Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Playing with the numbers

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Aaron » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 12:14:47

Excel

Thoughts?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby markam » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 12:40:32

It appears that the price as a percentage of GDP is higher than every year except 1979 and 1980.

And of course, 1979 to 1980 is the only year in which the US GDP went down since 1933.

Anybody want to place a bet about whether or not the US GDP will be lower in 2006 than it was in 2005? I will give you good odds if you are stupid enough to want to bet on it going up.
markam
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: PA

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Lehyina » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 22:43:18

Another observation is that the rise in cost as percent of GDP was much more rapid in 1973 and 1979 than has been happening more recently. Hence the economic impacts so far have been more gradual than during the previous oil price shocks.
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Macsporan » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 23:01:15

Adjusted for inflation?
Son of the Enlightenment
User avatar
Macsporan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu 09 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Australia

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Lehyina » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 23:38:45

The chart shows a relative measure which is net oil import cost (nominal) divided by GDP (nominal), both of which are not adjusted for inflation. Of course real GDP could be used instead of nominal GDP but then the net oil import cost would have to be adjusted for inflation as well. If the same inflation series is used for the adjustment of cost and GDP the relative measure cost/GDP will remain the same.
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 23:46:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markam', 'I')t appears that the price as a percentage of GDP is higher than every year except 1979 and 1980.

And of course, 1979 to 1980 is the only year in which the US GDP went down since 1933.

Anybody want to place a bet about whether or not the US GDP will be lower in 2006 than it was in 2005? I will give you good odds if you are stupid enough to want to bet on it going up.


Give me some more details and I'll consider it.

I'm already betting $20 (even odds) that oil will stay below $100.00 at all times between now and January 1st, 2006. Texas Intermediate was our crude of choice.

Remember, we will be using government data for our 2006 economic recession prediction. And they lie...
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Lehyina » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 00:14:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')emember, we will be using government data for our 2006 economic recession prediction. And they lie...


That is indeed the problem with doing any kind of analysis - how reliable is the input data? But if the 'GDP lies' are at least fairly consistent from year to year a relative measure such as the one shown in the chart may still give some useful insight into what is going on.
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby markam » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 00:25:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd they lie


Well, the numbers will lie up until the 2006 elections. The Republicans will do everything possible to avoid letting the american public know how bad the situation is.
markam
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: PA

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 00:35:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markam', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd they lie


Well, the numbers will lie up until the 2006 elections. The Republicans will do everything possible to avoid letting the american public know how bad the situation is.


And the Democrats are any better? :evil:

It was Bill Clinton's team of economic advisors that ruined the inflation gauge in order to help him win re-election.

For the bet, what do you consider "good" odds?
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA
Top

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby pup55 » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 10:56:35

This is a fine spreadsheet.

$80 per barrel and 3% GDP spent on oil imports is the approximate pain threshhold that will finally cause the recession.

Side question: Are the $80 and $115 estimates your "official predictions" of pricing in 2006 and 2007?
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Lehyina » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 11:17:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ide question: Are the $80 and $115 estimates your "official predictions" of pricing in 2006 and 2007?

No, not my "official predictions". Just selected them because they are the sorts of numbers we have been hearing from various sources and I wanted to see what impact they would have as measured by the cost impact relative to GDP.
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Lehyina » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 11:31:30

pup55, I have done a separate spreadsheet for the Australian economy which looks especially interesting because its domestic crude production has been plunging by around 10% per year on average for the last few years. Would really like to examine a few other economies but so far I have found it hard to obtain the GDP series over a long enough time period for any countries other than USA and Australia. Do you know any suitable sources?
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby pup55 » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 11:54:21

IMF Database

The IMF database might be suitable for such a thing. It will let you go back to 1980, which is far enough to catch the second oil shock.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby Lehyina » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 12:33:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '[')url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/index.htm]IMF Database[/url]

The IMF database might be suitable for such a thing. It will let you go back to 1980, which is far enough to catch the second oil shock.


Thanks for the link. I see that the IMF database is forecasting 6% GDP growth for USA in 2005 and 5.7% in 2006 which is double what I had assumed.
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Playing with the numbers

Unread postby pup55 » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 13:57:36

Yeah, well this is the Wolfowitz-inspired prediction. I'm surprised it's that low.

Hopefully the historical database is more or less accurate.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00


Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron