![]() | The Engineer and the Chairman, differing points of view | The Oil Drum | Wilma Category 5: Lowest Pressure Ever | ![]() |
68 comments on Is the Economy Less Sensitive to an Oil Shock?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
68 comments on Is the Economy Less Sensitive to an Oil Shock?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
In 1975 the US had a trade surplus and hasn't seen one since and likely never will again.
After 1975, oil got really expensive... and scarce, for a while.
Thus was born the need and desire to outsource to reduce costs, not to mention the fear of Japan taking over (remember those days?)
Its all inter-related, isn't it? Foreign imports reduced costs on other goods that otherwise, if were fully borne by The American Consumer, would mean they'd build smaller houses and other things.
So, the economy shifted gears and outsourced a ton of manufacturing overseas... literally millions of tons of manufacturing, annually. I happen to live in a massive port city and can assure you that all those containers coming into North America are filled with products made thanks to oil, somewhere along the line.
How big? Well lets first think about the impact oil itself has on the trade deficit, as clearly the advent of peak oil in the US has had a major impact on the deficit froom the 70's onward - increasing it as oil had to be imported, and also forcing outsourcing to other locales with cheaper labour to avoid inflation and keep the consumer spending.
The "trade deficit" is a simple balance sheet - what's really instructive is to look at the GOODS only number, and factor out the trade surplus that exists in services, and also seperate the oil imports. Census.gov gives all the numbers:
Some selected years... getting tired:
Goods only surplus/deficit:
Year Petroleum Non Petroleum
1990 -54,513 -47,205
1991 -43,617 -21,781
1993 -44,002 -71,567
1994 -44,315 -106,314
1995 -48,059 -110,742
1996 -63,119 -107,095
1997 -61,352 -119,170
1998 -42,828 -186,931
1999 -59,187 -269,634 (cheap gas and Internet fever!)
2000 -108,266 -327,839
2001 -114,658 -329,393
2002 -111,230 -408,126
2003 -118,693 -448,538
2004 -126,466 -522,922
Going from a trade surplus of 12 billion in 75 to a trade deficit of 600 billion or more but it would be worse if not for the exports of services and goods. The point I'm trying to make is that within the the next few years an annual deficit of 1 trillion dollars in goods will be hit.
1 trillion in goods = a ton of oil which is not on the US balance sheet.
My beef with Greenspan et al is that they glow on about how much less energy dependent the economy is... and while there is truth to that, in that some new industries have a low cost component of energy, the bottom line is that we are consuming (there is that word again) more than ever.
Besides... Hummers and 300 HP family wagons probably don't get much worse or better mileage than a souped up Dodge Charger of the past, which, ironically, is now reintroduced with a big engine.
That trade deficit is just going to get larger and larger as oil costs more and more, but somewhere there must be a limit to how much production one can outsource (for lower other costs) before the whole system breaks. On that note... time for a nap!
(billions of dollars)
1990 $5803.1
1991 $5995.9
1992 $6337.7
1993 $6657.4
1994 $7072.2
1995 $7397.7
1996 $7816.9
1997 $8304.3
1998 $8747.0
1999 $9268.4
2000 $9817.0
2001 $10128.0
2002 $10469.6
2003 $10971.2
2004 $11734.3
So the next question is... are these numbers big enough to be meaningful? Yes -- and growing more so rapidly:
http://www.trendvue.com/charts/2005/10/tv20051019-01.gif