Boom2Bust.com

World’s Richest Nation? Not The United States

U-S-A! We’re number one! Not really, according to PARADE magazine’s IntelligenceReport. From the August 17 issue:

Despite what the Presidential candidates are saying, America is not the world’s richest nation. If you run the numbers, Switzerland has a higher median household income ($62,000, compared with our $48,000). And, at $44,000, our per capita GDP (the amount of national income generated per citizen) has fallen to third: The tiny nation of Luxembourg leads the way, with $78,000; Norway is second, with $52,000. Last year, the number of millionaires in China, Russia, and India grew faster than in the U.S.

Income inequality also is greater in the U.S. than in other developed nations, and some economists believe that makes us more vulnerable to hitting the skids than the rest of the world. “Low-wealth children are unlikely to become high-wealth adults, while high-wealth children are very likely to become high-wealth adults,” says Dalton Conley of the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. “That should sound alarms for policymakers.”

Source: HeavyWhimsy.com

Source:

“The World’s Richest Nation?”
PARADE (IntelligenceReport), August 17, 2008

Who’s To Blame For The High Price Of Oil?

I read the following the other day in a grocery store publication on Chicago’s northwest side. Regarding the high cost of oil and gasoline, the bureau chief of the paper wrote:

Whew! What is the answer? I think we should contact our elected officials, both state and national, and let them know we, the taxpayers, need some relief. Yes, I know about Bush’s economic stimulus package that is on the way- but I don’t want to put it all in my gas tank.

There’s no use arguing with most Americans over who’s to blame for high oil and gasoline prices. In their minds, “Big Oil” is the culprit, with a dash of President Bush, his oil buddies, and every level of government sprinkled in for good measure. But before you forward on that e-mail about a “gas station holiday” to five of your friends, consider this: Could it be possible that the high price of crude oil is mainly due to the basic principle of supply-and-demand? Just a thought. Bloomberg’s Mark Shenk wrote today:

China, India, Russia and the Middle East for the first time will consume more crude oil than the U.S., burning 20.67 million barrels a day this year, an increase of 4.4 percent, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris.

And here in the good old US of A?

U.S. demand will contract 2 percent to 20.38 million barrels daily, the IEA says.

Shenk noted that economic growth in China and India of more than 8%, coupled with increasing car ownership among the countries’ combined populations of 2.45 billion people, will more than compensate for declining demand in the United States. According to the IEA, global oil use will increase 2% this year largely because of emerging market growth.

Regarding the topic of car ownership, China’s passenger car sales jumped 22% to 6.3 million units sold last year. Reuters’ Joe Mcdonald reported on the Chinese auto sector today, and wrote:

Auto sales in China are booming, with analysts and automakers forecasting growth at 15-20 percent this year. But demand for the biggest vehicles is even stronger, with sales of luxury cars and SUVs expected to surge by 40-45 percent…

“Chinese buyers typically like bigger cars and they have the resources to go for them,” said Tim Dunne, J.D. Power’s director of Asia-Pacific market intelligence.

Source: China Daily

Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale SA in London, told Bloomberg:

Does the U.S. matter anymore? Has the U.S. mattered for the last few years? It is debatable. As far as the oil market is concerned, demand growth is going to be continued to be driven by China and the Middle East.

Still feel like contacting your elected officials?

Sources:

“Emerging Market Oil Use Exceeds U.S. as Prices Rise (Update2)”
Mark Shenk
Bloomberg, April 21, 2008

“Gas guzzlers a hit in China, where car sales are booming”
Joe Mcdonald
Reuters, April 21, 2008

Russia’s Gazprom May Say No To Dollars

When I see what’s happened to the U.S. dollar, I think of Rodney Dangerfield and him always joking “I don’t get no respect.” And according to Bloomberg this afternoon, the greenback took another one on the chin as Gazprom, the world’s largest natural gas exporter, announced it may start selling its crude and gas production in rubles rather than dollars and euros.

Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy chief executive officer, told reporters in New York today that, “We are seriously thinking about selling our resources in rubles.” The gas giant’s chief financial officer, Andrei Kruglov, told the same members of the press that the switch would happen “sooner, rather than later.”

According to New York Times reference material on Gazprom:

What former General Motors president Charles E. Wilson said of his company – “what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa” - could well apply to Russia’s Gazprom, the nation’s largest company. The line between state-owned Gazprom and the Russian state is often blurry. The monopoly’s primary activity is selling natural gas in Europe at market rates to subsidize energy prices domestically. Several board members wear two hats and also work in government; for example, Dmitri A. Medvedev, a first deputy prime minister, is chairman of Gazprom. Still, the company controls more hydrocarbon reserves than the country of Iraq. So when it opened to foreign investors earlier this year, the capitalization spiked over $200 billion. Gazprom produced 545 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2004.

Bloomberg noted that the dollar has fallen 11% against the euro so far this year, which has reduced the value of exports by oil-rich nations and contributed to a 49% increase in crude oil prices. This announcement comes on the heels of the secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council saying last week that six Gulf Arab states will discuss a proposal next month to revalue their currencies against the U.S. dollar.

Sovereign Wealth Funds Buying Up Gold, Other Commodities

No surprise here. Late Monday night the Financial Times (UK) reported:

State-owned sovereign wealth funds are beginning to diversify their investments into commodities, potentially having a significant impact on international raw material prices because of their immense resources.

Sovereign wealth funds, or SWFs, are investment vehicles backed by governments in the Middle East, China, Russia, and elsewhere. According to The Times (UK) from October 28:

Sovereign funds have been around since 1953, when the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA) was established to benefit future generations of Kuwaitis when the oil stopped flowing. But it is only since the turn of the millennium that the power of sovereign funds has mushroomed. The rising price of oil and gas has prompted Middle East countries to look for new ways to invest their piles of cash. Russia has money to spare as energy prices have soared. At the same time, funds in Singapore, and more particularly China, have been boosted by income from huge trade surpluses.

The Financial Times is reporting that the total investment of SWFs in natural resources is still below 5% of their total allocations. Still, Katherine Spector, head of energy strategy at JPMorgan in New York, noted that, “While macro-data on sovereign money is elusive, anecdotally we see meaningful flows into commodities from the Middle East, Europe and Asia.” The Deutsche Bank said with worldwide state reserves above $3 trillion, any movement into the relatively small commodities markets could influence prices. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that total investments by sovereign funds have reached $2 trillion and are forecast to hit $12 trillion by 2012.

On the reasons for SWFs buying up commodities, a senior banker interviewed by the Financial Times said, “They want to use commodities, and particularly gold, as a hedge against the US dollar weakness,” adding that the investments were mainly streaming in from the Middle East and Asia. Another banker stated, “They want commodities exposure exactly for the same reason as other institutional investors- diversification.”