Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:

Oil, Not China, Is The Real Destroyer Of America's Trade Balance

UBS's head of Asia-Pacific economics argues that the real global trade imbalance isn't U.S.-China, it is U.S.-oil. As shown below, current account surpluses from fuel exporting-nations have been a far larger driver of total global trade imbalances coming from emerging markets.

(...)

Thus the U.S. could use a little less finger-pointing at China... and a lot less foreign oil usage... if it really wants to correct its global trade imbalance.
This is a huge argument against U.S. trade protectionism since protectionism would miss the largest cause of America's trade deficit while only hurting U.S. export prospects by pissing off trade partners.



Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Apr 11th, 2010 at 02:58:23 PM EST
partly true

I always appreciate when people make this comparison, the relative weight of Chinese and oil imports in the US trade balance, that there's hardly a word about how one of the things driving up the cost of US energy imports is new demand from China.

Production in China is much more energy intensive than in the United States, and that's before you look at the cost of shipping products 10,000 miles to market.......

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Apr 11th, 2010 at 03:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Production in China is much more energy intensive than in the United States, and that's before you look at the cost of shipping products 10,000 miles to market.......

Citation needed.

by Trond Ove on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 02:31:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
just look at GDP/toe numbers.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 02:49:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, not an economist. I thought he was claiming that if two identical products were produced in China and the US, the US one would be produced with less energy.
by Trond Ove on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 03:17:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
TOE stands for "tonne of oil equivalent".

See for example Wikipedia's List of countries by Energy Intensity

for the year 2003. It is given in units of tonnes of oil equivalent per million constant year 2000 international dollars.
The US beat China, but not by much (just 5%). Both were slightly above the world average.

The brainless should not be in banking -- Willem Buiter
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 04:41:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And now we only have to postulate that they have exactly the same energy consumption patterns to be able to use that measure to compare the energy efficiency of industry products.
by Trond Ove on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 10:55:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmf... I am slow today... I just reread ManfromMiddletons comment, and he doesnt actually seem to be directly comparing industry products but to be talking about the Chinese need for oil. I will stop attacking strawmen now. :)
by Trond Ove on Mon Apr 12th, 2010 at 10:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series