Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Economics and World Trade

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Economics and World Trade

    A real "catch-all" on what is likely the main driver of competition and/or conflict. Resources and markets have often been the issues contested that have lead to warfare. So here a thread to discuss this theme in general and specific ...
    Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

  • #2
    The Tanker Market Is Sending a Big Warning to Oil Bulls

    The Tanker Market Is Sending a Big Warning to Oil Bulls

    Four months into oil’s rebound from a six- year low, the tanker market is sending a clear signal that the rally is under threat.

    A sudden surge in demand for supertankers drove benchmark charter rates 57 percent higher in the two weeks through May 20. OPEC will have almost half a billion barrels of oil in transit to buyers at the start of June, the most this year, while analysts say about 20 million barrels is being stored on ships in another indication the glut has yet to dissipate.

    The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is pumping the most oil in more than two years, determined to defend market share rather than prices. A record cut to the number of active U.S. drilling rigs and billions of dollars of spending reductions by companies since last year’s price plunge has yet to translate into a slump in barrels produced. The world is pumping about 1.9 million barrels a day more crude than it needs, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
    ...
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/marke...Lme?li=BBieTUX
    Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

    Comment


    • #3
      1.9 million barrels of crude oil per day more than is needed!?!

      Where is all of this crude going to be stored?

      Comment


      • #4
        Warfare is older than world trade so the relationship between the two is likely not causative. Trade practices are a contributing factor that leads to war but it is just as likely that healthy trade relations prevent wars.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          Warfare is older than world trade so the relationship between the two is likely not causative. Trade practices are a contributing factor that leads to war but it is just as likely that healthy trade relations prevent wars.
          What would YOU consider to be causative factors for warfare?
          Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
          Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

          Comment


          • #6
            There is no such thing as irregular warfare in trade. Prices will settle accordingly to the supply and demand unless the Democrats stifle them by imposing high tariffs. Whom should you fear most? The closet communist worker. Economic sabotage sections can be found in the Labour Code of Canada. I was lawyer for a bunch of workers whom I caught to be plotting to sabotage the company. I cajoled them to organize an illegal strike appealing to their 'wolfish inclinations and behaviour'. Everbody got fired for staging an illegal strike. Company owner bribed me with 200 pesos. I accepted them.
            Last edited by surgeongeneral; 24 Jun 15, 16:19.

            Comment


            • #7
              The Swedes have a plan ~ IKEA
              http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/h...ind/ss-AAboz4o

              Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
              Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

              Comment


              • #8
                Warfare is endemic to our species ,part of the human condition from the beginning in all probability.Chimpanzees practice warfare,the common ancestor we both sprang from probably did too.
                Wack tac mac hey.
                Regards.
                Grishnak.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by grishnak View Post
                  Warfare is endemic to our species ,part of the human condition from the beginning in all probability.Chimpanzees practice warfare,the common ancestor we both sprang from probably did too.
                  That warfare is endemic to our species is something it seems most people would like to ignore.

                  The way to see instincts is not to see them as a program as might be cared out by an automated machine but as with physical development as a serious of steps regulated by proximity.

                  Even coding DNA is conserved if not expressed and that expression regulated in development by proximity. It has been shown that by slight alteration in the developmental environment bird embryos will produce teeth a clear indication of conservation. It is also evident in embryonic development that something like re-evolution takes place.

                  The nature of instincts in humans is not well understood but it is evident that predispositions do exist. It is also clear that there is a danger of thinking that cultural evolution is analogous to physical evolution. I do think that the analogy is worth considering however.

                  As a slight change in environment can alter physical development a small predisposition can by means of it's relationship to the environment have a significant regulatory effect on behavior. That behavior can also be very specific giving the illusion of programed steps.

                  It is reasonable to expect that the predisposition of humans to engage in warfare is regulated by small changes in the environment. The fact that the changes may be subtle should not be underestimated. We should also not expect that the predispositions are analogous to a set of step by step instructions.

                  The predisposition for warfare is likely to prove impossible to alter but we can control the environment more or less. If we extend the physical analogy then we can inoculate against warfare by not introducing antibodies which may seem counter intuitive. In the case under discussion it would be ideologies that represent the antibodies that allow us to identify our enemies. It is only by removing the ability of our defensive mechanism to detect other from self that our violent dispositions could be muted. The question is if antibodies can be controlled in an uncontrolled environment.

                  There is little doubt that mutual assured destruction has prevented major wars analogous to the precarious balance of nature. Eventually something will disturb the equilibrium making this a dangerous choice. Removing one of the ideological hosts would be equally effective. History however has shown that a new ideology and a new host to propagate it will simply evolve.

                  Many people are not going to like the idea of making ideologies or ethnic identities indistinguishable. It is evident that warfare has proven effective at eliminating competition within the species so one can hardly blame them for pursuing this option. Others will insist that diversity is the only antidote to evolutionary stagnation. It's always a question of balance between cultural reproductive fidelity and sufficient mutation to maintain diversity. We neither want to be inbreeds nor mutants. Unfortunately most ideologies are expressions of one or the other.

                  Whether we like it or not however cultural and genetic diversity is disappearing as isolation is eliminated. Eventually people may be sufficiently indistinguishable one from the other that warfare may disappear. In the meantime any change in the environment that makes mutual dependency as opposed to exploitation more attractive will mute the predisposition for violence. What we have to do is except dependance on others as the price we pay for security. Our bodies very distinct cells do not destroy each other because they have evolved dependency. We are also going to have to accept some loss of ethnic identity and at the same time less fidelity in ideology.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    That warfare is endemic to our species is something it seems most people would like to ignore.

                    The way to see instincts is not to see them as a program as might be cared out by an automated machine but as with physical development as a serious of steps regulated by proximity.

                    Even coding DNA is conserved if not expressed and that expression regulated in development by proximity. It has been shown that by slight alteration in the developmental environment bird embryos will produce teeth a clear indication of conservation. It is also evident in embryonic development that something like re-evolution takes place.

                    The nature of instincts in humans is not well understood but it is evident that predispositions do exist. It is also clear that there is a danger of thinking that cultural evolution is analogous to physical evolution. I do think that the analogy is worth considering however.

                    As a slight change in environment can alter physical development a small predisposition can by means of it's relationship to the environment have a significant regulatory effect on behavior. That behavior can also be very specific giving the illusion of programed steps.

                    It is reasonable to expect that the predisposition of humans to engage in warfare is regulated by small changes in the environment. The fact that the changes may be subtle should not be underestimated. We should also not expect that the predispositions are analogous to a set of step by step instructions.

                    The predisposition for warfare is likely to prove impossible to alter but we can control the environment more or less. If we extend the physical analogy then we can inoculate against warfare by not introducing antibodies which may seem counter intuitive. In the case under discussion it would be ideologies that represent the antibodies that allow us to identify our enemies. It is only by removing the ability of our defensive mechanism to detect other from self that our violent dispositions could be muted. The question is if antibodies can be controlled in an uncontrolled environment.

                    There is little doubt that mutual assured destruction has prevented major wars analogous to the precarious balance of nature. Eventually something will disturb the equilibrium making this a dangerous choice. Removing one of the ideological hosts would be equally effective. History however has shown that a new ideology and a new host to propagate it will simply evolve.

                    Many people are not going to like the idea of making ideologies or ethnic identities indistinguishable. It is evident that warfare has proven effective at eliminating competition within the species so one can hardly blame them for pursuing this option. Others will insist that diversity is the only antidote to evolutionary stagnation. It's always a question of balance between cultural reproductive fidelity and sufficient mutation to maintain diversity. We neither want to be inbreeds nor mutants. Unfortunately most ideologies are expressions of one or the other.

                    Whether we like it or not however cultural and genetic diversity is disappearing as isolation is eliminated. Eventually people may be sufficiently indistinguishable one from the other that warfare may disappear. In the meantime any change in the environment that makes mutual dependency as opposed to exploitation more attractive will mute the predisposition for violence. What we have to do is except dependance on others as the price we pay for security. Our bodies very distinct cells do not destroy each other because they have evolved dependency. We are also going to have to accept some loss of ethnic identity and at the same time less fidelity in ideology.
                    However it is interesting to consider that of all our near cousins in the ape family only the Chimpanzees share our propensity to kill our own species. Even that close link the pygmy chimp (bonobo) prefers to make love (literally) not war and they share an environment with the Chimpanzee
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      5 Economic Myths That Just Won’t Die

                      http://fee.org/freeman/detail/5-econ...-just-wont-die

                      Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                        What would YOU consider to be causative factors for warfare?
                        Resources(=a source or supply from which benefit is produced), be that land, people, minerals, water etc.

                        More for me less for you, if there's not enough to pass around.
                        You can have as much bias as yo are prepared to pay for.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Karri View Post
                          Resources(=a source or supply from which benefit is produced), be that land, people, minerals, water etc.

                          More for me less for you, if there's not enough to pass around.
                          Falls within the "Economics" portion, IMO. And likely one of the "causatives" of earliest warfare.
                          Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                            IKEA, I believe, was actually founded in Sweden by a Hungarian refugee. I cannot vouch for the truth of this statement, but it sounds plausible.
                            Last edited by Redzen; 05 Aug 15, 03:33. Reason: Correct word usage.
                            在魔鬼和深蓝色的海洋之间. 悪魔と深海の間. Carpe hunc diem.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I recall a recent thread on somewhat related theme, pending my finding it, archiving this here for now;
                              The 10 richest people of all time

                              http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savin...ime/ar-BBlmnLY
                              Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              Bock's First Law of History: The Past shapes the Present, which forms the Future. *

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X