魏尚进：用“一分为二”的政策可以让美国普通家庭从高油价中获益

■本文选自《复旦金融评论》

■作者： 魏尚进 复旦大学泛海国际金融学院访问教授、哥伦比亚大学终身讲席教授、亚洲开发银行前首席经济学家

■公众号：复旦金融评论

一项“一分为二”的政策，只允许新增产量的石油按一定比例出口可以让美国老百姓从输家变成赢家。

魏尚进

复旦大学泛海国际金融学院访问教授

哥伦比亚大学终身讲席教授

亚洲开发银行前首席经济学家

美国的石油出口量大于进口量 [1] ，因此整体而言美国是近期的全球油价飙升的受益者。但美国老百姓都认为他们是油价上涨的受害者，因为所有由油价上涨得到的收益都被美国石油公司及其股东独占了。尽管目前能源价格的上涨主要是由美国政府所主导的针对俄罗斯的制裁引起的，但迄今为止没有把这笔意外之财分给美国普通家庭的方案。

美国目前既没有面临石油产量短缺，也没有面临需求突然激增。相反，自2022年2月底以来能源价格不断上涨的同时，美国石油出口也大幅增加。我根据美国政府机构能源信息署（Energy Information Administration）的数据估算 [2] ，2022年5月美国石油产品净出口量为每日397.7万桶，与去年同期相比增幅高达45%。考虑到同期石油价格还上涨了87%，以美元计的销售金额的增长也更大。

其实，完全可以用政策大大改善美国家庭的境况。假设美国对石油出口征收45%的税，这将增加石油在美国国内的销量，并使美国的能源价格下降40—45%，其中包括汽油价格从目前每加仑5美元左右下降到3美元以下。更低的能源价格意味着美国普通家庭的获益。如果政府将石油出口税收再分配给中低收入家庭，他们将进一步受益。同时石油公司仍然会比俄乌冲突前赚更多的钱，只是不会像现在那么多。

出口税还将提升美国释放战略石油储备（US Strategic Petroleum Reserve）的效果。自宣布对俄进行制裁以来，美国政府已经宣布会释放约4500万桶石油，但对国内能源价格没有产生明显影响。这并不令人意外。如果不征收出口税，美国石油公司只会减少同等数量的国内销售，同时增加出口。但如果开征出口税，并根据从储备中释放的石油数量适当提高出口税率，美国国内汽油和能源的价格可能进一步下跌。

美国政府推行这一政策可能面临三方面的障碍——美国国内政治、美国宪法和世界贸易组织规则。但这些限制并非不可克服。

首先，拜登政府可能一方面担心共和党会攻击其采取“激进的社会主义”政策，另一方面担心左派会攻击其破坏了对气候行动的承诺。但也有反向的政治逻辑。 许多美国家庭目前指责拜登政府未能解决物价上涨问题，这对他们来说是首当其冲的经济担忧。许多人不同意拜登将能源价格上涨完全归咎于俄罗斯总统普京的观点，因为如果没有美国带头对俄罗斯进行制裁，全球能源供应不会下降。对石油出口征税将允许政府在不停止制裁的同时，不牺牲美国普通家庭的生活水平。

第二个约束来自美国宪法的规定，“不得对任何州出口的物品征关税。” 但如果出口税符合社会需要，有没有办法引入一种不会被律师称之为出口税、但功能类似的东西?

从1975年到2015年的40年里，美国有法律完全禁止石油出口。这似乎被认为是符合宪法的，尽管禁止出口就像征收税率无限高的出口税。但今天如果是简单地恢复出口禁令，就可能导致美国石油公司的利润低于俄乌争端前的水平。这些拥有强大游说能力的公司肯定会大呼受到了禁令的伤害。

或许更好的方案是一项“一分为二”的政策，即禁止美国石油公司和炼油厂出口现有产量，但如果生产量超过俄乌争端前的水平，则其增量的某个百分比可以出口。新增加的产量可以通过额外的开采来实现。由于政府抱怨美国石油公司没有使用约9000份已批准的钻井许可证，政府可以将许可证条款修改为，“不使用，就失效”。

由于美国仍然会进口一些石油产品，这一政策实际上会增加其国内的供应，从而将国内能源价格（包括加油站的油价）降低到争端前的水平之下。重要的是，石油公司的利润仍将高于争端前的水平。

这项“一分为二”的政策优于英国式临时暴利税，因后者降低了石油产量增加带来的增量收益，从而抑制了石油公司投资和生产的积极性。相比之下，“一分为二”的政策，多生产一桶石油所带来的增量收益仍然是全球油价，全球油价越高，炼油厂增加生产的动力也越强。

最后，世贸组织规则不允许国家实施出口禁令。 对此，美国可以考虑同时取消前总统特朗普对中国进口商品征收的关税（该关税在2020年被WTO裁定为非法，同时还推高了美国家庭的生活成本）并实施“一分为二”的石油政策。这两步对WTO规则的执行情况形成对冲。鉴于美国此前长期实施出口禁令，新政策不会在美国贸易政策上开创先例。

对世界其他地区来说，这一方案将提高能源价格。美国的部分盟国可能会有不悦情绪。但美国可以且应该利用其对中东及其他地区主要产油国的巨大影响力，更积极地帮助增加全球石油供应。

总而言之，美国从制裁俄罗斯中获得的好处，不应该只让少数石油公司及其股东受益。一项“一分为二”的政策，只允许新增产量的石油按一定比例出口，如果再加上战略石油储备释放额外石油，可以让美国老百姓从输家变成赢家。

□ 本文仅代表作者个人意见，仅供读者参考，并不构成提供或赖以作为投资、会计、法律或税务建议。

□编译 | 潘   琦

□视觉 | 葛雯瑄

Making Higher Oil Prices a Win for American Households

SHANG-JIN WEI

Editor-in-chief of  Fudan Financial Review

Professor of Finance and Economics of Columbia University

Former Chief Economist of Asian Development Bank

The United States exports more petroleum than it imports[1]. As a result, the country as a whole benefits from the recent spike in global oil prices. But American households think they are hurt by the higher prices as all the benefits have gone to US oil companies and their shareholders. No attempt has been made to distribute any portion of the windfall to US households, even though today’s higher energy prices are largely the result of a US government-led action – the sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine.

The US is facing neither an oil production shortage nor a sudden explosion in demand. Instead, the rising energy prices since late February have coincided with a massive increase in US petroleum exports. Computed from the US government data[2], the US net exports of total petroleum in May 2022 were 3.977 million barrels a day, representing a whopping 45% increase over the same month last year. The increase in US dollar revenue is even greater given the 87% increase in the prices over the same period.

There exists a policy that can make American households much better off. For example, if the US introduced a 45% tax on its oil exports, it would increase the domestic sale of oil and bring down the US energy price by between 40-45%, including a decline in the gasoline price from its current level of about $5 per gallon to below $3 per gallon. The lower energy price means a win for American households. If the government distributed the export tax revenue to low- and middle-income households, they would benefit further still. Oil companies will still make more money than before the war, just not by as much as they do now.

An export tax would also increase the effectiveness of oil releases from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The US government has announced a plan to released about 45 million barrels of oil since announcing the sanctions on Russia, but with no noticeable effect on domestic energy prices. This is not surprising. Absent an export tax, US oil companies will simply reduce their domestic sales by the same amount and export more. But with an export tax – the exact rate can increase, depending on the amount of oil released from the reserve – domestic gasoline and energy prices could fall further.

The US administration faces three possible obstacles to such a policy: domestic politics, the US Constitution, and World Trade Organization rules. But these constraints are not insurmountable.

While the Biden administration may fear either an attack from the Republican Party for adopting “radical socialist” policies or one from environmental groups for undermining its pledge on climate actions, there is also a political argument in the opposite direction. Many US households currently blame the administration for failing to address rising prices, their number-one economic worry. Many do not buy Biden’s argument that Russian President Putin is solely to blame for higher energy prices, because global supplies would not have declined without the US-led sanctions on Russia. A tax on oil exports would allow the administration to maintain the sanctions without asking American households to sacrifice their living standards.

The second constraint comes from the US Constitution, which states that “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” But if an export tax is socially desirable, is there a way to introduce something that lawyers would not call an export tax but is functionally similar?

For 40 years, from 1975 to 2015, the US banned oil exports altogether. This apparently was considered constitutional, even though banning exports is like levying an export tax at a rate of infinity. But simply restoring the export ban could cause US oil companies’ profits to fall below pre-war levels. These companies, with a strong lobbying power, would surely scream injury from the ban.

A more promising alternative would be a two-part policy that prohibits US oil companies and refineries from exporting any of their existing production but allows them to export a certain percentage of additional output above the pre-war level. The increased production can come from additional extraction. Since the administration has complained about US oil firms not using some 9,000 approved drilling permits, it could modify the terms of the permits to “use it or lose it.”

Since the US still imports some petroleum products, this policy would actually increase the domestic supply, and hence would lower the domestic energy prices (including the gas station prices) to be below the pre-war level. Importantly, oil companies’ profits will remain above pre-war levels.

The two-part policy is superior to a UK-style temporary windfall tax, which reduces the incremental gain from an additional barrel of oil produced and thus creates a disincentive for oil companies to invest and produce. With the two-part approach, in contrast, the incremental gain from producing an extra barrel is still the world oil price, and rises one for one with it.

Finally, WTO rules frown on countries imposing export bans. The US could consider simultaneously removing former President Trump’s tariffs on Chinese imports – which were ruled illegal by a WTO panel in 2020 and have pushed up the cost of living for American households – and implementing the two-part oil policy. There would be no net increase in US violations of WTO rules. And in view of America’s previous lengthy export ban, the new policy would not create a precedent in US trade policy.

For the rest of the world, this scheme would raise energy prices. This could be especially problematic for several US allies. But the US could and should help to increase global oil supply more aggressively by using its considerable leverage with major producers in the Middle East and elsewhere.

In sum, the gains to the US from its sanctions on Russia need not benefit only a few oil companies and their shareholders. A two-part policy that permits exports only from incremental new production, together with additional oil releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, could turn American households from losers into winners.

注释：

[1]https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20the%20United%20States,row%20since%20at%20least%201949.

[2]https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WRPNTUS2&f=4

-END-

  书籍 推荐  

点击下图或 【阅读原文】 即刻 购书

书名：寻找经济最优解

Seeking Optimal Balance in  Economy and Globalization

作者：魏尚进

出版社：东方出版中心有限公司

↙↙ 点击 “阅读原文” ，购买《寻找经济最优解》