Wealth - A political fallacy?

[Deleted member 4644]

Oh, and finally, keep in mind that the "best" resource changes based on technology.

Wood is important in 1600. Steel is important in 1900. Uranium is important in 1980.

But a shitty government/institution wont be able to exploit the resources properly, or anticipate the new technology changes. Just another reason to prove how resources are only part of it.

 

[Stunt]

A few examples: (from the CIA website)
United States:
Population - 303m
Climate - temperate, 18% arable land
Area - 9.1million sq km
Resources - coal, copper, lead, molybdenum, phosphates, uranium, bauxite, gold, iron, mercury, nickel, potash, silver, tungsten, zinc, petroleum, natural gas, timber
note: the US has the world's largest coal reserves with 491 billion short tons accounting for 27% of the world's total

Russia:
Population - 140m
Climate - cool to subarctic, 7% arable land
Area - 17million sq km
Resources - major deposits of oil, natural gas, coal, and many strategic minerals, timber. *note: formidable obstacles of climate, terrain, and distance hinder exploitation of natural resources

China:
Population - 1330m
Climate - tropical in south to subarctic in north, 15% arable land
Area - 9.1million sq km
Resources - coal, iron ore, petroleum, natural gas, mercury, tin, tungsten, antimony, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium, magnetite, aluminum, lead, zinc, uranium

United Kingdom:
Population - 61m
Climate - temperate, 23% arable land
Area - 0.24million sq km
Resources - coal, petroleum, natural gas, iron ore, lead, zinc, gold, tin, limestone, salt, clay, chalk, gypsum, potash, silica sand, slate

Canada:
Population - 33m
Climate - temperate in south to subarctic, 4% arable land
Area - 9million sq km
Resources - iron ore, nickel, zinc, copper, gold, lead, molybdenum, potash, diamonds, silver, fish, timber, wildlife, coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydropower

Congo:
Population - 66m
Climate - tropical, 2% arable land
Area - 2.3million sq km
Resources - cobalt, copper, niobium, tantalum, petroleum, industrial and gem diamonds, gold, silver

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Read what I wrote.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Oh, and finally, keep in mind that the "best" resource changes based on technology.

Wood is important in 1600. Steel is important in 1900. Uranium is important in 1980.

But a shitty government/institution wont be able to exploit the resources properly, or anticipate the new technology changes. Just another reason to prove how resources are only part of it.

Exactly, and all along the way, the US was able to provide those resources domestically due to a diverse supply of materials. No other nation had such easy access to these technology components.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Please respond to my Necessary vs Sufficient post.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Oh, and finally, keep in mind that the "best" resource changes based on technology.

Wood is important in 1600. Steel is important in 1900. Uranium is important in 1980.

But a shitty government/institution wont be able to exploit the resources properly, or anticipate the new technology changes. Just another reason to prove how resources are only part of it.

Exactly, and all along the way, the US was able to provide those resources domestically due to a diverse supply of materials. No other nation had such easy access to these technology components.

Right, and I conceded that the resources were necessary to the US being a super power.

But they were not sufficient, or at least that is my contention. Respond to that..

 

[Zebo]

Yawn... the cream always rises to the top. Feudalism or communism count me in. You take shit too seriously. i.e. produce and you will be just fine.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Stunt
African nations lack all 3 and that's precisely why economic development will never reach the same potential as other nations.

Originally posted by: Stunt
African nations do not have near the diverse variety of resources that the US has, even with war resources will be extracted when they are able to trade on the open market. Look at Iran...they produce a ton of oil yet have a very poor status within the world. Perhaps you are using this as justification for all your "National Defense"; a strong and safe nation is a wealthy nation. That is crap, look at how many bombings Spain, UK have had, hell look at the OK city bombing and dare I even say 9/11. Even with these terrorist bombings, there was a minimal impact on the broad economy. The bigger hindrance to the economy has been the transfer of funds overseas to rebuild the nations attacked/destroyed.

Originally posted by: Stunt
Very seldom do you see a resource poor nation come out with a completely innovative and revolutionary product/service. I honestly can't think of one.

Ok, normally I try to keep my nose out of the economic because I have yet to graduate, but I can't ignore this one.

Africa does not have a lack of resources. In fact, africa suffers from a large abundance of resources, yes I said "suffers from an abundance of resources."

Compare africa, and its resources to Liechtenstein or Isreal. Then compare their ppp per capita GDP in parenthesis.
(I apologize for not removing duplicates, but you get the idea)

Ghana ($1,500): gold, timber, industrial diamonds, bauxite, manganese, fish, rubber, hydropower, petroleum, silver, salt, limestone
Guinea ($1,100): bauxite, iron ore, diamonds, gold, uranium, hydropower, fish, salt
Sierra Leone ($700): diamonds, titanium ore, bauxite, iron ore, gold, chromite
Congo ($300): cobalt, copper, niobium, tantalum, petroleum, industrial and gem diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, uranium, coal, hydropower, timber
Zambia ($1,500): copper, cobalt, zinc, lead, coal, emeralds, gold, silver, uranium, hydropower


Liechtenstein ($118,000): hydroelectric potential, arable land
Isreal ($28,900): timber, potash, copper ore, natural gas, phosphate rock, magnesium bromide, clays, sand

Countries with a large amount of natural resources actually tend to be poorer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Disease

Countries with very few natural resources actually tend to do very well in generating wealth.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: jackace
The only problem I see with your example is the Hut builder used his branches to make a hut, the other guy used his branches to hunt and fish for food. How is the hut builder supposed to build another hut if all the branches have been used? Someone, either the hut builder, the hunter, or a 3rd party has to harvest more branches, aka a natural resource. The hunter is already harvesting a natural resource, (food) so these 2 people require natural resources to increase their wealth. Sure they might not personally collect or harvest the natural resource, but without it neither increases their wealth.

The point of the example was not to show how wealth can be built with out natural resources, but how two individual's (substituting for nations) choices in use of those materials determine their wealth generation. The sticks themselves were not wealth, it is how theose sticks were used that generated wealth.

Yes I agree with that for the beginning of the example, but now that there are 2 people (or countries) that rely on those branches to generate their wealth, having branches actually increases your wealth. The branches now have a solid worth and are needed by those 2 people. So in essence if you have branches you could trade them to the hut builder in exchange for him building you a hut, and same thing for the hunter, you could trade him branches so he can keep hunting in exchange for the food that he hunts. Now just having the resource generates wealth, and collecting more of the resource can generate even more wealth. So in essence those sticks actually are wealth now.

Edit- This is why controlling natural resources has been the cause of so many wars throughout history. The person who controls the resource controls the creation of wealth from that resource.