AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (8 comments)

  1. Why don’t you compare it to U S GDP ?

    US 2012 gdp = 15,684.8 b

    North Dakota oil output= 22.7 b

    So it is 0.1% US GDP . Don’t you think that is a more relevant comparison?

    We are not all fooled by the way you but out misleading data

    1. Misleading… how? Fooled… how?

      Is your argument that North Dakota isn’t in the middle of a huge boom in oil/natural gas? One particular industry in 1/50th of the nation is producing 0.145% of the entire national economy, and this is a sign of what, exactly?

      In 2012, IBM had a net income of 16.6 b, which puts it at 0.106% of US GDP. So…. what exactly does that tell us?

      What exactly annoys you about ND’s success in oil/gas, or about Mark’s reporting thereof?

    2. Well, it used to be almost nothing by comparison, so we should be comparing $1 billion in 2002 to $23 billion in 2010.

      Hey, if you compare almost anything to $16 trillion ( $16,000,000,000,000) it will look pretty small.

    3. What you are forgetting is that all the infrastructure and support systems that have been built and are still being built. There’s a shortage of housing, restaurants, hospitals/care centers, hotels, entertainment and many other economic growth structures which are all needed to support the oil industry. The ~23 billion only accounts for the oil, you add in jobs/goods/services and it’s economic impact is much higher. This has added 20,000 new jobs to the ND economy in the past year alone. That’s not bad for a state that only has less than 700,000 people living there.

      1. What you are forgetting is that all the infrastructure and support systems that have been built and are still being built. There’s a shortage of housing, restaurants, hospitals/care centers, hotels, entertainment and many other economic growth structures which are all needed to support the oil industry. The ~23 billion only accounts for the oil, you add in jobs/goods/services and it’s economic impact is much higher. This has added 20,000 new jobs to the ND economy in the past year alone. That’s not bad for a state that only has less than 700,000 people living there.

        And what you are forgetting is that the producers are not profitable. All of the support services that require the infrastructure depend on their customers being profitable and ultimately all roads point to the viability of shale production. The bubble will be exposed once the upcoming correction takes its toll on prices and the shale producers cannot hide their issues by access to cheap credit or by selling off assets.

  2. Don’t you think that is a more relevant comparison?“…

    Aren’t you doing a bit of apples and oranges comparison?

  3. Benjamin Cole

    The states with the highest per-capita federal spending are Louisiana ($36,602), Florida ($36,461) and North Dakota ($25,911)–the Data Nerd.

    That about $17 billion in federal outlays for North Dakota. So, last year, the oil industry did actually become more important to North Dakota than the federal government—although there is no assurance the oil income stayed in North Dakota, so actually the federal outlays are probably still more important.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content