3
   

The relationship between climate and wealth

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 09:58 am
Well, while the issue of free market economies is not directly related to climate, I put out a hypothesis on how the bulk of free market economies wound up in the more temperate zones.
Both Debra and Craven disputed that free market (free trade) economies are the reason for most of the current world's wealth.

I recommend reading through this short essay remembering that Williams is a PhD economist:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams063004.asp
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 12:57 pm
Re: Technically challenged
Debra_Law wrote:
What? I was ready to kiss and make-up and now you snuck in this long post placing me in the defensive position. Gee whiz. Offense, defense, offense, defense. Gee whiz.


Defensive positions and kissing and making up aren't mutually incompatible, I once knew a femfolk whose amorous intensity could drive any man to a defensive position.

Quote:
In my opinion, the "streams of influence" are not opposite (polarized) but rather are conflating (combined into a whole). How is that nonsensical?


It is nonsensical to the discussion we'd been in because I spoke simply of a converse stream of influence which are in fact polar opposites, and did not exclude the fact that two polar opposite streams can co-exist.

They are not conflated, they co-exist. Both may have an effect on where the water ends up and in that sense they are closely related but to the logic of the flow of influence it is a red herring.

Quote:
You can call that nonsensical thinking, but I call that logical.


I agree.

Quote:
I was just playing on your "stream" analogy and having fun. I hope you were having fun too.


I was in fact. I was wearing my sponge bob underpanties at the time.

Quote:
Is this where I jump up and down, screech like an ape, and scratch under my armpits?


I believe so.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 12:59 pm
Re: nonsensical
Debra_Law wrote:
I can't believe Craven called my written words "nonsensical."


Come now, I think you protest too much. Frankly I suspect some elements of nonsense were intentional.

Quote:
I'm still pouting. No kissing tonight Craven. If you don't know how long a woman can pout, start a thread entitled, "How long can a woman pout." I'm sure there are some here who will respond: YEARS!


Woah! You mean they actually stop? And they were not, in fact, born that way?

Quote:
Oh well. I'm going to pop over to the Semen Thread and see if Gus has answered my question....Gus knows how to treat an A2K woman, right girls!!!!


You meant goats right? Not women, surely not women.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 01:05 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well, while the issue of free market economies is not directly related to climate, I put out a hypothesis on how the bulk of free market economies wound up in the more temperate zones.
Both Debra and Craven disputed that free market (free trade) economies are the reason for most of the current world's wealth.


You need to be more precise in your though Fox. I am one of free market's biggest fans and have moved from nations due to changes in the politics and momentum of markets.

What you fail to consider is how free markets effect wealth. Free markets only work if the other guy's market is free, not just one's own.

So when nations like Brazil open up their markets to the US superior technology they need to ensure that the US opens up their market in the areas that Brazil competes well in (for example, agriculture).

The US tends to push free markets in markets where we compete well (hi-tech for e.g.) and then practice degrees of protectionism in out weaker markets that poor nations tend to outperform us in (textiles, agriculture).

When you assert a relationship between free market nations and wealth I contend that you neglect to consider such intricacies.

For a helpful illustration, give me an example of a free market and I'll show you their protectionism and how it impedes the free market access of another nation.

The greatest benefit of a free market is access to other desireable markets, a free market in a vacuum is economic death.

Perhaps fbaezer will elaborate, his understanding of economics is, in my opinion, beyonf mine. Thomas is also a good guy to pay attention to in the realm of economic theory.

PS degree-dropping in economics makes less sense than is just about any other field.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 03:58 pm
Craven: I only commented on Williams' degree so you wouldn't think he's another undereducated right wing columnist without a real clue. Somehow your take on it and his take on it goesn't gel here.

Am I understanding you correctly? If say Nepal adopting a U.S-like constitution today and moved to a free market economy complete with improved human rights, you are saying they could not necessarily expect to see increased wealth anytime soon?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 04:06 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Am I understanding you correctly? If say Nepal adopting a U.S-like constitution today and moved to a free market economy complete with improved human rights, you are saying they could not necessarily expect to see increased wealth anytime soon?


Fox, I think they would. But what I am trying to explain to you is that this is not exclusively because of their adoption of free-market but because of the adoption of free-market in a free market global market.

If every other nation on earth did not have a free market and they did, they'd probably take a sound beating.

On the global scale, access to free markets is as important as having a free market. Acess to free markets is often contingient on opening up free market access to yours.

So seguing to a free market has benefits owing in large part to the fact that it is the dictated pre-requisite for access to some free markets.

Basically, I share your favor toward free markets, but for more nuanced reasons.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 04:25 pm
Okay, Williams didn't specifically address that issue; I think access was implied however; especially since his recipe for helping poor nations is to lower our own trade barriers.

I'm just thinking that maybe his analysis of world poverty and wealth being related to freedom, democracy, free market economies, etc. much more than to weather, resources and history may be on target. At least in the 21st century.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 04:36 pm
climate
Hi Craven.

I decided to stop by your thread and test the climate. I'm not pouting any more--well, not much.

I still want you to admit the verbosity of your sentence and acknowledge that those who are unfamiliar with your jargon might pause for a moment and ponder the meaning of "opposite streams of influence" within the context of your 37-word sentence.

I also want you to acknowledge that your realm of knowledge might be different from other people's realm of knowledge, but that doesn't make the observer and prober of the deep waters a muddied, nonsensical thinker incapable of comprehending the view.

This is the tough one, but I also want you to acknowledge that you display a somewhat snobbish, intellectually-superior-than-thou countenance that probably prevents you from getting laid much...I mean, lucky in the art of persuasion. I mean, look at the way you tromped all over me and foxfyre with your disdain-dripping quips. Wouldn't you rather seduce people with your ideas rather than club them with your words, if for no other reason, then for your own benefit?

Do you really want to play in your threads all by yourself? Well....maybe Slappy will come by every now and then and shake your hand....but it could get lonely....hmmmm? couldn't it Craven, sweetie?

How is the climate over here in the Craven thread? Is it safe to dip our toes in the stream?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2004 04:53 pm
Re: climate
Debra_Law wrote:

I decided to stop by your thread and test the climate. I'm not pouting any more--well, not much.


But pouty lips are the rage... hell I walk around all day with my lips pursed in a dramatic pout.

Quote:
I still want you to admit the verbosity of your sentence and acknowledge that those who are unfamiliar with your jargon might pause for a moment and ponder the meaning of "opposite streams of influence" within the context of your 37-word sentence.


You will have to remain wantingthen, as I reserve the right to reach a different conclusion on the perceived verbosity.

Quote:
I also want you to acknowledge that your realm of knowledge might be different from other people's realm of knowledge, but that doesn't make the observer and prober of the deep waters a muddied, nonsensical thinker incapable of comprehending the view.


Quite right, but other things may.

Quote:
This is the tough one, but I also want you to acknowledge that you display a somewhat snobbish, intellectually-superior-than-thou countenance that probably prevents you from getting laid much...I mean, lucky in the art of persuasion.


I'll admit to being snobbish etc many times, but I don't have any complaints about the frequency with which I get laid right now.

In fact, I think this is just a tired, old and lame insult that I usually ignore, as it says more about the interlocutor using it than the target.

Quote:
I mean, look at the way you tromped all over me and foxfyre with your disdain-dripping quips.


Distain-dripping? <shrugs>

This coming from someone who plays the ole argumentum ad connubium? Laughing

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think you are wearing your ovaries on your sleeve, dispensing what distain you can muster, and exhibiting an ugly hypocrisy.

Quote:
Do you really want to play in your threads all by yourself?


I have no complaints about the frequency with which I elicit responses.

For example, I do not recall any of your contributions to this thread that I could not live without.

Debra_Law wrote:

I'm not pouting any more--well, not much.


You could have fooled me.

Debra, I have no distain for you. Quite frankly, I think you are 'neat'. Now if your objections to my tone cause you to cease to speak to me that will be lamentable, but I will simply have to learn to live with it, just as I'll simply have to live with the objections I have to yours should you not decide to do so.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 01:40 am
Isn't there a common view amongst biologists (those who study evolution) that primates evolved into "humans" once they left the jungle?

That it took a world-wide weather change in which the polar ice caps locked up most of the planet's precipitation, causing tropical jungles to turn into savannahs?

Which caused primates to walk upright instead of on all four limbs (and which further caused feet to change from 'hands' meant to grab tree limbs into actual 'feet')?

The science of evolution has figured out long ago just the points you were trying to make, Crav.

And this is not meant to imply that those who live in cold climates are more evolved then those folks living in tropical conditions.

But it does support the notion that necessity is the mother of invention?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 07:42 am
Welcome to A2K A Lone Voice.
I'm not sure I can buy any theory suggesting that people in colder climates are more evolved. I am still thinking through my own theory that people who moved away from the equator did so because they were more advanced and therefore could. I have nothing to base that on other than an idea or possibility of course.
0 Replies
 
john-nyc
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Aug, 2004 06:11 pm
Does anyone know if the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere were industrialized, or beginning to be, at the time the industrial revolution began?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:07 am
If my memory of history serves me well, it was England and America that kicked off the industrial revolution. However that was so recent, I think it could not possibly be a significant factor in the demographics of the temperate zone. In most cases we have to go back more than a thousand years to determine the origins of the indigenous population of any of the world's people.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: climate
Craven de Kere wrote:
Debra, I have no distain for you. Quite frankly, I think you are 'neat'. Now if your objections to my tone cause you to cease to speak to me that will be lamentable, but I will simply have to learn to live with it, just as I'll simply have to live with the objections I have to yours should you not decide to do so.


Absolutely not! I would never cease to speak to you--you're far too much fun to ever ignore!
0 Replies
 
john-nyc
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 08:56 pm
Re: The relationship between climate and wealth
Craven de Kere wrote:

This is but a sampling of the reasons that lead me to believe that cold climates are more conducive to industrialized economy. It forces more technology (to fight the elements), it generates more commerce (think winter clothes), it helps fight pathogens that can cripple a society, it forces man to prepare and plan (and planning helps success), and possibly the most important is the immediate effect on the human body. Eating a heavy meal in strong heat can knock one out as well as can a few beers. I think these factors are reflected in the comparative wealth of cultures while not being the only factor of course.

The anecdotal evidence for this is overwhelming. There are few rich and tropical nations. Many nations are richer in the colder areas and poorer in the hot areas. Many nations have their industrial base in the colder land while leaving less economically productive things like agriculture to the warmer terrain. Note that the many other factors of wealth make this a trend and not an rule without exception. fbaezer (the only person I have discussed this with who seems to disagree that climate effects wealth) notes that there is anecdotal evidence in Mexico that would not support this (in comparison to my anecdotal evidence from Brazil that does).


The above partial quote of Craven's post that started this thread contains the heart of Craven's thesis. So I asked:

john/nyc wrote:
Does anyone know if the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere were industrialized, or beginning to be, at the time the industrial revolution began?


My point was to say that the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere did not industrialize and become wealthy. Therefore, enculturation may be a more important factor then climate. I believe that the nations that industrialized and grew wealthy were those nations that were enculturated to a hierarchal community. Kings and knights and such.

Those southern hemisphere and temperate areas were enculturated to a more consensus type of decision making. Consensus building is not conducive to industrial development. Indutrialization needs a "command structure" that is not present in societies that make decisions built on consensus and tradition.

That is not to say that climate is a non-factor. A hierarchal society would probably be slower to industrialize if it were located in a tropical zone than if it were located in a temperate zone.

(Is enculturated a word?)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:25 pm
interesting complexity...
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:29 pm
Re: The relationship between climate and wealth
john/nyc wrote:
My point was to say that the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere did not industrialize and become wealthy. Therefore, enculturation may be a more important factor then climate. I believe that the nations that industrialized and grew wealthy were those nations that were enculturated to a hierarchal community. Kings and knights and such.


This is one of those chickens before the egg arguments.

There is strong evidence that hierarchal nations were forced to become that way due to the harsher environment. If a community is struggling, and a member of that community discovers a new way of gathering or growing food, that member becomes all-powerful. In the southern hemisphere, where food was easy to obtain, there was no need for political power struggles, at least to the extent that they occured in the north.

A society that consists of members who possess more then others will be become political. Extrapolate that over 100 generations, and a hierarchal society develops......
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:37 pm
john/nyc,

What temperate regions in the southern hemisphere do you speak of? If you name them, you will probably be able to soon see the reasons why (remembering, as I tire of saying, that climate is not the be-all-end all).

There is not a lot of southern-hemisphere temperate land, and the parts that are tend to be more industrialized and wealthy than the others.

See Australia and New Zealand, see north of Brazil vs south of Brazil.

I have lived in each of those places I just mentioned (including in both the northeast of Brazil and various places to the South of São Paulo) and would be happy to comment on the industrial and cultural differences.

To put it really simply, in Brazil, the most industrialized regions start just about where the tropical zone ends.

There are always exceptions, of course, but do you have any of them in mind?
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:35 am
Hi John/nyc: I don't disagree, but tell us about concensus type comunities other than antient Athens Greece and early USA.
0 Replies
 
john-nyc
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 12:09 pm
Re: The relationship between climate and wealth
A Lone Voice wrote:
john/nyc wrote:
My point was to say that the temperate zones in the southern hemisphere did not industrialize and become wealthy. Therefore, enculturation may be a more important factor then climate. I believe that the nations that industrialized and grew wealthy were those nations that were enculturated to a hierarchal community. Kings and knights and such.


This is one of those chickens before the egg arguments.

There is strong evidence that hierarchal nations were forced to become that way due to the harsher environment. If a community is struggling, and a member of that community discovers a new way of gathering or growing food, that member becomes all-powerful. In the southern hemisphere, where food was easy to obtain, there was no need for political power struggles, at least to the extent that they occured in the north.

A society that consists of members who possess more then others will be become political. Extrapolate that over 100 generations, and a hierarchal society develops......


As an alternative I propose (without strong evidence) that a society in which a member discovers a new way of securing food may just as likely have shared the advance with his people. This would obviate politicalization. The need for a new way to secure food, due to harsh climate, would be the same in both scenarios but the "social contract" might dictate how the new method was disseminated.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 10:24:37