The recent decline in oil prices will promote higher real GDP in the US over the next couple of years.
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
7%
0%
0%
0%
12%
63%
19%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
0%
0%
11%
64%
26%
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
There will be a negative effect on the now sizable US energy sector, but the positive impact on the rest of the economy should dominate.
|
||||
![]() Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
![]() Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
![]() Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
A decline in oil prices leads to redistribution of wealth within the US, which favors (sub)sectors with impaired balance sheet constraints.
|
||||
![]() Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Obviously, there are losers as well as winners, but the US economy benefits on net.
|
||||
![]() Janet Currie |
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
||||
![]() David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
We are still net importers, right. But there could be second round effects, especially political, that could moderate or even reverse it.
|
||||
![]() Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Oil production investment is a negative, but reducing the cost of a raw input nets to positive, unless oil exports heavily dominate imports.
|
||||
![]() Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
U.S. is a large net importer. Increased oil prices in the past have slowed GDP growth.
|
||||
![]() Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Costs would go down, Fed may keep rates low. But negative effects on oil exploration, production and potential future oil exports.
|
||||
![]() Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
but not as much as in the old days because the economy is more energy efficient now and because we have become a significant producer of oil
|
||||
![]() Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
The 1986 decline had little effect on real GDP. Oil prices don't shift production functions. Real income rises, but not real output.
|
||||
![]() Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
There are potentially confounding general equilibrium effects but the US as a net importer of oil should benefit from increased fracking.
|
||||
![]() Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
The U.S. econom remains strongly anti-cyclical in oil prices. Some industries suffer from lower prices, but they are dominated by winners.
|
||||
![]() Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
For the average household this will be a like a tax cut, of course oil producing states suffer a bit, but overall this good news for the US
|
||||
![]() Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
Ceteris paribus. And because the U.S is still a net importer.
-see background information here |
||||
![]() Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
![]() Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
Both because of quasi-fiscal stimulus and lower measured inflation.
|
||||
![]() Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
The decline in price is less significant than the technological progress in resource extraction it reflects, which should promote growth.
|
||||
![]() José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
But if drop is result of correct forecast of weaker world economic activity, it will be hard to identify the net benefit ex-post.
|
||||
![]() Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
The US is still a net energy importer and the shock is largely a supply shock. But this will cause some reallocation away from shale
|
||||
![]() Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
||||
![]() Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
We have almost balanced trade in energy; the net effect will be very small (although there will be distributional effects).
|