Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Here we go again....

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110181 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 5:01 PM


Quote: it just meant we were better at exploiting the resources we had.


were you to say -"they had" I may agree with you Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
28 Mar 2013 - 5:01 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014052 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 5:05 PM


Quote: were you to say -"they had" I may agree with you

Who do you mean by "they"?

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110181 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 5:34 PM

All those in the British Empire whose resources we raided to make us
"Great"

Its true that we were first into the Industrial Revolution and thus had free access to exploiting the wealth associated with the development of our resources and those of others but it was at the expense of a large proportion of our our own population and that of the rest of the world.

As each nation becomes more "Developed" industrially and economically and the world population grows the available resource pool (which is the "Fixed Sum" part I referred to earlier) will become increasingly scarce and more expensive (which is why countries like China have already cornered the bulk of the Rare Earth supplies as here )This may add to the wealth of the controlling nation(s) but it will be to the detriment of those without their own supplies of these resources.

I know many talk of the wealth created by things such as the Service Industry and Knowledge management but these have to be supported by people making and selling real products, which are constrained by the availability of resources and people who can buy them

So, I go back to my proposition that its "Fairty Tale Economics" which only work so long as people can be persuaded to believe in it (a bit like trying to rationalise the fact that "Money" is just digits being transferred between computers and has no substantive value)

I just found this quote which I think sums up part of my argument


Quote: Service industries and government jobs do not increase wealth - they just circulate money. Manufacturing creates wealth by taking goods of lower value, adding knowledge and labor, and creating higher value. Mining and farming create wealth for the same reasons.


Last Modified By brian1208 at 28 Mar 2013 - 5:34 PM
adrian_w
adrian_w e2 Member 63280 forum postsadrian_w vcard Scotland4 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 6:28 PM

FArming is probably the only industry that does not deplete the Earths resources.

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014052 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 6:38 PM


Quote: This may add to the wealth of the controlling nation(s) but it will be to the detriment of those without their own supplies of these resources.

You see this is the bit that I don't think stands up. If a country gets richer, it dosn't mean that another country gets poorer. For a start if you are already a subsistence farmer, how would you get any poorer ?

As a simple example: If I live in the middle of nowhere and I set up a water wheel to power my house, I can suddenly have power, light & heat (so am suddenly wealthier) but I haven't made anyone poorer.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110181 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 7:05 PM


Quote:
As a simple example: If I live in the middle of nowhere and I set up a water wheel to power my house, I can suddenly have power, light & heat (so am suddenly wealthier) but I haven't made anyone poorer

good point

but if you were a large organisation that dammed a river to generate and sell that electricty to others, dispossessing the existing population of their land, homes and livings it would be a different story I suspect?

as here

or here

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014052 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 7:37 PM


Quote: but if you were a large organisation that dammed a river to generate and sell that electricty to others, dispossessing the existing population of their land, homes and livings it would be a different story I suspect?

Of course and I'm not for a moment saying that is a good thing, but there is a fair chance it would actually increase the wealth of the world by a small amount.

I just can't see a way that your statement of "where some regions grow others must suffer decline," is necessarily always true - but I am not an economist so I am prepared to accept I am wrong.
It seems to me that as we get better at exploiting resources we get wealthier and not necessarily at the expense of anyone else.

keithh
keithh  1022804 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 7:58 PM

I love the idea that farming does not deplete resources. Wink

Ill give you rain forest as a starter for ten.

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014491 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 8:06 PM


Quote: I believe we need investment into infrastructure such as HS 2, Roads, Houses as well as even bigger cuts.

Which is exactly what the Canadian Government's recently announced budget does for us.Smile

mikehit
mikehit  46188 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 10:16 PM


Quote: I love the idea that farming does not deplete resources. Wink

Ill give you rain forest as a starter for ten.

The rain forest isn't a 'resource' in the productivity sense. There may be reasons to preserve it but being a resource isn't one of them.

keithh
keithh  1022804 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 10:26 PM

Being home to nearly two thirds of the earths wildlife makes it a fairly important resource. Not all resources have to be linked to productivity.

The rivers that we drip feed with nitrogen are an important resource.

Last Modified By keithh at 28 Mar 2013 - 10:27 PM
mikehit
mikehit  46188 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 10:45 PM


Quote: Not all resources have to be linked to productivity.

I agree - which is why I worded my comment as I did.

keithh
keithh  1022804 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
28 Mar 2013 - 10:55 PM

You wrote that the rainforest is not a resource. I disagree.

Evertonian
29 Mar 2013 - 9:28 AM


Quote: Thatcher presided over the highest unemployment rate in living memory precisely because the bonanza was squandered rather than invested.

Margaret was the best ever UK prime minister giving control of industry back to the owners and away from the Trade Unions. Just a shame that Blair got rid of industry later on in favour of banking which now pays around 30% of our taxes which means we have to be careful in our dealings with them which is crazy. We should be able to contol them without fear or favour, instead there is always the fear that banks will move away to where business is better ie cheaper and less controlled and without our manufacturing industries, we just cannot afford that to happen! We need new manufacturing businesses, not ones like the old days of nationalisation, we need to make things that people actually want to buy!

Regarding the Council houses, that was the responsibility of the councils themselves to rebuild replacement and affordable housing not Margaret's - she was just making it easier for lower income people to have a house of their own, a very British aspiration.

If Margaret Thatcher was young enough to become PM again, I guarantee she would soon sort out the countries woes and PDQ.

Last Modified By Evertonian at 29 Mar 2013 - 9:31 AM
collywobles
29 Mar 2013 - 11:09 AM


Quote: Regarding the Council houses, that was the responsibility of the councils themselves to rebuild replacement and affordable housing not Margaret's - she was just making it easier for lower income people to have a house of their own, a very British aspiration

Had councils invested the revenue from the sale of council houses we would be in a different position to what we are now! Margaret at least put a bit of ambition into peoples outlook on life. As for the mines, it was the right thing to close a non cost effective industry just as Beeching did with the railways.......

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.