Indian kid describes America

[molly bloom]

He's just jealous because nobody says that about England anymore.

Ah, how very wrong you are, Sister Bendy. Stick to getting history wrong, and leave the long distance telepathy to someone else.

[Hauldren Collider]

The US was incredibly lucky. You got a vast landmass, immeasurable natural resources and the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years of western and eastern technology while also positioned far enough away from the established nations to allow yourselves a strong position of defense.

I really don't understand why Americans don't just celebrate the hand you were dealt instead of insisting on this fantasy that you're somehow just better than everyone else. You don't work harder than people in the Far East, you're not cleverer than people in Europe and you're not somehow most exceptional than people in Africa or the Middle East. You have a lot of good fortune, just enjoy it for goodness sake.

Sorry man. You should try reading the thread. None of these things are why the US GDP per capita is higher than that of the vast majority of the EU.

[Hauldren Collider]

Felch, you can add "incredibly lame insults" to your list.

[molly bloom]

How is electricity generated circa 1880 Reg?

Would that be that non-existent black stuff called coal ? And did they have a huge amount of civil strife about it in West Virginia ?

On March 12, 1883, the first carload of coal was transported from Pocahontas in Tazewell County, Virginia, on the Norfolk and Western Railway. This new railroad opened a gateway to the untapped coalfields of southwestern West Virginia, precipitating a dramatic population increase. Virtually overnight, new towns were created as the region was transformed from an agricultural to industrial economy. With the lure of good wages and inexpensive housing, thousands of European immigrants rushed into southern West Virginia. In addition, a large number of African Americans migrated from the southern states. The McDowell County black population alone increased from 0.1 percent in 1880 to 30.7 percent in 1910.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html

Must be a different fuel he's thinking of. Horse sh!t ?

[molly bloom]

You think the farmers in Norway wouldn't love to be able to exploit the N American corn belt?

Let's be fair- some did emigrate to the U.S. .

[SlowwHand]

Telegraph was 1840. Lighting in 1880.

[molly bloom]

Japan and Korea didn't industrialize in a vacuum. They would not have done so if there weren't other industrial nations out there for them to interact with.

Quite. The Japanese seem very fond of Scottish engineers- who are better known there than they are here.

[Hauldren Collider]

Natural resources aren't the reason why the US outperforms Europe, but they are a reason. I think it's difficult to estimate how much any one factor (policy, culture, resources, etc.) contributes to the current situation, but I think it's disingenuous to discount harder to measure factors.

It's not difficult to estimate at all how much natural resources contribute to GDP. We can in fact directly measure it. Natural resources are a tiny, tiny tiny component of our GDP. There's nothing disingenuous about anything I've been saying. What is disingenuous is to say "Oh look! Norway! It's a eurostate with really high GDP per capita!" Then when it is revealed that Norway is basically swimming in free money, to make a ridiculously false comparison to the United States' economy. We have oil too, we must be swimming in free money! Yeah, uh, not 20% of our GDP.

Admit it. The whole "US Natural Resources" line of argument is stupid. It's the fact that our labor market doesn't have the perverse incentives that come with a highly regulated economy.

[Hauldren Collider]

To continue, there are lots of places that have lots and lots of natural resources at their disposal and are still utter ****holes. The Congo. Russia. China. Yet they don't have our immense economy. And they aren't really catching up all that quickly (not nearly as quickly as Japan did, for instance), despite "not industrializing in a vacuum". The reason is fairly obvious.

[kentonio]

To continue, there are lots of places that have lots and lots of natural resources at their disposal and are still utter ****holes. The Congo. Russia. China. Yet they don't have our immense economy. And they aren't really catching up all that quickly (not nearly as quickly as Japan did, for instance), despite "not industrializing in a vacuum". The reason is fairly obvious.

You're really going to start pointing fingers at the Chinese economy?

[molly bloom]

The reason is fairly obvious.

For Zaire/Congo ? I'll say.

Mobutu, then called Joseph Mobutu, seized power in a coup in 1965, deposing the government of Patrice Lumumba, the country's first prime minister after independence. Mobutu changed the country's name to Zaire in 1971. Known for his trademark leopard-skin hat, he plundered and looted his way to an estimated $5bn (£3.1bn), with homes in Switzerland and France. During the cold war, he enjoyed financial support from the US, whose then president, Ronald Reagan, called him "a voice of good sense and goodwill".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/25/mobutu-sese-seko-remains-repatriated-congo-zaire

As Mobutu said :

Everything is for sale, anything can be bought in our country. And in this flow, he who holds the slightest cover of public authority uses it illegally to acquire money, goods, prestige or to avoid obligations.

Zaire, where inflation reached over 70 000% . I'm amazed that with virtually no infrastructure, a civil war, coping with refugees from Rwanda, malaria, H.I.V. and A.I.D.S. and natural disasters that they haven't just turned themselves into the Singapore of Central Africa. They just must be slackers...

[Hauldren Collider]

It looks like molly agrees with me but doesn't even realize it.

[molly bloom]

It looks like molly agrees with me but doesn't even realize it.

Oh dear. Stay off the hard stuff is my advice.

[Lorizael]

It's not difficult to estimate at all how much natural resources contribute to GDP. We can in fact directly measure it. Natural resources are a tiny, tiny tiny component of our GDP.

Again, looking only at our present GDP ignores the historical impact of our good land. Remember, we're not just talking about the availability of natural resources in the US. We're talking about having a mostly temperate climate, a large variety of types of land, ports on multiple oceans, relatively flat land across much of the country, etc. The US is situated exquisitely, and pretending that doesn't matter is foolish.

I mean, hell, why did Jefferson make the Louisiana Purchase? (Look at that, I'm promoting a policy choice!) He didn't do it to give Woodie Guthrie more to sing about. He did it because all that land was valuable.

And before you think I'm shifting goalposts, I've been making the "good land" argument from my very first post on the topic.

I love little excuses like these. Other countries are rich because they're lucky enough to have resources. America is rich because Americans are more awesomer, not because of its tremendous abundance of good land and natural resources.

[Aeson]

Lorizael gets it

Jefferson got it

Seward got it

HC would have kept the beads instead of buying Long Island... because the value derived from land is an insignificant thing not worth considering ...