Indian kid describes America

[giblets]

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.

That's much closer to the truth than the bizarre notion that the US has a higher GDP per capita today because natural resources were relatively abundant in the 1800s

[Aeson]

That's much closer to the truth than the bizarre notion that the US has a higher GDP per capita today because natural resources were relatively abundant in the 1800s

No, it's not.

For instance, it's very easy to see how we benefited from being a major oil producing country during WWII. Or how being separate from Europe benefited us at the same time.

You can still benefit from infrastructure built decades ago, you can buy products from companies which arose in gold rushes, oil booms ... and all the wealth generated by that economic activity has had time to be reinvested, provide new profit, and be reinvested again ... again and again.

Pretending wealth just disappears on a clock is stupid.

[SlowwHand]

You didn't build that wealth. Wait a minute.

[Aeson]

Then why even bring it up?

Since arable land is one of the most important natural resources. It's one where the US actually leads in quality over everyone, and in area over everyone except the Soviet Union.

Per Capita - Canada has far more arable land than the US. Arable land is not the development constraint for Canada.

That's one of Canada's problems, not as many people. probably has something to do with the climate, topography, trade routes, etc. It can't just be people trying to get away from you, since you already left.

The US has significant topological challenges to continental trade. Challenges, I may add, which were overcome well before Russia and Canada.

Congrats to us. Doesn't mean topology doesn't matter. It does however suggest that climate, population, topology, and many other things matter. Contrary to what you want to paint it as, as only nationality mattering.

Russia has substantial topological advantages to the United States in terms of European trade in both proximity and technology.

Close proximity is a double edged sword. Hitler and Napoleon made them pay a heavy price for it.

The US on the other hand was only lightly affected by invasion before any real wealth had been accumulated. Very little long term damage done.

Sea transport has always been rather effective form of trade as well. Especially before the advent of railroads.

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.

You're going off the deep end now. I simply said that people in Alaska have a lot less infrastructure, which suggests (as does common sense) that building infrastructure in rugged frozen terrain is somewhat more difficult than in more amicable climates/topology.

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?

Because you still managed to make it out and head south ...

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

You're hilariously lost in this conversation.

I brought up Aluminum (not in regards to any specific country) because it is a resource that exists in large quantities in many areas ... long before it was useful as a resource. I was illustrating how there are factors that make resources more or less useful, since you couldn't seem to wrap your mind around that simple fact.

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.

Irrelevant. No one is denying policy is a factor. You're the one trying to prove that topology and climate (and resources) are not a factor. I'm simply pointing out how stupid your chosen pursuit is ...

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?

Napoleon, Climate, Hitler, Communism, Vodka. I'm sure there are countless other factors, but those are the ones that spring to mind.

It's amusing to see how incomprehensible it is to you that resources, topology, climate, and defensive position can factor into how well a nation does without one of those factors being claimed to be solely responsible for everything that's ever happened.

I'm the self hater? You're the American who insists that 'anybody could have developed the United States territory better than Americans'.

No, I didn't say that. I said that anyone who had America's land would have done better than they did with their own land.

My other comments were all along the lines that I would expect similar results from populations if they were switched, since people (in large groups) aren't really that different. Where they are different tends to be a result of where they've been and what's happened to them, rather than inborn traits.

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

The debate isn't about whether America is awesome or not. It's about why it's awesome.

My parents taught me at an early age that we should respect the land and be grateful for it's bounty. You disrespect the value of the land. It saddens me when people like HC and gribbler grow up with no concept of the importance of land, how all value is derived from it or built off of what is derived from it.

It sickens me that someone like you, who grew up on a farm and should know better, who professes to believe in God who created this world for us, take the same view about how unimportant land is ...

[Aeson]

You didn't build that wealth. Wait a minute.

Anyone who moves to Antartica on their own with nothing from the outside world and becomes wealthy through only their own effort can claim otherwise. (Assuming they forget everything they've learned from any other source ... which they probably will pretty quickly with hypothermia setting in.)

[Aeson]

In general the view that Americans are just better than other people and that's why they're rich is also the worst form of herd mentality, and at least to some extent is self-refuting. I'm an American, and I'm often disgusted by things that other Americans do. Especially when what they do is dehumanize other people around the world or take a derogatory stance about them based solely on wealth distribution ... when the main delineation between who they are and how much they produce is simply where they were born.

Thankfully, most Americans I know aren't like that.

[Felch]

That appears to be for the current situation only.

Imran's post about Norwegian GDP was based on current figures.

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.)

So what? HC's point was that Norway's high GDP was a result of its oil and gas exploitation. Since they make up a majority of the country's exports, it seems like he was right. Nobody is claiming that natural resources have no role in America's economy, just that Norway is an outlier from the rest of Europe as a result of the North Sea fields and its relatively small population.

[molly bloom]

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

Because it was. If it had been kosher I'd have mentioned that. If it had been a standard British non-religiously affiliated butcher I'd have been surprised. Lambs' brains are a delicacy for some of the people who live here, but not usually those who aren't Muslim or Sephardic Jews.

[molly bloom]

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.

There's so much you don't know, but sadly not enough space to list it all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nobody is claiming that natural resources have no role in America's economy, just that Norway is an outlier from the rest of Europe as a result of the North Sea fields and its relatively small population.

To be fair, it seems that some folks ARE claiming that natural resources have no role in the US economy anymore. But that could be just Apolyton contrarianism.

[Sava]

Wealth is never built. It's provided.

[molly bloom]

Mineral resources did not fund our diversified economy. .

Who was John D. Rockefeller Sr. ?

I seem to recall in a dictionary of American modern history he was the first billionaire in the United States. The Muckrakers accused him of being behind the sine qua non of industrial trusts- Standard Oil.

He eventually controlled not quite 90% of U.S. oil production.

His son went on to diversify- by expanding the family's holdings in the MINING industry. He was quite all right with this kind of thing:

The date April 20, 1914 will forever be a day of infamy for American workers. On that day, 18 innocent men, women and children were killed in the Ludlow Massacre. The coal miners in Colorado and other western states had been trying to join the UMWA for many years. They were bitterly opposed by the coal operators, led by the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.

Upon striking, the miners and their families had been evicted from their company-owned houses and had set up a tent colony on public property. The massacre occurred in a carefully planned attack on the tent colony by Colorado militiamen, coal company guards, and thugs hired as private detectives and strike breakers. They shot and burned to death 18 striking miners and their families and one company man. Four women and 11 small children died holding each other under burning tents. Later investigations revealed that kerosine had intentionally been poured on the tents to set them ablaze. The miners had dug foxholes in the tents so the women and children could avoid the bullets that randomly were shot through the tent colony by company thugs. The women and children were found huddled together at the bottoms of their tents.

http://www.umwa.org/?q=content/ludlow-massacre

Who were the Lewisohns of New York ?

Financier Sam A. Lewisohn (1884-1951) was the son of Adolph Lewisohn (c. 1849-1938) and Emma Cahn Lewisohn. Adolph Lewisohn was an important industrialist with interests in mining and banking, and was an avid art collector and patron.

In fact, by the 1890s, the Brothers Lewisohn were veritable copper kings- just one mine paid out $ 35 000 000 in dividends all on its lonesome.


As Adolph said:

I made as much money as I wanted to make, and then I stopped .

But not before in 1898 having linked up with William Rockefeller and Henry H Rogers to form the United Metal Selling Company- copper works in Perth Amboy and elsewhere combining with the Amalgamated Copper Company.

Not long after, 55% of all copper produced in the United States was being sold by United Metals. Not bad.

Who were Guggenheim Brothers ?

The people behind the Guggenheim Exploration Company. They wanted to get the best mines in the whole of North America, from way down south in Mexico all the way to the biggest state in the Union and not missing out on Canada of course.

When the Lewisohn-Rockefeller group's smelting company was hit by industrial action, Daniel Guggenheim bought up its shares cheaply, and eventually sold off various interests to the A S & R Trust for $ 42.5 000 000. No fool he, he kept the best ones and also ended up (along with his brothers) in control of the American Smelting & Refining Company.

The first issue of shares - $ 40 000 000 of preferred stock- wasn't left waiting for buyers.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm sure molly believes that constitutes a counterexample.

[molly bloom]

I'm sure molly believes that constitutes a counterexample.

No, it's just some American history you can catch up on.

America's economy boomed in the 1800s and early 1900s from the manufacturing sector

In fact in 1900 the value of industrial products in the United States outstripped that of agricultural products for the first time. An estimated 5 000 000factory workers made goods worth more than those produced by 11 000 000 farmers and farm labourers.

Those industrial products- what were they made with, and how was the energy produced to make them ?

I'm thinking- steel, coal, iron, oil, copper.....

Not forgetting that the all-important railways needed to ship agricultural products also required lumber and metals and coal.

[Hauldren Collider]

Surprise, molly doesn't understand the concept of "value added". As I suspected. Anyway, kudos to you molly for actually contributing to the thread. Your posts may be irrelevant, but your argument is no less irrelevant than the one Lori put forward. I'm glad Felch and I were able to cow you into actually writing something other than a sarcastic, arrogant insult.


For everyone else, as I have stated many times, natural resources are the first step in a long chain of economic activity, most of which is totally disjoint from where the resources were originally extracted, particularly when there is global trade. The fact that some dudes got rich on mineral extraction says nothing about its importance to our economy. The fact that industrial products outstripped agriculture in 1900 actually supports my position.