Not sure what I mean myself. But I remember reading that we have are buying back our own gas. I have absolutely no idea if that's actually true
Printable View
Not sure what I mean myself. But I remember reading that we have are buying back our own gas. I have absolutely no idea if that's actually true
And Germany and USA, also... Wait, something doesn't add up here...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Germany and the US are also examples of countries relying on industry instead of agriculture and natural resource exporting. They are also both examples of states who went to great lengths to protect themselves while building up their industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Spain, on the other hand, is an example of a country with a huge surplus of a valuable resource(gold), which then de-industrialized the country and made them poor for centuries after.
In a century or so you can probably add Norway to that list. Be kind and give my grandchildren a nickel when you pass them on the streets, will you?
Well, diesel just needs to run through a tube(basically), but it still needs to be done, somehow and somewhere. As it can't be done on the platform, that means bringing the oil somewhere else before bringing it back to where the consumer is. In this day and age, there's no real logical reason to confine that to just one country, that can be done anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
HoreTore for one who has strong opinions on everything you seem to lack fundamental knowledge on the topics you pick to comment on. I'll not even try and explain to you how and why rich countries are rich and poor countries are poor, what happens with natural resources and what national debt is and why its so widely spread. You need to read more than Adolf Hitler's biography to even remotely back up your smugness. I'm done with this thread unless the OP responds on why don't they protest en masse until something changes.
I'll be looking forward to reading the Protocols of the Elders of the Bulgar Bankiers. Should be a blast!
Remember guys, it's always that other fellow's fault.
It invalidates your point than only countries with no natural resources are rich. Bing, you lost - You owe me a drekar (with crew), three hot French slave girls and a complement of axes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If Norway regress to poverty in a century or so, Serbia will probably regress to tribal community, so I won't be able to give your grandchildren a nickel, but I'll be happy to give them some ointment and boar's testicles to chew on to make them more manly.Quote:
In a century or so you can probably add Norway to that list. Be kind and give my grandchildren a nickel when you pass them on the streets, will you?
Because it's hard to get people with one of the highest average salaries in the world to go out and protest poverty, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
this is pure fail of the internet meme kindQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Every country except Desolaterockistan has some kind of resource, so that obviously wasn't the point. Rather, the point was that industrialization is the key to wealth, as opposed to resource dependency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Sorry, no boat for you. And you'll have to be satisfied with british girls instead.
industrialisation required certain factors historically such asQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
sound banking systems
secure property rights (or at least more secure than up to that point)
transport links (which meant at the very start large rivers and canals)
nearby resources (coal, iron, clay, labour and investible capital)
Much of southern europe had none or only a few of these things and so they did not get a good start on industrialisation.
"Industrialization" refers to manufacturing, not the industrial revolution itself. Ie. 14th century, not 18th.
Ah here now yer having a laugh going back to the 1300s manQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
in the 1300s the key to wealth for an Anglo Norman was having his paws on a big fat duchy like say Aquitaine which apparently was wealthier than all Anglo Norman controlled land in both the UK and Ireland added together.
...and that probably explains why I have mentioned Holland and the Italian city-states, and not Britain?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
And you do know that Italy and the Lowlands were the richest part of Europe at that time, partly due to their huge agricultural production, which allowed cheap(er) food. Those rich Italian city states didn't form around Naples or Sicily but in the north, near the fertile Po valley.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A geographic sweetspot had a big influence during that period for the two mentionedQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Industrialization began in the netherlands when the agricultural potential was exploited. It began in Italy when the power of the countryside(feudal lords) had been broken and the power moved to the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Agriculture is of course a prerequisite for cities. True wealth, however, can only come about as a result of industrialization in the city. This occurs when investments in new land is no longer viable, which is what happened in Holland and Italy.
And both places did have a geographic sweet spot. When did I say otherwise? They both occupied ideal places for industrialization - instead of resource exploitation.
I hadn't noticed anything in the news about Bulgaria, but today I read that you're out of a government...Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
As for why nobody here is protesting, good question.
The gas here has provided the rest of the country with over 170 billion euro's since it was discovered, but the north is sparsely populated (i.e. few voters), so politicians can get away with ignoring it. A couple of years ago the central government decided to cancel a high-speed rail project that would have connected the northern provinces to the bigger cities in the west. The allocated funds would instead to be used for other infrastructural projects in the north as compensation. Except that shortly thereafter it was decided to divert 2/3 of the money to the western cities, under the reasoning that this way it would benefit a larger amount of people. This is pretty typical of how the central government has always treated the peripherial parts of the Netherlands.
Now we're having more and more earthquakes; and a study has projected that the frequency and intensity will increase (possibly exceeding 5 on the richter scale) if gas exploitation continues. The relevant minister has, however, requested 11 more scientific studies of which the results are due only at the end of this year, and said he won't consider scaling back gas exploitation until that time.
The people here are probably less chauvenistic and regionalistic than some other parts of the country, so they don't tend to complain much about it. It doesn't bother me that much myself, actually. I'm pretty sure though that in a country with stronger regional identities, like Spain, the central government wouldn't dream of giving any region a similar treatment.
Compared to other countries it's not bad, obviously. But two points:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
A) people will complain about minor grievances, no matter how good they have it. Look at France's protests when Sarkozy raised the retirement age from 60 to 62, something that Hollande has largely reverted.
B) This province, and more generally the entire northern part of country, is unfairly treated compared to the larger population centres. I'm not even saying we should keep 50% of the gas revenues or something like that. Right now this province is not even getting a per capita share, set against the whole country.
Of course that wealth comes from industrialization - the point is that prerequisite of industrialization is cheap and plentiful food. If you have 80% of your population working in agriculture, you can't really industrialize, but when it comes to a point when only 50% works in agriculture, the rest are free to do something else, so nations that had more fertile land and more advanced technology had a better starting position.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Add to that a geographic sweetspot as gaelic cowboy nicely put it and you have much more effective industrialization than other, not so blessed countries. If you add abundant natural resources to mix, you get a very powerful combo.
Not to mention other issues like transportation, wars, education, political concerns etc...
In case of the Netherlands it was more colonisation and trade that brought wealth, our golden age was way before industrialisation, we were pretty badly lagging behind other countries like the UK with that. The Netherlands is also blessed with natural infrastructure, these rivers have always come in handy, it's really easy to move stuff around for us. Small miracle we were never eaten by our neighbours because of that positioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
//suckup mode, love it when you are being smug :sweetheart:
The United States has some of the most natural resources in the world.
If by "a few years ago" you mean the 1960's/70's? As opposed to the 90's/00's which more or less created the current situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Two extremely poor choices. The Italian city states were funded by wealth from agriculture surplus and being conveniently located on a nexus of trade routes, and the Dutch were funded by much the same (dairy + trade routes).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Either that or a capacity thing. Could be the gas supply is maintained at a nearly continuous capacity which is somewhat lower than our peak demand -- so during peaks we buy Russian through Germany. The alternative is what Britain does which is to make it a survival of the fittest granny thing. Though that might also have something to do with a penchant for choosing poor housing and a stubborn reluctance to invest in their own comfort.:thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Colonisation never brought in the big bucks, by and large it did not manage to break even. What worked out really well, though, was the trade with the Baltic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Not a small miracle. Here's how it works:Quote:
The Netherlands is also blessed with natural infrastructure, these rivers have always come in handy, it's really easy to move stuff around for us. Small miracle we were never eaten by our neighbours because of that positioning.
//suckup mode, love it when you are being smug :sweetheart:
Hire the entirety of Switzerland. People are afraid of the Swiss, or they will be after the Swiss stick 'em on a pike. If that fails, cosy up to France, England or Prussia; switch alliances as necessary to keep them on tenterhooks. In a pinch you are allowed to bribe the Spanish.
To get industrialization you need a surplus of labour and a food surplus too.
So one part is relatively high yield farms without requiring everyone in agriculture. Wheat has a lower caloric yield per acre then potatoes.
Another part is healthier cities. Things like sewers for instance. Cities are concentrated humanity, as such they increase the rates of both positive and negative aspects. City people walk and talk faster, have more patents per capita, more crime and more disease. Cities used to rely on immigration from the countryside to keep the population pools up. Simple infrastructure such as clean water and sewers is one of the reasons some cities out preformed their neighbors.
I keep seeing a bunch of Norway pictures on 9gag recently, like this one.
http://9gag.com/gag/6632772
They unfortunately make me think "Why do we suffer such bad hotel rooms?"
Debatable that, but foreign trade absolutely did in any caseQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios