Indian kid describes America

[dannubis]

Got it !

[Aeson]

A model of economic growth where physical and human capital is permanent and doesn't depreciate, therefore that extra wealth the US had in 1900 is still hanging around and generating extra GDP

Silly strawman.

Your world must be a magical place where road, rail, pipeline, irrigation, buildings all just magically appear at the start of each new day. Everyone starts each day with 0 wealth and by the end of the day some have accumulated vast fortunes ... which will all disappear overnight.

The idea that the land, and wealth derived from it, has not had any effect on our present situation is absurdly stupid. The idea that past wealth does not have any effect on present wealth, or that present wealth has no effect on future wealth, is similarly stupid. Which must be why you and HC are getting along so well in this thread... you're both sharing an absurdly stupid level of thinking.

[Aeson]

Nope, you're just claiming that it's dishonest to object to a comparison between Norway and the US...

I missed this the first time. I'm saying it's dishonest to remove wealth from natural resources from one side of the equation while not doing so on the other side. I'm also taking issue with the statements which deny there is any value derived from the land in the US.

It doesn't matter to me one whit whether the end result favors America or Norway (or anywhere else). But the intellectual dishonesty of herd animals trying to inflate their egos is always fair game.

[Aeson]

This is untrue for either Canada or the Soviet Union.

It's a big factor in why development of resources in both nations has been slower than in the US.

Alaska also has a not inconsiderable proportion of the US's natural resources.

Which highlights the fact that it's important how accessible natural resources are. There's always been insane amounts of aluminum in the ground around the world, but it's only recently been possible to make use of it. As such it didn't really count as a natural resource until it had an economical method of extraction/refining it.

Canada and the Soviet Union have had a harder time extracting their resources for various reasons, climate is a big part of that. Topography is another. Together they help explain why even the US hasn't been able to develop Alaska as well as most states.

The Soviet Union had 10 percent of their landmass as arable. The US has about 17.

The Soviet Union encompassed 8.65 million square miles. The US has 3.8 million square miles.

This works out to .865 million square miles of arable land for the Soviet Union and .65 million square miles for the US.

Sorry, I was thinking Russia for some reason.

The Soviet Union obviously had some big difficulties to overcome that the US didn't have to face. (Much of it self-imposed. But plenty of it due to location, starting point, climate, and topography as well.)

[MrFun]

I missed this the first time. I'm saying it's dishonest to remove wealth from natural resources from one side of the equation while not doing so on the other side. I'm also taking issue with the statements which deny there is any value derived from the land in the US.

It doesn't matter to me one whit whether the end result favors America or Norway (or anywhere else). But the intellectual dishonesty of herd animals trying to inflate their egos is always fair game.

[Felch]

Well, I thought of you as I was passing a halal butcher's today. It's good to think of those who have to make do with less. The sign in the window said 'Fresh Brains'- would you like some sent over ?

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

I love how he had to mention that the butcher was halal.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a big factor in why development of resources in both nations has been slower than in the US.

No, it's not. It's just flat out untrue. As a proportion - Canada has a ton of arable land and is one of the largest grain exporters on the planet.

Which highlights the fact that it's important how accessible natural resources are.

Alaskans aren't hard up for money.

There's always been insane amounts of aluminum in the ground around the world

Christ, are you really this retarded?

but it's only recently been possible to make use of it. As such it didn't really count as a natural resource until it had an economical method of extraction/refining it.

Canada is one of the largest producers and the largest aluminum producer in Canada is Alcan - which is not located in a highly populated area.

Canada and the Soviet Union have had a harder time extracting their resources for various reasons

Again - your argument is just not holding true. The US has had superior management of their natural resources which is why Americans, despite having fewer of them have been more successful at extracting them.

, climate is a big part of that. Topography is another. Together they help explain why even the US hasn't been able to develop Alaska as well as most states.

The fact that Alaska is an enclave plays no part in it?

The Soviet Union obviously had some big difficulties to overcome that the US didn't have to face. (Much of it self-imposed. But plenty of it due to location, starting point, climate, and topography as well.)

Umm, no. Just plain no. The Trans Siberian is not built over notably more difficult terrain than the Union Pacific. The difference is that one was built 55 years prior to the other - despite the fact that the US is the younger nation. Russia has all the natural resources, and a greater number of them than the United States. The reason the US has been able to develop their natural resources is due to the fact that the Americans are just plain better at doing so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is this the time to point out that Canada actually has a pretty high GDP per capita, PPP?

[Hauldren Collider]

I love how he had to mention that the butcher was halal.

Do halal butchers do gumboot line dancing? I haven't read Migrancy & Male Sexuality On The South African Gold Mines, so I don't know these things.

[Aeson]

No, it's not. It's just flat out untrue. As a proportion - Canada has a ton of arable land and is one of the largest grain exporters on the planet.

I wasn't saying arable land was the reason for slower development. I said that climate and topography certainly factor in.

Alaskans aren't hard up for money.

Some of them are. They almost all are hard up for passable roads and other infrastructure we take for granted in most places in the US.

Christ, are you really this retarded?

Taking the Lord's name in vain?

Canada is one of the largest producers and the largest aluminum producer in Canada is Alcan - which is not located in a highly populated area.

And has been producing aluminum from before electricity no doubt

[/quote]Again - your argument is just not holding true. The US has had superior management of their natural resources which is why Americans, despite having fewer of them have been more successful at extracting them.[/quote]

There are many factors that go into it. You're just a ****** who thinks there is only one sole reason.

The fact that Alaska is an enclave plays no part in it?

I'm not the one denying factors exist. You are. You want to pretend that climate and topography have no impact on resource extraction. You're just a horribly stupid person.

Umm, no. Just plain no. The Trans Siberian is not built over notably more difficult terrain than the Union Pacific. The difference is that one was built 55 years prior to the other - despite the fact that the US is the younger nation. Russia has all the natural resources, and a greater number of them than the United States. The reason the US has been able to develop their natural resources is due to the fact that the Americans are just plain better at doing so.

I'm American and much smarter than you, a Canadian ... so perhaps you're trying to provide another data point that can be twisted to support your absurd position.

The reality is there are countless factors that have resulted in the US developing faster/better than the rest of the world. I can understand HC's desire to ignore all of them so he can inflate his own ego, but you're not American yet. You're just a self-hating wannabe.

We'll see if when you get citizenship in the US you stop being so ridiculously stupid.

[Sava]

I'm American and much smarter than you, a Canadian

[Aeson]

Is this the time to point out that Canada actually has a pretty high GDP per capita, PPP?

No, you need to let BK continue to deride himself and his heritage as long as possible.

[Felch]

Please explain how you've come to that conclusion. What percent of US wealth has been derived from resource extraction or other value derived from the land?

It's hard to answer that question, but export treemaps gives some idea.

Norway Exports Treemap

US Exports Treemap

Norway is non-representative of western Europe. Not "because it has natural resources" or whatever other strawman you're bashing, but rather because oil and gas (i.e. non-renewable resources) make up a majority of its exports.

[Aeson]

It's hard to answer that question, but export treemaps gives some idea.

Norway Exports Treemap

US Exports Treemap

Norway is non-representative of western Europe. Not "because it has natural resources" or whatever other strawman you're bashing, but rather because oil and gas (i.e. non-renewable resources) make up a majority of its exports.

That appears to be for the current situation only. Also it gives no insights into indirect effects on the economy of having access to required natural resources. (Maybe not such a big deal nowdays, but certainly a huge deal in the trimeframe where the US first took the lead over the rest of the world.)

[Ben Kenobi]

I wasn't saying arable land was the reason for slower development.

Then why even bring it up? You brought it up, then were proven wrong. Per Capita - Canada has far more arable land than the US. Arable land is not the development constraint for Canada.

I said that climate and topography certainly factor in.

The US has significant topological challenges to continental trade. Challenges, I may add, which were overcome well before Russia and Canada. Russia has substantial topological advantages to the United States in terms of European trade in both proximity and technology.

Some of them are. They almost all are hard up for passable roads and other infrastructure we take for granted in most places in the US.

And again - how are roads relevant to their connection with American infrastructure in general? It was America that built the Alaska Highway, not Canada. Canada is a substantial constraint on development of Alaska wrt the lower 48. Again, I should know this having actually lived in BC and being well aware of the development issues.

There was not a north south railroad in BC from my hometown to Vancouver until the fifties. And PG is only halfway up. How is this an American problem?

.
And has been producing aluminum from before electricity no doubt

Transportation isn't a substantial issue for Aluminum generation. Power is the major constraint.

There are many factors that go into it. You're just a ****** who thinks there is only one sole reason.

I think Americans do a better job in governing and development of their natural resources than Canada. Yes, I can say that because I've observed Canadian land management and American land management up front. American policies are superior. This is not something I said or understood prior to living here.

I'm not the one denying factors exist. You are. You want to pretend that climate and topography have no impact on resource extraction. You're just a horribly stupid person.

It's not up to America to fix lagging Canadian infrastructure, even though they attempted to do so with the Alaska highway - still the only paved road north of the 56th parallel.

I'm American and much smarter than you, a Canadian ... so perhaps you're trying to provide another data point that can be twisted to support your absurd position.

Care to address the point that although Russia is older, has more resources, for most of it's history had more people, was closer to Europe, and still the US beat them in a transcontinental railroad by some 50+ years?

I can understand HC's desire to ignore all of them so he can inflate his own ego, but you're not American yet. You're just a self-hating wannabe.

I'm the self hater? You're the American who insists that 'anybody could have developed the United States territory better than Americans'. This is untrue, as most of the land was not first colonized by Americans, let alone my other counterexamples.

We'll see if when you get citizenship in the US you stop being so ridiculously stupid.

I'm amused that it's the Canadian who thinks that America is awesome while Americans are attacking him for saying so.