Key Resources Throughout History?

[Angst]

Ok. It was a joke in regards to Radcliffe from Pocahontas. Gold and all.

 

[Agent327]

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

And, equally obvious, demand (meaning shortage).

@Masada: I haven't changed positions, my friend. Iron trade means both surplus and shortage. If there were (usable) iron everywhere, there would be no need for trade. Since there has been iron trade pretty much since the invention of iron metallurgy (also necessary, ofcourse), I have no idea why one would argue against there being iron trade.

 

[Masada]

And, equally obvious, demand (meaning shortage).

It was so obvious, you denied it mattered!

I haven't changed positions, my friend.

Riiiight.

I have no idea why one would argue against there being iron trade.

Strawman.

 

[Agent327]

I see you still have yet to make a point with your repeated postings. (Your quote actually confirms I haven't changed any positions, whereas your objection to there being iron trade defies both logic, economy and fact.)

Now if you do actually have a point - besides posting for the sake of posting - I would be most interested to know what it is.

 

[Masada]

The question is whether you're just stupid or a troll, not whether or not you've changed positions.

(Your quote actually confirms I haven't changed any positions, whereas your objection to there being iron trade defies both logic, economy and fact.)

Please link to that quote.

 

[Agent327]

Please link to that quote.

There's nothing in that link suggesting any change of positions. Nore is there any hint of a position on your side, except what you just suggested (and I suspected), to wit that you are merely posting for the sake of posting without having any actual argument.

 

[Masada]

So you've changed position again from: "Masada said there was no iron ore trade" to "You're just being difficult".

 

[Agent327]

I see you still have no point other than trying - and failing to - being insultive. How is pointing out you have no actual argument tantamount to 'changing positions'?

 

[Masada]

whereas your objection to there being iron trade defies both logic, economy and fact

Where'd I say this again? Hint: I never have.

 

[Agent327]

Inonatu claimed there was iron everywhere, ruling out the necessity for trade. Since there was (and is) trade, (usable) iron was (and is) obviously not everywhere.

You claimed that doesn't necessarily follow. Theoretically correct maybe, but practically nonsensical.

There was (and is) iron trade. The mere existence of trade proves surplus/shortage (supply/demand) and eliminates your theoretical objection.

So, are you still going on about iron trade 'not necessarily' following or is there another point? (Hint: Because if there is, I don't see it, so I'd appreciate some help.)

 

[Old Hippy]

(Hint: Because if there is, I don't see it, so I'd appreciate some help.)

hint, it could be the comparative economic advantage that led to trade, not supply and demand
like we have too many oranges here that we dump them but still, import orange juice(and marmalade)

 

[Masada]

This is where JEELEN get's creative folks!

You claimed that doesn't necessarily follow.

No, what I said is that trade can develop because of factors other than shortage e.g. competitive advantage.

Theoretically correct maybe, but practically nonsensical.

What do base this claim on? Because it's dumb as hell.

Furthermore, how the hell does this reconcile with this?

whereas your objection to there being iron trade defies both logic, economy and fact

So is it, or is it not, theoretically sound?

As an aside, I'm curious as to how economics disagrees with me.

There was (and is) iron trade. The mere existence of trade proves surplus/shortage (supply/demand) and eliminates your theoretical objection.

Do you even understand what my theoretical objection is? How about you explain to us all what it was?

hint, it could be the comparative economic advantage that led to trade, not supply and demand
like we have too many oranges here that we dump them but still, import orange juice(and marmalade)

Awwww, don't help him.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It was so obvious, you denied it mattered!

Riiiight.

Strawman.

I see you still have yet to make a point with your repeated postings. (Your quote actually confirms I haven't changed any positions, whereas your objection to there being iron trade defies both logic, economy and fact.)

Now if you do actually have a point - besides posting for the sake of posting - I would be most interested to know what it is.

The question is whether you're just stupid or a troll, not whether or not you've changed positions.

Please link to that quote.

There's nothing in that link suggesting any change of positions. Nore is there any hint of a position on your side, except what you just suggested (and I suspected), to wit that you are merely posting for the sake of posting without having any actual argument.

So you've changed position again from: "Masada said there was no iron ore trade" to "You're just being difficult".

I see you still have no point other than trying - and failing to - being insultive. How is pointing out you have no actual argument tantamount to 'changing positions'?

Where'd I say this again? Hint: I never have.

This is where JEELEN get's creative folks!

No, what I said is that trade can develop because of factors other than shortage e.g. competitive advantage.


What do base this claim on? Because it's dumb as hell.

Furthermore, how the hell does this reconcile with this?

So is it, or is it not, theoretically sound?

As an aside, I'm curious as to how economics disagrees with me.

Do you even understand what my theoretical objection is? How about you explain to us all what it was?

Awwww, don't help him.

Moderator Action: This is not the type of discussion we want in the Chamber. Please stop.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[innonimatu]

Inonatu claimed there was iron everywhere, ruling out the necessity for trade. Since there was (and is) trade, (usable) iron was (and is) obviously not everywhere.

You claimed that doesn't necessarily follow. Theoretically correct maybe, but practically nonsensical.

There was (and is) iron trade. The mere existence of trade proves surplus/shortage (supply/demand) and eliminates your theoretical objection.

I should try to clear this out. I claimed that there was iron as in iron ore, a resource. There may well be trade in worked iron. Certainly there must have been. That is, as Masada and others pointed out, due to different local economics or technology, not due to a lack of the base resource.

 

[timtofly]

I should try to clear this out. I claimed that there was iron as in iron ore, a resource. There may well be trade in worked iron. Certainly there must have been. That is, as Masada and others pointed out, due to different local economics or technology, not due to a lack of the base resource.

Would that not be like the USA trading oil from the middle east, while not drilling for it on their own soil?

 

[ParkCungHee]

And, equally obvious, demand (meaning shortage).

So completely backing out now on what you claimed was obvious just a few posts ago, that Iron trade could be perfectly viable without any shortages whatsoever, because that's the way the early Atlantic Iron Trade looked.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, I'm really not getting this conflation of "supply" with "surplus" and "demand" with "shortage". Surplus and shortage may certainly be causes for supply and demand, but they're not the only causes. For example, nobody would ever say that Europe has a surplus of beer, or that the United States has a shortage, but none the less there exists a trade in beer from one to the other.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I mean, if we take this shortage as a neccessity for trade business seriously, we have to conclude that the neolithic period was marked by a severe shortage of rocks in vast swaths of northern Europe.

 

[Agent327]

So completely backing out now on what you claimed was obvious just a few posts ago, that Iron trade could be perfectly viable without any shortages whatsoever, because that's the way the early Atlantic Iron Trade looked.

By all means, let's take things out of context... We were discussing early iron trade.

hint, it could be the comparative economic advantage that led to trade, not supply and demand
like we have too many oranges here that we dump them but still, import orange juice(and marmalade)

I'm sure apples and oranges can be considered strategic resources in some alternate universe. Otherwise I don't quite see how this relates to the establishment of iron trade.

I should try to clear this out. I claimed that there was iron as in iron ore, a resource. There may well be trade in worked iron. Certainly there must have been. That is, as Masada and others pointed out, due to different local economics or technology, not due to a lack of the base resource.

Obviously.

Yeah, I'm really not getting this conflation of "supply" with "surplus" and "demand" with "shortage". Surplus and shortage may certainly be causes for supply and demand, but they're not the only causes. For example, nobody would ever say that Europe has a surplus of beer, or that the United States has a shortage, but none the less there exists a trade in beer from one to the other.

I'm not sure who is "conflating" supply with surplus or demand with shortage. But, taking your point seriously, if we add the word relative that should solve the objection (relative shortage to relative surplus).

 

[dutchfire]

What is relative shortage? Can someone be relatively hungry?