Replies

To the extent lower fuel prices encourage individual travel and consumption for recreation, yes. The number of people who consider additional travel and other consumption, however, depends on the number of people who have sufficient free time and disposable income to spend both on recreation.

So, the answer really is dependent on the overall state of the economy as well as the fuel price itself.

If by fuel you're including industrial fuels, that's another matter, so I'll address it separately. Less expensive energy does lower the overall price of production and therefore will increase jobs all other things being equal. When lower energy prices compensate for other higher costs, the impact of lower energy prices may or may not be sufficient to drive job creation depending on the alternatives that serve to eliminate the "all other things being equal" component.

Look, free trade, free market, makes job argument is all fine and dandy other than the fact that it is never applied across the board. It's only made as a justification for something of interest to larger corporations and industries. Keystone pipeline ? Creates jobs, no doubt. Increased oil and gas production ? Creates jobs, no doubt. Increased export of oil and gas ? Doesn't create a single additional job if overall production and recovery doesn't increase.

If there's no requirement to supply the domestic market first there's no reason to believe that a shortage here while sales boom overseas is of any great concern to the producers. After all, the domestic market can just deal with expensive industry and whether any industry other than their own is creating jobs is not their concern, right?

It's the difference between a wolf pack and a dozen independent feral dogs. Wolves care about the overall good of the pack, feral dogs don't. Most arguments about letting the free market work have, over the past few decades, have become arguments for the right to behave like a feral dog rather than a member of the pack.