Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    Senior Member oilfreeandhappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    My Bikes
    Shasta Kiliminjaro, Optima Dragon Recumbent
    Posts
    1,065
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    It's the Economy - Some facts and figures

    If we don't have enough incentives to commute already, maybe this will help.
    Here are some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
    comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.

    http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...rderguide.html

    Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20 Million
    Daily Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS, Australia: 796,000 BBLS
    GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion

    Dividing some of these figures:
    Daily Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person, Australia: .040 BBL/person

    GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia: $769,000 / BBL

    If we tried to run a business, and our competitors held this kind of advantage on us, we'd fail miserably, and probably go bankrupt.
    Jim
    Make a BOLD Statement While Cycling!

  2. #2
    Burning Matches. ElJamoquio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    My Bikes
    Motobecane Le Champion SL, Cervelo P2SL
    Posts
    9,663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm all for commuting, and reducing oil dependency - in fact, I'm employed trying to reduce oil dependency - but those facts don't consider industry, which is a pretty large portion of the consumption in America.

  3. #3
    Warning:Mild Peril Treespeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Seattle Refugee in Los Angeles
    My Bikes
    Cilo, Surly Pacer, Kona Fire Mountain w/Bob Trailer, Scattante
    Posts
    3,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also doesn't include agriculture either.
    Non semper erit aestas.

  4. #4
    Urban "Dirtbag" chennai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't they include industry and agriculture in the GDP numbers?

  5. #5
    On your left fatty Gusboh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    380
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ElJamoquio
    I'm all for commuting, and reducing oil dependency - in fact, I'm employed trying to reduce oil dependency - but those facts don't consider industry, which is a pretty large portion of the consumption in America.
    Industry and agriculture use a lot of oil here too mate.

    I'm actually surprised that Aus is that good.

  6. #6
    Urban Biker jimmuter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    My Bikes
    Trek 720 hybrid; 2007 Specialized Tricross Comp
    Posts
    731
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you look a little more closely, you'll notice that they often compare disparate dates. For example, the oil consumption in the US is a 2003 estimated number, while the EU is a 2001 number. Also, check the GDP growth rates. The U.S. GDP is growing at nearly twice the rate of the E.U. Another interesting couple - check the labor force sizes and the GDP/capita. It tells a story. The E.U's GDP is done with people and the U.S's is done with fuel powered technology.

    The moral of the story is that figures don't lie, but liars do figure (I'm not really calling the OP a liar - merely regurgitating an old saying). The same statistics can be manipulated in any number of ways to make very different points.

  7. #7
    Commuter JohnBrooking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southern Maine
    My Bikes
    2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
    Posts
    2,568
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My college offered a course called "How to Lie With Statistics". Never took it, but I always remember it when people quote statistics to make a point (on either side of the aisle). Again, not calling the OP a liar either (I probably agree with him on a lot), just saying.

  8. #8
    34x25 FTW! oboeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    NYC
    My Bikes
    Scott CR1 '07, Dahon SpeedPro '06
    Posts
    6,002
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrooking
    My college offered a course called "How to Lie With Statistics". Never took it, but I always remember it when people quote statistics to make a point (on either side of the aisle). Again, not calling the OP a liar either (I probably agree with him on a lot), just saying.
    Could you do us a favor and look-up the textbook for the course (if there was one!) -- I'm sure not alone in being interested in reading it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Order
    Quote Originally Posted by sknhgy
    I do not want to be associated with the kind of riders that come through my neck of the woods on weekends, dressed in superhero costumes
    Do they wear capes?
    ---

    http://www.cycopaths.net/

  9. #9
    Senior Member zoridog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    My Bikes
    Bianchi Milano Nexus 8
    Posts
    278
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry for being off topic ...
    An example of lying with statistics: Hospital physicians prescribe Tylenol to their patients more than all other pain relievers combined.

    Johnson and Johnson gives Tylenol to hospitals for free. They don't even pay for shipping. Don't ask how I know this ... I'd have to kill you.
    I miss bicycle commuting.

  10. #10
    Burning Matches. ElJamoquio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    My Bikes
    Motobecane Le Champion SL, Cervelo P2SL
    Posts
    9,663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oboeguy
    Could you do us a favor and look-up the textbook for the course (if there was one!) -- I'm sure not alone in being interested in reading it.
    "How to lie with Statistics" is a book, I believe originally written in the sixties or so.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...h%20statistics

  11. #11
    Burning Matches. ElJamoquio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    My Bikes
    Motobecane Le Champion SL, Cervelo P2SL
    Posts
    9,663
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gusboh
    Industry and agriculture use a lot of oil here too mate.
    And in Europe, I'm sure. My wager is that there's more oil 'exported' through agriculture and industry in America than in Europe (or Australia).

    That doesn't mean I'm saying we shouldn't reduce our consumption here - much to the contrary, I think it's imperative. But I'm not sure if comparing these statistics is the correct way to make that case.

  12. #12
    Urban "Dirtbag" chennai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ElJamoquio
    And in Europe, I'm sure. My wager is that there's more oil 'exported' through agriculture and industry in America than in Europe (or Australia).
    But if it's "exported", it's exchanged for money that goes into GDP, isn't it?

    I'll wager that if you settle on a some recent year the statistics won't be too different than in the OP. All this stuff about lying with statistics implies (or assumes) that the results would be significantly different if done for a single year, and I really doubt that they would be. Consumption, GDP, and population just don't change that rapidly from year to year.

    Here's GDPs from 2005: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2001rank.html
    Here's oil consumption: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t24.xls
    Last edited by chennai; 02-13-06 at 08:53 PM.

  13. #13
    El Jamoquio
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    46
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chennai
    But if it's "exported", it's exchanged for money that goes into GDP, isn't it?
    Yes, but in some industries the oil used per dollar produced is drastically different than other industries. Probably the most drastic example is agriculture. Basically the only non-oil costs are the land and the equipment - and a large cost of the equipment is the energy to smelt the iron, etcetera. The fertilizers and transportation are based on the costs of energy used.

    Aluminum production is another good example - most of the costs are energy related.

    So if you export agriculture and aluminum, your economy is going to be 'penalized' w.r.t. an economy that imports those items for trade with less energy-intensive products.

  14. #14
    Banned. FXjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    NE Indiana
    Posts
    12,592
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Gas was only 2.09 this morning...woohoo!

  15. #15
    Urban "Dirtbag" chennai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewyounkins
    Yes, but in some industries the oil used per dollar produced is drastically different than other industries. Probably the most drastic example is agriculture. Basically the only non-oil costs are the land and the equipment - and a large cost of the equipment is the energy to smelt the iron, etcetera. The fertilizers and transportation are based on the costs of energy used.

    Aluminum production is another good example - most of the costs are energy related.

    So if you export agriculture and aluminum, your economy is going to be 'penalized' w.r.t. an economy that imports those items for trade with less energy-intensive products.
    I think, perhaps, that the U.S.'s "inefficiency" of converting oil to GDP may have been the gist of the OP's point. I think the idea is, the U.S. puts oil in and gets less in terms of GDP than other countries.

  16. #16
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,435
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FXjohn
    Gas was only 2.09 this morning...woohoo!
    And that fact totally explains the consumption figures in the OP.

    We need to slap a $200/bbl tax on oil to pay for the externalities and encourage development of alternatives.


    "Think Outside the Cage"

  17. #17
    Senior Member oilfreeandhappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    My Bikes
    Shasta Kiliminjaro, Optima Dragon Recumbent
    Posts
    1,065
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chennai
    I think, perhaps, that the U.S.'s "inefficiency" of converting oil to GDP may have been the gist of the OP's point. I think the idea is, the U.S. puts oil in and gets less in terms of GDP than other countries.
    Yes, this is my central point. I believe these GDP figures do include agriculture and industry. Roughly 7% of energy in the US is for agriculture. No question that some industry uses a lot more energy than others, but we also have a lot of relatively low energy industry in the US. I don't think this is a large factor.

    I've travelled in both Europe and Australia. Almost all major cities have very good mass transit. Many of the drivers use mopeds or very small cars. Mercedes makes a car called the Smart Car, that is used extensively in Europe.

    Bottom line - the EU and Down Under are getting more bang for their BTU.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Jim
    Make a BOLD Statement While Cycling!

  18. #18
    Urban Biker jimmuter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    My Bikes
    Trek 720 hybrid; 2007 Specialized Tricross Comp
    Posts
    731
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chennai
    I think, perhaps, that the U.S.'s "inefficiency" of converting oil to GDP may have been the gist of the OP's point. I think the idea is, the U.S. puts oil in and gets less in terms of GDP than other countries.
    Is it inefficient? If you look at that statistic in a vacuum it is, but then look at labor force sizes and GDP/capita. You could say the other countries convert labor into GDP a lot less efficiently than the U.S. It's not a matter of efficiency, it's a matter of the methods used for production. I'm not making any value judgements about using people vs. fuel to produce goods. I'm just pointing out that you can't see oil as the only input into GDP and draw conclusions about efficiency.

  19. #19
    Fred Zen Kabloink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    598
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zoridog
    Johnson and Johnson gives Tylenol to hospitals for free. They don't even pay for shipping. Don't ask how I know this ... I'd have to kill you.
    The hospital then charges the patient $30 per tablet.

    Off topic, but you know its true.

  20. #20
    LHT Commuter wsexson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    My Bikes
    Surly Long Haul Trucker & Motobecane Le Champion
    Posts
    467
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FXjohn
    Gas was only 2.09 this morning...woohoo!
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody
    And that fact totally explains the consumption figures in the OP.
    Saw a gas station on Sunday with two signs on the corner. $2.499 per gallon for 87 unleaded and $1.00 per liter for Aquafina. Huh?!?!

  21. #21
    Banned wagathon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,728
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Your figures are not about the "Economy." You are simply focusing on a single factor of production, and one that is quite different in various industries. As a concentrated source of carbon, oil's market price is partly determined by its value in making drugs and plastics, for example, and not simply it's value in making gasoline to run cars.

    If you are not happy with the market deciding the price of this single commodity, you can slap a 300% surtax on it, as you see in Europe. Instead of voting with your dollars, you vote politiciaons into office to make up your mind for you and tell you what you should think.

    The U.S. actually has a competitive advantage compared to other countries where the cost of this single factor of production may be triple.

    Coal also is a good source of carbon but the price of oil is so low, there is no market for investing what it takes to "harvest" the carbon in Coal. Our politicians could simply get together and slap a surtax on the cost of oil and divert the extra billions to other technologies. The result would be that everything would be more expensive, but not better, i.e., productivity would drop.


  22. #22
    Urban "Dirtbag" chennai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wagathon
    If you are not happy with the market deciding the price of this single commodity, you can slap a 300% surtax on it, as you see in Europe.
    Before the market could set the price, we'd need to remove the subsidies. I like the idea of imposing the cost of oil supply protection on oil users, too.

  23. #23
    Urban "Dirtbag" chennai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmuter
    Is it inefficient? If you look at that statistic in a vacuum it is, but then look at labor force sizes and GDP/capita. You could say the other countries convert labor into GDP a lot less efficiently than the U.S. It's not a matter of efficiency, it's a matter of the methods used for production. I'm not making any value judgements about using people vs. fuel to produce goods. I'm just pointing out that you can't see oil as the only input into GDP and draw conclusions about efficiency.
    "Efficient" in the sense of converting oil to GDP. I think that's what I said. There are many definitions of "efficient," and I wouldn't pretend to understand what it means to have an efficient economy. And, I don't think I would like one, if we had one.

  24. #24
    Senior Member oilfreeandhappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    My Bikes
    Shasta Kiliminjaro, Optima Dragon Recumbent
    Posts
    1,065
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmuter
    Is it inefficient? If you look at that statistic in a vacuum it is, but then look at labor force sizes and GDP/capita. You could say the other countries convert labor into GDP a lot less efficiently than the U.S. It's not a matter of efficiency, it's a matter of the methods used for production. I'm not making any value judgements about using people vs. fuel to produce goods. I'm just pointing out that you can't see oil as the only input into GDP and draw conclusions about efficiency.
    You make a good point. We do have a smaller labor force than the EU, with close to the same GDP. But I don't think this goes very far. When you look at the population, it's incredible that the EU burns 2/3 of the oil that the US does. But your point is well taken - it depend on how you measure efficiency. But, the fact that 42% of our trade deficit comes from imported oil, is a real problem. Even GW made this point the other night.

    LABOR FORCE figures:
    European Union 218,500,000 2005 est.
    United States 149,300,000 2005

    But their population is also higher:
    European Union 456,953,258 July 2005 est.
    United States 295,734,134 July 2005 est.
    Jim
    Make a BOLD Statement While Cycling!

  25. #25
    Urban "Dirtbag" chennai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oilfreeandhappy
    But, the fact that 42% of our trade deficit comes from imported oil, is a real problem.
    I am always somewhat puzzled by folks saying that "imported" oil is a problem. I understand that the U.S. would be in a world of hurt if all foreign suppliers decided to cut the U.S. out of the picture, but that would also really hurt the producers. And, the incentive to "cheat" on such a ban would be very, very great.

    Also, although it is probably impossible for the U.S. to produce enough oil to become "independent," how would that really work? There's a global market for oil. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Japan and China are burning oil pumped from the U.S. I think that's one of the reasons that during the last push to drill ANWR U.S. officials said something like "and we will even promise to prevent that oil [as opposed to other oil] from leaving the country." (Not that such a restriction would make any difference at all, except politically.)

    Would the U.S. close its borders to oil exports? That would probably result in the price of oil in the U.S. being artificially low (or more artificially low! if one considers current subsidies.) That would result in increased consumption.

    As long as the U.S. consumes a significant amount of the world supply, whether that oil comes from domestic sources or is imported seems somewhat irrelevant. At least that's how it appears to me, though I would like to be enlightened.

    It's not the source of the oil; it's the silly, subsidized consumption.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •