The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Howard
Ebay.
Spurious, unrepresentative example.
Reply 41
Howard
What finite resource concerns you so much?
oil.
Reply 42
I hardly feel a .com company is a suitable example.
Reply 43
Bigcnee
I hardly feel a .com company is a suitable example.


Why isn't Ebay an "good" example of creating wealth? Because it doesn't suit your argument?
Reply 44
llama boy
oil.


How finite is oil?
Reply 45
Oil < Infinite.
Reply 46
Everything we have is off the land we live on. We transfer wealth from one to another.

We should share out the Earth's wealth more equally.
Reply 47
Howard
Why isn't Ebay an "good" example of creating wealth? Because it doesn't suit your argument?
OK, put it this way.

There is nothing wrong with economic growth, per se. One person becoming rich does not *always* make someone else poor.

However, you only have to look at degenerating working conditions etc, justified specifically by "economic growth", to see that very often the two are connected.

I'm not making a categorical statement that one man's poverty is always caused by another man's wealth. However, you are making a categorical statement that it never is.

And that's silly.
Reply 48
Howard
How finite is oil?
It is impossible to have degrees of finite. Either it is or it isn't.

It is.
Reply 49
Howard
Why isn't Ebay an "good" example of creating wealth? Because it doesn't suit your argument?

Because such companies are unique in the way that they function.
Reply 50
llama boy
OK, put it this way.

There is nothing wrong with economic growth, per se. One person becoming rich does not *always* make someone else poor.

However, you only have to look at degenerating working conditions etc, justified specifically by "economic growth", to see that very often the two are connected.

I'm not making a categorical statement that one man's poverty is always caused by another man's wealth. However, you are making a categorical statement that it never is.

And that's silly.


This is what I said:

"Actually, one persons poverty is NOT normally caused by another persons wealth"

Do you spot the insertion of the word "normally" in that sentance? Therefore I DID NOT categorically state that one mans poverty is never caused by one mans wealth. Would you like to retract your statement?

Degenerating work conditions? I think not. Working conditions are more heavily legislated today than ever before.
Reply 51
Bigcnee
Because such companies are unique in the way that they function.


No, because it's not an example of asset stripping natural resources that you'd like to bolster your argument.
Reply 52
llama boy
It is impossible to have degrees of finite. Either it is or it isn't.

It is.


Wrong.
Reply 53
Howard
No, because it's not an example of asset stripping natural resources that you'd like to bolster your argument.


Erm... no.

Although you'd like to think so.
Reply 54
Howard
Do you spot the insertion of the word "normally" in that sentence? Therefore I DID NOT categorically state that one mans poverty is never caused by one mans wealth. Would you like to retract your statement?
Yes; fair enough. Howard (the other one), however, did.

My point still stands though, "normally" one does lead to the other, where it doesn't is an exception.
Reply 55
Howard
wrong.


Outrageous.
Reply 56
Howard
Wrong.
How so?
Reply 57
Bigcnee
Erm... no.

Although you'd like to think so.


Well, lets avoid a pissing contest and get back on track. Show me the causal link between wealth creation and poverty.
Reply 58
llama boy
How so?


Well, the truth is that economics plays a huge role in the availability of resources.

You will often hear scientists say "at today's rate of consumption we have enough oil for 50 years"

Now this is true. But, it has no regard for the economics of exploration.

Put it this way. When the market value of oil sits at $35/barrel oil companies do not explore for it. It costs more money to search out new deposits, extract it, and process it than it can be sold for. At first glance then, we have a shortage and oil appears to be very finite.

However, when the price of oil reaches $80/barrel exploration companies rush out in search of more oil, because if they find it they'll obviously stand to cover the costs of exploration and make a nice fat profit when they sell it.

So the truth is, nobody really knows just how finite oil is. We could well be sitting on enough oil for 2000 years. Nobody knows.
Reply 59
Howard
Well, the truth is that economics plays a huge role in the availability of resources.

You will often hear scientists say "at today's rate of consumption we have enough oil for 50 years"

Now this is true. But, it has no regard for the economics of exploration.

Put it this way. When the market value of oil sits at $35/barrel oil companies do not explore for it. It costs more money to search out new deposits, extract it, and process it than it can be sold for. At first glance then, we have a shortage and oil appears to be very finite.

However, when the price of oil reaches $80/barrel exploration companies rush out in search of more oil, because if they find it they'll obviously stand to cover the costs of exploration and make a nice fat profit when they sell it.

So the truth is, nobody really knows just how finite oil is. We could well be sitting on enough oil for 2000 years. Nobody knows.
We could. Indeed, we could never use it up.

But it still would be finite.

Latest

Trending

Trending