Economic Myth Busted: In the US, Savings from Lower Gas Prices was Spent on even More Gas!

Remember the popular mantra/incantation “low oil prices equals more consumer spending”? (this applies not only to the US but elsewhere including Philippines too)

Well, in the US, a study debunks the popular myth: savings from lower gas prices was spent on even more gas!

And bizarrely, media and ‘experts’ blame such unexpected course of development on human irrationality!

From the New York Times  (bold mine)

When gas prices fall, Americans reliably do two things that don’t make much sense.

They spend more of the windfall on gasoline than they would if the money came from somewhere else.

And they don’t just buy more gasoline. They switch from regular gas to high-octane.

A new report by the JPMorgan Chase Institute, looking at the impact of lower gas prices on consumer spending, finds the same pattern as earlier studies. The average American would have saved about $41 a month last winter by buying the same gallons and grades. Instead, Americans took home roughly $22 a month. People, in other words, used almost half of the windfall to buy more and fancier gas.

This is not rational behavior. Americans spent about 4 percent of pretax income on gas in 2014. One might expect them to spend about the same share of any windfall at the pump — maybe a little more because gas got cheaper. Instead they spent almost half.

Americans, in short, have not been behaving like the characters in economics textbooks…

The study, based on the spending patterns of about one million JPMorgan customers, does not track the kind of gas consumers purchased. It shows that people bought more gas as prices fell, and that the increase in consumption is not sufficient to explain the entirety of the increase in spending on gas.

Here is what the law of demand says “all else being equal…as the price of a product decreases, quantity demanded increases.” 

"People bought more gas as prices fell..."

Have consumers not been “behaving like the characters in economics textbooks”? Really? Or have consumers not been behaving in accordance to the fictitious outcomes generated from econometric models?

Of course, such econometric models have been constructed principally on the assumptions that humans DO NOT act based on ever changing preferences and values, in the face of an equally dynamic complex environment, that shapes incentives and consequently their actions. Or in short, for the math pedagogues, humans are NOT humans but automatons or robots whose actions are programmed.

But one may retort, they shifted from “regular gas to high-octane gas”.

So why not? Perhaps high octane gas could have been seen as more "energy efficient" (more fuel savings or longer driving mileage). If so then this reinforces, the law of demand.

But refuting the mythological gas-savings-equal-to-consumption-binge meme goes beyond the statistical technicalities.

Yet as I have noted here and many times elsewhere: the economics of spending is MAINLY a derivative of INCOME conditions—secondarily the utilization of savings and of credit—and NOT from the changes in spending patterns or the redistribution of spending from static income.

And as for the perspective of economic punditry versus real world phenomenon, the great Ludwig von Mises warned (Misapprehended Darwinism, Refutation of Fallacies, Omnipotent Government p.120)

Nothing could be more mistaken than the now fashionable attempt to apply the methods and concepts of the natural sciences to the solution of social problems. In the realm of nature we cannot know anything about final causes, by reference to which events can be explained. But in the field of human actions there is the finality of acting men. Men make choices. They aim at certain ends and they apply means in order to attain the ends sought.

Now whose behavior have not been rational…acting humans or ‘experts’ whose views have been shaped by rigid econometric models?