Indian kid describes America

[regexcellent]

You can finish the rest.

[Hauldren Collider]

Aeson either deliberately misunderstands people or he is simply unable to understand degrees of scale. This is not the first time I've seen this.

His favorite argument is of the form "X has attribute A, Y also has attribute A. Therefore X = Y" despite the fact that X and Y have vastly different scales of A.

[Aeson]

Sorry, try again. My assertion is that if you can attribute all of the out performance of an economy directly to found money, then the performance diff tells you nothing. If you're going to construct strawmen, please do so with greater cleverness.
****.

You said "HC is the only one being reasonable here." By doing so you adopted his point, which was that Norway's wealth shouldn't count in a comparison of wealth of nations because, as you say, 20% of it is based on oil.

I'm simply asking what % of US wealth is due to wealth from the land as well?

(Producing oil is hard work that requires a lot of investment and manpower. It's sad to see you and HC piss on so many engineers, mechanics, people working in factories, investors, bankers, venture capitalists and everyone else contributing to pretend they didn't do anything of actual value )

[regexcellent]

[Aeson]

hello autist my old friend
i've come to sperg with you again

Thanks for reiterating my old point about KH's lack of consistency in regards to such derogatory remarks. He apologized last time, but doesn't seem to care anymore

[Aeson]

His favorite argument is of the form "X has attribute A, Y also has attribute A. Therefore X = Y" despite the fact that X and Y have vastly different scales of A.

I will just note that I am currently the only one continuing to argue the topic, and the rest of you are running away throwing insults trying to cover your ass.

[Aeson]

Aeson either deliberately misunderstands people or he is simply unable to understand degrees of scale. This is not the first time I've seen this.

You're just narrow minded and unable to see how iterative processes can build over time. To you (and HC), US wealth just magically happened because people now in the US aren't as lazy as people elsewhere.

[Hauldren Collider]

I will just note that I am currently the only one continuing to argue the topic, and the rest of you are running away throwing insults trying to cover your ass.

Your argument is nonsense. We already addressed it. You're either unwilling or unable to understand the very simple concepts that we have attempted to explain to you. Hence the insults.

[Hauldren Collider]

Sorry, try again. My assertion is that if you can attribute all of the out performance of an economy directly to found money, then the performance diff tells you nothing. If you're going to construct strawmen, please do so with greater cleverness.
****.

In case Aeson has trouble with his scrollbar.

EDIT: This may help as well.

Countries like Japan and korea have undergone a shift from medieval to modern economies in the amount of time since resource extraction has been a significant piece of the puzzle distinguishing the US and Europe. I will go ahead and posit that you don't need to understand resource extraction to understand why Americans are richer than Europeans today. kthxbye

[regexcellent]

Let's make this thread more interesting



Discuss

[Aeson]

Your argument is nonsense. We already addressed it. You're either unwilling or unable to understand the very simple concepts that we have attempted to explain to you. Hence the insults.

How much of the US wealth is attributable to natural resources within our jurisdiction? You want to discount the natural resources of other nations ... be fair and do it with the US as well.

[regexcellent]

How much of the US wealth is attributable to natural resources within our jurisdiction? You want to discount the natural resources of other nations ... be fair and do it with the US as well.

Less than Norway's.

[Aeson]

In case Aeson has trouble with his scrollbar.

EDIT: This may help as well.

I've already addressed both those points specifically. No rebuttal. No answer of the question of, "how much of US wealth should be discounted because it's derived from natural resources present in our jurisdiction."

You're both running away from addressing that because you know that a lot of US wealth is because of the land we have. Saying Norway's land's contribution shouldn't count is hypocritical of you because you aren't willing to discount US wealth in the same manner for comparison.

[Hauldren Collider]

Less than Norway's.

More importantly, very much less than the difference between the US and EU levels of productivity.

[Lorizael]

Countries like Japan and korea have undergone a shift from medieval to modern economies in the amount of time since resource extraction has been a significant piece of the puzzle distinguishing the US and Europe. I will go ahead and posit that you don't need to understand resource extraction to understand why Americans are richer than Europeans today. kthxbye

I think you're falling prey to the McNamara fallacy (yes, not a "real" fallacy). That is, it's difficult to quantify the degree to which America's natural resources helped to create the conditions that led to its present wealth, so you're choosing to disregard the variable entirely. I'll admit that I can't say precisely how America would be different with a different distribution of resources, but it seems reasonable to believe we certainly wouldn't be wealthier with a less fortunate distribution of resources.