The Downward Spiral of the United States Economy In the world to date, there seems to be an increase of world governments needing bailouts, and people of the world needing assistance from the United States. This idea has caused many Americans to come to the conclusion that if the United States closed off borders to foreign trade, it would increase it’s standard of living and make America more profitable. However, this idea is false. The United States must not close off it’s borders to foreign trade because if trade borders were to close, American manufacturing plants would begin to shut down, the American transportation system and public services would suffer resulting in American job loss. If the US closes off borders to foreign trade, manufacturing companies would feel a financial strain, causing potential job loss. Manufacturing companies in the US rely on profits from selling products in foreign markets and on many foreign goods to assemble those products. If businesses are not able to import their needed materials, then they would not be able to produce the products, both wanted and needed by both Americans and foreign buyers. Job loss would be inevitable and lead to many of the same problems seen today but on a grander scale. Job loss, homes in foreclosure, and the people who still have jobs would be living from paycheck to paycheck. If manufacturing were to halt nationwide, nearly everyone would feel the financial strain, even the ones who do not feel it now. Manufacturing companies stores would have a decrease in the products they supply, and the products still available would be much more expensive. Closing the borders to international trade will cause financial strain and job losses in the manufacturing sector. If the... ... middle of paper ... ...arriers America would see an increase in profit by another fifty percent (United “Economy”). So instead of closing international trade borders, Americans should be thinking about the positive aspects of foreign trade. Americans need to realize how important importation is to the national economy and that without it the United States would not be the great country that it is today. Works Cited “ASCE Assesses Infrastructure Crisis.” Professional safety 52.11 (2007): 6-. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. Lugar, Dick. “The Story of Oil: Top 10 Questions about the History, Development, and Problems of Oil.” n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. United States. Energy Information Administration. “25th Anniversary of the 1973 Oil embargo.” 7 Mar 2000. Web. 1 Nov 2011. - - -. Office of the United States Trade Representative. “Economy and Trade.” n.d. web. 25 Oct. 2011.
"Just How Reliant Is the US on Foreign Oil? | GDS Publishing." Oil and Gas News | GDS Publishing. Web. 26 May 2011. .
After the Second World War, the world was more interesting in oil than ever before. The conflict itself made the countries of the world realize that oil was a serious factor in the quest for power. From this point in history, oil was considered the driving force behind a successful economy and therefore attaining power. Therefore the quest for oil heightened during and after World War II. In the effort to acquire more oil, many countries began to seek out additional locations to drill and this drove the United States to the Middle East. In late 1943 a man named DeGolyer who was a geologist went on a mission to Saudi Arabia to survey the possibility for oil. His mission there concluded that “the oil in this region is the greatest single prize in all history”. With such a conclusion it is not surprising that the United States began extremely concerned with the oil concessions there.
He then, states that the number of jobs lost barely even put a dent in the number of jobs produced by trade. Another important issue of the trade system is that the people who get rich from trade, keep getting richer while the poor stay poor. This is partially solved by protectionism (taxing imports), although it slows economic growth in the long run and protects some of the jobs that would be lost in the short run. To help understand the price of trade barriers, he explains this by stopping trade across the Mississippi River. This shows that the east side would then have to stop producing their goods and spend some of their time producing what the west side used to export. Although, there would be an increase in jobs, it would not be efficient because they are not using specialization to their full advantage. The author then moves on to the point that trade lowers the price of goods, due to it being cheaper to produce in other areas. He portrays this by showing why Nike can produce shoes in Vietnam instead of the United States. He further elaborates his point by proving that trade helps poor countries as
In some shape or form, nearly all aspects of American life contribute to unnecessary exploitation of natural resources. The automobile is a staple of American life and culture, and perhaps best exemplifies Americans’ dependence on gross quantities of raw materials. On any given day, over 235 million vehicles travel 11 billion miles on U.S. highways, consuming nearly 20 million barrels of oil daily 1,2,3. Worldwide, oil consumption has reached a 16-year high of 80.6 million barrels per day 17. Most important of all, proven oil reserves around the world only provide roughly 40 years of production at these current rates 18. Oil consumers ignore this reality either through lack of education or simple apathy, because right now there are no immediate consequences to consuming such vast volumes of a polluting, non-renewable resource. Numbers like those mentioned above are so large it is difficult for one to fathom their true magnitude, however they still convey the reliance average Americans have on their automobiles and oil.
As long as NAFTA has been in existence, there has been controversy over its benefits and costs. Since NAFTA is viewed as a neoliberal trade and investment agreement, supporters and critics alike are able to expand its validity to a grander scale when dealing with the question of whether free trade itself is beneficial or harmful. During the life of NAFTA, many valid arguments for and against free trade have been brought to the forefront.
People need oil for daily life and work. Since World War II, oil had caused many serious problems in United States and throughout the world. Remarkably, economic and social problems were heightened by the emerging energy crisis. By 1974, the United States gained a third of its oil by importing from the Middle East.[ James Oakes, et al. Of The People: A History Of The United States (Oxford University Press, 2011), 881.] When the heavy war between Israel and Arabia erupted, the United States was not able to gain enough petroleum because it supported Israel. To show the dissatisfaction with the United States’ support to Israel, Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries even raised oil prices. “Overnight, OPEC raised the price of its oil from $3 to $5.11/By ”[ Merrill, Karen R.. The oil crisis of 1973-1974: a brief history with documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007, 22.] Not surprisingly, the United States was strongly affected by the oil shortage and the the high price of oil. Homes and businesses could not easily solve the serious problem. Drastic protests occurred in many states such as Arkansas, New York, and Florida because a huge number of drivers could not accept the high price of gasoline.[ Merrill, Karen R.. The oil crisis of 1973-1974: a brief history with documents, 1.] Transportation was decreased in order to use less oil. Faced to the great challenge, several presidents analyzed the seriousness about the oil crisis and provided effective ways of reducing the use of oil.
When Americans think of oil today, they think of it a substance that the United States relies heavily upon, that it is necessary in everyday life. Of course, that cannot be denied considering people use oil in an assortment of ways, from producing gasoline to fuel cars to heating homes and even as an ingredient in cosmetic products. However, during the 1800s, oil was considered a nuisance by farmers. When the use of oil was discovered in the 1850s, it soon became known as “black gold” and the oil industry soared. Many started to test their luck in oil refining, one of whom was John D. Rockefeller. Unlike many others, Rockefeller had great success as he soon became the president of Standard Oil, a company
Campbell, Colin J., Laherrere, Jean H. "The End Of Cheap Oil." Scientific American Mar. 1998: 78-83.
The usage of oil throughout history has helped form the world and how people live. Countries economies, world politics, and the worlds environment has all been changed by oil. Since there is such a large market for oil, world economy has been affected greatly by trades and prices. In politics, there have been both advancements and conflicts because of the world’s dependence on oil. Oil has also had different effects on the world’s environment. Overall, the dependence on oil has greatly impacted the way the world functions. Without oil, the world would not be in the state it’s in today.
" Oil is the life blood of our modern industrial society. It fuels the machines and lubricates the wheels of the world’s production. But when that vital resource is out of control, it can destroy marine life and devastate the environment and economy of an entire region…. The plain facts are that the technology of oil-- its extraction, its transport, its refinery and use-- has outpaced laws to control that technology and prevent oil from polluting the environment…" (Max, 1969). Oil in its many forms has become one of the necessities of modern industrial life. Under control, and serving its intended purpose, oil is efficient, versatile, and productive. On the other hand, when oil becomes out of control, it can be one of the most devastating substances in the environment. When spilled in water, it spreads for miles around leaving a black memory behind (Stanley, 1969).
A nation that possesses strong industry, a favorable trade balance, and a lack of dependency upon foreign states is optimum. This ideology is one that has been strongly advocated throughout America’s existence, by politicians from Alexander Hamilton to Pat Buchanan. When a nation faces a trade deficit, it means that competing states are producing more efficiently, and ultimately making profiting. Also, a deficit means that industry and jobs, which could exist domestically, are being “stolen” by foreign nations. According to mercantile policy, this is a zero-sum game; when a competitor is winning, we are losing. The United States faces this situation, having evolved from the world’s largest creditor nation during and following World War II to its current position as the world’s largest debtor. Because America imports much more than it exports, an additional 600 billion dollars is needed every year to balance the equation. This money is “borrowed” through the sale of government assets, sometimes to domestic investors, but increasingly to foreign ones. Many circumstances can be blamed for this situation: cheap foreign labor, foreign government subsidy, and closed foreign markets, among others. The question therefore arises: how to negate obstacle...
As Ian Fletcher pointed out in Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it And Why, nations need a well-chosen balance between openness and closure toward the larger world economy (Fletc...
The current world dependence on oil leaves much to be said about the impact of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East on foreign policy and international politics. Presently the world's largest consumer of oil, the U.S. depends on Saudi Arabia and much of the Middle East for the energy to run its businesses, its homes, and most importantly, its automobiles. In the past few months U.S. consumers have felt the pressures of increasing gasoline prices as they struggle to commute and live their daily lives. This leaves the U.S. with important decisions to be made on behalf of its citizens and its position in the international realm.
Davar Venouss, C.K. Walter and A. Frank Thompson, «OPEC’s Goal and Strategies», International Journal of Middle East Studies 16, 2 (1984): 199-206
Fletcher, I. (2011). Crumbling of Free Trade – And Why it’s a Good Thing. Retrieved from