City-State EssayEssay Preview: City-State EssayReport this essayMichaela S. 12/11/11City-State EssayDuring this stimulant we created our own city-state and were allowed to trade. Before we started we were given resources to start with that we would use to trade to gain more or better resources. When I first started off my land looked more like agricultural land. I had many animals and not many energy or food resources. I wanted more of these resources to provide food to my country so my people wouldnt starve and so there would be more industrial resources to build. At first we were only able to trade with one city-state. The city-state I traded with didnt have a lot of industrial resources but did have some food, so my happiness level increased by one, but still wasnt very high. My happiness level increased because now I had food to feed my city-state, but I still wasnt pleased with the amount of energy and mining resources my city-state lacked because without these two resources it would be hard to start a powerful army. The next round of trading we were now allowed to trade with two neighboring countries. After this round my satisfaction increased a lot. This round gave me lumber to build and natural gas to supply my army and country with energy. Even though I had two great resources I still wasnt happy, I wanted more mining resources. Gradually the amount of countries to trade with increased. Now I was able to trade with three other countries. During this trading round I gained iron ore, this resource allowed me to have a large army to protect my country and defend my resources. During the last round my happiness level was the highest it could be, I had everything I needed such as things I could make profits from such as, coffee, mining tools, and 40 units of agricultural tools. After this trading experience I felt that my country was prepared to attack our enemies and still keep our people safe. I think this happened because when we had more countries to trade with there was a greater chance of getting what you needed. This is why world-wide unrestricted trade is beneficial. World trade is the exchange of capital, goods, and services across international borders or territories. However, the downfall with unrestricted trading is that it is not as safe as restricted trading. With unrestricted trading we could import contaminated foods and objects which could bring harm to our people and animals. Therefore, a country needs to have trade regulations for protection.
One resource that my country was rich in was the energy source, oil. One of the real world consequences of trading this resource is war. This source causes many arguments between countries because of disputes of prices, location, and distribution. Many countries want this resource to power their factories and cars. This situation is like the real life war going on now. Some of the tension between America and the Middle East is because of the oil these countries possess. The U.S. needs oil very badly to power vehicles, heat homes and transport goods. However, trade between countries at very different levels of economic development can create many problems. Therefore, I think it is important for countries to seriously consider creating trades that benefit both countries equally.
The Economic Consequences of the Oil and Gas Exporting Countries
An estimated $500 billion annually in trade between the United States and a number of countries would result in no economic impact on the economy.
A 2009 study of the costs and benefits of oil, gas and petroleum exports was conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to assess the economic damage caused by such export of oil and gas to North America.
The studies found that many countries, including North America and the Caribbean, had lower levels of oil use than others, including Brazil and Mexico.
A paper published last year in the National Journal of Economic Surveys found that just 15.8 percent of the world’s crude oil exports are exported to South America, which has a significantly higher oil use than the United States.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also noted how much of the decline in oil consumption in the U.S. is due to imports, rather than exports.
“[The] results of the OECD analysis are consistent with the view of U.S. energy users that international trade is the primary mechanism for the export of energy,” the report’s authors write.
“By adding other external barriers to trade, it is likely countries such as China (which recently imposed a tariff of less than one tonne for its oil exports, but currently uses a high volume of its own oil exports to Asia) and South Korea (which is facing tariffs of as much so as double) are not reducing their energy use. Rather they are expanding their own import business as a part of a policy goal to reduce US imports.
“This effect is strongest in areas such as China, but in general the trade is less favorable for both the US and other developed countries because of the relatively low cost of US exports. In fact, the OECD analysis showed that US exports of oil, gas and minerals to China accounted for about a third of gross domestic product in 2008: by 2020, they accounted for about a third of world imports to China as a share of foreign earnings of $38.8 trillion. Despite these advantages and their absence among other economic systems, the trade patterns of other countries are often affected by the different economic influences of US and Chinese trade, especially in the energy-producing regions.
The OECD’s report estimated that the trade of US, Canadian, and Russian goods through their ports in 1999 and 2000 accounted for just one percent of world trade in goods and services in 2000, which was slightly below the OECD’s estimate of 1.8 percent. For these two countries (Canadian and Russian share of world trade in services was 10.3 percent and 8.7 percent as of January 2000), exports of goods and services to China increased 6.6 percent from 6.7 percent and 1.8 percent each to $6.8 trillion, respectively.
In the developing world, Russia accounted for a large share of American goods exports but only 1.7 percent in 2004 and was at the lowest level since the Reagan administration during the first half of the Reagan years of the Reagan years in which it was at the peak of trade growth. To the extent the share of foreign imports in the US GDP was low after the first and two years of the Reagan era when the average number of foreign-born males increased, it was at least partly because of increased business activity, more investment in developing countries. As one study has shown, foreign direct investment accounts for about half of the U.S. global trade, which is around 50 percent of foreign direct investment. As exports fell from about 40 percent of GDP to less than 15 percent to 30 percent of GDP, an increase in exports of a large proportion of the U.S. GDP of 4.3 percent or more should prompt U.S./Russia exports to the new markets and to the new economies they now generate.
The trade of the various US and Canadian products has been largely unaltered from the late 1990’s to its greatest intensity that we have seen since the 1980’s. Foreign trade is in direct opposition to US business practices in that both trade and trade-related foreign income is highly variable between countries and thus important for maintaining US/Canadian trade performance. However, while the most important US exports by far are services and oil goods, other sectors of the U.S. export market can also be heavily influenced by trade with other advanced countries which include (among others) agriculture, forestry (with which the US is closely trading, and with which its trading partners are not so eager to trade) construction and in products and services.
US and Canada are already very competitive within the European Union and have been for many generations. In 1980 the United States was the largest trading partner of the developed world, taking home 24 of the 40,000 metric tons of exports that were exported. By the summer of 1989, the Canadian share of global trade had reached 13 percent, and after a decade the Russians were the largest customer (28 percent of trade was from 1986 to 1992). Since then, the shares
“In general, the trade patterns of these countries are probably unfavorable to the countries they visit in the United States and to the US economic system. Some countries may have a strong and sustained export policy, while others may find the trade in goods particularly favourable to the interests of the United States or of other nations, as happened in Russia, Belarus, and Hungary. Such policies may have some positive effects outside of the United States, but they certainly have small adverse effects in other respects.
“For instance, exports of oil from Mexico to the United States are at their lowest level in five years of trading since the 1986 oil embargo that took effect. By contrast, exports to China from South Korea in 2008 are at their highest level in 40 years and have grown significantly in the last five years.”
These findings from the same OECD research reveal the positive impacts
The Economic Consequences of the Oil and Gas Exporting Countries
An estimated $500 billion annually in trade between the United States and a number of countries would result in no economic impact on the economy.
A 2009 study of the costs and benefits of oil, gas and petroleum exports was conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to assess the economic damage caused by such export of oil and gas to North America.
The studies found that many countries, including North America and the Caribbean, had lower levels of oil use than others, including Brazil and Mexico.
A paper published last year in the National Journal of Economic Surveys found that just 15.8 percent of the world’s crude oil exports are exported to South America, which has a significantly higher oil use than the United States.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also noted how much of the decline in oil consumption in the U.S. is due to imports, rather than exports.
“[The] results of the OECD analysis are consistent with the view of U.S. energy users that international trade is the primary mechanism for the export of energy,” the report’s authors write.
“By adding other external barriers to trade, it is likely countries such as China (which recently imposed a tariff of less than one tonne for its oil exports, but currently uses a high volume of its own oil exports to Asia) and South Korea (which is facing tariffs of as much so as double) are not reducing their energy use. Rather they are expanding their own import business as a part of a policy goal to reduce US imports.
“This effect is strongest in areas such as China, but in general the trade is less favorable for both the US and other developed countries because of the relatively low cost of US exports. In fact, the OECD analysis showed that US exports of oil, gas and minerals to China accounted for about a third of gross domestic product in 2008: by 2020, they accounted for about a third of world imports to China as a share of foreign earnings of $38.8 trillion. Despite these advantages and their absence among other economic systems, the trade patterns of other countries are often affected by the different economic influences of US and Chinese trade, especially in the energy-producing regions.
The OECD’s report estimated that the trade of US, Canadian, and Russian goods through their ports in 1999 and 2000 accounted for just one percent of world trade in goods and services in 2000, which was slightly below the OECD’s estimate of 1.8 percent. For these two countries (Canadian and Russian share of world trade in services was 10.3 percent and 8.7 percent as of January 2000), exports of goods and services to China increased 6.6 percent from 6.7 percent and 1.8 percent each to $6.8 trillion, respectively.
In the developing world, Russia accounted for a large share of American goods exports but only 1.7 percent in 2004 and was at the lowest level since the Reagan administration during the first half of the Reagan years of the Reagan years in which it was at the peak of trade growth. To the extent the share of foreign imports in the US GDP was low after the first and two years of the Reagan era when the average number of foreign-born males increased, it was at least partly because of increased business activity, more investment in developing countries. As one study has shown, foreign direct investment accounts for about half of the U.S. global trade, which is around 50 percent of foreign direct investment. As exports fell from about 40 percent of GDP to less than 15 percent to 30 percent of GDP, an increase in exports of a large proportion of the U.S. GDP of 4.3 percent or more should prompt U.S./Russia exports to the new markets and to the new economies they now generate.
The trade of the various US and Canadian products has been largely unaltered from the late 1990’s to its greatest intensity that we have seen since the 1980’s. Foreign trade is in direct opposition to US business practices in that both trade and trade-related foreign income is highly variable between countries and thus important for maintaining US/Canadian trade performance. However, while the most important US exports by far are services and oil goods, other sectors of the U.S. export market can also be heavily influenced by trade with other advanced countries which include (among others) agriculture, forestry (with which the US is closely trading, and with which its trading partners are not so eager to trade) construction and in products and services.
US and Canada are already very competitive within the European Union and have been for many generations. In 1980 the United States was the largest trading partner of the developed world, taking home 24 of the 40,000 metric tons of exports that were exported. By the summer of 1989, the Canadian share of global trade had reached 13 percent, and after a decade the Russians were the largest customer (28 percent of trade was from 1986 to 1992). Since then, the shares
“In general, the trade patterns of these countries are probably unfavorable to the countries they visit in the United States and to the US economic system. Some countries may have a strong and sustained export policy, while others may find the trade in goods particularly favourable to the interests of the United States or of other nations, as happened in Russia, Belarus, and Hungary. Such policies may have some positive effects outside of the United States, but they certainly have small adverse effects in other respects.
“For instance, exports of oil from Mexico to the United States are at their lowest level in five years of trading since the 1986 oil embargo that took effect. By contrast, exports to China from South Korea in 2008 are at their highest level in 40 years and have grown significantly in the last five years.”
These findings from the same OECD research reveal the positive impacts
I think World Trade can have positive results, but there are also some negative aspects that come from it. Some examples of the good things that come from world trade are that it provides a framework and trade agreements between the participating countries. Some other pros of world trade are that it updates all participating countries and banks to international standards and efficiency