At the end of WWII the US was the exporter of last resort, being the only industrialised nation unscathed by war at home and having 50% of world GDP by some estimates. This allowed the US to dictate terms at Bretton Woods which was not a good thing in the long term.
Bretton Woods system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In case of balance of payments imbalances, Keynes recommended that both debtors and creditors should change their policies. As outlined by Keynes, countries with payment surpluses should increase their imports from the deficit countries and thereby create a foreign trade equilibrium. Thus, Keynes was sensitive to the problem that placing too much of the burden on the deficit country would be deflationary. But the United States, as a likely creditor nation, and eager to take on the role of the world's economic powerhouse, balked at Keynes' plan and did not pay serious attention to it. The U.S. contingent was too concerned about inflationary pressures in the postwar economy, and White saw an imbalance as a problem only of the deficit country.
But the United States, as a likely creditor nation, and eager to take on the role of the world's economic powerhouse, balked at Keynes' plan and did not pay serious attention to it. The U.S. contingent was too concerned about inflationary pressures in the postwar economy, and White saw an imbalance as a problem only of the deficit country.
The US was self-sufficient - indeed surplus - in energy, and was exporting energy both directly, and indirectly, as embedded energy in exports.
China is now - like the US - a major net importer of energy, and are both energy debtor nations. That's why I find the whole G7/G20 agenda pretty fatuous. How many barrels has the G7?
I think that any Bretton Woods 2 - now overdue - must necessarily involve a new energy settlement of which a major component woill be a non-toxic networked market architecture. Indeed, I consider that an 'Energy Standard' for world trade is now necessary, within an 'International Clearing Union' framework agreement. In such a networked and decentralised model - unlike Keynes' centralised Bancor proposal - there would be no central issuer. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
The US was self-sufficient - indeed surplus - in energy, and was exporting energy both directly, and indirectly, as embedded energy in exports. China is now - like the US - a major net importer of energy, and are both energy debtor nations. That's why I find the whole G7/G20 agenda pretty fatuous. How many barrels has the G7?
The classification of a country as low-income food-deficit used for analytical purposes by FAO is traditionally determined by three criteria. First, a country should have a per capita income below the "historical" ceiling used by the World Bank to determine eligibility for IDA assistance and for 20-year IBRD terms, applied to countries included in World Bank's categories I and II. The historical ceiling of per capita gross national income (GNI) for 2006, based on the World Bank's Atlas method, is US$ 1,735, which is higher than the level established for 2005 (US$ 1,675). The second criterion is based on the net (i.e. gross imports less gross exports) food trade position of a country averaged over the preceding three years for which statistics are available, in this case from 2003 to 2005. Trade volumes for a broad basket of basic foodstuffs (cereals, roots and tubers, pulses, oilseeds and oils other than tree crop oils, meat and dairy products) are converted and aggregated by the calorie content of individual commodities. Thirdly, the self-exclusion criterion is applied when countries that meet the above two criteria specifically request FAO to be excluded from the LIFDC category.
China is now - like the US - a major net importer of energy
Including the energy re-exported embedded in products?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Energy accounting between states would be interesting. In fact, the result of using an 'energy standard' for exchanges would actually BE energy accounting.
I was doodling further recently re Iceland and aluminium in this connection.
Iceland could make a production/revenue-sharing deal with (say) Jamaica or any other producer in respect of bauxite, so that Jamaica are entitled to an 'equity share' x% of Iceland's refined aluminium production. Essentially a macro tolling agreement.
The outcome is that Iceland export their energy in the form of refined aluminium.
Alcoa etc could be sacked and told to re-apply as an operating member for which they would also receive an equity share. The advantage for Alcoa is that their capital requirement as a service provider - rather than transaction intermediary - shrinks dramatically.
Finally, the end-users - eg China and Japan - would be invited to invest in units redeemable in payment for aluminium, and the proceeds of this loan denominated in aluminium/ (embedded energy) would be used to repay all existing debt, getting rid of compound interest.
I suspect they would find unitised Aluminium a much more attractive proposition than $ denominated T bills at 0.1%.
As for Iceland, it gets the debt monkey of their shoulder, and means they get a better overall 'win/win' outcome, while Jamaica benefit from the refining uplift.
Rentiers lose. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
tango? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
