as BP, the overall effect may not be as detrimental as the profits from oil production suggest.
Articles
BP – low oil price isn’t all bad new BBC News, Kamal Ahmed (27/10/15)
Want to See Who’s Happy About Low Oil Prices? Look at Refiners Bloomberg, Dan Murtaugh (31/10/15)
Low prices are crushing Canada’s oil sands industry. Shell’s the latest casualty. Vox, Brad Plumer (28/10/15)
Data
Brent spot crude oil prices US Energy Information Administration
BP Quarterly results and webcast BP
Questions
- Why have oil prices fallen?
- What is likely to happen to the supply of oil (a) over the next three years; (b) in the longer term?
- Draw a diagram with average and marginal costs and revenue to show why it may be profitable to continue producing oil in the short run at $50 per barrel. Why may it not be profitable to invest in new sources of supply if the price remains at current levels?
- Find out in what downstream sectors BP is involved and what has happened to its profits in these sectors.
- Draw a diagram with average and marginal costs and revenue to show why profits may be increasing from the wholesaling of petrol and diesel to filling stations.
- How is price elasticity of demand relevant to the profitablity of downstream sectors in the context of falling costs?
The second largest economy in the world, with a record expansion to its current economic status: China. With a phenomenal population, massive migration to the cities and incredible infrastructure development, China has fast become a key economic player, with environmental and pollution problems to match.
The price of China’s economic development may be too high for some people. Increases in incomes, growth and employment may be good news, but is the cost too high? Do economic growth and progress mean poor health and if so, is this a price worth paying
Another big topic within China is the impact on inequality. With growth accelerating in urban areas, population movement from the rural to the urban has been a common feature across China, but this has also created greater inequality. This population movement has separated families and played a role in creating barriers of access to health and education.
The following article from the BBC considers a range of indicators within China and you may also want to review some earlier blog postings on the Sloman News Site which analyse the Chinese economy.
Cement and pig consumption reveal China’s huge changes BBC News (21/9/15)
Questions
- What are the key drivers of China’s development?
- What are the costs and benefits of rural-urban migration?
- To what extent do you think there may be a trade-off between quality and quantity when it comes to infrastructure projects? Or is Chinese labour simply more efficient relative to countries such as the UK?
- How should we measure economic development? If access to education and health care is limited in the more rural areas, but widely available in the larger cities, does this suggest a country that is developing?
- What are the main externalities that China must tackle? Are they domestic issues or global ones? What about the solutions?
- If a key driver of Chinese growth and development is government investment in infrastructure projects, is this true and sustainable growth or do you think it might slowly disappear if the government doesn’t continue to invest?
- Do you think the relative success of China can be replicated in other emerging nations and in particular in nations within Africa?
Jeremy Corbyn, the newly elected leader of the Labour Party, is proposing a number of radical economic policies. One that has attracted considerable attention is for a new form of QE, which has been dubbed ‘people’s quantitative easing’.
This would involve newly created money by the Bank of England being directly used to fund spending on large-scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects. Rather than the new money being used to purchase assets, as has been the case up to now, with the effect filtering only indirectly into aggregate demand and even more indirectly into aggregate supply, under the proposed scheme, both aggregate demand and aggregate supply would be directly boosted.
Although ‘conventional’ QE has worked to some extent, the effects have been uneven. Asset holders and those with large debts, such as mortgages, have made large gains from higher asset prices and lower interest rates. By contrast, savers in bank and building society accounts have seen the income from their savings decline dramatically. What is more, the indirect nature of the effects has meant time lags and uncertainty over the magnitude of the effects.
But despite the obvious attractiveness of the proposals, they have attracted considerable criticism. Some of these are from a political perspective, with commentators from the right arguing against an expansion of the state. Other criticisms focus on the operation and magnitude of the proposals
One is that it would change the relationship between the Bank of England and the government. If the Bank of England created money to fund government projects, that would reduce or even eliminate the independence of the Bank. Independence has generally been seen as desirable to prevent manipulation of the central bank by the government for short-term political gain. Those in favour of people’s QE argue that the money would be directed into a National Investment Bank, which would then make the investment allocation decisions. The central bank would still be independent in deciding the amount of QE.
This leads to the second criticism and that is about whether further QE is necessary at the current time. Critics argue that while QE of whatever type was justified when the economy was in recession and struggling to recover, now would be the wrong time for further stimulus. Indeed, it could be highly inflationary. The economy is currently expanding. If banks respond by increasing credit, the velocity of circulation of narrow money could rise and broad money supply grow, providing enough money to underpin a growing economy.
Many advocates of people’s QE accept this second point and see it as a contingency plan in case the economy fails to recover and further monetary stimulus is deemed necessary. If further QE is not felt necessary by the Bank of England, then the National Investment Bank could fund investment through conventional borrowing.
The following articles examine people’s QE and look at its merits and dangers. Given the proposal’s political context, several of the articles approach the issue from a very specific political perspective. Try to separate the economic analysis in the articles from their political bias.
Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal
The Economy in 2020 Jeremy Corbyn (22/7/15)
Articles
People’s quantitative easing — no magic Financial Times, Chris Giles (13/8/15)
How Green Infrastructure Quantitative Easing would work Tax Research UK, Richard Murphy (12/3/15)
What is QE for the people? Money Week, Simon Wilson (22/8/15)
QE or not QE? A slippery slope to breaking the Bank EconomicsUK.com, David Smith (23/8/15)
We don’t need “People’s QE”, basic economic literacy is enough Red Box, Jonathan Portes (13/8/15)
Is Jeremy Corbyn’s policy of ‘quantitative easing for people’ feasible? The Guardian, Larry Elliott (14/8/15)
Corbynomics: Quantitative Easing for People (PQE) Huffington Post, Adnan Al-Daini (7/9/15)
Corbyn’s “People’s QE” could actually be a decent idea FT Alphaville, Matthew C. Klein (6/8/15)
Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘People’s QE’ would force Britain into three-year battle with the EU The Telegraph, Peter Spence (15/8/15)
Would Corbyn’s ‘QE for people’ float or sink Britain? BBC News, Robert Peston (12/8/15)
Strategic Quantitative Easing – public money for public benefit New Economics Foundation blog, Josh Ryan-Collins (12/8/15)
People’s QE and Corbyn’s QE Mainly Macro blog, Simon Wren-Lewis
You can print money, so long as it’s not for the people The Guardian, Zoe Williams (4/10/15)
Questions
- What is meant by ‘helicopter money’? How does it differ from quantitative easing as practised up to now?
- Is people’s QE the same as helicopter money?
- Can people’s QE take place alongside an independent Bank of England?
- What is meant by the velocity of circulation of money? What happened to the velocity of circulation following the financial crisis?
- How does conventional QE feed through into aggregate demand?
- Under what circumstances would people’s QE be inflationary?
Interest rates are the main tool of monetary policy and crucially affect investment. There has been much discussion since the end of the financial crisis concerning when UK interest rates would eventually rise. Uncertainty over just when, and by how much, interest rates will rise affects business confidence and hence investment. Businesses therefore listen carefully to what the Bank of England says about future movements in Bank Rate. But Mark Carney has now spoken about another cause of uncertainty and its impct on investment. This is the uncertainty over the outcome of the referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU.
By 2017, the Prime Minister has promised a referendum on staying in the EU, but Mark Carney has urged for this to be held ‘as soon as possible’. Whether or not the UK remains in the EU will have a big effect on businesses and with the uncertainty surrounding the UK’s future, this may soon turn to a lack of investment. 
As yet, businesses have not responded to this uncertainty, but the longer the delay for the referendum, the more inclined firms will be to postpone investment. As Mark Carney said:
“We talk to a lot of bosses and there has been an awareness of some of this political uncertainty – whether because of the election or because of the referendum … What they’ve been telling us, and we see it in the statistics, is they have not yet acted on that uncertainty – or to put it another way, they are continuing to invest, they are continuing to hire.”
Leaving the EU will have big effects on consumers and businesses, given that the EU is the UK’s largest market, trading partner and investor. With a referendum sooner rather than later, uncertainty will be more limited and any reaction by businesses will take place over a shorter time period. There are many other factors that affect business investment, some of which are related to the UK’s relationship with the EU and the following articles consider these issues.
EU referendum should be held ‘as soon as necessary’, says Mark Carney BBC News (14/5/15)
Business want an early EU referendum, Mark Carney indicates The Telegraph, Ben Riley-Smith (14/5/15)
EU poll should take place ‘as soon as necessary’, says Bank of England Chief The Guardian, Angela Monaghan (14/5/15)
Threat of business leaving the EU is fuelling business ‘uncertainty’, says Bank of England governor Mark Carney Mail Online, Matt Chorley (14/5/15)
Bank of England’s Mark Carney urges speedy EU referendum Financial Times, George Parker (14/5/15)
Questions
- Why is the EU important to the UK’s economic performance?
- If the UK were to leave the EU, what impact would this have on UK consumers?
- What would be the impact on UK firms if the UK were to leave the EU?
- Consider an AD/AS diagram and use this to explain the potential impact on the macroeconomic variables if the UK were to leave the EU.
- Why is uncertainty over the UK’s referendum likely to have an adverse effect on investment?
Climate change is a global issue and reports indicate that more and more people are concerned about buying environmentally friendly products. We have seen tighter emissions targets and companies across the word investing in new technologies to reduce their emissions. But what can the Church of England do?
The Church of England has numerous investments, which help generate its revenue. Some of these investments are in fossil fuel companies, which are extracting resources and polluting the environment. The Church’s new environmental policy will see it selling any of its investments in companies where more than 10% of its revenue is generated from extracting thermal coal or the production of oil from tar sands. Estimates suggest that this is a total of £12 million. The Deputy Chair of the Church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) said:
“The Church has a moral responsibility to speak and act on both environmental stewardship and justice for the world’s poor who are most vulnerable to climate change … This responsibility encompasses not only the Church’s own work to reduce our own carbon footprint, but also how the Church’s money is invested and how we engage with companies on this vital issue.”
However, some have seen this as ‘trivial act’, suggesting it will have limited effect on the environment and have criticised some for suggesting that the biggest moral issue facing the world is climate change. But, with more companies recognising their ‘moral responsibility’, perhaps this decision by the Church of England is unsurprising. The following articles consider this topic.
Church of England divests from coal, tar sands as adopts new climate change policy Reuters (30/4/15)
Church of England wields its influence in fight against climate change The Guardian, Damian Carrington (1/5/15)
Church of England Bishop provokes anger by saying the biggest moral issue affecting the world is … CLIMATE CHANGE Mail Online, Steve Doughty (2/5/15)
Church of England to sell fossil fuel investments BBC News (1/5/15)
Church of England blacklists coal and tar sands investments Financial Times, Pilita Clark (30/4/15)
Church of England ends investments in heavily polluting fossil fuels The Guardian, Adam Vaughan (30/4/15)
Church of England pulls out of fossil fuels, but where does it invest its cash? Independent, Hazel Shefield (1/5/15)
Questions
- Why is climate change a global issue?
- How might the Church of England’s decision affect environmental policy in fossil fuel companies?
- What other action has the Church of England taken to tackle climate change?
- The Church and the articles suggest that the poor are the most vulnerable to climate change. Why is this?
- Do you think the Church of England will lose money by divesting itself of some of these investments?
- If the Church of England now has more money to invest, which factors might influence its decision as to where it should invest?
- Where does the Church of England get its money from? What does it spend it on?
Oil prices will remain below $60 per barrel for the foreseeable future. At least this is what is being assumed by most oil producing companies. In the more distant future, prices may rise as investment in fracking, tar sands and new wells dries up. In meantime, however, marginal costs are sufficiently low as to make it economically viable to continue extracting oil from most sources at current prices.
