Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Dibattito economico. L'incognita "petrolio"

WALL STREET JOURNAL / April 7, 2005
Economists Tear Up Last Year's Predictions On the Price Level That
Would Stifle Growth
By TIM ANNETT
Just how high would oil prices have to rise in order to tip the U.S.
economy into recession?
Last summer, one-third of economists who participated in The Wall
Street Journal Online's economic forecasting survey said a recession
would follow if crude-oil stuck in between $50 and $59 a barrel --
exactly where futures prices have traded since late February.
But the economy isn't in peril today and, in the latest forecasting
survey, the economists have changed their minds. None feel that $50 oil
will trigger a recession. Thirty-one percent said they feel oil would
have to be sustained at $80-89 a barrel to snuff out growth, while 48%
believe crude would have to top $90.
Despite some recent spikes in oil prices, the economists don't expect
energy prices to reach levels that would endanger the economy. In
crafting their forecasts for growth this year, the economists, on
average, say they have assumed that oil would remain at around $47.46 a
barrel.
Indeed, the economists have kept their forecasts for economic growth
relatively stable over recent months, even as oil has hit new nominal
highs. This month, their forecasts for gross domestic product growth in
the first quarter were nudged higher to an average 4.1%, up from the
4.0% rate they predicted when asked last month. For the balance of
2005, they put growth at an average 3.6% rate.
"Economists and others are perhaps still struggling to understand how
oil prices affect the economy," says John Lonski of Moody's Investors
Service, who was among the economists who said in August that oil in
the range of $50 to $59 could provoke a recession, but who now say it
would take oil prices of more than $80 to slow economic growth.
He says that one reason that high oil prices haven't had as detrimental
an impact on the economy as initially predicted is that there is a
"plentiful amount of liquidity" in the economy thanks to the Federal
Reserve's accommodative monetary policy. Despite rate increases over
the past 10 months, borrowing costs for business and consumers remain
low relative to historical standards.
Sudden Spikes
Several economists say that the absolute level of crude oil isn't as
important as the rate at which it climbs. Sudden spikes - that are
sustained - can have a big psychological effect on consumers and
businesses, causing them to restrain spending. "The economy adjusts
more easily to higher prices when they occur gradually," says Richard
D. Rippe, chief economist at Prudential Equity Group.
Futures on crude oil for delivery in May hit $58.28 a barrel in
overnight trading Monday - the highest nominal price ever for such a
contract. On the New York Mercantile Exchange today, oil had slipped
back to around $56. These prices are far below the highs of the 1970s
and early 1980s. When adjusted for inflation, the price then reached
into the $90s. Recession followed.
Mr. Rippe, the Prudential economist, argues that mounting oil prices
are less of a threat now than in the 1970s and early 1980s for two
reasons. First, he says that the economy is more efficient now. Second,
he says, "The recent oil spurt has occurred at a time when the economy
is doing pretty well. It's easier to absorb the shock when other
factors are strong and promoting growth."
Even though the threat of recession doesn't seem near, rising oil
prices could take a bite out of growth. The economists say they would
shave their GDP forecasts by about three-quarters of a point if oil
prices were sustained in a range of $60 to $69 a barrel. Oil between
$70 and $79 a barrel could reduce GDP growth by 1.25 points, $80 to $89
oil could cut GDP nearly 2 points and a move above $90 a barrel would
potentially knock down growth by 2.5 points.
"Oil is the wild card," says Wells Fargo & Co. economist Scott
Anderson. "It's the hardest thing to predict but it probably has the
biggest impact."
At the Fed
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, in a speech Tuesday, said that higher
prices eventually should soften demand for energy and boost supply. But
he didn't say what impact he thought current oil-price levels would
have on economic growth or inflation this year.
Surging energy costs can be a thorny branch for the Fed to handle. High
oil prices tend to damp consumer spending and economic growth -- a
circumstance where the Fed would normally want to keep interest rates
low. But higher oil costs also could fan core inflation, which would
call for higher rates. Last month, the Fed signaled concern about
inflation for the first time in four years.
Presently, the economists expect the Fed will raise its key
federal-funds rate to 3.25% by June and to 3.75% or 4% by the end of
the year. They have nudged their forecasts for the fed-funds target
slightly higher over the past several months. The fund-funds target,
lifted seven times by the Fed since last summer, is at 2.75% now.
Nearly three-quarters of economists said in the survey that the Fed's
response to inflation so far has been about right; one-quarter say the
central bank should have been more aggressive. When asked if the Fed
should remove the reference to lifting interest rates at a "measured"
pace from its next policy statement - which could be taken by
investors as a sign that the Fed might become more aggressive -- the
economists diverge. Forty-four percent say it is time to remove
"measured," while 56% agree that the word should stay in place, at
least for now. The median expectation is that the Fed will remove it in
June.
Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Advisors, says that
deleting the phrase would cause more confusion about the Fed's stance.
Others, like Prudential's Mr. Rippe and Ian Shepherdson of High
Frequency of Economics, say that the removal of "measured" will be
dependent on coming inflation data: Before the next meeting, new
reports on consumer and producer prices, as well as the Fed's favored
inflation metric, the core price index for personal consumption
expenditures, are due.
The economists were also asked to fill out a report card for economic
policy makers in Washington. Mr. Greenspan consistently received the
best grades -- half of the economists gave him an A. But White House
officials and Congress were looked on less favorably, with President
Bush earning mostly Bs and lawmakers receiving mostly Cs. The reason?
Many economists are irked about the shape the federal budget is in.
"I would like to see Washington get more serious about the federal
budget," said Wells Fargo's Mr. Anderson. "Things like making the tax
cuts permanent could place burdens on the deficits going forward. Even
with a healthy expansion that's probably not the best way to run fiscal
policy."
Among other findings in the survey:
· Economists bumped up their forecasts for the consumer-price index
this month amid high oil prices, predicting the consumer-price index
will rise 2.6% by May of this year and be at 2.5% in November. In
March's survey, the CPI was seen growing at a stable 2.4% rate in May
and November.
· Employers are expected to add, on average, 189,000 jobs a month to
nonfarm payrolls over the next 12 months. That was down slightly from
the 196,000 forecast in March. Payrolls grew by 110,000 jobs in March,
well below the 243,000 jobs created in February. The outlook for the
unemployment rate held stable. It is seen at 5.2% in May and 5.1% in
November. The unemployment rate in March was 5.2%.
SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS
Economists were asked in surveys this month and in August of 2004 what
price for crude oil, if sustained for a meaningful period, would tip
the U.S. into recession. Here's how their answers, expressed in
percentage of economists selecting each range, compare from survey to
survey:
Range        Aug 2004  April 2005
Less than $50  0%        0%
$50-59        36.73%     0%
$60-$69       30.61%    4.76%
$70-$79       16.33%   16.67%
$80 or more   16.33%   30.95%
$90 or more    --      47.62%
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corp. recently reported a fourth-quarter PROFIT that
amounted to the fattest QUARTERLY take for a publicly traded U.S.
company ever: $8.4 billion. That translated into $3.8 million an hour.

 
Gia', le stesse compagnie che mandano i Bush al governo della 
superpotenza.
Anche l'ENI dovrebbe cavarsela mica male. Non a caso il governo vuole 
sostituire Mincato con un uomo piu' vicino.
Am.

 By TIM ANNETT
Dov'è il problema?  O 'un si doveva passare alle energie alternative
ed al "miracoloso" idrogeno?
L'economia (quindi la politica) mondiale deve ristrutturarsi e
se non lo fa con le buone (intelligenza) lo farà con le cattive
(prezzi del petrolio alle stelle). Peggio per noi che ci troviamo
in una fase di transizione...  :-(
Ciao!