5 ms·

It really only makes sense to understand the world economy as a whole. On this scale, consumption (e.g. steel production or oil consumption) continue to grow [1

It really only makes sense to understand the world economy as a whole. On this scale, consumption (e.g. steel production or oil consumption) continue to grow [1,2]. Americans are in the fortunate position of selling services (e.g. finance, advertising, information management) and consuming finished products from the rest of the world, but the American economy should not be considered a closed system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_pro... [2] https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?vs=INTL.44-1-AFRC-QBTU.A&vo=0&v=H&start=1980&end=2016 https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?vs=IN...

rdiddly 7y ago
Indeed, or to be a bit cute about it: "Does the 'America' graph include the 'China' part of America?"
- rdiddly 7y ago
  Not that China is part of America. More like the two are squabbling lovers locked in an embrace so tight that it's literally "'til death do us part."
  - pm90 7y ago
    Doesn't matter. The amazing thing about trade is actually how much of a great tool it is in bringing countries and societies closer despite all other differences. Said in other ways, China and the US may not like each other, but they will never go to war with each other as long as they trade with each other.
vannevar 7y ago
Yes, leaving out the consumption of materials in the form of goods manufactured elsewhere is such a giant, glaring hole in the logic that it strains credibility to believe it's mere oversight. It looks like deliberate misinformation.
- JackFr 7y ago
  You seem to have ignored the parts about agricultural and construction inputs. Additionally, the manufacturing output of the US economy has continued to grow in the 'post-peak' period.
  - vannevar 7y ago
    No, I read the whole thing. It talks about imports and exports of raw material, but excludes the import of those same materials in the form of goods manufactured elsewhere. For example, raw copper would be included, but copper coils in a refrigerator manufactured in Korea would not. That seems like an extremely arbitrary distinction, and one which would likely change the graphs presented significantly.
    - hourislate 7y ago
      I was also thinking about this. We manufacture more in dollar amounts but I'm curious if that translates into quantity amounts. Higher tech manufacturing like chips instead of nuts and bolts, beams, industrial equipment, etc. I have to agree with you. The article is fatally flawed unless it can address these issues you mention. I'm surprised the readers here didn't catch it but I suppose they were busy discussing how quantities are priced at the supermarket.
nostromo 7y ago
> This consumption takes into account not only domestic production of the resource but also imports and exports.
- impatientduck 7y ago
  But, importantly, not the current account balance (https://www.bea.gov/news/blog/2019-03-27/us-current-account-deficit-increases-2018 https://www.bea.gov/news/blog/2019-03-27/us-current-account-...).
JackFr 7y ago
Your point is well taken, insofar as manufactured goods, but does not explain the decline in agricultural and construction inputs. In agriculture we're (currently) a net exporter and construction is non-traded.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Decades of optimization. Fertilizers sold by the pound are purer now than before -- more refined. GMO makes crops immune to many pests and diseases. Cross breeding with drought tolerant crops reduces water requirements. Technology like Hydroponics also reduces consumption while increasing output. Computer aided design helps with construction. It's all there. This is part of why R. Buckminster Fuller thought there was more than enough to go around.
- vannevar 7y ago
  There certainly may be industries where real dematerialization is taking place, and the author of the article would've been better off sticking with those. Instead the article makes sweeping, unsubstantiated claims across the entire economy that just aren't credible.

rdiddly 7y ago

Indeed, or to be a bit cute about it: "Does the 'America' graph include the 'China' part of America?"

rdiddly 7y ago
Not that China is part of America. More like the two are squabbling lovers locked in an embrace so tight that it's literally "'til death do us part."
- pm90 7y ago
  Doesn't matter. The amazing thing about trade is actually how much of a great tool it is in bringing countries and societies closer despite all other differences. Said in other ways, China and the US may not like each other, but they will never go to war with each other as long as they trade with each other.

vannevar 7y ago

Yes, leaving out the consumption of materials in the form of goods manufactured elsewhere is such a giant, glaring hole in the logic that it strains credibility to believe it's mere oversight. It looks like deliberate misinformation.

JackFr 7y ago
You seem to have ignored the parts about agricultural and construction inputs. Additionally, the manufacturing output of the US economy has continued to grow in the 'post-peak' period.
- vannevar 7y ago
  No, I read the whole thing. It talks about imports and exports of raw material, but excludes the import of those same materials in the form of goods manufactured elsewhere. For example, raw copper would be included, but copper coils in a refrigerator manufactured in Korea would not. That seems like an extremely arbitrary distinction, and one which would likely change the graphs presented significantly.
  - hourislate 7y ago
    I was also thinking about this. We manufacture more in dollar amounts but I'm curious if that translates into quantity amounts. Higher tech manufacturing like chips instead of nuts and bolts, beams, industrial equipment, etc. I have to agree with you. The article is fatally flawed unless it can address these issues you mention. I'm surprised the readers here didn't catch it but I suppose they were busy discussing how quantities are priced at the supermarket.

nostromo 7y ago

> This consumption takes into account not only domestic production of the resource but also imports and exports.

impatientduck 7y ago
But, importantly, not the current account balance (https://www.bea.gov/news/blog/2019-03-27/us-current-account-deficit-increases-2018 https://www.bea.gov/news/blog/2019-03-27/us-current-account-...).

JackFr 7y ago

Your point is well taken, insofar as manufactured goods, but does not explain the decline in agricultural and construction inputs. In agriculture we're (currently) a net exporter and construction is non-traded.

anon1m0us 7y ago
Decades of optimization. Fertilizers sold by the pound are purer now than before -- more refined. GMO makes crops immune to many pests and diseases. Cross breeding with drought tolerant crops reduces water requirements. Technology like Hydroponics also reduces consumption while increasing output. Computer aided design helps with construction. It's all there. This is part of why R. Buckminster Fuller thought there was more than enough to go around.
vannevar 7y ago
There certainly may be industries where real dematerialization is taking place, and the author of the article would've been better off sticking with those. Instead the article makes sweeping, unsubstantiated claims across the entire economy that just aren't credible.