Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE US Economy (merged)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Unread postby jimmydean » Tue 09 Aug 2005, 12:36:40

Good points Marko.

The U.S. companies that manage to migrate operations over there are poised to win on all fronts. Trouble with healthcare benefit costs/unions in the west ? .... move east. Trouble competing due to operation costs ... move east. Those that still manufacture in the U.S. are doomed at some point.

Real question is whether U.S. companies remain profitable when the consumer confidence in the west plummets and whether asia pacific based companies start copying/replacing the U.S. companies. Chances are that will coincide with increased eastern consumer confidence but I have a feeling if given an option consumers in asia pacific will be more brand loyal to chinese owned companies rather than American ones ;)
User avatar
jimmydean
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu 05 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Tue 09 Aug 2005, 12:40:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')Also, US consumers have benefitted tremendously. We can afford so many things that we otherwise couldn't afford.


Even if this makes economic sense (which it won't, in good time), it is disastrous in the environmental sense and it makes it too easy to compromise our nation's economy for a plethora of cheap shit. All of those 'dollars saved' are 'dollars removed' from the synergism of economic actions taken to produce, distribute, and sell those products in the U.S. Those 'dollars removed' constitute 'jobs removed' that are supposed to be 'replaced' in the service sector, which happens to be shedding jobs to well-versed Asians as fast as any sector of the economy.
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas

Unread postby nth » Tue 09 Aug 2005, 14:01:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tokyo_to_motueka', '
')
so when the US economy goes down the toilet, the Chinese get to buy it up quite cheaply. they may not even have to buy it.


Not really. These types of companies are seldom bought cheaply. The problem is China doesn't have the technology yet. Until they gain the knowledge, buying up these firms will only be a short term solution.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')oh, and that's right, everyone in the US is employed as a consulting engineer, i forgot.


Hrm... there are a plethora of books that helps describe how service economy works- Works of Nations by Robert Reich is an easy read and would be my recommendation. Remember US manufacturing output is higher now than ever in dollar terms. The idea that US is outsourcing is true, but US is still a manufacturing powerhouse. Not everything can be outsourced. The overwhelming majority of factories do not make sense to outsource and are not being shipped away. With transportation costs rising, we will see more industries think twice about outsourcing.

People like to make outsourcing a bad thing. It is only bad when looking from the displaced employee who cannot find a better job and has to either be unemployed or take a paid cut to get a job. If you look at the macro level, as long as the investment into US continues to grow faster than industry outsource to foreign countries, US will come out ahead.

I will worry about US falling behind to other countries when I see those other countries successfully developed advance technologies in energy, chemical, and communications. Japan, South Korea, and EU all have a shot to unseat US, but they all have stop aggressive pursuit after the 90's when US firms made a leap in these categories. Their lack of investment compared to renew US investments in these fields make me think they have thrown the towel and I doubt that their minimal investments can yield the next leap, which makes US as the best possible country to make the next big leap.

Just a few examples (since I have been talking abstractly):
Turbines, Gas permeable membranes, Gas converters, Steel ball bearings, etc.

This not to say other countries don't have key technologies US needs, which is true, but they are US allies, unlike China.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby nth » Tue 09 Aug 2005, 17:03:57

If you look outside of US, you see plenty of peak oil effects on economies. US is only one that seems immuned, but I will caution to wait till we see heating oil season. I think we will see major reductions in heating oil consumption.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby jimmydean » Tue 09 Aug 2005, 17:37:28

Good counter post nth I hope your right although I'm not that optimistic.

Over the next 10 years as asia pacific develops manufacturing capabilities even further I can't help but think what can't they manufacture cheaper than the west?

Yet another sign of an industry moving east...
http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.c ... 00510-0741

Also continued FED tightening (today and proposed future hikes) means we are nearing the end of cheap money. Those house prices are going to head lower in the new 1-2 years and our supply of credit which fueled the market the past 2 years is also drying up.
User avatar
jimmydean
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu 05 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby marko » Tue 09 Aug 2005, 19:22:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jimmydean', 'A')lso continued FED tightening (today and proposed future hikes) means we are nearing the end of cheap money. Those house prices are going to head lower in the new 1-2 years and our supply of credit which fueled the market the past 2 years is also drying up.


Maybe, but this is not yet clear. Probably most of you know this, but the Fed does not set long-term interest rates, such as mortgage rates. Those are set by the market (buyers and sellers), with the 10-year Treasury bill as a benchmark.

Until very recently (the past couple of weeks), long-term interest rates have been drifting down, probably mainly because Asian central banks have been using the dollars that they earn from exports to buy Treasury bills. (They do this rather than convert the dollars into local currency, which would drive the dollar down and make their exports more expensive in the US. They have probably also been doing this to keep US long-term interest rates low because they know that their exports to the US depend on Americans taking on more debt.)

In the past couple of weeks, 10-year T-bills and mortgage interest rates have edged slightly higher. It is unclear whether this a temporary blip or the beginning of a new trend. It is too soon to tell. But it is interesting that this change coincided with China's announcement that it was ending its dollar peg. It may be that China has reduced (or eliminated) its purchases of US T-bills, which would increase the likelihood of a steady rise in long-term rates, but this remains to be seen.

It is also entirely possible that long-term rates could continue to drop, due to purchases by Asian central banks (and Japan spends more dollars on T-bills than China), even as the Fed raises short-term rates. This is called an inverted yield curve. I think that this is what the Fed is hoping. This would bring a modest drop in consumer spending, as people begin to have trouble servicing their credit card debt. (Credit card interest rates are keyed to the short-term rate controlled by the Fed.) The Fed would like to slow the economy down and stop the housing bubble from inflating without bursting it.

My belief is that long-term rates will resume their gradual descent even as the Fed raises short-term rates. There is evidence that the Fed is coordinating policy with Asian central banks, especially the Bank of Japan (BOJ).

I suspect that the BOJ will print yen in order to buy dollars if needed in order to buy enough 10-year T-bills to keep long-term interest rates from rising. The BOJ will act alone if the Bank of China has decided to stop buying because a) they know that Japan's economy is totally dependent on the US current account deficit continuing to expand so that Japan can increase sales to its biggest customers: the US and China (which is also dependent on the US); and b) Japan is counting on the US to protect it militarily from China if things start to get nasty and is therefore committed to doing everything possible to prop up the US economy.

Of course, there is a point beyond which the Fed and the BOJ will be unable to prevent a collapse of the credit bubble (and the global economy). But I think that this is still 2-4 years away. We shall see.
User avatar
marko
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon 31 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Tue 09 Aug 2005, 22:28:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', ' ')That is how backward they are when talking about technology. Yes, they do know how to make semiconductor chips, but they don't know how to built semiconductor equipments.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('(machine translated Chinese to English follows) sina.net', 'D')ragon core (Goodson) general CPU chip
http://www.sina.net in 2005 06 months on 14th 11:53 中关村 management meeting

Below the item term of validity is three months, the outset time for the item issue date.

Dragon core (Goodson) general CPU chip

The dragon core (Goodson) CPU is the Chinese Academy of Science institute of computer technology independently develops has the independent intellectual property rights general CPU, also is domestic development first section general CPU. Dragon core CPU used the register trades, the dynamic dispatch, the chaotic foreword famously carries out
The mainstream system structure technology, in the general CPU system structural design technology aspect achieves domestic is in the lead horizontal and the international advanced level, in the dynamic assembly line concrete realization technology and the hardware to the system secure support aspect, has the important innovation, at present dragon core CPU has 30 inventions patents.
--More--

I wonder what "chaotic forward famously follows out" was supposed to be? "Front Side Bus?" Anyway they are on their way to dumping Intel.
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
Top

Unread postby tokyo_to_motueka » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 02:15:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tokyo_to_motueka', '
')
so when the US economy goes down the toilet, the Chinese get to buy it up quite cheaply. they may not even have to buy it.


Not really. These types of companies are seldom bought cheaply. The problem is China doesn't have the technology yet. Until they gain the knowledge, buying up these firms will only be a short term solution.

why would the Chinese manufacturing operations of bankrupt US companies not be cheap? the US companies' creditors will be forced to sell these assets off to recoup at least a fraction of their money.

why will it be only a "short-term solution"? the Chinese will not only have the manufacturing plants on their own soil, but they will have bought them at a fraction of the original cost. sounds like a good deal to me.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'H')rm... there are a plethora of books that helps describe how service economy works

i appreciate your concern, but i know how it works:

Watching the US Economy Crumble
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2')07,000 jobs were created in July.

Of the new jobs, 26,000 (about 13%) are tax-supported government jobs. That leaves 181,000 private sector jobs. Of these private sector jobs, 177,000, or 98%, are in the domestic service sector.

Here is the breakdown of the major categories:
• 30,000 food servers and bar tenders;
• 28,000 health care and social assistance:
• 12,000 real estate;
• 6,000 credit intermediation;
• 8,000 transit and ground passenger transportation;
• 50,000 retail trade; and
• 8,000 wholesale trade.

(There were 7,000 construction jobs, most of which were filled by Mexicans immigrants.)
Full Spectrum Disorder, by Stan Goff.
Just read it!
User avatar
tokyo_to_motueka
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue 19 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Tochigi
Top

Unread postby cube » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 02:24:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')I see globalization as a natural development due to our technological advances in transportation and communications.
...............
Sorry, this isn't the 18th century....it's the 21st century. Adapt or die.


How will globalisation "adapt" to the end of cheap oil?
If you're implying the end of cheap oil will mean an end to globalization....don't count on it. Yes I know a lot of "anti-globies" would love to see globalization get put 6 feet under but it's not going to happen.

Despite all the bellyaching about high oil prices, energy still makes up only a small fraction of business expenses. Businesses spend more on healthcare for their employess then energy. And healthcare costs are going thru the roof too but how come we barely hear about it? Even if oil were to cost $200/barrel the cost of diesel fuel to run a ship between China and California would only be a fraction of the total cost in owning a ship. Besides I don't see why we can't just build nuclear powered commercial ships. *seriously* The only thing keeping the nuclear option off the table is politics not economics contrary to what the greenies would have you believe.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby shady28 » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 03:04:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '[')Besides I don't see why we can't just build nuclear powered commercial ships. *seriously* The only thing keeping the nuclear option off the table is politics not economics contrary to what the greenies would have you believe.


Actually, a nuke powered mercantile ship would be extremely uneconomical.

Somehow I get the impression that people feel it is easy to make a nuclear powered ship. The only country in the world that has made an effective nuclear navy is the USA. The russians had a number of nuke ships, but most of them were dismal failures. Here is a very typical record for a russian nuclear vessel :

"Pyotr Veliky (Project 1144 (Orlan) - Kirov Class)
(until 1992 known as Yury Andropov). Keel laid down on April 25, 1986. Launched on April 25, 1989, and first sea trial completed in autumn 1995. Suffered a turbine explosion during sea trials. "

The French, who are probably the very best at commercial nuclear power in the world, had this level of success :

"Originally named the Richelieu, the ship was renamed Charles De Gaulle during construction. The Charles De Gaulle took more than 12 years to complete and enter service, largely due to engineering difficulties and budgetary constraints. The ship suffered difficulties during its sea trials including a propulsion failure and abnormal vibration in the main engines. In 1998, engineering spaces were retrofitting to reduce excessive radiation doses during normal operation."

These kinds of ships are not trivial and using nuclear power for mercantile ships - well, I think we'd be better off making high tech sails.
Welcome to the Kondratieff Winter
User avatar
shady28
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed 06 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 09:28:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'D')espite all the bellyaching about high oil prices, energy still makes up only a small fraction of business expenses.

An increase in the cost of energy makes everthing else more expensive so businesses are being hit by all kinds of new higher costs.
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts
Top

Unread postby nth » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 11:29:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BabyPeanut', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'D')espite all the bellyaching about high oil prices, energy still makes up only a small fraction of business expenses.

An increase in the cost of energy makes everthing else more expensive so businesses are being hit by all kinds of new higher costs.


What is surprising is the lack of passing the costs to consumers. Someone is eating the costs along the line.
Commodity pricing has gone up from suppliers, so it has to be either the manufactures or distributors and retailers or all of the above.
I am constantly surprised by how much cost they can absorb on their supposedly low margin business.

Another thing to note is that Dupont is using less or about the same energy today as 1990, despite its increase goods- as measured by dollars. Not independently verified. It is what Dupont claims.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby nth » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 11:41:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '[')Besides I don't see why we can't just build nuclear powered commercial ships. *seriously* The only thing keeping the nuclear option off the table is politics not economics contrary to what the greenies would have you believe.


Actually, a nuke powered mercantile ship would be extremely uneconomical.


I agree with you. Looking at the past 20 years, it is not economical to run a nuke container ship. Going forward, as long as we have not hit PO, I cannot see the costs of uranium and uranium disposal going down, so oil will need to rise to like $500 or more to make sense, imo. The last time I checked the price of uranium is going up. :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Somehow I get the impression that people feel it is easy to make a nuclear powered ship. The only country in the world that has made an effective nuclear navy is the USA. The russians had a number of nuke ships, but most of them were dismal failures. Here is a very typical record for a russian nuclear vessel :


USA is only country?
I thought Soviets had 5 nuke ships and hundreds of nuke submarines?

I am not sure if they got US help, but NATO has nuke subs and its key members like France and Britain have built nuke subs.

Also, all three countries built nuclear aircraft carriers.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby nth » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 12:10:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tokyo_to_motueka', 'w')hy would the Chinese manufacturing operations of bankrupt US companies not be cheap? the US companies' creditors will be forced to sell these assets off to recoup at least a fraction of their money.


Why would a company that has high tech knowledge of how to make equipments needed for manufactures sell it cheap to China?

No matter how bad the economic climate is in the US. US businesses still have tremendous purchasing powers. Why is that? Simply look at what companies are successfully doing business in China. China's economic rise is making millions of dollars for US and European firms.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')why will it be only a "short-term solution"? the Chinese will not only have the manufacturing plants on their own soil, but they will have bought them at a fraction of the original cost. sounds like a good deal to me.

Because all this high tech equipment needs refreshing every decade at least. If China doesn't learn how to develop these, buying the know how won't work.

Look at the Japanese. They are behind in Turbine technology despite mastering the latest turbine technology in the late 80's and early 90's. Oh wait, US just leaped ahead with turbines that produce 30% more. What happen after that? Japan reduced R&D in turbine.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')appreciate your concern, but i know how it works:


Not really. You don't know what I am talking about.
We are talking about apples and oranges here.

When you point me to Roberts, it just shows me that you don't care to know about US economy, but only care about issues that people point out.

You cannot know that those jobs are useless jobs by looking at the statistics he points out. He has a political agenda he is trying to persuade you to believe.

You should look at the academic analysis. They are more objective. Of course, not everything is objective, but at least, you can see that you need a plethora of statistics to make sense.

To point out flaws, Roberts claim 65,000 engineers graduating from US. If he does his research, he will see US hires more engineers each year than US graduates.

His claim of US productivity, wages, manufacturing, technical, and scientific capabilities are all going down.
All figures that I can find on government statistics point to all these going up- year after year.
He fails to find stats to back up his claims. Just rhetorics.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Z » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 12:21:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', '"')Originally named the Richelieu, the ship was renamed Charles De Gaulle during construction. The Charles De Gaulle took more than 12 years to complete and enter service, largely due to engineering difficulties and budgetary constraints. The ship suffered difficulties during its sea trials including a propulsion failure and abnormal vibration in the main engines. In 1998, engineering spaces were retrofitting to reduce excessive radiation doses during normal operation."


It was such a success that we're now building a new one with regular engines ( together with the brits who want two of them ). Gotta be prepared in case the Al-quaeda terrorist fleet tries to invade us.

Nuke engines make more sense for the subs because they have to stay underwater for extended periods of time.
User avatar
Z
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed 11 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: France
Top

Unread postby nth » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 12:22:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')Also, US consumers have benefitted tremendously. We can afford so many things that we otherwise couldn't afford.


Even if this makes economic sense (which it won't, in good time), it is disastrous in the environmental sense and it makes it too easy to compromise our nation's economy for a plethora of cheap shit. All of those 'dollars saved' are 'dollars removed' from the synergism of economic actions taken to produce, distribute, and sell those products in the U.S. Those 'dollars removed' constitute 'jobs removed' that are supposed to be 'replaced' in the service sector, which happens to be shedding jobs to well-versed Asians as fast as any sector of the economy.


consumerism is bad.
it is what got us into this PO issue today.
but what will the world be like without it?
probably constant wars and such.
consumerism seems to pacify people.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Z » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 12:27:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')consumerism is bad.
it is what got us into this PO issue today.
but what will the world be like without it?
probably constant wars and such.
consumerism seems to pacify people.


Too much consumerism is bad.
Too much of anything is bad.
User avatar
Z
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed 11 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: France
Top

Unread postby emersonbiggins » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 12:29:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')consumerism is bad.
it is what got us into this PO issue today.
but what will the world be like without it?
probably constant wars and such.
consumerism seems to pacify people.


I don't know about that. Are we not the most warlike nation to ever exist on the face of the earth? We probably consume to forget about a reality that is increasingly bittersweet.
User avatar
emersonbiggins
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Dallas
Top

Unread postby nth » Wed 10 Aug 2005, 12:33:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Z', ' ')Gotta be prepared in case the Al-quaeda terrorist fleet tries to invade us.


Hey! They were able to inflict heavy damage on USS Cole. When was the last time any navy successfully did that?

Of course, you respond with building more and bigger ships!
Neocons call it flexing muscle.

History has low or backward people successfully defeating a powerful and modern society- like Roman empire.
US must be following in its footsteps.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Nuke engines make more sense for the subs because they have to stay underwater for extended periods of time.


Yup. Or when we run out of oil, then you have no choice but to use uranium.
I can't wait for someone stupid enough to announce nuke planes.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron