whatever I said & have backing of scholastic sources
Scholastic source without understanding full context and jumping timelines and chronology! That is why I am rubbishing it. I am asking to talk from beginning to end. You seem to be simply arrogant to not even give time to think properly of all problems and their solution over time and the limits these problems pose to people over time.
You on the other hand are only defending your words. The things & logics you have given about technology (called it result of conquests) and went on citing resources (not because you actually think these are resources but you just want to reject so called "capitalism
Nonsense again, I am only telling that the world is based on deception of Western countries who have been fooling and outsmarting others by twisting history and misinformation. Even capitalism is a misinformation. The crux of today's capitalism is petrodollar based on Islam
Then, you kept on changing context. You claimed that countries received natural resources from alliances in free. Then, you went on claiming aid to be resource and reason (do you know how many countries received aid and how many are successful?) as if that petty aid prospered those countries.
Are you having extremely low IQ that you can't understand what I am saying ir are you a fanatic flat earth theorist who simply insists on his own theories? In a conversation, people tend to ask questions and get it clarified. That is exactly what I did. Insinuating it as changing the topic is retarded.
I have consistently maintained that access to resources is political and this is the basis of success.
You have been purposely ignoring to talk what different those countries did that enriched them. Because if you do, your claim that "natural resources are reason for wealth,
usually" will be rubbished for most world.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have plenty of countries with natural resources but dead socio economics.
Show me where are the countries with plenty of resources but are poor? Resources doesn't mean some random rare earth minerals. I clearly am focusing on critical resources- food, liquid fossil fuel, steel and decent size population with non-crazy mindset (Islam is crazy, for example). Show me which country has all these resources in abundance since 1950 and is still technologically backwards.
Countries like Saudi Arabia don't have food, countries like Brazil didn't have oil till late 20th century, Venezuela did not have population and lot of European migration happened in 1960-1980s. France has no resources except food and steel but it got support from USA in terms of securing energy like Uranium, oil etc.
All countries need access to the basic resources of food, petroleum, steel and population to become technology oriented.
Resources are like raw materials and much easier to access unless you are a superisolated and superbarren country. Any such country doesn't exist on planet. Utilization of resources determines country's future. But hey, you just had to attack argument so you destroyed context.
When you failed, you started destroying logics and finally your this post is culmination of nonsense someone could ever spread. Because the things you are citing have been attributes of failed states in modern world.
We were talking about what makes developed or developing (actually developing) countries from failed and underdeveloped states. You shoved resources here nothing. As they don't have real gap of accessibility between two.
Again,spoken like a retard. Show me how is resources obtained freely? Do you know that in 1940 USA sanctioned Japan from buying Oil? Do you know that Arabs imposed oil embargo in 1973? Where is you free access to resources?
No country is fully barren. But the critical resources required are the three I mentioned above (food , liquid fossil fuel & non-crazy population of decent size) and even if one is not available, it will cause serious problem. Countries like Germany, Japan don't have petroleum. When they tried to get the resources, other countries tried one way or other to sabotage giving even slightest of excuses. Britain even started a war to curtail Germany giving flimsy reason. USA sanctioned Japan to prevent it from getting Chinese resources.
We all saw how non access to resources can make a country weak and hence subject to external sabotage. If there is continual sabotage, how do you expect a country to develop Technology? Technology can be developed only if there is enough strength and security to counter sabotage and that strength is derived from presence of abundant resources to be expended during war.
Water is a very basic commodity and not basis of prosperity. Many countries with scarcity of water and high upper middle income and developed.
Any country stripped of everything doesn't exist on planet. Comes to the comparing Asia and Africa where both continents have plenty of natural resources but Africa was 3 times richer than Asia.
You mean countries without water can become Technology dominant? It is true that countries devoid of water like Saudi, Libya etc have prospered but that is because of presence of raw materials of high value like petroleum. But nevertheless, they don't have enough Technology as they never got enough time to develop it. Petroleum was discovered in arab land in 1940s and the exploitation became intense only in 1960s. So, these countries git just 2 generation of time till now enjoying the oil prosperity and hence the time needed to develop didn't occur. People need to be given access to important resources for several generation of time, not just some random short duration to take full advantage of them. Sudden changes or discovery without any proper background doesn't bring much benefit.
The access to water (and hence food) domestically is of utmost value. Next comes energy resources and finally steel and wood. The resources must be available in this order for Technology to be developed. There is simply no way a country can develop Technology without having these important resources.
African countries (excluding North Africa) don't have enough resources. They are resources poor and have only limited resources or resources discovered too late and in small quantity.
North African countries are desert with 70% imported food and hence don't satisfy basic criteria of food resources requirement.
Asian countries do have resources but most of this is in China. All other countries are resource poor in one way or another. India didn't have enough food and was in verge of famines in 1960s, doesn't have oil.
Only Asian country other than China that has access to the 3 critical resources (Food, oil & population) is Indonesia but it has crazy Islamic population who just want to die in jihad to go to heaven.
That is why Asia isn't rich. If countries like Arabs who have oil cooperate with other asian asian countries like India which has other non-oil resources, then only Asia can be enriched. This is what I call as 'political alliance'. Arabs, however, chose to make alliance with USA and hence facilitated USA to be largest economy since 1980. Till 1980, USSR economy was comparable to USA but the petrodollar deal tilted it in USA favour.
RESOURCE OF PETROLEUM IS PRESENT IN ONLY 3 ENTITIES MAINLY - ARAB, USSR & USA. This is the critical resource which makes or breaks everything in normal countries. Other resources like iron and aluminum are abundant and not really a source of crunch. It is the oil that mainly causes imbalance. But in oil rich regions of arab, food deficit is a unique issue and hence they too can't develop.
I agree that "basic" resources are critical for "survival". But our context was about "successful". These things are available to full set of developed and developing countries today.
Moreover, you dishonestly switched from "natural resources" (minerals like things) to basic need of life. How pathetic? You again killed your argument because it doesn't support yet what you want to say.
Higher wealth doesn't depend upon having basic resources, at least for past 400 years. Producing more from raw materials at low cost and shorter span of time does. It needs technology.
Again, you won't have any luxuries without technology. So, people who don't have it will purchase these luxuries from you.
Qgain, you simply can't accept the fact that every TECHNOLOGY NEEDS TIME TO DEVELOP. This means you must be ALIVE foe that duration to be able to develop.l Technology.
In order to survive, you need to have resources to live and to fight sabotage.
I can't understand how you find it as changing topic? I am only saying that - NOT GETTING DESTROYED is important to develop Technology. This in turn
requires reliable access to resources.
No, you claimed that China is no more than 5-6 years behind US in technology.
More critical technologies are defense metallurgy and experience with exotic metals, giant atoms, aerospace (overall), space tech, information infrastructure, information tech (why Huaweu is suffering) processors and lot lot.
As I said, the Technology is not discontinuous. Technology is a continuous development. So, it is meaningless to say that China is lacking in Technology compared to USA. China has all Technology which USA had in 2010. It only lacks some Technology developed after 2010. This means that China has slightly older alternative to USA Technology.
This is why I say that China will get to current USA level in 2025. USA seems to have approached saturation and hence USA Technology in 2025 will be same as it is now.
First, even 14nm is about to get outdated. Semiconductor manufacturing is a moving target with very high capital required at every installation and not "easy" at all.
Chinese semiconductors that aren't part of most Chinese electronics are built by companies from outside shores of China. 86% of Chinese semiconductors are imported for a reason. High end phones are just assembled in PRC.
Chinese have alternative like spreadtrum which makes semiconductor. Chinese import semiconductor to stay competitive in exports but can make their own cheaper alternative if needed.
Semiconductor techology has saturated at 14nm. Though TSMC claims that it has made 10nm, Intel has not yet made a single 10nm processor. TSMC likely names wrongly it semiconductor nodes. Reality is that USA has been making 14nm for 6 years and there is no progress in sight. Technology wise, 14nm has some threshold level and it is difficult to reduce it further. So, in all likelihood, USA has stagnated at 14nm and China only needs to catch up.
GDP tells about economic activity in country. More money from wealth is utilized to make in economy to flow, it will become income for some people and better it is.
Services are as productive as product of any physical goods. Without them, country and can't run.
The one who only takes a defined set of physical products as a result of economy and reject others, is showcasing his characterstic of embracing medieval economies.
Let me make it clear to you that service doesn't just include knowledge services like education. Yes, knowledge services are important but 80-90% of services in USA is not education or knowledge service. Services like finance, fashion, luxury, hotels, tourism and things like media are not really productive.
Taking useless services as part of GDP and inflating it by 100-200% is really foolish. USA economy, for example has 80% service and in it, 65% is non knowledge oriented service. So, only 35% of economy is meaningful and rest 65% is fake and bloated.
Life works very much on services. Goods can't be produced without them either. They facilitate organized running and hence are a vital kind of production.
If you think that they are just political tool, just rip them apart from your life and try to live.
In due time, services who need more amount of brain will be performed by humans and production will be automated
Seevices are a political tool as they can be dome without. So, it will be easier to discard a person in service sector than in real production. A person in service sector exists as dependent on others and can be easily subject to political pressure.
Even in older time, people recognised two types of services - knowledge and trade. Trade of goods comes under production and redistribution. Only knowledge is the core service recognized by people since older times. Even today, we can easily live without non-knowledge based services. In fact, every time of crisis like war, people completely discard these non essential services, showing that these are just luxury.
Seems that you didn't even read what I wrote. US was industrialized far far before China and has generated more wealth and stable sources of revenue than China has today. China is largest industrial hub today, not was 50 years.
Moreover, US economy is more diversified than even China and has mostly high end working technologies that gives very high profit.
Asking this stupid question and giving this stupid logic (which logic/explanation is there offered by you BTW?) just shows that the part from you are supposed to understand things is at an offset of 180°.
I agree that USA does get high profit from selling Technology goods at high margins. But even then its its Technology advantage is not too high that it has Monopoly. As I said, countries like China has developed Technology to 2010 levels and hence pose as an alternative if USA increases price too high. So, it can't overcharge beyond a point.
USA runs external debt of $500 billion a year. That is over 2% GDP of external debt a year. This is simply too much yo be called sustainable. USA just survives because other countries are compelled by petrodollar to get dollars, not because of USA's own strength. This is not called having large economy but simply MANIPULATED ECONOMY.
Yes you did. You claimed that China's is behind US in income just because of population
No, I claimed per capita income is low, not total income.
Economy still depends upon war & peace.
- Stable environment and security against internal & external threats.
- Free market at least within the country.
- Young (not very young) population with a good demographic dividend.
- Diversified economy for more sectors. Addition of them facilities evasion of recessions as well.
- Skilled labour and continous improvement and diversification of economy to shift to high end sectors as per skill level of labor.
- Research and development for innovating new sectors.
Countries "grow" to become rich and aren't so by default.
I am saying the last sentence you said - countries grow, not born. I am stating that the requirement is - FOOD, liquid fuel and non-crazy population and then other minerals like steel and minerals as requirement to grow. Without food and petroleum, a country can't develop Technology as it will always live under insecurities.
You were speaking that wealth is result of having natural resources which had been proved wrong. Countries obtained them from outside.
Common characteristics of developed countries today is discovering sectors and not access to abundant resources
No country can obtain critical resources of food, energy from non political allies and become rich from Technology. Any non-ally that supplies these resources will threaten sanctions and sabotage to ensure the importing country doesn't become Technology giant.
We aren't talking about foundation. We are talking about what makes developed and underdeveloped world so.
Why this foundation didn't make them different before 400 years? And why Asia started to catch up only in late 20th century? Abundant natural resources existed with Asia and Africa too.
Stop jumping on sides of argument.
Aftica doesn't have resources. Stop spreading fake news. African oil is very minute except in North Africa. As I said, the critical resources is food and petroleum. Non north-Africa has little petroleum to ever become giants.
About why Europe developed Technology 300 years back, it was mainly because of muslims blocking suez canal and forcing Europe to find sea routes for spices and other resources.
Over time, they found USA which was abundant in resources. This gave them resources. In addition, they managed to outsmart the locals of countries like India, Indonesia (who were crazy or stupid) and hence gained access to resources. It is simply that they acquired resources first and then held on to the advantage for centuries by preventing others from getting resources.
India itself is a contradiction to what you said. India has been one of world's fastest growing economies, has transitted from low income to lower middle just last decade and will be upper middle in next decade.
Long term projections show it to be a high income country till 2050-60. That's what reference what I gave says also. Why China & India didn't seem to have any rosy future 1978 & 1991?
We import raw materials like crude and export finished products. One of largest exporters.
Do you know the difference between being rich because of political convenience vs being rich on one's own Technology? India developed due to political convenience and not by Technology. India is a key country and capable of disrupting oil dominance of west and hence west tried to contain India by linking its economy to USA financial system and hence creating dependency to further exploit India. It was an investment of wet for political reasons and not self sustainable growth. That is exactly why i am disregarding all non education service from economy. These are just political tools and nothing else.
South Korea received over $36.5 billion aid till date. Heck, even Pakistan got $44 billions.
If you think that this amount was sufficient to pay off South Korea's bills and South Korea couldn't have developed without this aid, then you are illiterate on matter of economics.
USAID was just an assistance to allies for strategic interests. It
Do you know the meaning of aid? Aid is given conditionally. It is not that Pakistanis could buy same thing as Koreans. Pakistan received different aid like military sales whereas Korea received direct Technology lease and resources.
I never called it failure. But it's not something that's responsible for America's prosperity. It was rather used as a geopolitical weapon to defend from and attack against threats.
Unilateral dominance on oil will allow US to carry out economic sabotages in China and India. Game will change meanwhile when China & India switch to other sources.
USA doesn't have access to large domestic oil for its self consumption. USA would have run out of oil by 2010 without petrodollar getting it free oil. So, petrodollar is the reason why USA could become a giant economy. It is also the reason why USA could sabotage other economy by denying access to oil. The problem here is that oil is present only in 3 regions primarily- America, USSR and Arab (including north african arabs). So, entire world has to rely on these 3 sources mainly for petroleum needs. This resources deficit was.used yo hamper other economies by USA petrodollar deal
Afghanistan has $4 trillion reserves of critical minerals including Lithium, rare earths, fossil fuels, most kind of useful metals like copper, gold & iron and gemstones.
Second largest deposits in critical metals after China.
Food and energy are main resources. Without food and energy, other resources are not exploitable. The main problem that comes in the world is because of Concentration of oil in just 3 regions and this is the main resources crunch.
Afghanistan was same as that of India till 20th century. It was same as that of India & Pakistan as well till 70s. It's growth stopped due to instability. It's aid exceeded it's GDP yet it couldn't develop.
Right now, it's per capita income is growing faster than Pakistan again
Afghanistan was much better as Kingdom of Gandhar.
Straight, you have shown here how much you hate reasoning and plain baseless statement why Afghanistan won't ever develop.
Your only logic is that its a desert (even morr stupid) desperately as if you're trying to just shoo argument away.
Afghanistan was not rich in 1000 years. Gandhar involved parts of Pakistan and included fertile punjab plains. The Afghanistan part was never rich and mainly survived by tacing traders and travellers.
Afghanistan can grow only if there is political force externally enabling it to grow. Afghanistan can't grow on ita own internal strength. Afghanistan has no manufacturing and its agriculture is not growing either. Only thing growing in Afghanistan is foreign aid and hence it is showing growth. That is temporary