But one cannot say that trade imbalance is irrelevant.
Yes I can, because it is. Note "irrelevant" doesn't imply "unimportant". Many times things that are not relevant to the point being discussed can actually be more important than the point being discussed.
Let's just say it would better if, instead of purchasing so much of a vital commodity from OPEC, it would serve our "community" better to purchase locally and keep the money here at home in the pockets of our own local economy.
That's more an argument for "more important", than it is for "relevant".
And its questionable in that context as well. At least if its meant in a very strong sense. Buying oil overseas makes sense because that's where the supply is, and to a very large extent that's where the low cost supply is. By "low cost" I mean low cost to produce, not low cost when the demand far exceeds our local production. Unless you intervene heavily to artificially segment the market, the cost from any source is going to be almost the same because oil is fungible.
Even if we expand oil production here (a move I support), that doesn't mean we wouldn't or shouldn't continue to import oil. Even if we cut oil use here by the amount we currently import, we would still import oil because with that much drop in demand prices would go down, and some of our production would no longer be economically viable.
More generally arguments about money being spent locally to serve the community, usually amount to arguments to restrict trade and spend more. That rarely makes sense. |
