High Oil Prices Will Fracture the World and End Globalization

Economist Jeff Rubin speaks with U.S. News about the future of the world's economy

May 29, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Globalization will soon be over, and it's the rising price of oil that will fuel this change. So, at least, argues Jeff Rubin, former chief economist at CIBC World Markets, the investment banking arm of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, in his new book, Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization. Rubin recently spoke with U.S. News about the future of the world's energy habits and the implications for the globalized economy. Excerpts:

What's the central argument of your book?
That triple-digit oil prices will reverse globalization and bring about the re-emergence of local economies. In the kind of world that we'll soon be facing, distance costs money. In many cases, not in every case, moving your production to China and then importing those goods back to Western Europe or North America will be foolish. In other words, what you will save on labor costs you will more than lose on transport costs.

Are your views controversial?
I guess they're controversial in the sense that I'm saying the world we're soon going to face isn't just about one variable—the wage rate—and that when you stop to consider what's really required to have a globalized economy, it's very cheap oil prices and very cheap transport costs. The controversial part of that is, in part, my argument that triple-digit oil prices are going to become a permanent feature of our economy and not just a blip.

How will the new economy change global politics?
A lot of long-lost jobs are going to be coming home. Triple-digit oil prices in a perverse sort of way is going to breathe new life into the rust belt. We already started to see that just before the recession hit with a whole renaissance in industries like U.S. furniture and U.S. steel, where transport costs were starting to make domestic producers competitive again. On the political front, what we're going to see in the future is something that would have been very difficult to envision here in North America, and that's the Archie Bunkers getting in bed with Al Gore. Blue-collar jobs are soon going to become green-collar jobs, and when unions go through the math and understand that the industries that their members work in emit one third to one half less carbon than the factories overseas that are stealing their jobs, they're going to want as high a price on carbon emissions as possible.

How will this affect China's global standing?
Exports to the United States or Europe isn't going to be the engine of Chinese growth anymore. Now, you can argue that it maybe hasn't been for the last couple of years, and certainly hasn't been since the recession hit, but between triple-digit oil prices and the prospect of a carbon tariff that may be $40 to $50 a ton, I don't think China will be Wal-Mart's supplier in the future. That doesn't mean that the Chinese economy can't continue to grow at a robust rate. It's just not going to be led by exports to Wal-Mart.

When will globalization end?
We're already starting to see that world trade has basically halted in its tracks. What we're going to find is very early into an economic recovery, within the first year, we're going to see triple-digit oil prices again, and we will already start to see shifts in trade. One of the biggest shifts will be from faraway, distant suppliers. It will probably be trade deficits with economies like Mexico that will become a lot more prominent in the world I see.

What's going to keep oil prices so high?
The real legacy of this recession is going to be on [diminished] supply. There's already been about one-and-a-half million barrels of planned production that has been canceled because it's not economically viable at today's prices. And there have been similar cancellations all around the world because most of the supply that the world is counting on doesn't make any economic sense at today's oil prices. What we're going to find very early on in an economic recovery is that while demand will spring back like a jack-in-the-box, the world will be producing less oil, not more, than it was a year and a half ago when oil prices got into triple-digit range.

Should President Obama read this book?
Yes, definitely. And I'm encouraged by many of the things President Obama has said, like, for example, tying oil policy with carbon policy because they are two sides of the same coin. There's absolutely no point in shutting down a coal plant in Texas or in Ontario if China is going to be building 80 coal plants in the next year. Unless we can get the compliance of other countries, this is going to be absolutely futile. And the way we're going to get the compliance of other countries is by charging a carbon tariff. Which is to say, you can burn as much coal as you want, but if you power that auto plant or steel plant with dirty power, then we're going to countervail you to the same rate that our producers have to pay for coal emissions in our economy. And that's, by the way, very different than Kyoto. Americans quite correctly rejected Kyoto, not so much on environmental but economic grounds. Kyoto wasn't a plan to cap emissions but to redistribute emissions from the developed world to the developing world. But now 90 percent of the emissions growth has come from the very countries that are exempted from Kyoto.

Tags:
energy,
oil,
globalization

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Very good article. I understand Jeff Rubin theory, but I do not believe things will be so radical. Due to the recession companies have problem dealing with their expenses. In order to lower expenses companies prefer to send their industries abroad where the minimum wage is lower. According to Jeff Rubin, even that will not help, because the oil price will be too high so the transports expenses would be tremendous. I do not believe the oil price would be that high to end globalization because globalization is not only based on transportation.

Jamila Bamba of MD 2:08PM November 22, 2010

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16752803/

With so much visible evidence within the New World Order of the flaws behind linear thinking and using false tautologies to justify legislative action, you would expect a treatise by a "noted economist" on 'oil and the end of globalization' might at least try to think massively parallel, instead of drop-foot premise-thesis-summation.

"...when unions ... understand that the industries that their members work in emit one third to one half less carbon than the factories overseas that are stealing their jobs, **they're going to want as high a price on carbon emissions as possible**."

The Federal Budget Office estimates Federal Carbon Cap & Trade tax revenues of $935B, the equivalent of an 18% - 20% increase in Federal income taxes, and not considering the tax burden impact of State governments eagerly lining up to impose the same tax sanctions, at a minimum, $3,000 per family, at a time when healthcare alone is sucking down 29% of GDP, just where does Mr. Rubin suppose these "high price carbon emissions" will be absorbed?

The fact is that his "Green.con" is an exact replicant to the Dot.con virus, and most of these green companies will never turn even a single quarter's profit as their IPO soars on speculation, as Wall Street eagerly sharpens their Carbon.con knives.

We are not going to see triple digit oil again, that was Wall Street commodities futures speculation, despite the denials, contracts in oil traded 30 times before anyone actually took delivery. The IEA released their own predictions on oil: demand will decline by -17%, at a time when the world is **flooded** with oil and gas, to where oil companies are parking tankers offshore to avoid taking delivery and to feed the futures frenzy.

So Mr. Rubin's premise begins to fall apart, with it his thesis, so that his summation is suspect, and why? Ahhh, he's pimping speculation! "And the way we're going to get the compliance of other countries is by charging a carbon tariff." I don't think so. A tariff war would destroy what little is left of US manufacturing. 136,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing last month, more than all other job sectors. No, instead of tariffs, we will see more illegal tax subsidies, the same as corn ethanol and 'green' coal and oil depletion allowances, all paid for by the US taxpayer.

That goes again to Mr. Rubin's premise. What planet does he think WA DC can impose an 18% - 20% carbon tax industrial subsidies surcharge on, and not destroy domestic spending?!

The catch phrase these days is "unintended consequences", but if you don't even bother to work through the numbers in formulating your premise, the consequences of government action aren't 'unintended', they're deaf, dumb and blind.

Turn them all out on the street and make them sell apples and pencils, then write their 'high-standard' pop economics novella, from a former Goldman commodities huckster, just another pump-and-dump hack!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1675280

Peter Piper of WA 1:13PM July 04, 2009

advertisement

Debate Club

Was 2011 One of the Worst Years for the U.S. Government in American History?

Experts debate where 2011 ranks among Washington's worst years.

Latest Video

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Obama Flops Against 'Uncommitted' in Arkansas, Kentucky Primaries

Obama stands to lose voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia due to his coal regulations.

Mitt Romney Brought Bain Capital Criticisms on Himself

Romney might be a fixer, but he isn't a job creator.

Mitt Romney's Bain History Deserves Scrutiny

Voters deserve to know about Romney's work history before they hire him for the job as president.

Mitt Romney Can’t Afford to Lose Obama's Bain Game

Romney needs to showcase the jobs he created at Bain and why Obama can't fix the economy.

Rutgers Bullying Case About Gay Rights, Privacy

The Ravi-Clementi case raises the deeper issues equal rights for gays and the right to privacy.

The House of Representatives Is the Scariest Circus on Earth

There's a new circus in town, and it's called the House of Representatives.

Obama Discovers Lobbyists Are Hard to Get Rid Of

Lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity and lobbyists have become a permanent part of the Washington policy process.

Obama Catholic Contraception Fight Isn't Over As Church Sues

The "evolution" in Obama's thinking on the issue of religious freedom is disappointing.

advertisement