Key Resources Throughout History?

Agent327 · Mar 13, 2013

Masada said:
That doesn't necessarily follow. It might simply have been the case that one region might have had a significant comparative advantage in the production of iron.

It may not necessarily follow, but it does, as there was extensive iron trade from ancient times onwards. (The Hittites gained an early advantage in the ancient arms race, because they controlled iron ore sources.)

At any rate, whether it was abundant or not, it is a resource in use since the development of iron metallurgy. Production of iron and steel is still being used as a measure of industrial production today. So I wouldm't be to quick to dismiss it as a key resource.

Traitorfish · Mar 14, 2013

That was often about the availability of other resources. Britain became a major iron producer in early modern Europe not because it had all that much more iron (although it was better supplied than, e.g. France), but because it also had large supplies of coal for smelting, a decent infrastructure for distribution in the form of the canal system, a lot of spare bodies because of its more efficient agriculture, and last but not least the British knew a thing or two about iron metallurgy. There were plenty of places in Europe which had just as much iron ore, but didn't have these other resources necessary to make so efficient use of it, so it was more cost-effective for them to simply import iron goods.

potatokiosk said:
Humans. No humans, no civilization.

That's pretty much why we call it "political economy", yeah.

Masada · Mar 14, 2013

JEELEN said:
It may not necessarily follow, but it does, as there was extensive iron trade from ancient times onwards. (The Hittites gained an early advantage in the ancient arms race, because they controlled iron ore sources.)

That doesn't prove that a lack of iron ore caused the iron trade to develop.

Agent327 · Mar 16, 2013

That wasn't the point, but actually it does prove so: locations where usable iron ore is scarce will have had a need for either ore or (more likely) finished iron products; the Iron Age was witness to extensive trade in such. (Not that this in itself was anything new; trading is kind of endemic to human activity throughout history, and even prehistory.)

Masada · Mar 16, 2013

Just saying it "proves so" doesn't make it so.

Borachio · Mar 16, 2013

I'm confused. Don't resources which are plentiful in one region tend to diffuse, through trade, into regions where they are less plentiful? And iron is an amazingly useful thing, isn't it?

I can't think of a counter-example.

Masada · Mar 16, 2013

JEELEN has been arguing that the trade in iron ore developed because of shortages in some regions, I've suggest that it could as easily have developed because there was a surplus in the producing region.

Borachio said:
I'm confused. Don't resources which are plentiful in one region tend to diffuse, through trade, into regions where they are less plentiful? And iron is an amazingly useful thing, isn't it?

Sure, but was that shortage because there wasn't iron ore or because it wasn't understood in those regions how to produce it yet? Keep in mind that imported iron artifacts often precede evidence of domestic iron mining. The other important consideration is that iron ore was initially used for elite weapons and decoration because it too expensive for gift giving. Given the audience, supplies of it therefore tended to come in the form of tribute or gifts.

Borachio · Mar 16, 2013

Masada said:
JEELEN has been arguing that the trade in iron ore developed because of shortages in some regions, I've suggest that it could as easily have developed because there was a surplus in the producing region.

Don't the two go hand in hand? If there wasn't a surplus in the producing region (where they needed to consume all of the production themselves) there would be no incentive to trade to a region with a shortage.

Clearly a global absence of a resource (Unobtainium?) wouldn't result in any trade at all.

sophie · Mar 16, 2013

Borachio said:
Don't the two go hand in hand? If there wasn't a surplus in the producing region (where they needed to consume all of the production themselves) there would be no incentive to trade to a region with a shortage.

Not necessarily. The trade revolution in the 19th century, for example, was about shipping everyday, perishable goods - grain and beef - which were not necessarily in shortage in the region being traded with. This was essentially the whole idea behind the Corn Laws.

ParkCungHee · Mar 16, 2013

This also leaves out the extent that the early Iron trade wasn't in [GENERIC IRON OBJECT]. They were high tech works of art, that would have been valued differently for the craftsmanship, which is enough to drive an international trade even when all countries are producing enough, even today.

Agent327 · Mar 16, 2013

Indeed. That seems rather obvious to me. The interesting thing about the iron resource is, that it never went out of fashion. (Until the age of plastics and lighter metals, that is, so not until the postindustrial age.)

Masada said:
Sure, but was that shortage because there wasn't iron ore or because it wasn't understood in those regions how to produce it yet? Keep in mind that imported iron artifacts often precede evidence of domestic iron mining. The other important consideration is that iron ore was initially used for elite weapons and decoration because it too expensive for gift giving. Given the audience, supplies of it therefore tended to come in the form of tribute or gifts.

So, there was iron trade. Glad we got that settled.

And ofcourse, shortage in one region will be met by surplus in another. That's basically what trade is.

Masada · Mar 16, 2013

JEELEN 101: (1) make silly claim, (2) get called out on it, (3) argue the point, (4) appropriate opposition's original position, (5) claim victory!

Agent327 · Mar 17, 2013

Masada' MO: Protest against the obvious, keep at it, give up and try to make the obvious look ridiculous.

I'm guessing you have run out of arguments?

Masada · Mar 17, 2013

innonimatu said:
Iron was found everywhere.

JEELEN said:
Well, not everywhere - otherwise there would have been no need for iron trade, would there?

Shortage, therefore demand, therefore trade. Note: surplus is not mentioned.

Masada said:
That doesn't necessarily follow. It might simply have been the case that one region might have had a significant comparative advantage in the production of iron.

The role of surplus.

JEELEN said:
It may not necessarily follow, but it does, as there was extensive iron trade from ancient times onwards.

"Shortage, therefore demand, therefore trade" might not follow... BUT IT DOES.

Masada said:
That doesn't prove that a lack of iron ore caused the iron trade to develop.

Keh?

JEELEN said:
That wasn't the point, but actually it does prove so: locations where usable iron ore is scarce will have had a need for either ore or (more likely) finished iron products; the Iron Age was witness to extensive trade in such.

It's demand stupid!

Masada said:
Sure, but was that shortage because there wasn't iron ore or because it wasn't understood in those regions how to produce it yet?

It could be surplus, again.

JEELEN said:
So, there was iron trade. Glad we got that settled. And ofcourse, shortage in one region will be met by surplus in another. That's basically what trade is.

JEELEN said:
Masada' MO: Protest against the obvious, keep at it, give up and try to make the obvious look ridiculous.

Let's change the issue at hand and claim that the point I denied was obvious and therefore that I was right!

ParkCungHee · Mar 20, 2013

JEELEN said:
Indeed. That seems rather obvious to me.

If it's obvious, why didn't it occur to you that "there would have been no need for iron trade" if Iron goods were produce everywhere?

Agent327 · Mar 20, 2013

I'm sorry, that both makes no sense and doesn't fit with the evidence of iron trade. (You may not have noticed , but there's still iron trade today.)

Masada said:
Shortage, therefore demand, therefore trade. Note: surplus is not mentioned.

Can't have trade without surplus.

Traitorfish · Mar 20, 2013

You can't have trade without supply. Supply isn't the same as surplus.

Masada · Mar 20, 2013

JEELEN said:
Can't have trade without surplus.

Awesome, that's what I said. Thanks for proving me right! Shame it took you so long to come over to my way of thinking because, you know, you denied on more than one occasion that surplus was important. Claiming now that it was "obvious" ain't going to cut it, especially when you denied it was important in the first place. But you are JEELEN, and little things like this aren't known to bother you.

Angst · Mar 20, 2013

Link to video.

Although seriously, I want Dachs' personal opinion on this. I understand that he questions how a resources is valued to be a 'key' one, but have him choose some quality.

sophie · Mar 20, 2013

Broken link.

Key Resources Throughout History?

Observer

The Tighnahulish Kid

Koi-san!

Observer

Koi-san!

Way past lunacy

Koi-san!

Way past lunacy

Break My Heart

Deity

Observer

Koi-san!

Observer

Koi-san!

Deity

Observer

The Tighnahulish Kid

Koi-san!

Rambling and inconsistent

Break My Heart

Similar threads