????隨著對中東動蕩爆發(fā)的擔(dān)憂減弱，能源價格呈現(xiàn)回落。但高盛(Goldman Sachs)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們預(yù)言，持續(xù)的全球需求、疲弱的供應(yīng)增長以及寬松的貨幣環(huán)境意味著下一輪破壞式的油價上漲可能為時不遠(yuǎn)。

????高盛經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家詹?哈祖斯和安德魯?蒂爾頓在上周末致客戶的一份報告中寫道，2012年底油價可能再度飆升。他們認(rèn)為，如果油價不漲(或者不急劇上漲)，龜速般的全球石油供應(yīng)增長——高盛預(yù)計(jì)年均增長1%左右——難以維持嚴(yán)重依賴石油能源的全球經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。

????因此，別太習(xí)慣于每加侖汽油僅3美元的日子。很快油價就會上漲，原因是原油供應(yīng)持續(xù)緊張，以及未來幾年美聯(lián)儲(Federal Reserve) 將保持的寬松貨幣政策。

????“石油稀缺性加劇的根本狀況沒有改變，我們的大宗商品策略師們估計(jì)現(xiàn)有的油價預(yù)測值，即2012年底布倫特原油每桶120美元的預(yù)測值具有顯著的上行風(fēng)險，”哈祖斯和蒂爾頓寫道，“因此，石油稀缺性加劇以及油價上漲對經(jīng)濟(jì)活動的影響仍是我們的首要擔(dān)憂?！?/p>

????令油價上漲幾乎無可避免的是美國的高失業(yè)率。目前官方失業(yè)率為9%，但《伯恩斯坦調(diào)查》（Bernstein Research）的策略師瓦迪姆?茲洛特尼科夫指出，如果考慮到低勞動力參與率[經(jīng)濟(jì)活動人口（包括就業(yè)者和失業(yè)者）占勞動年齡人口的比率，是用來衡量人們參與經(jīng)濟(jì)活動狀況的指標(biāo)——譯注]，失業(yè)率為13%的可能性更大。今年勞動力參與率已降至1985年以來的新低。

????哈祖斯和蒂爾頓在報告中預(yù)測，高失業(yè)率和低通脹將使美國聯(lián)邦基金利率保持在零附近直至明年年底或更久。這應(yīng)有助于推動失業(yè)率緩慢接近約6%的長期均值——但代價是美元進(jìn)一步貶值，全球需求進(jìn)一步上升，最終油價大漲。

????因此，已導(dǎo)致紐約和歐洲(布倫特)原油價格分別跌至100美元和112美元左右的拋盤有可能在2011年大多數(shù)時候繼續(xù)。但不會一直持續(xù)下去，高盛警告稱。

????“讓勞動力市場和石油市場都達(dá)到均衡的唯一辦法，可能是實(shí)際油價進(jìn)一步上漲，”高盛的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們寫道，“可以斷定油價上漲將使原有勘探開采更具吸引力，從而增加石油供應(yīng)，而能源利用效率的提高會降低石油需求?！?/p>

????他們還說，這樣的政策取舍結(jié)果往往被認(rèn)為導(dǎo)致收入不公平地從窮人向富人轉(zhuǎn)移。高盛經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們承認(rèn)，美國收入最低的1/5人群其汽油支出占比，相比收入最高的1/5人群高出3.5%-4.6%。

????但他們也指出，收入最低人群的損失能被美聯(lián)儲寬松政策帶來的就業(yè)創(chuàng)造效應(yīng)所抵消，這“能讓處于收入分配低端的家庭實(shí)際收入有顯著增加”。

????雖然可能沒人會歡迎油價上漲，但哈祖斯和蒂爾頓指出，美國顯然有辦法將該趨勢轉(zhuǎn)化為有利因素，即提高能源消費(fèi)稅。

????這樣做的話，美國政府不僅能（通過提高油價）抑制消費(fèi)，還能增加聯(lián)邦收入(現(xiàn)如今這可能還能提振一些信心，正如你可能已經(jīng)看到的那樣)，而犧牲的則主要是至多也就是似友實(shí)敵的外國政府的利益。不過，這樣做雖然有上述積極意義，但要在現(xiàn)屆美國國會中看到曙光，概率可能和汽油價格重返1美元/加侖一樣渺茫。

????Energy prices have been coming down this spring as fears of a Middle East blowup fade. But persistent global demand, tepid supply growth and easy money mean it may not be long till the next damaging spike, Goldman Sachs economists say.

????Oil prices could surge again by the end of 2012, economists Jan Hatzius and Andrew Tilton wrote in a note to clients this past weekend. They say the snail-like pace of global oil supply expansion – which Goldman projects at 1% or so annually – can't keep a petroleum-addicted world economy rolling without prices rising, perhaps sharply.

????So don't get too used to paying a mere $3 and change for gasoline. Higher prices are on the way soon enough, thanks to stretched supplies and a Federal Reserve spigot that is likely to remain wide open for years to come.

????"The fundamental story of increased oil scarcity is unchanged, and our commodity strategists now see distinct upside risks to their current forecast of $120/barrel for Brent crude by late 2012," Hatzius and Tilton write. "So the impact of scarcer oil and higher oil prices on economic activity remains at the top of our list of worries."

????What makes higher oil prices almost inevitable is the depth of the jobs deficit in the United States. Unemployment is officially 9% but is more like 13% if you consider the low rate of labor force participation, says Bernstein Research strategist Vadim Zlotnikov. That number has fallen this year to levels not seen since 1985.

????High joblessness and weak inflation will keep the fed funds rate near zero at least through next year and perhaps longer, Hatzius and Tilton write. That should help keep pushing unemployment slowly toward its long-run average of around 6% -- but at the expense of further dollar depreciation, stronger global demand and, ultimately, higher oil prices.

????So the selloff that has taken the crude price down to $100 or so in New York and $112 in Europe, where Brent is traded, may persist through much of 2011. But it won't last forever, Goldman warns.

????"The only way to bring both the labor market and the oil market into equilibrium is likely to be through a further increase in the real oil price," the Goldman economists write. "This would presumably increase oil supply by making exploration and production more attractive, and reduce oil demand by increasing energy efficiency."

????They add that this policy trade-off is often unfairly portrayed as transferring income from the poor to the rich. The Goldman economists concede that those in the bottom fifth of the U.S. income distribution spend more of their funds on gas than do those in the top fifth, by 4.6% to 3.5%.

????But they note that those losses by the poorest consumers are offset by the job creation enabled by the loose Fed policy, which "will lead to significant gains in real income for a subset of households drawn disproportionately from the lower end of the income distribution."

????And while no one is likely to turn cartwheels about higher oil prices, Hatzius and Tilton point out that there's an obvious way for the United States to turn that trend in its favor: By imposing higher taxes on energy use.

????In doing so the government could both hold down consumption (through higher prices) and boost federal revenues (which could use some boosting nowadays, you may have noticed), mostly at the expense of foreign governments that are at best our frenemies. But needless to say, something that makes that much sense has about as much chance of seeing daylight in the current Congress as the return of dollar-a-gallon gas.