What makes trade so important for making a country successful?
>>374998
Trade is pretty much the definition of relevance. If you do a lot of trade, you have a lot of wealth, you learn about ideas from all over the world, cities spring up, middle and upper classes emerge who spend on luxuries and thus form high culture... without trade, the world literally leaves you behind.
>>374998
IT ENABLES YOU TO GET MONEY AND STUFF YOU FUCKING RETARTD
>>374998
Every country, through differences in culture, work ethics, ressources etc has relative competitive advantages in certain productive areas. It has been proven that even if these advantages are only relative (i.e. it could theoretically still be that one country can produce every single product better than everyone else) it is best for each country to only produce the product they have the largest relative competitive advantage in.
For example, imagine there would be only America and Mexico on the planet and the only two products we have invented and regularly consume are food and computers. Now, even if America can produce food more efficiently than Mexico, it would still be best to channel all ressources into computers where they have the larger competitive advantage and for Mexico to do the same with food (of course ignoring the potential of oversupply of one product or the other). That's how huge trade gains are created compared to the situation where both countries produce just enough of both products for themselves.
>>375016
>Trade is pretty much the definition of relevance.
You mean trade is directly proportional to relevence? Then how come carthage conducted much more trade than rome, but ended up being much less relevent? Same for Phoenicians and Greeks.
> If you do a lot of trade, you have a lot of wealth, you learn about ideas from all over the world, cities spring up, middle and upper classes emerge who spend on luxuries and thus form high culture... without trade, the world literally leaves you behind.
If everything good comes from conducting trade, then why do countries blockade each other? Why didn't they just build roads between every population centre straight away from the beginning? Why haven't we established global free trade then?
>>375081
For fuck's sake anon, I didn't say "trade is literally the definition of relevance there are no other factors period". I think I'm justified in claiming a very strong correlation between trade and relevance. Obviously you can pick out instances where the relationship is not absolute.
>>375028
IF TRADE IS FOR GETTING MONEY THEN WHY DO PEOPLE SOMETIMES BUY THINGS THROUGH TRADE
ARE THEY BEING DUPED
>>375081
Post script:
>If everything good comes from conducting trade
Where did I say this? Oh right, I didn't. Relevance is not necessarily a good thing, let alone "everything good". Right now China is more relevant that Switzerland, but I know where I'd rather live.
>>375103
So by
>Trade is pretty much the definition of relevance.
You secretly meant
>Trade is an important factor in attaining relevance
And it frustrates you that I didn't guess that?
>>375105
EVERYONE BUYS IN ORDER TO SELL, EVEN IF YOU BUY FOOD YOU ARE DOING SO IN ORDER TO SELL THE LABOR WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO BE FED.
>>375115
No, I meant exactly what I said.
I'm frustrated that you made up positions (trade is directly proportional to relevence, everything good comes from conducting trade) which you then attacked as if you were refuting what I'd said.
>>375115
Different anon here, yeah, your inability to get that is pretty frustrating.
>>374998
Comparative advantage and division of labor. That on top of exchange of ideas and technology.
>>375110
>Where did I say this? Oh right, I didn't. Relevance is not necessarily a good thing, let alone "everything good".
This is from your original comment >>375016
>Trade is pretty much the definition of relevance. If you do a lot of trade, you have a lot of wealth, you learn about ideas from all over the world, cities spring up, middle and upper classes emerge who spend on luxuries and thus form high culture... without trade, the world literally leaves you behind.
So you didn't mean to imply that wealth, global ideas, cities, emerging middle/upper class and high culture were good? And you didn't mean to imply that "the world literally leaves you behind" was negative?
>Right now China is more relevant that Switzerland, but I know where I'd rather live.
Nice non-sequitur. How would china go about getting the factors which make you prefer to live in switzerland?
>>375081
>then why do countries blockade each other?
Because some countries are afraid of other countries, or believe that it's imoral to give indirect support to a regime by trading with them.
This is not necessarily a good thing, however, or a particular smart thing to do, as it punishes the people of those countries more than the regime, and also gives the regime an excuse for why things suck in their country.
>It's not our policies that screw you over, it's our enemies who want you to stay poor.
>Why didn't they just build roads between every population centre straight away from the beginning?
Because people weren't organized enough to do that, and because there was no theory of the benefits of global trade back then.
>Why haven't we established global free trade then?
Because people still don't entirely understand how the free market works, and to some degree fears it and the changes it causes. To really understand how silly the idea of protecting domestic corporations it you need only apply the same principles on a smaller scale, because if it benefits us in the western world to protect ourselves from China or India, then wouldn't it also benefit New York to protect itself from Chicago or Los Angeles? Should London protect itself from Manchester? Or better yet, shouldn't you protect your trade from your neighbour? After all, isn't him fixing your TV just him stealing work opportunities from you?
>>375128
SO THE ENDGAME OF TRADE IS TO ACCUMULATE MONEY
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH IT ONCE YOU HAVE IT
>>375037
You make a good case for becoming a banana republic, but how does that explain why trade itself is important?
>>375179
>Because some countries are afraid of other countries, or believe that it's imoral to give indirect support to a regime by trading with them.
I'd like to add that those are probably the de jure reasons, the real reasons probably having more to do with spheres of influence.
>This is not necessarily a good thing, however, or a particular smart thing to do, as it punishes the people of those countries more than the regime, and also gives the regime an excuse for why things suck in their country.
Has the US finally realised this under obama? I think north korea may be the only example left.
>>375209
Because without specialization there would be no point in trade at all besides for rare natural ressources.
>>375169
>Comparative advantage and division of labor.
Can you elaborate on why this makes trade important?
>That on top of exchange of ideas and technology.
So these just spread with the movement of people who are trading?
>>375174
>So you didn't mean to imply that wealth, global ideas, cities, emerging middle/upper class and high culture were good?
What I implied: these factors are produced by trade (as a strong factor) and make a country more relevant.
What I didn't imply: all consequences of increased relevance are good. An obvious example: before modern hygiene standards, working-class city life was pretty horrific. The death rate was so high, cities could only sustain themselves by drawing in more and more people from the countryside to make up for the constant disease outbreaks. This was a necessary factor in achieving/maintaining relevance, but it certainly wasn't a positive thing. To summarise, relevance was a double-edged sword, bringing both positive and negative repercussions.
>And you didn't mean to imply that "the world literally leaves you behind" was negative?
First off, that was what I said would happen *without* trade, at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. Secondly, there's some debate as to whether or not pre-city lifestyles were better or worse for the average person. I can certainly see the attraction of working as a farmhand as opposed to, say, working in a factory.
>Nice non-sequitur
It's entirely relevant to the point I was making. I was directly countering your assumption: do I think "everything good comes from conducting trade"? No.
Long story short, please actually read my posts instead of putting words in my mouth.
>>375241
So if you're in 16th century europe and your country is worse at making some ship parts than other countries are at making those parts, then you should just import them and make something else, and leave the construction of your fleet at the mercy of those countries if they decide cut off trade?
There must be at least some utility in diversification.
>>374998
You can get stuff and sell yours so you can get more stuff.
>>375295
What's the endgame?
>>375315
making everyone in your country wealthy and smart by making great product
>>375315
M - C ... P ... C' - M'
>>375186
MAKE MORE MONEY, YOU SEE, THE POINT OF CIVILIZATION UNDER THE RULE OF CAPITAL IS THE GROWTH OF CAPITAL AND THIS GOAL STAYS VALID EVEN IF EVERYONE DIES AND CIVILIZATIONS THAT SUBSCRIBE TO CAPITAL MAY GET A TEMPORARY REWARD OF WEALTH AND LEISURE AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS AND WE ARE LITERALLY THE INHABITANTS OF HELL AND CAPITAL IS AZATHTOH THE BLIND IDIOT GOD
>>375266
>What I implied: these factors are produced by trade (as a strong factor) and make a country more relevant.
>(as a strong factor)
I'm not convinced that you understood that nuance before my comment here >>375081
>What I didn't imply: all consequences of increased relevance are good.
You sure seemed to imply that here >>375016 but let's read your entire post
>An obvious example: before modern hygiene standards, working-class city life was pretty horrific. The death rate was so high, cities could only sustain themselves by drawing in more and more people from the countryside to make up for the constant disease outbreaks. This was a necessary factor in achieving/maintaining relevance, but it certainly wasn't a positive thing. To summarise, relevance was a double-edged sword, bringing both positive and negative repercussions.
You say it is a factor, but the way you use it as a point makes it seem like you have equated a higher city population with relevence. You are aware that there are nations which achieved a very high relevence while being almost entirely agrarian, or even nomadic (the mongols)?
>First off, that was what I said would happen *without* trade, at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. Secondly, there's some debate as to whether or not pre-city lifestyles were better or worse for the average person.
Who is debating this exactly?
>I can certainly see the attraction of working as a farmhand as opposed to, say, working in a factory.
Said attraction being what?
>It's entirely relevant to the point I was making. I was directly countering your assumption: do I think "everything good comes from conducting trade"? No.
Your answer was very simplified, and so was my illustration of your point.
>Long story short, please actually read my posts instead of putting words in my mouth.
>please actually read my posts
That's ironic, since you didn't reply to the last sentence in the post you quoted.
>>374998
>successful
You're going to have to define this word.
>>375394
Any one of
-the country acquiring more land
-the country having a higher HDI
-the country having a larger sphere of influence
-the country being more economically and politically stable
Feel free to state and use your own parameters.
I'll be happy with a holistic answer incorporating a sensible combination of these parameters.
>>375334
What are you doing here? It looks a bit like permutations or maybe a stage in an algorithm or something?
>>375376
DID I ACTIVATE YOUR NIHILISM
IF THE GOAL IS TO GET MORE CASH
WHY DOESNT EVERYONE SELL ALL THEIR ASSETS RIGHT NOW
>>375429
If you're not familiar with the expanded reproduction schema you've really got no business talking about the end game of capital.
>>375439
Jesus christ you have to be one of the most dense motherfuckers on the planet.
>>375448
BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE GROWTH IMPOSSIBLE, AS ALL EXCHANGE WOULD COME TO A HALT. ALSO, CONSTANT ACCUMULATION ISN'T NECESSARILY THE GOAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THEM TO EXIST, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS DOESN'T WORK BY MAKING EVERYONE RICH
>>375449
Sorry I was genuinely interested in what you were doing.
>>375453
Doesn't look like you're able to explain it yourself m8
>>375449
Tempted to submit this to r/iamverysmart
>>375466
Well M—C…P…C'—M' is the general reproduction schema for capital in the expanded mode of reproduction, starting at capital as Money and ending as capital as More Money.
It has very interesting implications about mechanisation, productivity, and rates of profit.
>>375462
>BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE GROWTH IMPOSSIBLE, AS ALL EXCHANGE WOULD COME TO A HALT.
SO IS THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE MONEY
OR IS THAT JUST A MEANS TO INCREASE GROWTH
>ALSO, CONSTANT ACCUMULATION ISN'T NECESSARILY THE GOAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THEM TO EXIST, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS DOESN'T WORK BY MAKING EVERYONE RICH
HOW CAN AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM HAVE A GOAL
IT'S NOT SENTIENT
Sell stuff you have too much of. Buy stuff you dont have enough of.
>>375563
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ISMONEY? NOBODY KNOWS THAT.
AND THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS SENTIENT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE AREN'T.
>>375590
>Why is trade important for countries to become successful?
>Ah, it's because Sell stuff you have too much of, buy stuff you don't have enough of.
>>375593
>THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS MONEY? NOBODY KNOWS THAT.
IS IT A PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION OF VALUE THAT PEOPLE CAME UP WITH SO THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO STORE COWS AND SPADES
WHERE DID IT COME FROM THOUGH
WHO CAME UP WITH IT
>AND THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS SENTIENT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE AREN'T.
I CAN'T DECODE YOUR SENTENCE
>>375473
Seems interesting, you don't happen to have a link onhand that could explain it?
>>375680
WHAT KIND OF THING IS VALUE AND HOW CAN IT BE PHYSICALLY REPRESENTED?
THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM TAKES ON A SIMULATED SENTIENCE OF ITS OWN AS HUMANS START TREATING IT AS AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE FACT OF NATURE, WHEN IT IS IN FACT THEIR OWN DELIBERATE ACTIVITY THAT CONSTITUTES IT. THIS SELF-DENIAL MAKES THEM LOSE CONSCIOUSNESS AS CAPITAL GAINS IT.
Import of culture. You can't expect a nation/tribe to just invent everything out of thin air, technology mostly comes from outside.
>>375593
>THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ISMONEY? NOBODY KNOWS THAT.
You'd probably even be able to figure it out on your own if you weren't about to have a stroke.
You guys don't need to write much. It's simple.
>>374998
High level of commensuration and integration to global markets -> quantificiation -> specialization -> division of labour -> efficient economy
This does only work in two ways trade. Protectionist autarkies don't get much out of trade.
>>375712
So this is what it means when my economic history professor said that Western historians love using Robinson Cruose as a microcosm for their political economy.
>>375761
That's pretty much the only time I saw a Robinson Crusoe reference and btw that's not political economy, just micro.
>>375711
HOW ABOUT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION, FAGGOT
>>374998
>What makes trade so important for making a shop successful?
>>375688
>WHAT KIND OF THING IS VALUE AND HOW CAN IT BE PHYSICALLY REPRESENTED?
IT'S ABSTRACT
I IMAGINE DURING EXCHANGES PEOPLE USED TO HAVE A VAGUE NOTION OF HOW MUCH OF THEIR ITEM THEY SHOULD PUT UP IN A GIVEN TRADE
BASED ON HOW MUCH EFFORT IT TOOK TO MAKE OR HOW MUCH UPKEEP IT TOOK
AND THEN THEY WOULD WEIGH IT AGAINST HOW MUCH THEY WANTED THE OTHER ITEM
THEY WOULD HAVE ROUGH EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS BETWEEN SPECIFIC AMOUNTS OF MANY PAIRS OF ITEMS ALTHOUGH OF COURSE THE RATIOS OF THE ITEMS COULD CHANGE IN INDIVIDUAL TRADE AND THE EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS THEMSELVES WOULD SHIFT OVER TIME SINCE FACTORS EFFECTING THE EFFORT TO OBTAIN ITEMS AND THE DESIRABILITY OF THE ITEMS WOULD CHANGE
BUT AT SOME POINT SOME PEOPLE DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO POINT LEARNING TO MAINTAIN THINGS THAT THEY WERE ONLY KEEPING TO TRADE FOR OTHER THINGS
SO THEY SCRAPPED THE EQUIVALENCE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PAIRS OF AMOUNTS OF ITEMS AND JUST MADE ALL INDIVIDUAL ITEMS HAVE A UNIVERSAL EQUIVALENCE RELATION TO SOMETHING UBIQUITOUS WHICH THEY SUBSEQUENTLY USED IN ALL TRADE
MAYBE I'M PARTIALLY WRONG AND MONEY ACTUALLY SLOWLY EMERGED NATURALLY FROM AN ITEM WHICH WAS ALREADY UBIQUITOUS
OR MAYBE EMERGENT CURRENCY VS INVENTED CURRENCY IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY AND IT WAS REALLY SOMETHING BETWEEN THE TWO
SO ITEMS HAD VALUE IN RELATION TO OTHER ITEMS AND THEY THEN GOT A UNIVERSAL VALUE AND MONEY IS A PHYSICAL REPRESENTATION OF THIS VALUE ITS PHYSICAL BECAUSE YOU CAN TOUCH IT
>THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM TAKES ON A SIMULATED SENTIENCE OF ITS OWN AS HUMANS START TREATING IT AS AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE FACT OF NATURE, WHEN IT IS IN FACT THEIR OWN DELIBERATE ACTIVITY THAT CONSTITUTES IT. THIS SELF-DENIAL MAKES THEM LOSE CONSCIOUSNESS AS CAPITAL GAINS IT.
WHAT KIND OF THING IS SIMULATED SENTIENCE AND HOW CAN HUMAN PERCEPTION OF THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM CREATE IT
>>375711
I THINK ANON JUST HAD SEMANTIC SATIATION
>>375989
Shops are designed for trade, we're talking about countries.
>>375712
So you're not going to write to explain that?
>>376097
YOUR THEORY OF HOW MONEY CAME INTO EXISTENCE IS AS GOOD AS ANYONE'S, BUT THE CRUCIQL, AND I DARESAY UNSOLVABLE DILEMMA IS WETHER MONEY REPRESENTS SOMETHING FACTUAL ABOUT THE WORLD, OR WETHER IT HAS ITS ASSIGNED VALUE BECAUSE OF WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS INTELLIGENT BEHAVIOIR BY INTELLIGENT BEINGS, BUT SINCE IT TAKES PLACES WITHOUT THE AGENTS REALIZING THEIR AGENCY, A META-AGENT EMERGES AND CONTROLS THE AGENTS.
>>375958
Don't think your blood pressure would handle it, m8.
>>376136
GIVE IT A TRY, ARE YOU A CHICKEN?
BWAAK BWAAAK BWAAAAK
Trade spreads ideas and resources. That's how civilization advances.
>>376166
It spreads them but it doesn't create them.
So engaging in trade is just being a international leach?
>>376134
>YOUR THEORY OF HOW MONEY CAME INTO EXISTENCE IS AS GOOD AS ANYONE'S, BUT THE CRUCAL, AND I DARESAY UNSOLVABLE DILEMMA IS WHEATHER MONEY REPRESENTS SOMETHING FACTUAL ABOUT THE WORLD, OR WHEATHER IT HAS ITS ASSIGNED VALUE BECAUSE OF WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE
IT'S A MIX OF BOTH
THE PRICE OF GOODS IS SET BY SUPPLY AND BY DEMAND WHICH ARE BASED ON BOTH FACTS AND EDUCATED GUESSES
>ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS INTELLIGENT BEHAVIOIR BY INTELLIGENT BEINGS, BUT SINCE IT TAKES PLACES WITHOUT THE AGENTS REALIZING THEIR AGENCY, A META-AGENT EMERGES AND CONTROLS THE AGENTS.
WHY WOULD AN EMERGENT SYSTEM COMPOSED OF CONSCIOUS AGENTS ITSELF BE LITERALLY CONSCIOUS
IT WOULDN'T BE
UNLESS THAT'S JUST A METAPHOR
YOU'RE ANTHROPOMORPHISING THE ECONOMY
>>376490
No and that doesn't follow. Please go drink a cup of coffee.
>>376664
Sure it does if you indulge me.
You can create ideas and extract resources of your own. Or you can just trade a lot and gather the ideas of others in exchange for other ideas you already gathered. Putting all your effort into trade instead of making the ideas that others will trade later. So you get all the benefits of the ideas, but you don't need to create any of your own. That's being a leach.
>>374998
It's not. Look at the US or Russia in the 1950-1980's. Trade was 10% of GDP at most.
But it can benefit countries that are naturally good at one thing. Singapore is lucky that is lies on the strait of malacca near the fastest growing region ever.
>>376694
>near the fastest growing region ever.
>mfw indonesia will be the next china and india
>>376694
It's because trade is for gathering resources. If you already have a shitload of resources you don't need to trade as much.
>>376644
IF IT'S BOTH, THEN MONEY DOESN'T STRICTLY REPRESENT ANYTHING, UNLESS WE'RE TALKING POETIC REPRESENTATION OR SPECULATIVE METAPHYSISCS
THE EMERGENT SYSTEM IS CONSCIOUS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CONSCIOUS DECISIONS THAT MAKE THE SYSTEM ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD BY THE ONES MAKING THEM, THEIR AUTONOMY IS DRAINED FROM THEM, CONCRETE EMPIRICAL BEINGS, AND CONVERGES INTO AN ABSTRACT ENTITY THAT DETERMINES THEIR BEHAVIOUR
ACTUALLY, IT'S THE WAY PEOPLE LIKE YOU DE-ANTROPOMORPHIZE THE ECONOMY, AS IN, GLANCE OVER THE FACT THAT EVERY FACET OF IT IS MADE UP OF DELIBERATE HUMAN ACTION, THAT GIVES IT A LIFE OF ITS OWN
>>374998
Essentially everything
>exchange of ideas
During the earliest days, the 5 most relevant areas in the western world were the Italian Peninsula, Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt, what they had in common was the Mediterranean for relatively quick travel between these regions, and allowing for ideas that originated in Greece to be applied to the Levant through communication, mutually benefiting all regions to reap the advancements that originated in one area.
>resources
Japan doesn't have nearly enough iron ore to make an industrial base on its own, so exchanges are made with China or the US for scrap iron and oil create a Japanese industrial base, which the US and China get a return in the form of Japanese electronics produced from the iron that was traded before.
these two also fall into the category of mutual benefit. Russia has something that the Netherlands wants like Amber, and the Netherlands has something Russia wants like shipyards, trade is agreed upon and both parties benefit from the arrangement. This on the whole boosts cooperation between communities in a resource scarce world, whereas simply hoarding resources will be met with a violent response, example being the Chinese Open Door Policy, where military force was used to intimidate a power into relinquishing resources.
>>374998
Trade is the best way to maximize productivity. It makes no sense for Britain to keep its coal mines alive if they can buy it all the way from Australia for half the price.
>>376674
>You can create ideas and extract resources of your own.
Ideas are free. There is no reason to wait for every group of people to come up with every idea from the spear to the steam engine all by themselves. And resources are not evenly distributed across the world. For example, despite the fertile crescent having most of the early bronze age civilizations they didn't have much tin.
>>376723
PIC RELATED IT'S YOU
I'M DONE
>>376835
TOK KEK, SAVED
>>376833
How exactly do you get ideas from trade anyway?
>>376847
word of mouth mostly.
Say England invents the steam engine first, so english engineers travel to the US or French Universities to teach others about their discoveries and how others can make it for themselves. Also, entire institutions were set up to facilitate this, such as the Worlds Fair to be a showcase of the technological achievements of nations worldwide and how might others adapt/improve upon it.
then of course there's technological secrets that people want to remain hidden, such as the atom bomb being guarded by the US until the USSR obtained the details on how to make it through espionage.
Singapore is successful because of good management and planning. If it was just ethnic Malays governing Singapore, it never would have become a first world country.
Culture has at least an equal impact as much as geography does.
>>376847
>China invents gunpowder
>Chinese merchants sell gunpowder to Japs
>Initially, this is fine. Warlords can buy gunpowder from China to fight other Japanese warlords.
>But they have to pay money. And what if the Chinese merchants are more friendly with a warlord you want to war with?
>Gunpowder was unheard of in Japan before the Chinese brought it
>Have some of your men try to reverse engineer it
>Eventually able to make your own gun powder
>Other warlords buy gunpowder from you
>but then they have the same thought process
>Eventually everyone is making gunpowder.
>>376847
Just travelers and traders making note of or purchasing nifty ideas and inventions. For example, the Chinese had the best iron plow in the world for a time. One might now think a plow is a simple device and anyone could come up with a good one, but that isn't the case. People don't just know in their heart of hearts what the best design is for shit. It took Europeans visiting China for their plow tech to improve significantly. Also there is gunpowder.
>>376861
Wouldn't they be shooting themselves in the foot by teaching other nations how to use the steam engine? Why didn't the english government prevent this? Why on earth did they allow it to be facilitated?
>>376884
But how on earth would they realise how to find and utilize saltpeter?
>>376890
Wasn't the plow pretty much redundant after the spread of agriculture?
>>376941
>Wasn't the plow pretty much redundant after the spread of agriculture?
Wut?
>>376941
>How did China learn to utilize saltpeter?
First off, China has a lot of great deposits of slatpeter. It's just hanging out in the open to be chipped off.
They experimented with stuff. They knew the flammable properties of each ingredient. They knew that mixing them produced results. But supposedly it wasn't until some dudes searching for an alchemical elixir of eternal life that they stumbled upon an actually explosive mixture. The first gunpowder recipe had near the ideal proportions of the three main elements plus other crap that didn't serve any purpose but apparently were in the mixture when it first exploded. Eventually with use the recipe was refined.
>>376990
How do you channel the explosion into a projectile without harming yourself, even while holding the whole thing?
>>376957
>Implying I'm wrong
>>377024
I'm trying to make heads or tales of your post. Plows are useless without agriculture and are still necessary to this day.
>>377039
>Combine harvesters exist
Only in some regions
>>377048
Mechanized plows are still plows.
Also please refrain from greentexting and stick to formal prose. I'm having a hard enough time making sense of what you are trying to say. Also I'm still a proponent of you getting a cup of coffee.
>>377058
>categorising combine harvesters as plows
You may as well say that lamps are candles if you follow my logic, so to speak.
>>377217
Dude, google "plow". One of the first things that comes up is a tractor.
>plow
>noun \ˈplau̇\
>: a piece of farm equipment that is used to dig into and turn over soil especially to prepare the soil for planting
Also none of this seems to directly relate to your initial absurd statement.
>Wasn't the plow pretty much redundant after the spread of agriculture?
>>374998
Consider what happened to the Iroquois, Aztecs, Lakota, and Incas. They were isolated from the rest of the world, and thus they missed out on important discoveries like gunpowder. When they finally came into contact with the rest of the world, it didn't turn out so well for them because they were already too far behind everybody else.
>>377248
It serves the same purpose as a plow, just like a lamp serves the same purpose as a plow. Doesn't mean a combine harvester IS a plow.
And obviously it relates, since if it's not a plow then some time after the spread of agriculture, plows became redundant.
>>377287
*just like a lamp serves the same purpose as a candle
>>376128
it's prety easy bro
>>377287
Plows are only used for agriculture you idiot. That's like saying horse drawn carriages became redundant upon the domestication of horses.
Or do you not know what redundant means?
>>377287
I just gave you the definition of a plow.
>>377327
>Plows are only used for agriculture you idiot. That's like saying horse drawn carriages became redundant upon the domestication of horses.
But horse drawn carriages have been made redundant for the reason they were invented, and made widespread, which is transport. This really isn't helping your point.
On another note, did I imply that plows were used for something other than agriculture?
>Or do you not know what redundant means?
There's no need for that my friend.
>>377332
I know, it didn't really help your point.
>>374998
>what makes gaining stuff you want and losing stuff you don't want useful
Countries that shutdown outside trade tend to stagnate, and countries that don't will march in with their superior tech and wealth, and... influence them to play ball nice with everyone else. Consider Millard Fillmore sending steam ships to Japan.
>>376127
Exactly.
>>374998
because resources are scattered all over the world
>>375238
>Has the US finally realised this under obama?
Maybe, possibly.
>I think north korea may be the only example left.
There was a Swedish company a few years ago who had gotten exclusive rights to import jeans from North Korea and it was almost immediately canceled due to the uproar that it caused as people said
>"We don't know how inhumane their working conditions are! What if they use child labour? What if they don't get payed at all?"
Well, yeah, we don't know, but the situation is not gonna magically improve for them because we refuse to buy their jeans.
>>376723
i thought you were dead baudrillard
>shitposting from the grave
>>376761
just to think bout it,the less resource a country have,the more developed it is.Just look at the Scandinavian country ( *before Norge found the oil )
What I think is the less natural resources a country have,the more it's politicians or government would emphasis on it's people.Just look how corrupt Russia is for an example.Having a huge resourceful country for too long can corrupt a country.Norway is first world with resources because it developed prior meeting it's resources.Before that they're dirt poor but innovative as fuck
>>377217
>You may as well say that lamps are candles
No, it's like saying oil lamps and electric lamps are both lamps, which they are.
This conception of trade = wealth is wrong.
The correct would be internal market = wealth
For a country to be successful, first, the internal market must be well consolidated. Arround 80% of everything the people consume must be produced within the country's borders, and to ensure that, the state must adopt protectionist policies, high taxes on foreing products, low interest rates and taxes for national enterpreurism, invest in national industry, mechanize agrilculture and privatize all of the thirtiary sector. Finally, lots of investments in infrastructure like roads, railways and waterways which are totally under rated.
This is what I personally call "the state's little push in the back of the economy". With this economical preset, the working class will get more purchasing power, people will have more money to spend, the internal market will flourish, GDP will grow as time passes.
Only when the internal market is at its full potential is when the state should start envisioning trade. And the only good trade is the trade you export. A country must avoid importing anything. You must send industries overseas, export your excedents of agriculture, trade and trade as much as you want but do not import. That's how your country will be wealthy, how you'll be able to collect lots of tax (even if you have low tax on national industry, there will eventually be a lot, so it's like multiplying a small number (taxes) a lot of times, over and over (low taxes encourage enterpreteurism).
If your country does not have enough resources to have a 90% national economy, then invade neighboring territorries with good resources. Also, it would be ideal for the country to coperate with corporations, both negotiating with each other as to achieve goals of mutual interest.
>/his/ will argue that both buildings are equally beautiful
>/his/ will claim this comparisson is subjective
>>382001
Fuck, wrong thread.
Meant to post this on a thread about western civilization
>>382001
>Whitey lives in caves for a million years
>Finally learns architecture from the Romans
>How d'you want your church f.am
>Just cave my shit up.
>>381997
How do you explain Hong Kong? When the Britts first got their hands on the colony it had practically no resources what so ever other than being a good harbor, and the only polices the government ever adopted concerning it was to leave it alone and not tax it. Not even the water supply was public ally funded but left entirely to private entrepreneurs. Yet Hong Kong thrived and continues to do so.
>>378063
LOL. What was the plow use for before agriculture then?
>>382028
I was talking about how to make a superpower and the directions I gave are not valid for territorries the size of a ping pong ball.
>>382044
What? I didn't imply that plows were used for anything before agriculture. What are you talking about?
