U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Thread summary:

Gas consumption sinking economy, widening trade deficit, consumption of foreign oil, oil shale, gasification of coal, biofuel research, oil reserves

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-28-2008, 02:54 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,922,783 times
Reputation: 753

Advertisements

Do you see a problem with the widening trade deficit?


if yes, do you think consumption of foreign oil is a major contibuting factor?


if yes, how do you think the powers that be should be tackling the problem, by addressing our demand for oil or/and addressing our supply of oil?


if you answered by addressing supply, would that be by more local exploration(anwr/ oil shale), gassification of coal, biofuels, invading iran, you don't care because rising prices alone will raise supply? anything i have left out (please add)?


if you answered by addressing demand, would that be by legislation eg raising CAFE standards, imposing further fuel taxes/surcharges, taxation of vehicles which require more gas, rationing, limiting the number of flights, funding of alternative energy research, tax breaks for 'gas sippers' or any thing deemed energy saving, promoting a culture of energy saving with our leaders leading by example, you don't care because rising prices alone will flatten demand? anything i have left out please add?

try and comment in another colour if possible
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-28-2008, 05:51 AM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
8,559 posts, read 12,504,816 times
Reputation: 8926
Though filtered through the oil/gasoline equation, your question is so wide-ranging that what you are really asking is what can be done to address the structural imbalances in the US economy. Nonetheless, certainly the rise in energy prices, oil & gas in particular, are a major cause of the imbalance, also reflected in the trade, government budget, and household budget deficits.

The main problem is that US economic agents, mainly the government and households (we have the politicians that we deserve) consume more than they produce, consuming resources from outside the US.

The organization of space in the US (transportation networks, zoning laws, suburban sprawl, etc) is based on cheap fuel for the internal combustion engine, not only automobiles, but also airplanes and ship transport (I suppose).

As the rest of the world has been industrializing and it seems that the supply of oil has peaked (at least in relation to the increase in demand), the US went on a spending spree, mainly in the form of energy-inefficient cars and housing - the housing part actually egged-on by some insane ideology of home ownership being the American dream and insane government intervention in the money market - while at the same time gutting its manufacturing base as the corporate sector expands abroad.

Absolutely suicidal. Of course foreign powers, many of them rivals, will keep lending to the US because who wouldn't want to see their rival commit suicide?

Sinking the US economy, then, is consumption over production and inefficient use of resources - energy resources, other commodity resources, and human resources - as reflected in the housing bubble (not only bringing and transforming materials in the wrong places at the wrong proportions, but also the outsized proportion of real estate agents and mortgage brokers, etc.) and oversized, gas-guzzling cars (the Big 3 US automakers are in big trouble), and not only.

I would prefer to see market prices determine the best allocation of available resources. The first step would be to remove from the Fed the power to set money market rates and have it focus on regulating the issuance of credit and achieving a balance between production and consumption.

But for as long as the money supply is distorted, then we can debate and implement any combination of the proposals you list, both on the supply side and the demand side, without making much of an impact on the overall economy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 06:01 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,922,783 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002 View Post
Though filtered through the oil/gasoline equation, your question is so wide-ranging that what you are really asking is what can be done to address the structural imbalances in the US economy. Nonetheless, certainly the rise in energy prices, oil & gas in particular, are a major cause of the imbalance, also reflected in the trade, government budget, and household budget deficits.

The main problem is that US economic agents, mainly the government and households (we have the politicians that we deserve) consume more than they produce, consuming resources from outside the US.

The organization of space in the US (transportation networks, zoning laws, suburban sprawl, etc) is based on cheap fuel for the internal combustion engine, not only automobiles, but also airplanes and ship transport (I suppose).

As the rest of the world has been industrializing and it seems that the supply of oil has peaked (at least in relation to the increase in demand), the US went on a spending spree, mainly in the form of energy-inefficient cars and housing - the housing part actually egged-on by some insane ideology of home ownership being the American dream and insane government intervention in the money market - while at the same time gutting its manufacturing base as the corporate sector expands abroad.

Absolutely suicidal. Of course foreign powers, many of them rivals, will keep lending to the US because who wouldn't want to see their rival commit suicide?

Sinking the US economy, then, is consumption over production and inefficient use of resources - energy resources, other commodity resources, and human resources - as reflected in the housing bubble (not only bringing and transforming materials in the wrong places at the wrong proportions, but also the outsized proportion of real estate agents and mortgage brokers, etc.) and oversized, gas-guzzling cars (the Big 3 US automakers are in big trouble), and not only.

I would prefer to see market prices determine the best allocation of available resources. The first step would be to remove from the Fed the power to set money market rates and have it focus on regulating the issuance of credit and achieving a balance between production and consumption.

But for as long as the money supply is distorted, then we can debate and implement any combination of the proposals you list, both on the supply side and the demand side, without making much of an impact on the overall economy.
thanks dr paul. i agree with you 1000% but i was kinda looking for people to answer the specific questions!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Sverige och USA
702 posts, read 2,899,143 times
Reputation: 418
Do you see a problem with the widening trade deficit?
Absolutely

if yes, do you think consumption of foreign oil is a major contibuting factor?
Probably

if yes, how do you think the powers that be should be tackling the problem, by addressing our demand for oil or/and addressing our supply of oil?
Both and then focus on shifting away from oil altogether. You've got to start somewhere.

if you answered by addressing supply, would that be by more local exploration(anwr/ oil shale), gassification of coal, biofuels, invading iran, you don't care because rising prices alone will raise supply? anything i have left out (please add)?
Opening AMWR is just a drop in the bucket and is not a good long-term solution. Push hybrid cars, then ultimately alternates like hydrogen, spend more R&D on alternate, we have to kill our addiction to oil. It is the only viable long-term solution.


if you answered by addressing demand, would that be by legislation eg raising CAFE standards, imposing further fuel taxes/surcharges, taxation of vehicles which require more gas, rationing, limiting the number of flights, funding of alternative energy research, tax breaks for 'gas sippers' or any thing deemed energy saving, promoting a culture of energy saving with our leaders leading by example, you don't care because rising prices alone will flatten demand? anything i have left out please add?

try and comment in another colour if possible[/quote]
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Maine
502 posts, read 1,645,422 times
Reputation: 501
Personnally - i don't see gas consumption as the issue with the trade deficit. I don't think they are particularly related.

I spend much more money by using my vehicle. I ride a motorcycle. I travel 200 - 800 miles just about each weekend. I buy gas, clothes, visit museums, eat at restaurants, go shopping, etc. The bike gets me out of the house and stimulating the economy. I spent almost $200 on the last "toys for tots" ride between gas, toys, food, raffles, etc.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Sanford, FL
732 posts, read 3,989,355 times
Reputation: 403
It's people not buying things because of Gas that is a problem. People dont have money to drive around and save all extra money they have for Gas.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 08:19 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,922,783 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfax1997 View Post
Personnally - i don't see gas consumption as the issue with the trade deficit. I don't think they are particularly related.

I spend much more money by using my vehicle. I ride a motorcycle. I travel 200 - 800 miles just about each weekend. I buy gas, clothes, visit museums, eat at restaurants, go shopping, etc. The bike gets me out of the house and stimulating the economy. I spent almost $200 on the last "toys for tots" ride between gas, toys, food, raffles, etc.
fair enough, i just posted because i read this article

BBC NEWS | Business | US trade deficit widens sharply

and this one

High oil prices help widen U.S. trade deficit - International Herald Tribune

U.S. Total Crude Oil and Products Imports

according to the doe we imported 389 million barrels of oil in march. for ease of calculation we'll price that at $100 per barrel which cost $38 billion. with a monthly trade deficit of around $70 billion, do you still believe that oil plays no part in widening the gap?

disclaimer: i am a bit tired so excuse me if my figures are out, but i think they're ok!

Last edited by 58robbo; 05-28-2008 at 08:30 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 08:37 AM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
8,559 posts, read 12,504,816 times
Reputation: 8926
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
thanks dr paul. i agree with you 1000% but i was kinda looking for people to answer the specific questions!
Okay. On the supply side, until there is a new invention, or set of inventions, and if prices remain high and/or keep rising, every little bit helps, so I would be in favor of lifting restrictions on US-based drilling, as long as it can be done intelligently without devastating the environment. We need to put aside ideology and see what works and what doesn't work.

In principle, I am not against tax and subsidy incentives for alternative energy production and research, though I would favor the latter. It is really difficult to know how to provide incentives for them efficiently. One formula is energy in/energy out. For example, it seems that corn-based ethanol is more energy in than energy out, so ethanol production should not be subsidized. However, it is being subsidized, with undue fallout on food prices.

If I am not mistaken, the most recent energy bill provides all kinds of subsidies and incentives for all kinds of alternative production and research, but I am not sure based on what criteria, though certainly pork had a lot to do with it.

For the rest, I am in favor of market forces, sorry. For example, too cheap credit was a major factor in many people's purchasing fuel-inefficient cars. If we let the market set interest rates and gas prices, then more people will demand more fuel-efficient cars and the government and the automakers wouldn't have to bicker amount minimum MPG requirements. If the money market were truly free, then US automakers would have begun retooling at least in the early 2000s, but, as it stands, they are in big trouble and the Asian automakers are increasingly gaining market share.

This is just one example of how the demand side should be affected. Another: if energy market and money market prices are truly free, people would have been demanding more sensible housing in more sensible geographical locations in the last six or seven years.

But as it stands, the government, through the Fed, is holding the money market captive, punishing domestic savers and encouraging inefficient consumption.

It is hard to provide a comprehensive response in this venue on short notice, but take this in the spirit it is given.

Last edited by bale002; 05-28-2008 at 08:59 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 09:03 AM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,922,783 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
Do you see a problem with the widening trade deficit?
yes

if yes, do you think consumption of foreign oil is a major contibuting factor?
yes

if yes, how do you think the powers that be should be tackling the problem, by addressing our demand for oil or/and addressing our supply of oil?
by addressing both supply and demand

if you answered by addressing supply, would that be by more local exploration(anwr/ oil shale), gassification of coal, biofuels, invading iran, you don't care because rising prices alone will raise supply? anything i have left out (please add)?
all of the above except invading iran

if you answered by addressing demand, would that be by legislation eg raising CAFE standards, imposing further fuel taxes/surcharges, taxation of vehicles which require more gas, rationing, limiting the number of flights, funding of alternative energy research, tax breaks for 'gas sippers' or any thing deemed energy saving, promoting a culture of energy saving with our leaders leading by example, you don't care because rising prices alone will flatten demand? anything i have left out please add?

personally i'm not one for regulation/legislation so i wouldn't be happy to see any further CAFE stds etc. what i would like to see are the powers that be ie clinton/obama/mccain addresing the balance of trade and encouraging the nation to take responsibilty for their consumption by making a little bit of effort. them leading by example would be a good start (fewer private jets, 10 SUV cavalcades etc) for the rest, i think high prices are taking care of the problem but it pains me that after 1973 we didn't learn a whole lot and oil exporters still have us by the you know what!

try and comment in another colour if possible
answer to my own questions IMHO
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2008, 09:06 AM
 
5,642 posts, read 10,645,743 times
Reputation: 4797
Do you see a problem with the widening trade deficit?

Yes, of course. The only folks who do not are the "math challenged" (retards) folks who actually believe the globalony they are preaching.

if yes, do you think consumption of foreign oil is a major contibuting factor?

Absolutely yes.

if yes, how do you think the powers that be should be tackling the problem, by addressing our demand for oil or/and addressing our supply of oil?

Always fix yourself, first. That is the path of self-responsibility and success. Means demand reduction. As in US.

if you answered by addressing supply, would that be by more local exploration(anwr/ oil shale), gassification of coal, biofuels, invading iran, you don't care because rising prices alone will raise supply? anything i have left out (please add)?

Why fight over and for a shrinking and dying resource?

if you answered by addressing demand, would that be by legislation eg raising CAFE standards, imposing further fuel taxes/surcharges, taxation of vehicles which require more gas, rationing, limiting the number of flights, funding of alternative energy research, tax breaks for 'gas sippers' or any thing deemed energy saving, promoting a culture of energy saving with our leaders leading by example, you don't care because rising prices alone will flatten demand? anything i have left out please add?

None of the above.

Getting off an addiction means GETTING OFF IT. There are no half-drunks and no half-addicts. You (we) either are or are not. We have ran a little over 100 years on the stuff, with some benefit and some loss. Overall there is a severe legacy of pollution, as well. Time to grow up and move on to better ways.

Do not so much need any new programs as much as simply updating and replacing the ones we have. Stop building ANY gas (or diesel) only roads and highways. Make all new and remodels ONLY multi-use and electric grid enabled, so vehicles can take their power directly from the road with no batteries.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top