Eurozone Crisis online

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
India GDP per capita $1,500.

Per Capita Income Comparison between India and UK

i gotto teach you this also now......

first, population of India at 1.2billion and exchange rate/nominal GDP of India as $2.1trillion by the financial year 2014-15, which is growing by at least 6% a year for the coming 20 years. write down somewhere and then talk from here? this way, per capita income of India in exchange rate terms comes at around $2,000 by end 2015, estimated. OK?

from here, first my post as below, which states, how $2,000 per capita income of India is equivalent to $15,000 in US. and only rationale question i would welcome, no shiits. why i used a factor of 7.5 to calculate "on ground" Purchasing Power Difference between India and US.....

now, what you understand by Per Capita Income? i tell you about it, it compromise with 80% service, 18% industries (mainly energy sector of UK), and 2% of Agriculture for UK's economy.

i mean to say, in UK, you spend your 80% earning in shops/restaurants and other services. while its around 55% only in India. means, out of $2,000 per capita income of India in exchange rate terms, with its equivalent value of $15,000 as detailed below, around 45% of it, around $6,700 on PPP has share in agriculture/industries.

and with UK's per capita income of around $36,000 ONLY, around 20% share you have for the agriculture and and industries, means around $7,200 on PPP has share of agriculture and industries. EQUAL TO THAT OF INDIA, 'almost'.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies
and yes, this way you spend around $28,000 per head of your income in services, while that of India comes around $9,000 THREE TIMES DIFFERENCE ONLY. and this is why you may say you still maintain superiority over the common Indians, with over 500% Total Debt on your head, as much as Japan, the highest indebted people of world :wave:

from here, 3 times difference of Per Capita income used in Services has little value, as whole. frequently having food in restaurants/ going to shops etc, doesn't make much difference in quality of life, considering your per head expenditure on agriculture and industries is 'almost' similar to that of Indians as present, whose total debt hardly comes around closed to 100% to GDP, with GDP growing with a very fast pace, at least by 6% a year for the next 20years+ :tup:

while you going no where in future :wave:

//defenceforumindia.com/forum/economy-infrastructure/64395-brics-e7-economies-ibsa-4.html
and thats why i first mentioned exchange rates difference between US and India, which make a huge difference. in purchasing power terms, i would say 1.0 US$ = Indian Rupes 10.0, no more than that. so, you would consider per capita income on "PPP term of India "at around" $15,000, considering how prices really affect a common civilian

and the main issue here is the total Debt of US, well over $60.0trillion+, while that of India would be hardly around $2.5trillion, as below:

//cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/t1-overall_0.png
=>

"on Ground" Purchasing Power Comparison between India and US

please check my post again, and read "Per Capita Income at Ground", on ground :thumb:

On Ground: on ground, i pay $3.2 for a Medium size Flat White Coffee in Sydney while walking on the road, while its hardly Indian Rupees 25 (40 cents), for the same size and same standard of milk/coffee/machine of my near by. 8 time difference
(while i generally by coffee from the side at hardly IRN 15-20)

the "cheapest" food, 'production line food' of KFC/Mc Donalds/Hungry Jack etc cost around $10, no less than that. while a simple plate of food in Delhi cost around Indian Rupees 100 ($1.5), in a pretty good Middle Class restaurant. 7 times difference
(while a vegetable thali/plate in the restaurant of my colony of Delhi is priced at INR 70, its good.)

Im a resident of Perth, and you simply can't get a 2 room flat for less than $400 a week, means around $1,700 a month (INR 100,000). while in the city like Lucknow, the capital of largest state of India, UP, in my colony, around INR 20,000 per month is enough) 5 time difference
(while people do get flat for even INR 10,000 a month in Lucknow, on the long term contract. quite seen...)

even the cheapest food in Sydney, a Chinese cheap and best food, is available for $12, take away food, and then you pay $2.5 for water also, the minimum. while 1.0 liter mineral water in Delhi is priced at INR20 (30 cents), the best brands..... around 9 times

and yes, prices of rice, chicken, edible oil, cooking gas, etc is hardly twice in Australia, as compare to India, but again you do pay very high for other services in US......

and thats why i said, $15,000 per capita income in US, means for around $2,000 in India, around. regardless the PPP calculation, what does we buy from our earning "on ground", matters the most. :tup:

=>

Travelling Comparison: along with food prices in the Middle Class restaurants, price of 2 rooms flats/rent, price of mineral waters etc, i just realized one major comparison, the Travelling Expanses in city. here we find, its around INR 20 (30 cents) by the metro From Nehru Enclave to New Delhi railway station. and I would consider Distance of Nehru Enclave to New Delhi similar to Paramatta to Sydney. while from Straigthfield to Sydney, a closest suburb, i used to pay $3.2 for one way. 10 times difference
(while from O-Connor to Perth city, the price comes at around $4.4 for one way.)

hence On Ground Purchasing Power has now included traveling expanses too. again i discussed once, price of Petrol in Sydney and Delhi has hardly 20% difference because of its international price. but i again thought, once you send your vehicle to work shop for any type of repair, it simply cross $600 to $1,000+ in Australia. similar how i said before, even if prices of rice/cooking oil/chicken is hardly around twice in Australia as compare to India, but you first need to go to shops for the items, and service is again expansive in Australia. while we find prices of vegetables in Australia well closed to $10 per kg+, vegetables there are much more expansive than Chicken/Lamb.

i would use the factor of 7.5 to translate the Exchange Rate Per Capita Income of India to see its value in US/UK/Australia. and right now it would stands at around $2,000 :ranger:
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Comparing Debt on India and Britain

hmmmm, i myself lost little passions on morning, as things aren't easy for me, its true.... committing crimes on my name is, in fact, part of foreign policy of US/UK ......

here, i just want to complete the above comparison of India and UK.

as below, we do see India has around 130% Total Debt to GDP, while that of UK well cross 500%. the Total Debt, which includes Government Debt, Household Debt, Business debt etc.

and hence, if Per Capita Income of Brit stands at around $36,000 then total debt per head comes at around $180,000 this way, 500% to GDP, while that of India at around $2,500 per heard only, at 130% to GDP :rofl:. "72 times more"

JOKING..... really, and its true. and its further to the post when we compared per capita income of India at $2,000 with UK at $36,000 and both of these 2 news are jokes, in fact.

and how would i compare India with UK in this category also? then again i would use the factor of '7.5', hence bringing Debt on the common Indian civilians at $20,000 per head this way, ($2000*7.5*1.30), as compared to UK's $180,00 per head :thumb:

//cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/t1-overall_0.png

=> and if we talk more on this topic, then, it hasn't considered the factor of imported manufactured products. but this is same for UK and India both, Indian firms just achieved domestic supplies to over 50%, with rest are exported. and the same for UK too, you import something then something is exported from your firms too....

while i said Total Debt on India closed to 100% of GDP, then it was considering the fact that Indian Household Debt at around 30% to GDP is almost less than the total gold reserves in these houses of India, around 25,000 tons+ estimated (valued $1.0trillion+ in current market rate.)

with that, Government Debt includes Public Debt and Foreign Debt both, while Foreign reserve of India is around 80%+ to its total foreign debt, around $320bil+. .....

hence, even if Total Debt of India is around 135% to its GDP, i would say it around hardly 100% toGDP :ranger:
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Comparing an Emerging Economy with a Matured/"saturated" Economy

and with Total Debt, when you want to compare UK's GDP with India, the very basic of comparing with this emerging economy is as below.

when you say Per Capita Income of UK at $36,000 then its mean for that. here you are,no change. per capita income of UK adjusting inflation still around 5% less than the early 2008, pre-crisis level, then its because they had around 0.75% population growth during the last 7 years to 2014, so even if you have achieved you pre-crisis level. hence even if it reaches its average GDP growth rate of 1.5% since 1990, check, it would hardly help it get its per capita income level of early 2008 by 2020, hopefully.......

means, if Per Capita income of UK is around $36,000 right now, then here you stand even after 5-6 years. and for many years.considering you willnot face any economic crisis like how Russia faced during 90s, considering so high debt and budget cuts in Western Europe as whole....

but when i talked about India, i said, its GDP in Nominal/Exchange Rate term at $2.1 trillions by the financial year 2014-15. hence per capita income at $2,000 by end 2015, here they would have spending power for the year 2015, starting after a week. why? then this is how India's GDP change in just one year, as below. even if its growth was slowed for the last 2 financial years, which has picked up again since this year too, its GDP is more than 50% to its early 2008 level, to pre-crisis level :ranger:

thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01747/gdp_1747901f.jpg
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
40 'Frightening' Facts On The Fall Of The US Economy
05/27/2013

#1, Back in 1980, the U.S. national debt was less than one trillion dollars. Today, it is rapidly approaching 18 trillion+ dollars...

#17, Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs. :coffee:

#18, At this point, an astounding 53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.:ranger:

#21, In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined. :facepalm:

#24, According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either "poor" or "low income". :coffee:

#25, According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that receives direct monetary benefits from the federal government.:coffee:

#39, When Barack Obama first entered the White House, about 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Now, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.

zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-27/40-frightening-facts-fall-us-economy

here, there are 3 main possibilities of "Average Americans", as below:-

1st; Chance is less than 1% that someone belongs to an Industrialist group of USA, as per the above facts of USA

2nd; chance is around 37%+ that common American civilians don't have any source of income, as only around 63% working age people of US has any job, which exclude house wives, students, early retired people etc too. and this is the lowest level since September 2008 economic collapse, check it carefully......
//data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
3rd; and, there is around 47/315 = 15% chance that common US's civilians are dependent on Food Stamp to feed thenselves.

(here, as in the above news, $30,000 or less income does means for less than 18 lacs Rupees a year but prices in USA is also different. even a medium size coffee cost $3.2 (Rs 200) on the streets of Sydney and food no less than $10 (Rs 600) on any shop :disagree:. hence $30,000 or less income for 53% working age group does mean for a "non-luxury" life. which exclude those 37% of working age group who don't even have any source of income, :ranger:)

and its worth mentioning that these 37% people of US avoid slum because of $1.0trillion+ borrowing for their social security/free medical etc.. the USA which is already indebted by a huge $18.0trillion+ debt to date.... :ranger:)
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
further to the above post, this is how US register drop in Unemployment rate :ranger:

"Though the unemployment rate fell in March and April, both drops reflected fewer people looking for work, not more employment,"

//rt.com/usa/160596-47-percent-unemployed-not-looking/
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Prices Fall and Worry Escalates in the Eurozone
JAN. 7, 2015

PARIS — Europe's economy has reached a psychological inflection point.

On Wednesday, an official report showed that consumer prices in the eurozone fell 0.2 percent in December from a year earlier, the first time they have turned negative since the dark days of the global financial crisis in 2009.

It is an outcome that economists have been predicting for more than a year and a trend that has long been complicating Europe's recovery.

Now, the latest data is adding concerns that Europe is headed for a new financial and economic crisis. Unemployment remains persistently high. The euro has been particularly weak. And the political upheaval in Greece is prompting talk about the stability of the 19-country euro currency union. :ranger:

With the outlook deteriorating, pressure is mounting for the European Central Bank take more aggressive action to avoid a downward price spiral that could undermine the economy for years to come. Top officials have already been signaling that they could announce a major bond-buying program later this month.

But the question raised by many economists is whether the European Central Bank has waited too long to act, and whether its arsenal is powerful enough to address the eurozone's fundamental problem — a dearth of demand from businesses and consumers for goods and services. Even the bank's president, Mario Draghi, has said that it alone cannot shoulder the burden of restarting growth.

"The eurozone is suffering from a profound malaise," said Simon Tilford, deputy director of the Center for European Reform, a think tank in London. "It's already in a deflationary trap of the kind we saw in Japan in the 1990s, but it's less well equipped than the Japanese to deal with it," he added, citing the institutional challenges of managing a currency bloc of 19 nations.

The situation in Europe does not appear to meet the classical definition of deflation, a widespread, protracted and self-sustaining decline in prices. And the continued global collapse of crude oil prices contributed significantly to the decline, blurring somewhat the implications of the inflation report for the 19-country euro currency union.

But the trend is dangerous. The low inflation environment was already a signal of a listless economy, with consumers spending little despite low prices and companies having scant incentive to invest in their businesses.

If prices actually fall for an extended period, consumers might delay purchase in hopes of getting a better deal later, and businesses would see little reason to make products that would be worth less with each passing month.

"We're not yet in a self-sustaining spiral," said Gilles Moec, chief European economist at Bank of America in London. "But we're close."

The labor market provides one illustration of what makes Europe's situation particularly complicated to fix.

A separate official report on Wednesday showed that the eurozone jobless rate remained at 11.5 percent in November, around the level at which it has been for the last year. But overall numbers don't give a complete picture of what's happening in each country, where fortunes are diverging.

In Germany, which has the bloc's biggest economy, unemployment fell to 6.4 percent in December from 6.5 percent in November. But in the second- and third-largest of the eurozone economies, France and Italy, the jobless rates climbed, with Italian unemployment reaching a new high of 13.4 percent.

And in Greece and Spain, about a quarter of the population remains without work, a level consistent with economic depression.

Analysts said on Wednesday that it was now a certainty that the European Central Bank would announce aggressive new measures when it meets in Frankfurt on Jan. 22. They expect the central bank to say it is ready to begin effectively printing money that it would use to buy eurozone government bonds, even if it does not put the measures into practice for several months.

In doing so, the bank would follow an unconventional policy similar to the quantitative easing used by the Federal Reserve to stimulate the American economy.

But quantitative easing is a divisive issue in Europe because of questions about how to allocate the bond buying among eurozone countries, and who would pay if a government defaulted on bonds held by the central bank. That uncertainty is a main reason that Germany does not want to put its taxpayers at risk of having to bail out the bloc's weaker neighbors.

The central bank has an official goal of trying to keep inflation at just below 2 percent, which it considers an optimal level for a healthy economy. But the bank has not met that target in two years.

Japan's experience in the 1990s showed that traditional monetary policy instruments are largely ineffective with nominal interest rates at zero, as they essentially are now in the eurozone.

Another way to address the problem might be for eurozone countries to drop their insistence on balancing budgets and to instead use tax cuts and public spending to create demand.

So far, though, European officials appear to be holding their course.

"Yes, the eurozone is going through a period of low inflation," Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister and president of the Eurogroup of eurozone finance officials, said in a statement in response to a New York Times query. "But one of the most important reasons for the current low inflation rate is the falling oil price. Core inflation — excluding oil prices — has recently slightly increased." :ranger:

The core inflation rate, which excludes energy and food prices, ticked up to 0.8 percent in December from 0.7 percent the month before, according to Wednesday's data.

The German government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, which has taken a tough line against coordinated economic stimulus, indicated that the latest data had not altered its thinking. A spokesman for the Finance Ministry said in Berlin on Wednesday that Germany would not revise its analysis that there was no risk of deflation in the country. That statement came despite a report on Monday showing that German consumer prices rose 0.1 percent last month.

Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank in Frankfurt, on Wednesday defended the German view, saying that the danger was being overstated in light of the debt overload that was behind the global and European financial crisis that developed in 2008.

"It's inevitable after the bursting of a debt bubble that inflation is low, as consumers and business repay their debts and spend only hesitantly," he said.

Some of the weakness in prices reflects lower labor costs in the weaker "peripheral" eurozone members, he said, something that can make their economies more competitive. "We do not have harmful deflation," he said.

There is no question, though, that the eurozone is ailing. The bloc's economy expanded 0.6 percent in the third quarter of 2014 on an annualized basis. That is far short of the United States economy's 5.0 percent growth, and recent data suggest that the eurozone pace has been slowing.

That stark difference is one reason the value of the euro currency has been plunging compared to the dollar in recent weeks. It fell again on Wednesday after the inflation report, declining more than 0.5 percent to $1.1816 — its lowest level in nine years. As was the case the last time the euro was this low, fund managers are moving investments to the United States in expectations of a better return on their money.

Consumer prices in the eurozone had not contracted on an annual basis since October 2009, when the slack global economy made the bottom fall out of the market for oil and other commodities. December's negative rate was down from the 0.3 percent increase in November.

Well before eurozone consumer prices tipped below zero, the region's low inflation rate had been raising alarms.

Economists with the International Monetary Fund warned early last year that the difference between ultralow inflation, which they called lowflation, and outright deflation was mainly a matter of degrees, as the weak price pressures could "scupper the nascent recovery and pressure the most fragile countries."

Mr. Draghi, the central bank president, said last week in an interview with the German newspaper Handelsblatt that the risk of deflation "cannot be ruled out completely, but it is limited."

"We are not there yet," Mr. Draghi said. "But we need to tackle this risk."

Investors have been snapping up government bonds of eurozone countries amid expectations that a European Central Bank purchasing program would make them more valuable. Yields on German, French and Belgian bonds have all hit record lows this week.

Ireland on Wednesday was able to issue seven-year bonds at a yield of 0.867 percent, an astonishingly low rate for a country that was bailed out by the I.M.F. and the European Union in 2010.

Nicholas Spiro, managing director of Spiro Sovereign Strategy in London, wrote in a note on Wednesday that the contraction in consumer prices "is a severe blow to the credibility" of the European Central Bank.

"The E.C.B.'s hand has been forced," he said. "Anything less than a firm pledge by its president, Mario Draghi, that sovereign quantitative easing is imminent will be taken very badly by markets."

nytimes.com/2015/01/08/business/international/europe-economy-deflation.html?_r=0
nytimes.com/2015/01/08/business/international/europe-economy-deflation.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
//twitter.com/deutschebank/status/575351800066408448
@pmaitra @Ray

how do you people see relation of Oil-Gas pumping by US, and its low prices in world market now? the largest oil importer-consumer of world, the US, whose oil import has been halved since 2008-09:ranger:

i would say, high oil -gas pumping by US since 2008-09 recession brought prosperity in whole world :usa:. a very truthful statement, as now after different budget expenditure cuts etc too, US's economy has emerged very strong now. Debt to GDP ratio of US is well maintained at around 100% for the last 1-2 years, as now we find debt borrowing has been reduced to below $500billion, hence coping with the growth rate+inflation this way. US's economy isn't going to face any problem in near future, i see...

and high oil gas pumping by US had a major role in it, which helped all the oil importing countries reduce their deficit, lower inflation we have just due to cheaper energy prices now. even if we find Euro down to 1.1 per dollar now, from its high of 1.4 to 1.0US$ it had just 5-6 months before, hence giving a Competitive Advantage to the EU's firms this way, then its all because US$ is standing firmly, hence supporting the whole world this way at present.....

i would like to see oil prices to be around $70-$80 per barrel during this decade, which would stabilize its price in international market for coming years, and hence helping the US's oil producers remain over Break Even Point of their oil production too :thumb:


=>
forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2014/06/09/9-reasons-why-oil-prices-may-be-headed-for-a-bust/2/
9 Reasons Why Oil Prices May Be Headed For A Bust - Forbes

Net U.S. oil imports fell to a 28-year low in 2013 as a result of the shale oil boom: :thumb:

//blogs-images.forbes.com/jessecolombo/files/2014/06/oilimports.jpg
U.S. oil production is expected to grow to 9.2 million barrels a day in 2015 and 9.6 million by 2016, which would make the U.S. the world's largest oil producer, ahead of even Saudi Arabia and Russia. Canada's oil sand boom is expected to boost the country's oil production by 500,000 barrels per day to achieve a total production of 3.9 million barrels per day in 2015, much of which will be exported to the United States. :truestory:

As the world largest oil consumer, the United States' oil boom has significantly decreased the country's reliance on foreign sources of oil, particularly from the volatile Middle East. This is one of the main reasons why global oil prices have remained relatively flat for the past several years despite the Arab Spring revolutions that led to an 80 percent decrease of Libyan oil production and other disruptions, as well Russia's recent invasion of eastern Ukraine. According to oil analyst Lysle Brinker, oil prices may have soared to as high as$150 a barrel without the increase of U.S. oil production.

A glut of light, sweet crude oil is even forming in the United States as a result of rising domestic oil production as well as the U.S. crude oil export ban that dates back to 1975. Oil companies and oil-producing states such as Texas and North Dakota are pushing to have the export ban lifted so that the U.S. can export some of its newfound energy bounty to the global oil market. While shale oil deposits are found throughout the world, other countries face greater difficulties in their attempts to replicate the U.S. oil shale boom.
//blogs-images.forbes.com/jessecolombo/files/2014/06/ENRG-US-Crude-Oil-Production-at-25-Year-High-01102014-lg.gif
The same technologies that have enabled the oil shale boom – fracking and horizontal drilling – have also led to a nearly 40 percent increase in U.S. natural gas production since 2007. Now one of the lowest cost fuels, natural gas is expected to further reduce the United States' reliance on oil, particularly for electricity generation, heating, chemical manufacturing, and even transportation.

forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2014/06/09/9-reasons-why-oil-prices-may-be-headed-for-a-bust/2/
9 Reasons Why Oil Prices May Be Headed For A Bust - Forbes
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
.
In a first, gas and other fuels are top U.S. export
12/31/2011

NEW YORK (AP) – For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel. :ranger:

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels. :ranger:

Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasn't even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, America's top export was aircraft. :facepalm:

The trend is significant because for decades the U.S.has relied on huge imports of fuel from Europe in order to meet demand. It only reinforced the image of America as an energy hog. And up until a few years ago, whenever gasoline prices climbed, there were complaints in Congress that U.S. refiners were not growing quickly enough to satisfy domestic demand; that controversy would appear to be over.

Still, the U.S. is nowhere close to energy independence. America is still the world's largest importer of crude oil. From January to October, the country imported 2.7 billion barrels of oil worth roughly $280 billion.

Fuel exports, worth an estimated $88 billion in 2011, have surged for two reasons:

— Crude oil, the raw material from which gasoline and other refined products are made, is a lot more expensive. Oil prices averaged $95 a barrel in 2011, while gasoline averaged $3.52 a gallon — a record. A decade ago oil averaged $26 a barrel, while gasoline averaged $1.44 a gallon.

— The volume of fuel exports is rising. The U.S. is using less fuel because of a weak economy and more efficient cars and trucks. That allows refiners to sell more fuel to rapidly growing economies in Latin America, for example. In 2011, U.S. refiners exported 117 million gallons per day of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products, up from 40 million gallons per day a decade earlier. :cheers:

There's at least one domestic downside to America's growing role as a fuel exporter. Experts say the trend helps explain why U.S. motorists are paying more for gasoline. The more fuel that's sent overseas, the less of a supply cushion there is at home.

Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says.

Refining companies won't say how much they make by selling fuel overseas. But analysts say those sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than they would have generated in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur.

The value of U.S. fuel exports has grown steadily over the past decade, coinciding with rising oil prices and increased demand around the globe.

Developing countries in Latin America and Asia have been burning more gasoline and diesel as their people buy more cars and build more roads and factories. Europe also has been buying more U.S. fuel to make up for its lack of refineries.

And there's a simple reason why America's refiners have been eager to export to these markets: gasoline demand in the U.S. has been falling every year since 2007. It dropped by another 2.5 percent in 2011. With the economy struggling, motorists cut back. Also, cars and trucks have become more fuel-efficient and the government mandates the use of more corn-based ethanol fuel.

The last time the U.S. was a net exporter of fuels was 1949, when Harry Truman was president. That year, the U.S. exported 86 million barrels and imported 82 million barrels. In the first ten months of 2011, the nation exported 848 million barrels (worth $73.4 billion) and imported 750 million barrels. :ranger:

//usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1
Gas, other fuels are top U.S. export – USATODAY.com
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Net U.S. oil imports fell to a 28-year low in 2013 as a result of the shale oil boom: :tup:
//blogs-images.forbes.com/jessecolombo/files/2014/06/oilimports.jpg
US economy since 2008-09 recession

U.S. oil production is expected to grow to 9.2 million barrels a day in 2015 and 9.6 million by 2016, which would make the U.S. the world's largest oil producer, ahead of even Saudi Arabia and Russia. Canada's oil sand boom is expected to boost the country's oil production by 500,000 barrels per day to achieve a total production of 3.9 million barrels per day in 2015, much of which will be exported to the United States. :cheers:

forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2014/06/09/9-reasons-why-oil-prices-may-be-headed-for-a-bust/2/
9 Reasons Why Oil Prices May Be Headed For A Bust - Forbes

AA, with the above trend of Oil Gas pumping by the US, a steep oil-gas pumping is seen since 2008-09 recession itself, we find a graph of "Employment Rate" on the US's government website as below too. even if we find most of the economic indicators of US having improved to date, :ranger:

PD, what im willing to discuss here that, Labor Force "Employment Ratio" of US is at its lowest since September 2008, since Lehman Brothers collapse, when it was maintained at around 66.2% during 2001 to September 2008, as below....
since 2008-09 recession, the least ratios of Labor force employment of US is seen at present, at below 63%, while it was maintained over 66.2% till September 2008, till Lehman Brothers collapse.....
hence, it then states, US's "Employment Rate" isn't better since any time 2008-09 recession :ranger:

(while this Labor Force "Employment Rate" excludes house wives, students, early retired people, below below age 16 etc too,...)

//data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2005_2015_all_period_M02_data.gif
//data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
//data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
=> and this is how "Unemployment Rate" reduces in US, as below :facepalm:

"Though the unemployment rate fell in March and April, both drops reflected fewer people looking for work, not more employment,":tsk:

//rt.com/usa/160596-47-percent-unemployed-not-looking/
 
Last edited:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
@Ray @jouni

=> further to the above news, stating the lowest "Employment Ratio" of US since 2008-09 recession, we find the first reverse trend of Mexican immigrants of US since 1940-50, since WW2. a net decline in Mexican born population in US since 2008-09 recession itself, as below :ranger:

//cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/immigration2.png
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Russia only makes up 2 percent of the world economy, in the scheme of things they are not that important. :ranger:

Russia writes off $20 billion for African countries

Russia has written off the debt of over $20 billion to several African countries, the Head of the Department of International Organizations of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Russia, Vladimir Sergeyev, stated speaking at the UN General Assembly. The move seems to be strange and inappropriate under the conditions of the economic crisis. But the Russian authorities think strategically. Why did Russia do that? Why does Russia need Africa?

This write-off is not the first one. In 2008, Moscow wrote off $16 billion of debt of African countries. :coffee: The diplomat said that Russia transferred $50 million to the World Bank's foundation for poor countries. The funds of the organization are directed to the development of the African region to the south from the Sahara desert. To crown it all, Russia allocated $ 43 million to the World Bank program during the last four years. The funds were assigned to improve education in developing countries - especially in African countries. More than 8,000 students from Africa study at the Russian higher education institutions, and more than a half of them study for free. :coffee:

Russia has signed agreements with Tanzania and Zambia within the scope of the "debt-for-development" program. The agreements stipulate that the debt of those countries to Russia would be targeted for their development. The Russian government intends to sign similar agreements with Mozambique, Benin and Ethiopia.

Russia regularly writes off the debts of its debtors worldwide. The debts were formed during the Soviet period, when those countries were buying weapons from the Soviet Union. In September of this year, the Russian Federation "forgave" the debt of $11 billion to North Korea. In the summer of 2010, Russia wrote off 12 billion dollars to Afghanistan, and in the winter of 2008 - nearly 8 billion dollars to Iraq. Over the last 11 years, Russia has written off foreign debts in the total amount of $80 billion and paid $124 billion to its creditors. Here is the list of the largest debts that were written off by Russia: :truestory:

Afghanistan - $12 billion, Iraq - $11.9 billion, Mongolia - $11 billion, North Korea - $11 billion, Syria - $9.8 billion, Ethiopia - $4.8 billion, Libya - $4.5 billion, Algeria - $4.3 billion, Nicaragua - $4.3 billion, Angola - $3.5 billion. :truestory:

The figures are not small at all. :nono: :disagree: :smoking1: This generosity hides balanced and prudent pragmatism.

Today, major powers are fighting for the African continent, which plays an increasingly important role in the policies of developed countries for their influence in Africa. The United States, China, England, France and India are increasing their political and economic influence in Africa. Russia does not want to be an exception. The interest in Africa is first of all based on its raw materials. In addition, Africa is a huge sales market.

The African continent is abundant with resources. It ranks first in the world in terms of reserves of chrome, manganese ore, gold, platinum, diamonds, vanadium, and phosphate. Africa comes second on the reserves of uranium and copper ores. The black continent takes third place in the world on the reserves of iron ores, gas and oil. Which country would not want a piece of this pie?

Russian business also has its economic interests in Africa. Lukoil, Rusal, Gazprom, Norilsk Nickel, Renova, Alrosa, Rosoboronexport, Rosatom, financial and telecommunications companies - this is not the complete list of companies that operate in today's Africa. Russian companies used to invest in the mining industry. Nowadays, the range of economic cooperation has expanded. However, it should be noted that Africa accounts for only 1.5 percent of all of Russia's investments in foreign countries. This is the reason that makes Russia write off the debts of African countries.

Some experts believe that Russia in its relations with Africa seeks to return to the kind of cooperation that existed during the Soviet Union. This is not true to fact. Moscow understands that the use of previous models of cooperation does not make sense at present time. Africa represents an actual economic interest for the Russian Federation.

Russia's major economic interests on the African continent include:

- gaining access to certain categories of strategic exploitation of mineral resources (diamonds, PGM, gas);

- conducting the joint development of resources to increase the impact of exporting countries in the world economic system;

- the sales of its industrial products,

- exports of services and capital.

Indeed, unlike U.S., China and India, Russia is not very interested in the imports of raw mineral resources from Africa. This is what distinguishes our country from its competitors. It should be clarified that the Russian industry has a certain lack of certain minerals (manganese, chromium, bauxite), which could be imported from Africa. But the Russian economy is deprived of critical dependence on African resources.

The cooperation in the field of raw materials, production, processing and marketing is much more interesting because Russia has an opportunity to become a world leader at this point. In addition to the above-mentioned gas, platinum metals and diamonds, one may add uranium and oil. It is these markets that Russian companies are mostly interested in.

Russia is also interested in the development on the African continent of such sectors of economy as energy, metals and petrochemicals. Russia actively exports weapons and technology introduction equipment to Africa that other countries are not interested in developing in Africa. Thus, the export potential of the Russian industry directly depends on the active state support of the project to modernize the objects that were built on the continent during the Soviet times.

Russia intends to restore its former influence in Africa and gain new areas of capital investment. In September 2006, Putin visited South Africa and Morocco. In June 2009, Medvedev visited four African countries - Egypt, Nigeria, Namibia and Angola. The visits outlined Russia's interest in the resumption of economic and political relations with African countries.

Russian banks also show their interest in Africa's financial sector. VTB Bank (Russia's Foreign Economic Bank) opened branches in Namibia and Angola. Telecommunications companies evince interest in Africa too. Such telecom companies as AFK System, Altimo, MegaFon, Russian concern Sitronics consider the African continent a promising market for their expansion.

To increase its influence on the continent, Russia has to make certain concessions. Writing off billions of dollars in debt is an option, taking into consideration the fact that chances for those debts to return are slim. Most of those debts are the debts of the USSR. It is very difficult for any state to get such old debts back. Therefore, a creditor country looks for best ways to write off debts in exchange for certain privileges.

Former Economy Minister Andrei Nechayev said that any write-off was based on several constituents. First of all, a creditor may resort to this practice when it is almost impossible to have the debt paid back. In this case, creditors try to get something else in return. Secondly, it is political influence, and finally - the financial image of the country. When a country writes off somebody else's debt, it means that the financial situation in this country is stable. Russia intends to enter international capital markets in the near future, so it is necessary to show the strengths of its economy. Therefore Russia acts strategically correct.

//english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/19-10-2012/122511-russia_africa-0/
Russia writes off $20 billion for African countries - English pravda.ru
.
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
....................
@pmaitra @Ray

UK's economic growth for 2014 revised up

The UK's economy grew at a faster pace than initially estimated last year, revised official figures show.

The economy grew by 0.6% in the final three months of 2014, up from the previous estimate of 0.5%, the Office for National Statistics said.

The unexpected increase meant growth for the year was 2.8%, higher than the earlier estimate of 2.6%.

The revised rate marks the highest pace of annual growth since 2006, when the economy grew by 3%.

An expansion in both production and services as well as household spending helped to drive the increase, the official data suggested.

But the biggest contribution to the revised figure was a strong performance of exports, the ONS said.

'Vulnerable'
The revised figure was revealed alongside data showing that the UK's current account deficit - the gap between the income paid to, and received from, the rest of the world - narrowed in the final quarter of last year.

The deficit in the three months to December was £25.3bn, down from the record-high of £27.7bn recorded in the previous quarter. :ranger:

But for the year as a whole, the deficit widened to 5.5% of GDP, marking the largest annual deficit since records began in 1948.

UBS economist David Tinsley said the large deficit largely reflected weakness in UK overseas earnings "which may turn around if the eurozone recovery heats up".

"Still, regardless of the cause, funding a deficit of this size makes the UK vulnerable in a year when political uncertainty is relatively high," he added.

'Touch pessimistic'
Separately, UK consumer confidence rose to its highest level in more than 12 years in March, a survey from researchers GfK showed.

And separate figures from the ONS showed that the financial well-being of UK households improved last year.

Overall, economists suggested the figures boded well for the UK economy this year.

Analysis: Robert Peston, BBC economics editor

The UK's economic performance, in the round and as it touches people, is definitely improving - and looks good compared with competitor nations, especially those across the Channel.

GDP or national income per capita is 4.8% above where it was at the election - although it is still 1.2% below its peak at the start of 2008, before the Great Recession and financial crisis.

And if we measure our well-being by how much we spend, then things are definitely better - since household consumption per head is 3% higher than it was in the middle of 2010.

That said, many would argue that our recovery remains unbalanced and far too dependent on consumer spending: that we are experiencing "same-as-it-ever-was" growth, of the boom-and-bust variety.

"Given the outlook for consumer spending, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility's forecast of 2.5% for 2015 looks a touch pessimistic, and could come under some upward pressure in the coming months," said Ben Brettell, senior economist at Hargreaves Lansdown.

Martin Beck, senior economic advisor to the Ernst & Young economic forecaster ITEM Club, said he remained confident about its prediction that GDP would expand by close to 3% in 2015.

bbc.com/news/business-32126975
UK's economic growth for 2014 revised up - BBC News
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
@pmaitra @Ray @jouni

Any more 2008-09 type recession may make changes in world

we may see many funny things in coming years

how do you people see the news of article of last post#115? UK claims to be the second best performing economy of EU, after Germany. while its Public Debt is 80%+ to GDP right now, as compare to its low of around 38% to GDP in early 2008. while Government Debt of UK would be well over 95% to GDP. i generally know UK's and France's national debt is almost equal, around 95% to GDP by end 2014...

while Per Capita Income of UK adjusting inflation, is still 1.2% below to its early 2008 level, as in this article, even after so much debt borrowing since early 2008,? :facepalm:

while in case of Total Debt, which includes, Household Debt+Government Debt+Business Debt, UK find itself to be in match with Japan as below too.....

how you people would analyze this news of UK. i would still consider UK doing reasonably good as compare to its other EU's partners :ranger:

Ray sir, with my knowledge of economy, once i even predicted that UK won't ever achieve its Per Capita Income of Early 2008. as even right now, its more than 7 years have gone since then, isn't it?..... because when you have Debt to GDP ratio above 90%, you then have to do hefty budget cuts, which then undermine growth rate further. as, after hefty cuts on the side of investments, as we saw in case of EU since 2008, what exactly will drive the growth??? more budget cuts and further downgrade of growth prospects.....

a developing country like India achieved around 6.4%+ growth rate per year since early 2008, which was similar to other emerging economies like Philippines-Indonesia-Vietnam etc too, as compare to over 8%+ growth rate of China since then... and then it means that even if a developing country like ASEAN+India etc have high debt, for example, then with passage of time, the Debt to GDP ratio would be further reduced. while in case of OECD economies, considering the hefty cuts in budget expenditure since early 2008 due to having over 90% Debt to GDP ratio, they won't be able to achieve their last 25 years average of 1.5% growth rate too, i dont think so.....
(as, in case of India, its Public Debt is hovering at around 50% to GDP and its 'nominal' GDP increases by around 15% to 20% per year due to high inflation and other value added factors.....)
.

=> also, its worth mentioning that the issues of 2008-09 recession are still present, and if we see any more recession, the current OECD economies won't be able to borrow debt in the way they did during the 2008-12 period :no:. and it may be the case when it may then help these so called industrialized nations get their industries back from China, its good, in fact....... and it will be the case when their per capita income would fall below to that of CHina, hence making manufacturing products cheap in US/EU this way....

but there are some other issues too. if OECD economies gets their industries back from the emerging economies like China+ASEAN+India etc, it would first result in very high inflation in beginning. and as, "high inflation means for high interest payments on the debt they have borrowed to date", they may then have to withdraw their most of the social security expanses to pay interests on the debt they have already borrowed to date, not sure...... hope, we won't see any "social unrest" type thing there, in case of any more recession like 2008-09. as the issues of 2008-09 recession is still present, while more visible now as we saw further movements of industries to developing countries during the 2008-15 period too....

we may see many funny things in coming days, in fact. only the economies like Australia, Canada, Russia, Norway etc look comfortable in such case, whose minerals/resource export accounts for more than 70%+ of their total export. and yes, hefty oil-gas-resource pumping by US too would keep them standing as it is, i sincerely believe :thumb:

//cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/t1-overall_0.png
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Report on other economies are frequently worrying but not accurate. People in west are 20 time richer than in India if we loss 10 %(which never happen ) we continue to be 18 time richer than India so it doesn't matter. In fact services are cheaper in India so in PPP we are only 5 time richer than India. But when we loss 10% in real terms, we loss only 1% in PPP. If you consider only variation of money it is like make measure of a lenth with an elastic. So don't worry for us!
@Ray @jouni

PD-AA, in 'exchange rates terms', people of US have 25 time higher salaries than Indians, and 80 times higher debt they have, the 'Total Debt' which includes government debt+household debt+business debt.

and the prices of products there would be around 8 to 10 times higher than their prices in India, as per my own experience of buying products in Australia and India...

im just going to buy a coffee here in Delhi, which would required around 20 rupees (30 cents), while for the same type of Medium size flat white in Sydney, i used to pay $3.2. whats the price of coffee in US and France? :ranger:
//cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/t1-overall_0.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
@Ray @jouni

As I said Services are cheaper in India : in a coffee taken in a shop there is 0.15 cents for the service and 0.15 cents for cafee material. And in US service is roughly 20 time more expensive so the price is (20 x 0.15) + 0.2= 3.2
This is for services on which you cannot make effort of productivity.
If now you buy a BMW car, it will cost the same in India and in US (except for taxes etc.. which could be different). You will say yes but it's a foreign car, if I buy an Indian car it will cost less.
But it's not the same car, if India would try to make the same car it will cost the same, because productivity is not the same in India and in the west and it's why the west people are 20 time richer, they are also 20 time more productive. An exemple : when we ask HAL to build Rafale our expectation was that it will be cheaper, but in fact it cost more than in France!
PD-AA, i discuss this issue in details as below :tup:

=>
Income-Debt-Buying Power comparison of Indians, British and Americans
(in exchange rates terms)

Per Capita income of US = $50,000 (around)
Per Capita Income of UK = $38,000 (around)
Per Capita Income of India = $2,000 (around)

25 times difference
.

=> Government Debt
Government Debt per Capita in US = $18.5trillion for 310 million population = $60,000

Government Debt per Capita in India = $1.2trillion for 1.25billion population = $1,000

Government Debt per Capita in UK = $2.2trillion for 64million population = $34,000


=> "Total Debt" Per Capita of US = $60.5trillion for 310million population = $190,00 per person (around)

"Total Debt" Per Capita of India = $2.8trillion for 1.25billion population = $2,500 per person (around)

Total Debt Per Capita on UK = $12.0trillion for 64 million population = $190,000 per person (around)

around 80 times higher


=> buying products in Market, would be around 8 to 10 times difference, as per my experience.

coffee in India at 30 cents and in Sydney its $3.2 (10 times difference)

something we usual buy, a mineral water for Rs15 (30cents) in Delhi, while it was around $2.4, the cheapest one, for a similar one liter mineral water in Sydney.....

the cheapest Chinese take away food at $12 plus $2.0 for water, as compare to i pay around Rs90 ($1.5) a time here in Delhi

renting flat in Sydney starts with around $350 per week, the cheapest, means around $1,500 per month, plus other charges. as compare to renting a flat in my city, Lucknow, at around Rs 20,000 a month ($300).

parking in city, as you first drive to a shopping complex and then buy food whose prices isn't much different than India, for example. and similarly, even if you watch a movie, you pay dollar as compare to rupees in India.

even mobile charge at around 30 paisa per minute in India, less than 0.5 cent, while its around 20 cents per minute in Australia....

even for transportation, its around Rs 20 rupees(30 cents) in Delhi metro, as compare to minimum $3.5 one way in Perth-Sydney metro.....

i would put "on ground" purchasing power difference at around 8 to 10 times between India and US. the prices which matters us, the prices of driving, renting, food, travelling, mobile etc.... :tup:

hence, $2,000 'exchange rate term' per capita income of India would stand at around $15,000, using the factor of '7.5', as per its prices in US, for the what we buy-use the money on the ground, which affect the buying power of people.
hence this way, we find per capita income of India at around $15,000, as compare to per capita income of around $50,000 and $38,000 in case fo US and UK respectively....

//cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/t1-overall_0.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Where is the problem? if you have an income of $50 000 and a debt of $190,000 you can get a loan at 4% for 20 year and reimburse 1500 by year for your debt it's better than to have 2000 x 10 = 20 000 (taking into accompte the price in India) because you get $ 48 500

Even for England 38 000 - 19000 = 19 000 but after 20 years they will return to 38 000 and in fact they will never reimburse because the debt will disappear with inflation.
@Ray @jouni

Comparing an emerging economy with matured economies

sir, i was mainly responding you about your comment on difference of per capita income of US and India, in 'exchange rates' term. and then i tried to calculate that, $2,000 exchange rates term per capita income of India would stand at around $15,000, considering the on ground prices of product-services we buy. (i have revised post#118, please check it again.)

and it then means that, if government debt on Indians stand at around $1,000 per person in exchange rates term, it then means for around $7,500 per head when we use the same factor of '7.5', as i used in post#118, please check it again. while the government debt on Americans stands at around $60,000 per person and its around $35,000 in Britain.

and it then means to say, the "exchange rate" comparison of per capita income of India and US/UK doesn't show the true picture. if we laugh as per capita income of US and UK is around 25 and 19 times higher than that of India. then we also have enough reasons to laugh as average government debt on the Americans is around 60 times to Indians. while the total debt on Americans and British is around 85 times to that of Indians.....

and as India is a growing economy, similar to other ASEAN+China, we find things keep getting better here. for example, GDP of India would stand at around $2.1 trillion by end 2014, but it would be around $2.4trillion by this year, by the end of 2015. and thats why i considered per capita income of India at $2,000 as its 'nominal' value would keep increasing due to high inflation too. while in case of UK, for example, with reference of BBC's news we discussing here too, we would consider their per capita income unchanged by even 2020, or with only little difference...

and here we discuss this issue. even if 'on ground' per capita income of India would be around $15,000 as compare to $38,000 of UK. we see India rising to $25,000 by 2025 in today's prices, while the UK would hardly achieve $40,000 by 2025 in today's prices. 'if' we dont see any more recession like 2008-09 during this period :ranger:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
@Ray @jouni

sir, interestingly only Germany's Youth Unemployment rate seen falling since 'Lehman Brothers collapse'/2008-09 recession. and its the country with the lowest unemployment rate too, going further...

the story of impossible Germany among all the EU members.... i mean, the country with the lowest Unemployment Rate, saw further decline in Unemployment Rate since 2008-09. the 'only' among all the curves as below :rofl:

davemanuel.com/images/euro_zone_unemployment.gif
=>
davemanuel.com/2011/12/01/you-think-that-youth-unemployment-is-high-in-the-united-states/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top