Birmania
- Thread starter sunybay
- Start date
One out of many points
So the USA and the UK didnt suddenly up production of armanents too? This isnt about the "strengths" of a command economy at all.
A bit like Saudi Arabia. Oh and whilst we are at it...Russia
To intimate that by far the worlds largest and most successful economy (at all levels) was imply generated by natural rescources is way too simplistic. Sure it was a motor but the culture and enterprise is by far the biggest factor at play here. The USA very quickly moved from being an econmy based on basic resources. Saudi hasnt moved an inch from that plate and teh Soveit union, having catastrphically failed with its supposed industry, is now falling back on this (although the future may be brighter in time)
I like this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/11/usa
You're first point badly misses what i was saying Clive.
It was one thing to "up-production". That is quite easy to do from a fixed base that isn't under immediate threat of being over-run by a hostile enemy (something that was common to the USA, and to a lesser extent Britain). It is quite another to literally move that productive capacity (lock stock and barrell) thousands of miles East, reassemble it, (complete with workforce) and have it operating again, and at full capacity within a matters of months, to no only prevent the productive capacity falling into enemy hands, but for it to continue to drive your own armaments industries, and ultimately prevail on the field. That was the strength of the achievement. Could Britain have done the same? I very much doubt it, and they would have had a geographically smaller area to re-locate across.
We would have had doubtless 'task forces' 'steering groups' 'enquiries' feasibility studies' 'all party select committees and various bureaucratic instrument of state blockign the process', not mention having to feed a media desperate to muddy the waters. That is the strenght of a command economy at a time of crisis. The command is given, and enforced. The enquiry comes afterwards. In the end it saved the Soviet Union, and went a long way to ensuring the outcome of the war.
I think your second point might fall just short on timescale concerning when the significance of oil was first recognised (1890's - 1900's) and when the full extent of the reserves were first discovered in the countries you mention? Russia was essentially an agrian country in the 1890's and had little if any capacity. That only became under Stalin's accelerated industrialisation. I wouldn't like to vouch for Saudia Arabia (quite apart from the fact it didn't exist until the early '30's) but I'm struggling to believe they even knew what they were sitting on (nor did anyone) yet alone the vast scale and potential of their hitherto undiscovered oil fields were. Although oil had been discovere din the Gulf region at various places (Bahrain) It was only in the late 30's that the first Saudi fields of any significance were discovered. That gave America something like a 50 year head start. The Gulf states have similarly launched onto an improt driven industrisation ever since. In essence you're invoking in your defence the rack record of a country that didn't exist in the timeframe we're talking about, and the extraction of a natural resource that hadn't been discovered, as evidence of their failure. Context is important I think
Oh come on now....
In a time of crisis, i doubt if there would have been too much waffling around. Too many assumptions there.
And you havent mentioned the US. I wouldnt doubt for one minute that if had been deemed necessary in a time of crisis to relocate an industry from Pennsylvaia to Oregon say, they woudl have done so. Especially given the strong patriotism and can do attitude within the US...
Why does the timescale matter? In fact, surely discovering an established rescource is surely preferable?
The point is that regardless of when the resources were discovered, only the USA sucessfully developed an economy on the back of the bonanza
And the fact taht the US economy has diversified and strengthened so sucessfully long after oil was a significant factor indicates to me that the natural resource was ultimately only a small part of the equation
Im rushing through this a bit (work...) so apologies if a bit sketchy on some points
If you honestly think the UK could respond with the same command alacrity and effect such change in such a short time period, then you've got a lot more faith in our ability than I. Thank God we've never had to put it to the test. Our transport infrastructure can't even cope as things are now. It took us just as long to evacuate children from London over considerably shorter distances, than it did the Soviets to dismatle, move, rebuild, and have back in production (complete with workforce) something like 90% of their operational major war industries.
The timescales regarding this Saudi/ USA thing are of course critical. I don't see how you can compare one country's performance, with regards to their ability to exploit a natural resource in the name of economic development, with that of another, when the other country didn't even exist, and their oil reserves hadn't been discovered. shrug::
Discovering the resource in the first place, is of course essential, but that makes us and Norway even more backward than Iraq or Saudi in that case.
That the Americans discovered reserves at just about the most opportune time they could have, (when petroleum started to replace coal as the preferred method of propulsion) was good fortune (but still needed capitalising upon). It's not as if the Saudi's wasted too much time once they had got establsihed as a nation and their oil reserves were brought on tap. In many respects that might even have eclipsed America in terms of wealth per head of capita, and the speed with which they were able to achieve it under.
The timescales regarding this Saudi/ USA thing are of course critical. I don't see how you can compare one country's performance, with regards to their ability to exploit a natural resource in the name of economic development, with that of another, when the other country didn't even exist, and their oil reserves hadn't been discovered. shrug::
Discovering the resource in the first place, is of course essential, but that makes us and Norway even more backward than Iraq or Saudi in that case.
That the Americans discovered reserves at just about the most opportune time they could have, (when petroleum started to replace coal as the preferred method of propulsion) was good fortune (but still needed capitalising upon). It's not as if the Saudi's wasted too much time once they had got establsihed as a nation and their oil reserves were brought on tap. In many respects that might even have eclipsed America in terms of wealth per head of capita, and the speed with which they were able to achieve it under.
No no no
You made the case that the USA had the fortune to exploit oil resources. My point is that Saudi, Nigeria and Venezuela have also had exceptional resources ..and blown them
In terms of direct benefit to the economy, what difference is a major oil find now or then? (allowing for fluctuations in price)
Might well be that the US oil boom was not as signifuicant to their overall wealth as the above countries...
And Saudi has pretty well blown its fortune..in such a way..that you couldnt make it up.
Nigeria is a corrupt basket case that no one in their right mind would trade with and Venezuela is run my a nut whos experiments in command economics have emptied the shelves of supermarkets in a supposedly booming economy
Lets be even more provocative and wonder how Israel would have handled Saudis resources?
You made the case that the USA had the fortune to exploit oil resources. My point is that Saudi, Nigeria and Venezuela have also had exceptional resources ..and blown them
In terms of direct benefit to the economy, what difference is a major oil find now or then? (allowing for fluctuations in price)
Might well be that the US oil boom was not as signifuicant to their overall wealth as the above countries...
And Saudi has pretty well blown its fortune..in such a way..that you couldnt make it up.
Nigeria is a corrupt basket case that no one in their right mind would trade with and Venezuela is run my a nut whos experiments in command economics have emptied the shelves of supermarkets in a supposedly booming economy
Lets be even more provocative and wonder how Israel would have handled Saudis resources?
Clive, give me a wee bit o time please 
I will happily respond to you, as you well know (one day I'd like to meet you) but I'm bogged down in case law at the moment. You'll be amazed to learn that us Trade unionists who are prepared to represent (and don't get paid for it) are still working at these hours??? to give our members the best representation we can offer (its purely volunteer only) But then I've never ever, lost a case, and I don't intend starting now
Dispute Resolution Reg's 2004 as of the 2002 Employment Act if any one is interested
I will happily respond to you, as you well know (one day I'd like to meet you) but I'm bogged down in case law at the moment. You'll be amazed to learn that us Trade unionists who are prepared to represent (and don't get paid for it) are still working at these hours??? to give our members the best representation we can offer (its purely volunteer only) But then I've never ever, lost a case, and I don't intend starting now Dispute Resolution Reg's 2004 as of the 2002 Employment Act if any one is interested
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Clivex how long have you been arguing with Warbler?Originally posted by clivex@May 15 2008, 08:40 AM
I only wanted a yes or no
You must know by now he doesn't do 'yes or no'!
The regime is Burma is pure evil. Reports indicate they have shipped out 3/4 of the surviving 80,000 approx of the population - ie c60,000 people, the fittest naturally - from the worst hit parts of the Mekong Delta to use as forced labour
There are also stories coming out of China that Party Officials' relatives and connections were got out first where possible and dangerous buildings then abandoned, leaving lesser mortals to their fate. There's clearly been huge local efficiency and will to help, as well as the army effort in China, and that's made a big difference. Sadly in Burma no-one is permitted to use any in initiative whatever, even if they had the means. What a massive tragedy in Asia, and we shall never know the scale of it
It's notable that the public buildings in China have mostly suffered catastrophic collapse - schools and hospitals in the main. 90% of this generation of children in Szechuan has just vanished. Questions are being asked regarding why these buildings in particular weren't built to withstand the frequent earthquakes.
It's true btw that the poorer parts of New Orleans away from the tourist bits have just been abandoned, and no effort's been made to rebuild for the original population - which was mainly black of course. Most of these people have3 just drifted away - having lost everything as they are just the type who tend not ot have insurance
I have a friend living there, a Brit married to an American, who has some searing tales to tell. He still loves the city but what's happened has made him very cynical. He was sacked from his job as manager of a nursing home - where he saved the life of most of the inhabitants during the emergency, not to mention securing the infrastructure at great risk to himself - for writing an article in the local press which was critical of the authorities
It's a true story - he's on my Facebook page btw. He bought a boat after that <g> and spends a lot of time at sea!
Anyway - back to Asia:
There are some fascinating insights on the following blog, which is written by a Brit who lives with a Chinese girl, teaching and also running a pub in the area close to the epicentre of the earthquake. He keeps finding some means of updating the blog - amazing stuff:
WiseRalph's China blog
He can't praise the authorities or the local Chinese too highly. Apparently in all the horror and chaos there were two - two! - looters, who were paraded int he street and humiliated
Anyway - back to Asia:
There are some fascinating insights on the following blog, which is written by a Brit who lives with a Chinese girl, teaching and also running a pub in the area close to the epicentre of the earthquake. He keeps finding some means of updating the blog - amazing stuff:
WiseRalph's China blog
He can't praise the authorities or the local Chinese too highly. Apparently in all the horror and chaos there were two - two! - looters, who were paraded int he street and humiliated
PS There's another blog in the same network by a guy who seems to write perfect English - not sure if he is English and just using a Chinese name or if he's Chinese LOL. He has a British wife. It's relayed by another person but also comes form v close to the epicentre
Lao Wai's blog
Lao Wai's blog
Make that IRRAWADDY........ :laughing: :laughing: I'm hoping my brain synapses will resume something akin to normal function after they've removed the [physical] rubbish from inside my head... Meanwhile I spent all this week thinking I was going under the surgeon's knife on Friday next - only to realise today while checking on next weekend's race meetings, that it's not til the *following* Friday DUH!!
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 588
hallo
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 588
warbler you are not comparing like for like here unlike Russia Britain does not have a large supply of slave labour to move said factories or even to get rid of foot and mouth disease
personally i blame the unions for this oversight
I wouldn't be so certain that there isn't a more like-for-like element than you realise. Those who stood up against the Nazis at this period tended to be the committed die hards, and much of their sacrifice is well documented in the various sieges of Leningrad and Moscow. At this point the Soviets wouldn't have been using captured labour (they hadn't captured any). Those who were in labour camps were along way away from the centre of the action, and in any case, they couldn't necessarily be relied on. There was no shortage of regions, and people therefore by proxy who were officially bracketed as 'doubtful' in terms of their loyalty, and there was no shortage of Ukranians, and to a lesser extent Georgians who openly welcomed the Nazis as the swept through, and saw them as liberators. The failure of the advancing German armies to engage in a hearts and minds offensive was a mistake which would come to haunt their retreating armies as the tide turned, hence the number of attrocities committed on both sides. The task that the red army planners was faced with in relocating its war industries in the time-scales involved was already a logistical nightmare, and to try and do this with workers who weren't committed would have gone along way towards ensuring its failure, as anyone seeking to disappear in the fog of confusion would have sttod a good chance of being able to effect such a move.
The comparison with the UK isn't as disingenious as it sounds either. The Soviet Union might have had a bigger population, it was also a substantially bigger country, meaning that factories were being transported longer distances, across differing terrain, and in a much more hostile environment. The transport infrastructure wasn't as well established, and the lines of communication not only for retreat, but also necessary to bring supplies to the front were under attack. Indeed, the UK actually had a higher population density, meaning that we'd have been required to move roughly the same over a shorter distance, without having to worry about a Russian winter. In terms of scale and context therefore, you could argue that the UK would have had the easier task. I still doubt we'd have been able to achieve it in anything like the time. There is of course a point where a critical mass of numbers works, but even this isn't always as straight forward as it sounds, as the displaced people needed feeding and housing which obviously stretches resources.
The comparison with the UK isn't as disingenious as it sounds either. The Soviet Union might have had a bigger population, it was also a substantially bigger country, meaning that factories were being transported longer distances, across differing terrain, and in a much more hostile environment. The transport infrastructure wasn't as well established, and the lines of communication not only for retreat, but also necessary to bring supplies to the front were under attack. Indeed, the UK actually had a higher population density, meaning that we'd have been required to move roughly the same over a shorter distance, without having to worry about a Russian winter. In terms of scale and context therefore, you could argue that the UK would have had the easier task. I still doubt we'd have been able to achieve it in anything like the time. There is of course a point where a critical mass of numbers works, but even this isn't always as straight forward as it sounds, as the displaced people needed feeding and housing which obviously stretches resources.
prince regent
Conditional
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 588
nonsence im afraid from the egyptians use of slave labour to build the pyramids through the history of time many states have used slave labour and achieved their aims regardless of the loyalty or lack of loyalty of their slaves
Germany through the war produced not only V2 rockets but were the largest producers of pneumatic lorry tyres and synthetic oils all with the use of slave/prison labour the loyalty to the state by the workers didnt enter the equation as much as the starvation and beatings they endured