Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Drew Dowdell

The Economy, Oil prices, and Globalization

34 posts in this topic

This thread is for a lively debate on what is likely the biggest issue we face today.

I keep very up to date on the economy especially in the housing/mortgage market. Today I found this gem:

Has anyone figured out that higher crude oil prices could be a result of globalization’s horrendous inefficiency? Now there is a waste of oil. The effect on the US Economy has been a backfire, as many higher shipping and distribution costs are directly attributable to the globalization theme. If the US built what it needed in regions near where the products were delivered by people who used their own output, then less energy would be wasted in transport and prevalent wages would enable their purchase. That is logic too simple for total moron US economists, the stupidest breed of two-legged animals on the planet.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transportation does use a lot of resources. We need to convert all the China barges to hydrogen power!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was cheaper to build stuff closer to the source of the materials it would be done! People seem to really believe that markets are just grossly inefficient.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it was cheaper to build stuff closer to the source of the materials it would be done! People seem to really believe that markets are just grossly inefficient.

OOOOOOrrrr...... the cost in dollars did not previously match the cost in barrels of oil. Remember that China, India and a few others massively subsidized fuel.

Back when we were paying 2.00 per gallon the Chinese were paying 50 cents <aprox> per gallon with the government picking up the tab for the rest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OOOOOOrrrr...... the cost in dollars did not previously match the cost in barrels of oil. Remember that China, India and a few others massively subsidized fuel.

Back when we were paying 2.00 per gallon the Chinese were paying 50 cents <aprox> per gallon with the government picking up the tab for the rest.

Well they still do subsidise fuel to a large degree--but even still why would companies deliberately not minimize their costs?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they still do subsidise fuel to a large degree--but even still why would companies deliberately not minimize their costs?

The subsidies are being phased out.

What I'm saying is the true costs were not there when the Chinese and Indian governments were picking up part of the tab.

When I worked at the textile company. We would source fabric from Vietnam, ship it to Pittsburgh for cutting, ship the cut pieces to El Salvador for sewing and packaging, and then shipped back to Pittsburgh for warehousing and distribution.

At $2.00 a gallon in the US and 50 cents a gallon in Asia and 75 cents per gallon in S. America, that trip might make sense. But now we're in the era of $4.00 a gallon gas in the US. Asia and S. America are easing back on their fuel subsidies. At what point does it no longer make sense???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The subsidies are being phased out.

What I'm saying is the true costs were not there when the Chinese and Indian governments were picking up part of the tab.

When I worked at the textile company. We would source fabric from Vietnam, ship it to Pittsburgh for cutting, ship the cut pieces to El Salvador for sewing and packaging, and then shipped back to Pittsburgh for warehousing and distribution.

At $2.00 a gallon in the US and 50 cents a gallon in Asia and 75 cents per gallon in S. America, that trip might make sense. But now we're in the era of $4.00 a gallon gas in the US. Asia and S. America are easing back on their fuel subsidies. At what point does it no longer make sense???

The subsidies are being phased out? I thought China just increased the pegged price by 17% or something. OK I agree that costs are changing, but companies will respond. The piece you quoted sounded like the author wanted some sort of planned economy because corporations are inherently inefficient, which is not even remotely true.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The subsidies are being phased out? I thought China just increased the pegged price by 17% or something. OK I agree that costs are changing, but companies will respond. The piece you quoted sounded like the author wanted some sort of planned economy because corporations are inherently inefficient, which is not even remotely true.

Globalized corporations are inefficient in terms of energy usage. The quote was referring to that rather than dollar efficiency. What has changed is the cost of the oil which was previously being artificially held down in the Asian countries.

It's a longer term phase out, but in some places the price doubled.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tho the cost of transportation is well up, take into the account the fuel cost per item; tens of thousands of item put in multiple shipping containers on a freighter, the per item cost of fuel may still be under a penny- where before it was hundreths of a penny.... or something along those lines, who has any figures??

There's a 'railroad' commercial running on radio that says considering payloads, a freight train gets something like 460 MPG (I forget the parameters of the figure, but the number is right there).

This 'surge' in transportation costs may well still be far below labor costs saved by shipping it around during manufacturing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

economists rarely talk about what should be done, they typically talk about the status of the "environment" currently.

just remember that washington doesn't live in a supply demand idealism, west point doesn't teach econ as supply demand.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
economists rarely talk about what should be done, they typically talk about the status of the "environment" currently.

just remember that washington doesn't live in a supply demand idealism, west point doesn't teach econ as supply demand.

Economists talk about what should be done when it is not currently done. Any issue of The Economist is full of commentary on stupid government policy, such as the worrying trends towards protectionism. I have no idea what they teach at West Point, but my Econometrics textbook was written by a civilian instructor there and it was easily the worst text I have ever used.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economists talk about what should be done when it is not currently done. Any issue of The Economist is full of commentary on stupid government policy, such as the worrying trends towards protectionism. I have no idea what they teach at West Point, but my Econometrics textbook was written by a civilian instructor there and it was easily the worst text I have ever used.

i don't know of "The economist"... I was commenting on a portion of bookTV I saw. I prolly should have said that, sorry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dunno. you'd still think the profit margins that a hollister top they sell for 70 bucks at the mall would not be adversely affected by having some college kid here making them instead of shipping them all over high hell.

translation, they exploit cheap labor elsewhere and whore out our economy here so some few people at the top of whatever are the ones that benefit.

with cars if they could ever figure out flexible production plants, they could regionalize plants and easily swing supply and demand for models and capacity and labor and save all those transport costs.

California seems to think they are king sht on every public issue yet look at all the cars they buy and how many auto plants are there?

if they want electric cars, then they should get off their ass and design and build em.

American flags, something we should never have to outsource. i guess people enjoy outsourcing our standard of livin.....er....globalization.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Globalization is a means of enriching the rich at the expense of the middle class, but a good part of the blame lies with the unions forcing higher wages for laborers. I hear about the money a lot of these GM workers are bringing down and I'm thinking to myself "why would anyone go to 4 years of college to be an I.T. worker and get saddled with that debt when I could make more as a production line worker?"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Globalization is a means of enriching the rich at the expense of the middle class, but a good part of the blame lies with the unions forcing higher wages for laborers. I hear about the money a lot of these GM workers are bringing down and I'm thinking to myself "why would anyone go to 4 years of college to be an I.T. worker and get saddled with that debt when I could make more as a production line worker?"

yeah, the unions had a good cause....in the 20s-...60s? now a days it's more of a burden.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Globalization is a means of enriching the rich at the expense of the middle class, but a good part of the blame lies with the unions forcing higher wages for laborers. I hear about the money a lot of these GM workers are bringing down and I'm thinking to myself "why would anyone go to 4 years of college to be an I.T. worker and get saddled with that debt when I could make more as a production line worker?"

That's a big part of the problem... but the unions, while harmful, can never

do as much damage as the other, deeper problems with our fine country.

For starters, eliminating the gold standard was a bad move.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh geeze... not you too??

We could have stuck with the gold standard and watched as Europe and Asia wooshed passed us in the global economy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh geeze... not you too??

We could have stuck with the gold standard and watched as Europe and Asia wooshed passed us in the global economy.

maybe. but the debt we have would not be causing inflation...or devaluing the dollar so much. you can't just print money if it has to be backed by actually having that amount of gold. sorry, but nationalizing our money back in 1913 and then eliminating the gold competition in 33 was the worst thing to do. would you nationalize anything else in our country? you're against nationalizing the oil companies right?... how is nationalizing currency any different?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh geeze... not you too??

We could have stuck with the gold standard and watched as Europe and Asia wooshed passed us in the global economy.

maybe. but the debt we have would not be causing inflation...or devaluing the dollar so much. you can't just print money if it has to be backed by actually having that amount of gold. sorry, but nationalizing our money back in 1913 and then eliminating the gold competition in 33 was the worst thing to do. would you nationalize anything else in our country? you're against nationalizing the oil companies right?... how is nationalizing currency any different?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe. but the debt we have would not be causing inflation...or devaluing the dollar so much. you can't just print money if it has to be backed by actually having that amount of gold. sorry, but nationalizing our money back in 1913 and then eliminating the gold competition in 33 was the worst thing to do. would you nationalize anything else in our country? you're against nationalizing the oil companies right?... how is nationalizing currency any different?

Gold standard has nothing to do with it. It's the incoherent fiscal policy of the last two generations that have done it to us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gold standard has nothing to do with it. It's the incoherent fiscal policy of the last two generations that have done it to us.

i'm not denying that, but could they do that if they couldn't "just print more money". i just cashed $150 of bonds. WWII was basically funded by bonds. I don't hear of anyone talking about buying bonds to help our debt, in the short term. daniel boone gave a "it's not your money" speech to congress way back when. socialism has torn this country apart. Gold can be socialized too, but it's harder to do.

I think the root of FOG's old tirades point to socialism, from what i recall. there are people that see these problems and embrace them and the solutions. while lots and lots of people point the finger at government and want them to fix it, and like you said, the budget has been a mess 9 out of 10 times. the government needs fixing, and more only slows itself down, like a lazy runner that has gotten over weight and thinks food will help it run faster.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those of you who thing globalization is a good thing....

It takes about 7,000 tons of bunker-fuel to fill the tanks of a 5,000-container cargo ship for a trip from Shanghai to Los Angeles. Over the last year and half, the cost of that fuel has jumped 87% to $552 a ton, according to the World Shipping Council, boosting the cost of a fill-up to more than $3.8 million.

"To put things in perspective, today's extra shipping cost from East Asia is the equivalent of imposing a 9% tariff on East Asian goods entering North America," said Rubin of CIBC World Markets. "At $200 per barrel, the tariff equivalent rate will rise to 15%."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

globalized trade is fine, if it's free and fair....not like what we complain about japan for doing. political globalization is horrible.

"Gold standard has nothing to do with it. It's the incoherent fiscal policy of the last two generations that have done it to us."

well... there were several court cases involving paper money, or "bills of credit" before the fed and they all were dealt with seemingly correctly, and the constitution says the gov. shall not emit bills of credit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Gold standard has nothing to do with it. It's the incoherent fiscal policy of the last two generations that have done it to us."

well... there were several court cases involving paper money, or "bills of credit" before the fed and they all were dealt with seemingly correctly, and the constitution says the gov. shall not emit bills of credit.

Federal Reserve Bank is a private institution made up of member banks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
globalized trade is fine, if it's free and fair....not like what we complain about japan for doing. political globalization is horrible.

What I'm pointing out is that transportation fuel costs are wiping out the advantage of overseas manufacturing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0