Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well that's just it. Dollars don't make a resource "scarce". It would be like valuing an item in different currencies, but instead of trading two currencies at the same time, it's effectively trading the same good in one currency at two different times. The process is pretty much equivalent, if you understand what I'm getting at.
Hmm, maybe that's confusing
Perhaps it's better to say that there is no inherent cost added to oil because the value of the dollar changes. If it were otherwise the price of oil would increase in different currencies simply because it changed in ours, which of course doesn't happen.
Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) says that prices of a good, regardless of where it is purchased, should be the same once currency translation takes place. Thus, if oil costs $100 in USD and the USD/EUR is 1.5, then oil should cost $150 in Euros.
When the Dollar readjusts according to supply and demand of the dollar, the price of oil denominated in dollars will adjust. However, if anything, because the dollar has declined, oil should become more available (less demand) and cheaper, not more expensive and less available. Due to PPP, the appreciation of the oil against the dollar won't make a difference in foreign currencies.
Thus, the price of oil denominated in dollars *should* move in lock-step with the decline of the dollar. Anything outside of lockstep indicates price inefficiencies, or a change in fundamentals. Since fundamentals haven't changed significantly over the timeperiods measured, the only logical conclusion of the regression analysis is that there are inefficiencies.
By inefficiencies I mean anything not explained by simple currency valuation or fundamental shifts. This would include speculation and/or market irrationality, but should also include Geopolitical issues.
If we were to look at a regression analysis...
P = Price
F = Fundamentals
D = Dollar
G = Geopolitical
O = Other
On an index, P equals 100. Fundamentals over the last year (disruption of supply from Nigeria, other declines in production) have been offset by new finds or increased production (Brazil, Bakken, Alberta). However, we might attribute 10% of the increase to Fundamentals.
Then we can easily quantify D, 14% at the most.
Geopolitical? Let's call it 20%, considering Libya, Nigeria, iraq, Iran.
100 = 10 + 14 + 20 + X
X in this case = 66%.
Apply that index to the actual price and you'll get a whole different story.
We can futz with F, G, and O all day. However, we *ABSOLUTELY* know D, we can quantify it through various methods, including the Dollar Index, USD/EUR, or other methodologies.
This is what these people do not get. The only question marks are the ones which are qualitative, not quantitative.