[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colonialism didn't help. And many other things didn't help either. But it's been more than half a century. And more than 100 countries haven't done jack poop economically since colonialism ended. Many have even gone backwards since then. So as terrible as colonialism was, you really have to ask why generations of post-colonial leaders haven't at all improved the situation.

I don't read the previous discussion, I'm really sorry. However what can you say regarding the role of rich country by dominating the natural resources of the poor countries? As far as I know take for example Indonesia, non of the crucial natural resources like Oil are run by the government or even local company (by law it is forbidden because all of the natural resources by law is own by government for the benefit of the huge number of peoples)? most of it run by foreign company say: Exxon, Mobil Oil, Total, etc, and the corrupted governor that rules these rich but poor country is pretty much get back up and support by the rich country.

Btw, isn't the rich country getting rich by the poorness of the so call poor country? they can have cheap labour in Philippine, Indonesia and many other 3rd world country. It is really not totally their fault that peoples goes poor, sometime the rich maintain others to be poor hence they are rich.

I'm not an economist, this argument is very general, but I like to learn and discuss about this.
 
I don't read the previous discussion, I'm really sorry. However what can you say regarding the role of rich country by dominating the natural resources of the poor countries? As far as I know take for example Indonesia, non of the crucial natural resources like Oil are run by the government or even local company (by law it is forbidden because all of the natural resources by law is own by government for the benefit of the huge number of peoples)? most of it run by foreign company say: Exxon, Mobil Oil, Total, etc, and the corrupted governor that rules these rich but poor country is pretty much get back up and support by the rich country.

Btw, isn't the rich country getting rich by the poorness of the so call poor country? they can have cheap labour in Philippine, Indonesia and many other 3rd world country. It is really not totally their fault that peoples goes poor, sometime the rich maintain others to be poor hence they are rich.

I'm not an economist, this argument is very general, but I like to learn and discuss about this.



Often times the rich countries will exploit where they can. That doesn't change the fact that the government of the poor countries are themselves the main obstacle to those countries becoming richer. They are unwilling to allow their people to prosper, if it means that they risk losing their power.
 
...Not sure if serious? :huh:
Partially. Why is climate change much worse for Iceland than for instance Norway or Canada? Same for Chile and Argentina.
 
Climate change isn't just a change in temperature. It has all sorts of knock-on effects on climate, weather patterns and ecology.
 
Often times the rich countries will exploit where they can. That doesn't change the fact that the government of the poor countries are themselves the main obstacle to those countries becoming richer. They are unwilling to allow their people to prosper, if it means that they risk losing their power.

Fair statement Cutlass. While the poor country government have apparatus to maintain and protected their power, and they are also get protected by the other super power government, which mostly in many case are the King makers.

The coup that happened in Indonesia was by design, Soekarno refuse to be dictate by foreign power regarding how to handle his economy (taking debt, etc etc) and his country, at that time Indonesia fair to say are free of debt and pretty much standing with their own feet, which Soekarno name it as "BERDIKARI" or "Berdiri Di Kaki Sendiri" or in English "stand with our own feet" (reject any foreign debt offer and dictation)

After Soeharto take over the first thing he did is to invite all of the TNC (Transnational Company) to invented the economy regulation in Indonesia and the natural resources management, and of course take a foreign debt and totally submit with the dictation of foreign power. And now look at Indonesia. A country with a mountain of debt, that is lead by world class corrupted leader. So the poverty in 3rd world country is pretty much there sometime by design, and it pretty much bring benefit to the 1st world country, and the condition is protected by both local and international apparatus. That is my green observation.
 
It might be as simple as looking at the proportion of the land that is within a few km of the coastline.
Not that simple. Chile is a huge coastline but it is all mountains. Iceland is also pretty elevated terrain AFAIK and most coasts are cliffs. It is not an agricultural country either and it does not seem to have a particullarly vulnerable ecosystem since it is mostly a volcanic desert, so i fail to see why global warming would damage it so badly.


mmm... Maybe floods due to icelandic glacials melting?
 
Not that simple. Chile is a huge coastline but it is all mountains. Iceland is also pretty elevated terrain AFAIK and most coasts are cliffs. It is not an agricultural country either and it does not seem to have a particullarly vulnerable ecosystem since it is mostly a volcanic desert, so i fail to see why global warming would damage it so badly.
It might be because increasing ocean acidity will probably kill off their fishing industry in time.
 
Colonialism didn't help. And many other things didn't help either. But it's been more than half a century. And more than 100 countries haven't done jack poop economically since colonialism ended. Many have even gone backwards since then. So as terrible as colonialism was, you really have to ask why generations of post-colonial leaders haven't at all improved the situation.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

There are very few situations where you can look at a post colonial country and say it's not better if not much better than what things used to be like under colonialism. Africa is not Zimbabwe.
 
Not that simple. Chile is a huge coastline but it is all mountains. Iceland is also pretty elevated terrain AFAIK and most coasts are cliffs. It is not an agricultural country either and it does not seem to have a particullarly vulnerable ecosystem since it is mostly a volcanic desert, so i fail to see why global warming would damage it so badly.

Well, you have hurricanes reaching in-land more easily (or, more significantly) and/or affecting the fisheries. But, no, I don't really know. My impression has been that it's agricultural areas or aquifers that are most significantly at risk. Sheer property damage can be expensive, but is rarely a huge number. A million Bangledeshis being displaced will be cheaper than a few hundred Floridians losing their beachfront propery.
 
Not that simple. Chile is a huge coastline but it is all mountains. Iceland is also pretty elevated terrain AFAIK and most coasts are cliffs. It is not an agricultural country either and it does not seem to have a particullarly vulnerable ecosystem since it is mostly a volcanic desert, so i fail to see why global warming would damage it so badly.


mmm... Maybe floods due to icelandic glacials melting?

Without glaciers, Iceland is "just land".
... No :D

well maybe this could help
http://www.straight.com/news/556611/climate-change-iceland-without-ice-just-land

with melting glacials this could happen
Spoiler :
..
The glacier, Solheimajokull, a tongue of ice reaching toward Iceland's southeast coast, has become an apologue of climate change in recent years: retreating an average of one Olympic-pool length every year for the past two decades due to climbing temperatures, warming ocean currents and disrupted seasons.

Crouching under 90-mile-an-hour gusts on a stormy autumn day, visitors to Solheimajokull see a rash of dirt cones poking through grey-streaked snow, while piles of rocks, gravel moraines, and a now empty glacial bed about a half-mile away attest to the former reach of this dying giant.

Iceland, lying just below the Arctic Circle, is one of the fastest-warming places on the planet—as much as four times the Northern Hemisphere average. The 300-some glaciers that cover more than 10 percent of the island are losing an average of 11 billion tons of ice a year.

The annual volume carried away from Iceland's glaciers and not replaced by new snow would fill 50 of the world's largest trucks every minute for the entire year.

'Highest losses on Earth'

"It is among the highest losses on the Earth," pioneering glaciologist Helgi Bjornsson said during an interview in his office at the University of Iceland's Institute of Earth Sciences, overflowing with 40 years of research and books about ice.

Subject of ancient myth, a proud literary tradition and a lucrative tourist draw, Iceland's majestic white mountains—jökull in Icelandic—are crucial to the nation today. Glacial rivers generate hydropower that provides most of the country's electricity. Glacier ice stores water for its 320,000 residents.

Some of the country's glaciers have vanished already and several others will be gone within a decade or two, said Bjornsson, one of the leading scientists to quantify the link between glacial loss and greenhouse gas-induced warming.

A generation from now, there may not be enough water to drive turbines or slake a nation's thirst. Dust storms will swirl over dry glacier beds while huge expanses of exposed earth erode.
Without glaciers, one resident quipped, Iceland is "just land".

Happening now

Effects are already beginning to appear. Bjornsson tells of Iceland's longest bridge, a half-mile span over the Skeidara River, which drains from the massive Vatnajokull ice cap down to the island's south coast.

"A few years ago, the river disappeared, and now this bridge, the longest bridge in Iceland, is just standing there and there's no water underneath it," he said. "So it looks like we are crazy here in Iceland."
 
Maybe Greenland will live up to it's name and be green again. Obviously that would be bad because of climate change.

Or maybe Australia will be plagued by droughts and flooding.

Oh, wait.
 
No. In many cases the developed nations are not helping. But you need only look to South Korea to see what's possible.

What's possible with generous foreign aid, a serendipitous political arrangement & timing of their export-led growth strategy, and being located next to Japan while also being a vital military ally to the greatest industrial power on Earth you mean?

Saying "copy SK" is not a development strategy, even if you can grab a few ideas here and there imo

GRAPH AND/OR CHART (sortve)

Spoiler :
LN0Zw5o.jpg
 
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

There are very few situations where you can look at a post colonial country and say it's not better if not much better than what things used to be like under colonialism. Africa is not Zimbabwe.


There is certainly a mixed bag. But how many of those post-colonial countries are today developed, or even mostly so? There have been advances in many of them. There have been very limited advances in many others. And in others still, little to nothing.




Fair statement Cutlass. While the poor country government have apparatus to maintain and protected their power, and they are also get protected by the other super power government, which mostly in many case are the King makers.

The coup that happened in Indonesia was by design, Soekarno refuse to be dictate by foreign power regarding how to handle his economy (taking debt, etc etc) and his country, at that time Indonesia fair to say are free of debt and pretty much standing with their own feet, which Soekarno name it as "BERDIKARI" or "Berdiri Di Kaki Sendiri" or in English "stand with our own feet" (reject any foreign debt offer and dictation)

After Soeharto take over the first thing he did is to invite all of the TNC (Transnational Company) to invented the economy regulation in Indonesia and the natural resources management, and of course take a foreign debt and totally submit with the dictation of foreign power. And now look at Indonesia. A country with a mountain of debt, that is lead by world class corrupted leader. So the poverty in 3rd world country is pretty much there sometime by design, and it pretty much bring benefit to the 1st world country, and the condition is protected by both local and international apparatus. That is my green observation.



You'll have to engage Masada if you want to discuss Indonesia in depth on the issue. I can't claim to know a lot about that country.

That said, the general trend has been, often, local leaders either locking out the international players, and taking that role for themselves. Or cutting deals with the international players, and pocketing a hefty fee for doing so.

I don't really believe that any country is incapable of development. But I do think many countries have more obstacles to overcome than other countries. The predatory nature of multinational corporations is certainly an obstacle that many nations have to overcome. As is a neoimperialist foreign policy on the part of developed nations. But I don't think that those are problems that cannot be overcome.

But those problems are secondary to local problems. Particularly local leaders who seek to maximize their own wealth and power through stripping it away from the bulk of their own populations.
 
US home pricing:

screen%20shot%202014-05-06%20at%2011.59.47%20am.png


screen%20shot%202014-05-06%20at%2011.36.22%20am.png


http://www.businessinsider.com/zillow-and-case-shiller-2014-5

article title: "Home Price Growth In America Is Quickly Becoming Microscopic"

so this shows the annualized monthly figure..? that'd be a pretty big deal, although some ups and downs in the monthly growth rate are always to be expected.

non-annualized 0.8-0.9% would still be equivalent to well over 10% annualized... not sure why that would be a reason for such hysterics. then again, this is businessinsider.

the graph looks like it's non-annualized... I'm guessing the kid writing this was confused.

ps. post is also a month old
 
Partially. Why is climate change much worse for Iceland than for instance Norway or Canada? Same for Chile and Argentina.
Chile is a tiny shelf perched on the Andes, Argentina has much more of a capacity to withdraw westwards if needed.
How many displaced Bangledeshis is a green Greenland worth?
They're Moslems.
 
May as well post these here (from the "Employment Obligation?" thread):

Employment-and-real-wage-growth-in-the-service-and-manufacturing-industries.jpg

(courtesy of aelf)

The following two are indexed back to 2000's total labour force, to discount the effect of a changing population/labour force. It therefore shows "real" change in employment, so the kind of change that results from fundamental/structural shifts in the employment landscape (e.g. recessions, efficiency, productivity, etc), rather than changes that result from scale (e.g. growing population).

GsVEzsc.png


8DFL5mT.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom