Indian kid describes America

[Aeson]

He already did and noted that resource extraction is a tiny fraction of the USA's GDP.

No. He just made a inferred baldfaced assertion that it doesn't factor in at all. He hasn't backed it up with anything approaching valid logic or numbers.

[Lorizael]

What the hell is your point? I think you're just spewing vague truisms in an effort to mask the fact that your argument is ridiculous. This fact has nothing to do with anything. Europe also has industrial nations to interact with, as does the US, so why the **** does the US outperform Europe? Hint: It's not our natural resources.

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.

[Aeson]

You can't accumulate wealth from natural resources. You do understand what wealth is, yes? Somewhere along the line there has to be value added.

So why are you discounting Norway's oil? Hypocrisy for it's own sake? The oil in the ground represents potential wealth. By any reasonable definition, it makes Norway wealthier, even if they don't extract it all right now. They can get capital inflow based off of it ... they can print currency which is backed by it.

It's like having a piggy bank. Just because you aren't actively using the money in the piggy bank doesn't mean it's not of value, that you aren't wealthier for having it than not.

Gribbler's picture is a fantastically condense explanation of what I am saying. Hiroshima, 1945 was a hole in the ground. Detroit was one of the wealthiest cities in the world. They have now swapped places in 70ish years. Why? Not natural resources. Public policy.

Detroit didn't fail entirely (or even mostly) because public policy. It failed because US manufacturing in the automotive industry couldn't continue to be based in just one city and US automakers (private companies ... though there's some blurry lines at times) were slow to adapt to (or badly predicted) changing market conditions. Labor unions played their part, but it was only a part.

Natural resource distribution certainly plays a role in the wealth of nations, as you've identified in Norway. You just aren't willing to apply the same logic to the US, or incapable of seeing the far reaching effects of extracted resources and the wealth they represent since most of the benefit the US saw from it's gold and oil (and many other commodities) is already institutionalized. We won't get a major bump from any of them in any given year, but much of this country, especially the infrastructure that allows everything else, was built of and/or off of the wealth derived from those natural resources.

[Aeson]

I think it's fair to say that if the US had Luxenbourgs land, it would be very unlikely to be anything other than what Luxenbourg is. If any nation on earth had US's land, they'd do better than they do. We got the best land in almost every regard (defense, resources, agriculture) at the most important time in history (so far).

[giblets]

That's funny because the previous inhabitants of the US's land didn't do nearly as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

If any nation on earth had US's land, they'd do better than they do.

Evidence abounds that this is untrue. The Soviet Union had far more natural resources than the United States as a whole. So does Canada.

[Aeson]

That's funny because the previous inhabitants of the US's land didn't do nearly as well.

Which is why myopic evaluations of various factors is retarded.

The area wasn't so great before contact with the rest of the world. Lacking trade with the majority of the world's population certainly can be a downer. (Not just economically and technologically, losing 90% of your population to new disease kinda hurts too.)

[Aeson]

Evidence abounds that this is untrue. The Soviet Union had far more natural resources than the United States as a whole. So does Canada.

Both are largely frozen wastelands which makes development more difficult. (If you look at development in Alaska, it isn't so great either. Clearly climate plays a role in how available resources are.)

And the US has more arable land than either of them.

[kentonio]

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.

[MikeH]

Or just chill out, go on holiday, enjoy life, and stop obsessing with money. You have enough, enjoy your lives.

[Sava]

I"M AMERICAN AND I"M EXCEPTIONAL

[Wezil]

Just because your mother told you so, doesn't make it true.

[Sava]

No. She always told me I was demon spawn.

[Dr Strangelove]

Evidence abounds that this is untrue. The Soviet Union had far more natural resources than the United States as a whole. So does Canada.

Would the US be what it is today if it had been subjected to a trade embargo by the virtually all of the world's trading nations for virtually its entire existence?

[molly bloom]

What's your contribution to this discussion besides arrogance and sarcasm?

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 ?