http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/15/us-markets-forex-idUSBRE9BJ0EF20140115
According to this article, recently released reports are showing that the value of the dollar in the global currency market is climbing. Just as the value of the dollar is increasing, the values of both the Euro and the Australian dollar have both fallen recently as well. As I stated in my previous blog, the value of our currency as well as other currencies has a direct effect on the price of foreign imports. Since the United States purchases a huge amount of imported goods from China and other asian countries, the value of the dollar has a great effect on the prices of those goods.
After seeing this increase in the value of the dollar, Chicago Federal Reserve President Charles Evans has stated that the Fed is considering winding down some its bond-buying programs which are used to inflate the value of the dollar if the economy strengthens. In my opinion, it's a reassuring sign to see the dollar gaining value against other currencies. Hopefully this progress will continue throughout the year as the economy continues to recover.
While the Federal Reserve can promote short-term economic growth through inflation, it is best for long-term economic growth to be achieved naturally, and a stronger U.S. dollar will result in lower priced foreign goods, which will hopefully result in greater consumer spending. As we've all learned, greater consumer spending leads to higher incomes, and this is a legitimate way to spark economic growth.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
CORNYN and BRADY: Federal Reserve’s morphine to Wall Street leaves middle class out of recovery
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/12/coryn-and-brady-a-centennial-checkup-for-the-dolla/?page=all
Since the housing market crash of 2008, it's plain to see that Wall Street has more than recovered from the greatest economic downturn our nation has seen since the Great Depression. With the Dow Jones at an all-time high and stock prices climbing higher and higher, you might be tempted to think that the recession is over. But the truth is that the middle class has still not fully recovered from the recession, and the Federal Reserve's current policies regarding inflation and economic growth have not helped. This article describes how inflation has resulted in a devaluation of the dollar globally, which has had deep effects on American consumer's pocketbooks.
Over the past decade, the U.S. Dollar has been on a downward trend on the global currency market. This downward trend has had global implications, particularly the loss of buying power for the U.S. Dollar in international commerce. Simply put, when the value of the dollar against other currency falls, the price of foreign goods will rise. This affects the price of all kinds of products which are imported to the U.S., like gasoline. While the author does admit that the recent European financial crisis has helped increase the value of the dollar, the Federal Reserve still must be wary of promoting too much inflation for this reason.
In my opinion, there is little the Federal Reserve can do at the moment to shrink unemployment and stimulate real growth in the economy, as many businesses are still not confident enough in the economy to hire new workers. Perhaps that will start to change this year, but until then it may be a good idea for the Fed to lay low for a while.
Since the housing market crash of 2008, it's plain to see that Wall Street has more than recovered from the greatest economic downturn our nation has seen since the Great Depression. With the Dow Jones at an all-time high and stock prices climbing higher and higher, you might be tempted to think that the recession is over. But the truth is that the middle class has still not fully recovered from the recession, and the Federal Reserve's current policies regarding inflation and economic growth have not helped. This article describes how inflation has resulted in a devaluation of the dollar globally, which has had deep effects on American consumer's pocketbooks.
Over the past decade, the U.S. Dollar has been on a downward trend on the global currency market. This downward trend has had global implications, particularly the loss of buying power for the U.S. Dollar in international commerce. Simply put, when the value of the dollar against other currency falls, the price of foreign goods will rise. This affects the price of all kinds of products which are imported to the U.S., like gasoline. While the author does admit that the recent European financial crisis has helped increase the value of the dollar, the Federal Reserve still must be wary of promoting too much inflation for this reason.
In my opinion, there is little the Federal Reserve can do at the moment to shrink unemployment and stimulate real growth in the economy, as many businesses are still not confident enough in the economy to hire new workers. Perhaps that will start to change this year, but until then it may be a good idea for the Fed to lay low for a while.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Indian Industry Contracts as Inflation Rises
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579254214290446386
Over the past year, India has been raising its rate of inflation in order to expand its economy, but this method is starting to become a real issue. The reason for this is that many Indian workers live near or below the poverty line, and their wages are not increasing fast enough to keep up with this rising inflation. As a result, these workers are having more and more trouble purchasing basic necessities, which is causing harm for the economy.
Retail inflation, measured by the Consumer Price Index, has risen all the way to 11.24% in November, which was higher than expected and unanticipated as well. In my opinion, India should attempt to curb its inflation and maintain steadier levels of inflation for the time being in order to alleviate economic pressure on its impoverished workers. Also, a steadier rate of inflation will ensure steadier economic growth.
Over the past year, India has been raising its rate of inflation in order to expand its economy, but this method is starting to become a real issue. The reason for this is that many Indian workers live near or below the poverty line, and their wages are not increasing fast enough to keep up with this rising inflation. As a result, these workers are having more and more trouble purchasing basic necessities, which is causing harm for the economy.
Retail inflation, measured by the Consumer Price Index, has risen all the way to 11.24% in November, which was higher than expected and unanticipated as well. In my opinion, India should attempt to curb its inflation and maintain steadier levels of inflation for the time being in order to alleviate economic pressure on its impoverished workers. Also, a steadier rate of inflation will ensure steadier economic growth.
Inflation Still Low as Wholesale Prices Fall for 3rd Straight Month
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-producer-prices-inflation-wholesale-economy-20131213,0,6458844.story
In the past several months, the rate of inflation has fallen to 0.7%, which is a very manageable rate. This is due to the fact that the Consumer Price Index has fallen as well, which some are speculating is a result of lower energy prices in the Energy Price Index. The affect of lower energy prices certainly could affect the Consumer Price Index, which could mean that the current rate of inflation is artificially low. In any case, the current rate of inflation is very low, which probably coincides with the still relatively high unemployment rates, which do not include those who have stopped looking for work.
Because the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates so low for the past several years, it is not a surprise that inflation is falling. However, this has not helped the unemployment rate to fall back to the normal levels it saw before the housing market crash in 2008. Keep in mind that the Phillip's curve demonstrates that as inflation rises, unemployment drops. If the Federal Reserve wants to actually help unemployment return to normal levels and aid the economy, it should raise interest rates to effectively increase inflation to higher rate than 0.7%, which is not enough to jumpstart our economy.
In the past several months, the rate of inflation has fallen to 0.7%, which is a very manageable rate. This is due to the fact that the Consumer Price Index has fallen as well, which some are speculating is a result of lower energy prices in the Energy Price Index. The affect of lower energy prices certainly could affect the Consumer Price Index, which could mean that the current rate of inflation is artificially low. In any case, the current rate of inflation is very low, which probably coincides with the still relatively high unemployment rates, which do not include those who have stopped looking for work.
Because the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates so low for the past several years, it is not a surprise that inflation is falling. However, this has not helped the unemployment rate to fall back to the normal levels it saw before the housing market crash in 2008. Keep in mind that the Phillip's curve demonstrates that as inflation rises, unemployment drops. If the Federal Reserve wants to actually help unemployment return to normal levels and aid the economy, it should raise interest rates to effectively increase inflation to higher rate than 0.7%, which is not enough to jumpstart our economy.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Keystone's hit to the environment
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/18/news/economy/keystone-pipeline/
For the past several years, the building of the Keystone Pipeline has been a point of contention in congress, as many lawmakers would like to see this ambitious project come to fruition have been pushing for the pipeline to be built, which would create jobs and provide crude oil from Canada to the U.S. But the Obama Administration has been actively blocking the approval of the Keystone Pipeline, citing its environmental impact as a major issue in this debate. But many have speculated that if the sand oil produced in Canada doesn't make its way from Alberta into the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico, emitting more carbon dioxide and harming the environment, then the same oil will still flow into the United States from a different source, like Venezuela.
I strongly support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. It is time for the Obama Administration to finally stop dragging their feet and approve the pipeline. If the Keystone Pipeline is built, it will carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, which would undoubtably lower oil prices, and would create thousands of jobs for U.S. workers maintaining the pipeline in the U.S. While this project wouldn't help the U.S. reduce our massive trade deficit, it would reduce our dependence on oil from less desirable sources like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and would probably be much cheaper, as the source of oil is much closer to the United States, effectively lowering the cost of transportation for the oil itself. Essentially, the construction of the Keystone Pipeline would result in a very positive economic impact overall, as more jobs would help lower unemployment, and cheaper gas prices would alleviate pressure on consumers, resulting in a consumer surplus.
While the environmental impact of the Keystone Pipeline might not be attractive, it will not be nearly as terrible as the Obama Administration is making it out to be. While oil from oil sands like that produced in Alberta does emit 17% more carbon dioxide than conventional oil, experts speculate that oil sand production will only comprise 4.5% of the oil market by 2030, so according to the author, only "4.5% of the world's oil would be 17% dirtier."In addition to this, only 0.4% of global greenhouse emissions would come from Canadian oil sands by 2030 if the pipeline were built. The marginal benefits of building the Keystone Pipeline would definitely outweigh the marginal costs of doing so, as the resulting jobs created and cheaper oil prices will have a very positive economic impact.
For the past several years, the building of the Keystone Pipeline has been a point of contention in congress, as many lawmakers would like to see this ambitious project come to fruition have been pushing for the pipeline to be built, which would create jobs and provide crude oil from Canada to the U.S. But the Obama Administration has been actively blocking the approval of the Keystone Pipeline, citing its environmental impact as a major issue in this debate. But many have speculated that if the sand oil produced in Canada doesn't make its way from Alberta into the U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico, emitting more carbon dioxide and harming the environment, then the same oil will still flow into the United States from a different source, like Venezuela.
I strongly support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. It is time for the Obama Administration to finally stop dragging their feet and approve the pipeline. If the Keystone Pipeline is built, it will carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, which would undoubtably lower oil prices, and would create thousands of jobs for U.S. workers maintaining the pipeline in the U.S. While this project wouldn't help the U.S. reduce our massive trade deficit, it would reduce our dependence on oil from less desirable sources like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and would probably be much cheaper, as the source of oil is much closer to the United States, effectively lowering the cost of transportation for the oil itself. Essentially, the construction of the Keystone Pipeline would result in a very positive economic impact overall, as more jobs would help lower unemployment, and cheaper gas prices would alleviate pressure on consumers, resulting in a consumer surplus.
While the environmental impact of the Keystone Pipeline might not be attractive, it will not be nearly as terrible as the Obama Administration is making it out to be. While oil from oil sands like that produced in Alberta does emit 17% more carbon dioxide than conventional oil, experts speculate that oil sand production will only comprise 4.5% of the oil market by 2030, so according to the author, only "4.5% of the world's oil would be 17% dirtier."In addition to this, only 0.4% of global greenhouse emissions would come from Canadian oil sands by 2030 if the pipeline were built. The marginal benefits of building the Keystone Pipeline would definitely outweigh the marginal costs of doing so, as the resulting jobs created and cheaper oil prices will have a very positive economic impact.
Unleashing America's Energy & Economic Potential on Federal Lands
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/21/Doc-Hastings-Unleashing-Americas-Energy-Economic-Potential-on-Federal-Lands
As I've mentioned before in this blog, the United States' oil production has been on the rise for the past several years, and the U.S. is expected to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production by 2015. So it's safe to say that the U.S. is definitely headed in the right direction in the energy market. But the U.S. is still nowhere near its production capacity for oil, as thousands of acres of oil rich federal lands remain untapped, meaning that the current energy boom could be even greater if the Federal Government would allow more drilling and offer more leases on federal land. Currently, oil drilling has only been increasing on private and state lands, but the U.S. would be missing a huge opportunity by not drilling on federal lands.
The Article explains that H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, a bill currently being considered in the House of Representatives, would authorize the opening up of more onshore federal lands for oil production, and protect land currently designated for oil production. According to the author, The Obama Administration "is actively and purposely keeping these resources off-limits." While that comment may seem biased for a news article, it appears to be fairly truthful considering the facts. For the past four years, the U.S. has seen the least amount of acreage of federal land leased for oil production since 1988. In addition to this, the average time taken to obtain a drilling permit for federal land by private companies under the Obama Administration is 307 days, which is practically an eternity compared to North Dakota's 10 days, or Colorado's 27 days (for state land). Under these conditions, it does in fact seem that the Obama Administration is purposefully suppressing energy production on federal lands.
Thankfully, some congress members have seen the economic benefit in increasing oil production on federal lands. H.R. 1965 would ensure that oil fields like the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska are able to increase and expand production, and ensure that pipelines currently used for transportation of oil are maintained. I believe that it's absolutely crucial for H.R. 1965 to be passed, as the resulting increase in oil production will not only help erase our trade deficit, as discussed in my previous blog entries, but would also help create more jobs for the struggling American economy, as more and more workers are needed by firms expanding drilling operations on federal land. While the environmental impact of expanding oil production should certainly be considered, I believe that the positive economic impact of decreasing our trade deficit and creating more jobs far outweighs the negative environmental impact that could come as a result of increased drilling.
As I've mentioned before in this blog, the United States' oil production has been on the rise for the past several years, and the U.S. is expected to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production by 2015. So it's safe to say that the U.S. is definitely headed in the right direction in the energy market. But the U.S. is still nowhere near its production capacity for oil, as thousands of acres of oil rich federal lands remain untapped, meaning that the current energy boom could be even greater if the Federal Government would allow more drilling and offer more leases on federal land. Currently, oil drilling has only been increasing on private and state lands, but the U.S. would be missing a huge opportunity by not drilling on federal lands.
The Article explains that H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, a bill currently being considered in the House of Representatives, would authorize the opening up of more onshore federal lands for oil production, and protect land currently designated for oil production. According to the author, The Obama Administration "is actively and purposely keeping these resources off-limits." While that comment may seem biased for a news article, it appears to be fairly truthful considering the facts. For the past four years, the U.S. has seen the least amount of acreage of federal land leased for oil production since 1988. In addition to this, the average time taken to obtain a drilling permit for federal land by private companies under the Obama Administration is 307 days, which is practically an eternity compared to North Dakota's 10 days, or Colorado's 27 days (for state land). Under these conditions, it does in fact seem that the Obama Administration is purposefully suppressing energy production on federal lands.
Thankfully, some congress members have seen the economic benefit in increasing oil production on federal lands. H.R. 1965 would ensure that oil fields like the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska are able to increase and expand production, and ensure that pipelines currently used for transportation of oil are maintained. I believe that it's absolutely crucial for H.R. 1965 to be passed, as the resulting increase in oil production will not only help erase our trade deficit, as discussed in my previous blog entries, but would also help create more jobs for the struggling American economy, as more and more workers are needed by firms expanding drilling operations on federal land. While the environmental impact of expanding oil production should certainly be considered, I believe that the positive economic impact of decreasing our trade deficit and creating more jobs far outweighs the negative environmental impact that could come as a result of increased drilling.
Friday, November 1, 2013
US energy revolution will end old Opec regime
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b707d4d4-31b8-11e3-a16d-00144feab7de.html#axzz2jSGduSkw
For many decades, the United States has been dependent upon foreign oil from regions like the middle east to meet its energy needs. But in recent years, the United States' energy production output has been steadily increasing as a result of new developments in natural gas drilling techniques and technology, and more oil production within our borders. This increase in energy production is likely to have a large impact on America, and worldwide energy markets, as the balance of power in these markets is slowly changing. In another ten years, the United States is set to dethrone OPEC as its influence over energy markets continues to grow.
In 1973, OPEC placed an oil embargo on America for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the United States suffered from high oil prices as a result of this decision. OPEC has been known to use oil as a "policy instrument," often keeping oil supplies underground in order to drive prices up, while countries like the U.S. had no way to counter their actions. According to the author of this article, if the U.S. should overtake OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar in oil production within the next decade, then the U.S. would no longer be subject to the price gouging methods of OPEC, and would become energy independent. The U.S. economy would benefit greatly from this change in regime, as American citizens would not have to endure the endless "pain at the pump" caused by OPEC nations' demands, and the economy would be much more stable if investors could have more certainty about the nation's energy supply.
Another great benefit from the United States' "energy revolution" will be a decrease in the U.S. trade deficit. As domestic oil production rises, the U.S. will export more and more oil to foreign countries, ultimately helping to cut back the trade deficit. This may help add value to the dollar, and aid the U.S. become more competitive in global markets, as more and more oil exports flow out of the country, and more wealth flows into the U.S. as a result.
For many decades, the United States has been dependent upon foreign oil from regions like the middle east to meet its energy needs. But in recent years, the United States' energy production output has been steadily increasing as a result of new developments in natural gas drilling techniques and technology, and more oil production within our borders. This increase in energy production is likely to have a large impact on America, and worldwide energy markets, as the balance of power in these markets is slowly changing. In another ten years, the United States is set to dethrone OPEC as its influence over energy markets continues to grow.
In 1973, OPEC placed an oil embargo on America for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the United States suffered from high oil prices as a result of this decision. OPEC has been known to use oil as a "policy instrument," often keeping oil supplies underground in order to drive prices up, while countries like the U.S. had no way to counter their actions. According to the author of this article, if the U.S. should overtake OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar in oil production within the next decade, then the U.S. would no longer be subject to the price gouging methods of OPEC, and would become energy independent. The U.S. economy would benefit greatly from this change in regime, as American citizens would not have to endure the endless "pain at the pump" caused by OPEC nations' demands, and the economy would be much more stable if investors could have more certainty about the nation's energy supply.
Another great benefit from the United States' "energy revolution" will be a decrease in the U.S. trade deficit. As domestic oil production rises, the U.S. will export more and more oil to foreign countries, ultimately helping to cut back the trade deficit. This may help add value to the dollar, and aid the U.S. become more competitive in global markets, as more and more oil exports flow out of the country, and more wealth flows into the U.S. as a result.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)