ZDA imajo nimajo le 550 milijardnega zunanjetrgovinskega primanjkljaja, kot se pritožuje Trump, ampak tudi 1,4-bilijonski agregatni prodajni presežek s tujino. Po analizi Deutsche Bank imajo ZDA s Kitajsko majhen in počasi rastoč presežek, je zapisal glavni ekonomist za Kitajsko Zhang Zhiwei.

O tem je pod udarnim naslovom "1,4-bilijonski presežek, o katerem Trump ne govori" v sredo poročal Bloomberg, naslov (in vsebino) pa so z veseljem povzeli vsi pomembnejši nemški mediji. ZDA so imele prodajne presežke tudi z Mehiko in Kanado, primanjkljaje pa v menjavi z Japonsko in Nemčijo, je zapisal Zhang.

Vsi analitiki pa niso prepričani v uporabnost Zhangove metode. Nekdanji uradnik ameriškega ministrstva za finance Brad Setser je dejal, da Deutsche Bank primerja jabolka in pomaranče. Kar ti podatki pokažejo, pa je, da interesi ameriških firm niso vedno enaki kot ameriških delavcev, saj firme lahko profitirajo z rastjo v tujini, ne da bi izvažale iz ZDA in zaposlovale Američane.

The U.S. has a surplus of $20 billion with China and $1.4 trillion with the rest of the world.
Just looking at the goods and services trade deficit is misleading and doesn’t capture the true size of U.S. business interests, according to Deutsche Bank economists. While trade and corporate data aren’t usually combined, if you add up all trade data, sales by U.S. companies in foreign countries and foreign firms in the U.S., "U.S. companies have sold more to the rest of the world than other countries have sold to the U.S. in the past ten years," writes chief China economist Zhang Zhiwei in the report.
For China, the image of a massive trade deficit with the U.S. "is at odds with the fact that Chinese consumers own more iPhones and buy more General Motors cars than U.S. consumers," wrote Zhang in the report. "These cars and phones are sold to China not through U.S. exports but through Chinese subsidiaries of multinational enterprises."
www.bloomberg.com/ne...king-about

Pri Statisti so pregledali razpored tekem SP v nogometu in izračunali, koliko naj bi zaradi TV prenosov trpela produktivnost ljudi po velikih svetovnih mestih. Zaradi lčasovnih razlik sta na vrhu Rio de Janeiro in New York, srednje in-vzhodni Azijci ter Avstralci so na varni strani radarja, saj bodo tekme pri njih sredi noči. Prikaz je v grafični obliki.

How large the potential effect of the FIFA World Cup on productivity at the workplace is, depends largely on the time zone. While bosses in large parts of Asia and Australia can relax because of the games starting at night, Brazilian employees should probably cut their workers some slack over the next few weeks: because of the time difference more than 60 hours of World Cup action will be played during regular working hours in Rio.
www.statista.com/cha...ing-hours/

S produktivnostjo oziroma nogometaškim odvračanjem od dela se ukvarjajo tudi v finačni panogi. Michael Ehrmann iz ECB in David-Jan Jansen iz nizozemske centralne banke sta preučila borzne posle v času svetovnih žogobrcanj 2010 in 2014. Ugotovila sta, da je bil učinek tekem posebno izrazit, kadar je domače moštvo igralo v času trgovanja. Tako je leta 2014 promet na borzi, katere domače moštvo je igralo tekmo, upadel za do 48%. Malo manjši učinek je bil med SP leta 2010, ko je trgovanje na borzi nastopajočega moštva upadlo za približno 36%. Poroča QZ.

The paper’s authors also found “inattention-driven price effects” during national team matches, as prices on the local stock exchange decoupled from what’s happening in global financial markets at the time.
And that’s not all. Football—fine, soccer—matches get more exciting when someone scores a goal. The research found that a goal scored by either team reduced the number of trades by another 10%. And it takes a little while for the euphoria (or misery, as the case may be) to wear off. It takes between 30 and 60 minutes after the match is over for trading to return to normal.
qz.com/1303227/prepa...world-cup/

[pobalin]
ZDA imajo nimajo le 550 milijardnega zunanjetrgovinskega primanjkljaja, kot se pritožuje Trump, ampak tudi 1,4-bilijonski agregatni prodajni presežek s tujino. Po analizi Deutsche Bank imajo ZDA s Kitajsko majhen in počasi rastoč presežek, je zapisal glavni ekonomist za Kitajsko Zhang Zhiwei.

O tem je pod udarnim naslovom "1,4-bilijonski presežek, o katerem Trump ne govori" v sredo poročal Bloomberg, naslov (in vsebino) pa so z veseljem povzeli vsi pomembnejši nemški mediji. ZDA so imele prodajne presežke tudi z Mehiko in Kanado, primanjkljaje pa v menjavi z Japonsko in Nemčijo, je zapisal Zhang.

Vsi analitiki pa niso prepričani v uporabnost Zhangove metode. Nekdanji uradnik ameriškega ministrstva za finance Brad Setser je dejal, da Deutsche Bank primerja jabolka in pomaranče. Kar ti podatki pokažejo, pa je, da interesi ameriških firm niso vedno enaki kot ameriških delavcev, saj firme lahko profitirajo z rastjo v tujini, ne da bi izvažale iz ZDA in zaposlovale Američane.

> The U.S. has a surplus of $20 billion with China and $1.4 trillion with the rest of the world.
> Just looking at the goods and services trade deficit is misleading and doesn’t capture the true size of U.S. business interests, according to Deutsche Bank economists. While trade and corporate data aren’t usually combined, if you add up all trade data, sales by U.S. companies in foreign countries and foreign firms in the U.S., "U.S. companies have sold more to the rest of the world than other countries have sold to the U.S. in the past ten years," writes chief China economist Zhang Zhiwei in the report.
> For China, the image of a massive trade deficit with the U.S. "is at odds with the fact that Chinese consumers own more iPhones and buy more General Motors cars than U.S. consumers," wrote Zhang in the report. "These cars and phones are sold to China not through U.S. exports but through Chinese subsidiaries of multinational enterprises."
> www.bloomberg.com/ne...king-about

en medklic na sicer zanimivo informacijo, a nene tale Zhiwei dela enako "logično" napako,katero skuša ovrečt? Namreč njega moti, da se glede trade deficita gleda strogo kaj je bilo uvoženo/izvoženo neposredno v/iz US, hkrati pa napiše, da so US podjetja (s proizvodnjo po celem svetu) prodale več, kot so US kupile iz drugih držav - a ne bi moral Zhiwei potemtakem upoštevati na drugi strani enačbe tudi ustvarjeno v podjetjih na US soil,ki so v tuji lasti? na katero stran enačbe je pa vtaknil proizvedeno od US podjetij v tujih državah a prodano v US? ali je te zadeve morda vseeno upošteval, pa je članek malo nerazumljivo napisan? al pa samo jaz ekonomski analfabet spet en malo poštrek berem?

:-)

lpA