Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: World's Most Important Commodity....?

  1. #1

    Default World's Most Important Commodity....?

    RAINWATER: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ty-shlaes.html


    Why is Libya exploding? Why are Iraq and Egypt always, even after many millennia, undemocratic? Why was there scarcely any looting or rioting in Japan even after the triple calamity of tsunami, earthquake and nuclear accident?

    Blame the rain. Or rather, the lack of it. Egypt and Libya boil over because precipitation levels there are among the lowest in the world. Japan has received enough rain over the centuries to learn how to govern itself.

    The idea that rainfall amounts might start wars or foster democracy is consistent with new research by Stephen Haber, a professor at Stanford University, and Victor Menaldo, a professor at the University of Washington. In their paper, Haber and Menaldo sort nations into three categories: those that are persistently authoritarian (Egypt) or democratic (the U.K.) and ones that cycle between the two. Next, the authors ranked nations by annual precipitation. The authors are talking about rainfall, not water from, say, a river.

    Haber and Menaldo found that countries where rainfall averages between 50 and 100 centimeters (39.4 inches) a year are more likely to be democratic. In places with less than 50 centimeters annually, dictatorship predominates.

    What does rain do that rivers don’t? For one thing, politicians can’t control the rain. Their efforts to turn the skies on and off like a faucet -- using cloud seeding or other measures -- were humiliating failures.

    Middle-Class Values

    In short, rain meant independence. Countries in the rainy midrange are ones whose inhabitants could grow and store grains, legumes and other crops. This meant farmers in temperate regions experienced less starvation than those in other places. They could accumulate enough to invest in more property or education.

    Farmers working in Japan after World War II, in New England during the 18th century or in the Netherlands several centuries ago all fostered what we today consider middle-class values. Long after they abandoned agriculture and moved to the city, the farm-borne respect for the rule of law and property rights sustains a society stable.

    Of course, crops thrive in high rainfall areas. The sugar of the moist Caribbean is one example. However, what’s grown in tropical climates often can’t be stored long. This was especially true in the days before refrigeration.

    Ruling a Swamp

    Big institutional farmers -- whether colonial governments or wealthy foreign companies -- were the only ones with the resources to make cultivation in such places profitable. Individuals in these regions tended to be laborers, not owners. No middle class arose, and citizens, with less to lose, were more willing to back regime change. That’s why swampy, high- precipitation territories (like the Philippines) tend to change direction -- heading now toward democracy, then toward dictatorship -- like lightning in a rainstorm.

    Can irrigation create democracy where rainfall is infrequent? No, because the ruler’s hand is always ready to divert the river or close the dam. All the wealth a farmer has built up is in jeopardy if his water supply can be cut off.

    There is one example of a heavily irrigated democracy: Israel. However, the authors argue, the immigrants who settled Israel -- whether Germans, Poles or Russians -- came from agricultural countries, and therefore had amassed the human capital necessary for democracy. In other words, Israel’s democracy was created before Israel itself.

    Controlling the Flow

    Here’s a current example of the Haber-Menaldo theory: Ethiopia wants to dam the Nile, diverting water from Egypt and Sudan to the benefit of Ethiopia, Kenya or Uganda, which may provoke yet another round of conflict in Africa.

    You can see this idea at work even in movies: the parched town of Dirt in the animated film “Rango” is held hostage by a corrupt mayor who diverts the precious gallons to Las Vegas, driving Dirt’s townsfolk to pick up their pitchforks.

    In the Biblical story, Joseph stored grain and created wealth for the pharaoh, but that helped neither Jews nor non- royal Egyptians in the long run because “there came a new king, which knew not Joseph,” and didn’t build on Joseph’s contribution.

    Haber says studying the relationship between rainfall and regimes is useful because it reminds us of our (military) limits: “Societies are an outcome of nature’s constraints,” Haber wrote in an e-mail to me. “Iraq is highly unlikely to ever look like Ohio, no matter how much money we pour into it.”

    Another valuable takeaway: It is more important for a farmer to own a farm than to get subsidies for it.

    This paper should spur doubt among those who emphasize radical Islam at the expense of other forces at work in the Mideast. “Egypt was a dictatorship long before Islam even existed,” Haber said. “Overall, rain is a better predictor of stable democracy than the percentage of Muslims in a country.”

    Surprised this didn't mention China and Three Gorges Dam.

  2. #2
    So how does he explain most of the world circa anywhere from 0 AD through the 1800's?
    . . .

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    So how does he explain most of the world circa anywhere from 0 AD through the 1800's?
    'He' being Haber and Menaldo? No idea, I've not read their paper. (The author of this article is a woman.) My guess is they'd tie 0-1800 C.A. to agrarian societies. Maybe even showing that rainfall helped serfs demand land independence from titled nobility, while desert societies were reliant on pharaohs or kings manipulating rivers/dams/irrigation?



    edit

    It's also interesting from the US Dust Bowl era (Grapes of Wrath and all that) when water rights were supreme to other resources, even oil. All the southwestern "desert" states with little rainfall needed a government to choose national interests over state interests. Hoover Dam, man-made irrigation veins from mountain rain and snow to.....making fertile farmland in arid and barren areas, turning sand into fields of grass or grain, hydrating food animals, building golf courses growing grass with sprinkler systems, and sprawling neighborhoods with access to drinking water.
    Last edited by GGT; 04-05-2011 at 08:46 PM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    'He' being Haber and Menaldo? No idea, I've not read their paper. (The author of this article is a woman.) My guess is they'd tie 0-1800 C.A. to agrarian societies. Maybe even showing that rainfall helped serfs demand land independence from titled nobility, while desert societies were reliant on pharaohs or kings manipulating rivers/dams/irrigation?
    I'm mocking the idea because its stupidly simplistic, yet made out to be grander than it is. It was a rhetorical question.
    . . .

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    I'm mocking the idea because its stupidly simplistic, yet made out to be grander than it is. It was a rhetorical question.
    Oh, oops, sorry I didn't catch your sarcasm.

    She didn't write a comprehensive article, and I didn't read the paper.....but the concept kinda grabbed me. Especially when looking at the US and how arid deserts are now green turf golf courses (with Central A/C) attracting retirees. Hell, just look at Florida that turned swampland into Disney, and irrigation that made it the Citrus State.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    So how does he explain most of the world circa anywhere from 0 AD through the 1800's?
    The 'wet' nations were for their era "middle class"

  7. #7
    Correlation != causation.

    I'd bet the same correlation works for average sunlight, or temperature, or any number of other factors.

  8. #8
    This is a great example of spurious findings. Rain is correlated with at least some factors that might genuinely be responsible for democracy.

    I should also note that this paper was written by 2007, but hasn't yet been published. That should tell you something.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    The 'wet' nations were for their era "middle class"
    They weren't in the least democratic though.

    I'd also debate the middle class comment further, but it still stands that the hypothesis the article is raising is blatantly wrong, overly simple, and not as grand as its made out to be.
    . . .

  10. #10
    The hypothesis is that rain creates self-reliance, self-reliance creates middle-class values, self-reliant middle-class values has led to more democracy. Not that rain instantly leads to democracy.

  11. #11
    The thing that gets me is that it doesn't even make that much sense. I think it's pretty clear that industrialization is the big driver of explosive growth in the middle class, which actually divorces workers entirely from agricultural roots and is probably largely independent of rainfall.

  12. #12
    Well. I suppose we might get somewhere if we assume that democracy has a better shot in nations where the populace has an easy time of getting food and making money ie. where the means of leading awesome lives aren't scarce and easily controlled. I mean, if something is easy to control some punk will inevitably try to control it, esp. if it means a small number of aggressive people would get a good shot of leading significantly better lives than the... you know... the proletariat.


    But this rainfall thing seems like a reach
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Well. I suppose we might get somewhere if we assume that democracy has a better shot in nations where the populace has an easy time of getting food and making money ie. where the means of leading awesome lives aren't scarce and easily controlled. I mean, if something is easy to control some punk will inevitably try to control it, esp. if it means a small number of aggressive people would get a good shot of leading significantly better lives than the... you know... the proletariat.
    That's actually not true. The places that had the easiest time getting food are also the places that were slow to develop civilization, because A) you can keep your family/clan well-fed without forming a city, and B) there's a sufficient amount of good land around you that you have no incentive to settle down (especially if attacked by someone). The places that have developed first were the ones getting food was difficult, but not so difficult that it couldn't be accomplished with some effort and coordination.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    That's actually not true. The places that had the easiest time getting food are also the places that were slow to develop civilization, because A) you can keep your family/clan well-fed without forming a city, and B) there's a sufficient amount of good land around you that you have no incentive to settle down (especially if attacked by someone). The places that have developed first were the ones getting food was difficult, but not so difficult that it couldn't be accomplished with some effort and coordination.
    I know, I was just vaguely mumbling about democracy I assumed those city-hating farmers weren't particularly good at (or interested in) tyranny.

    With that said, it's perhaps not too much of a stretch to say that things worked out well in those regions or those situations where things were all right but fairly friendly cooperation clearly made things better. Compared to those unforgiving places where things sucked and authoritarian rule combined with aggression towards ones neighbours was the key to survival, which still sucked. I realise I'm being frustrating in my lack of formality
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I should also note that this paper was written by 2007, but hasn't yet been published. That should tell you something.
    This is General Chat, professor.

    Dust Bowl states see farms dry up, fires rage
    Drought expected to worsen; grass so dry 'it's like gasoline' for wildfires

    COYLE, Okla. — In most years, the dark clouds over western Oklahoma in the spring would be bringing rain. This year, they're more likely to be smoke from wildfires that have burned thousands of acres in the past month as the state and its farmers struggle with a severe drought.
    Oklahoma was drier in the four months following Thanksgiving than it has been in any similar period since 1921. That's saying a lot in the state known for the 1930s Dust Bowl, when drought, destructive farming practices and high winds generated severe dust storms that stripped the land of its topsoil.
    Neighboring states are in similar shape as the drought stretches from the Louisiana Gulf coast to Colorado, and conditions are getting worse, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. The area in Texas covered by an extreme drought has tripled in the past month to 40 percent, and in Oklahoma it nearly doubled in one week to 16 percent, according to the monitor's March 29 update.
    "Many drought indicators in east-central Texas have reached the Exceptional Drought (D4) level, and if rain does not materialize soon, intensification of the current drought is likely," the update stated. "The remaining drought regions in northern and central Texas continued to depict worsening conditions as well, as the lingering benefits of late-winter rainfall quickly give way to dry, hot weather."
    An extreme drought is declared when there's major damage to crops or pasture and widespread water shortages or restrictions.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42454820/ns/weather/


    From wiki on the Dust Bowl human displacements and migrations:

    Dust Bowl conditions fomented an exodus of the displaced from Texas, Oklahoma, and the surrounding Great Plains to adjacent regions. More than 500,000 Americans were left homeless. 356 houses had to be torn down after one storm alone.[12] Many Americans migrated west looking for work. Some residents of the Plains, especially in Kansas and Oklahoma fell ill and died of dust pneumonia or malnutrition.[13]
    The Dust Bowl exodus was the largest migration in American history within a short period of time. By 1940, 2.5 million people had moved out of the Plains states; of those, 200,000 moved to California.[14] With their land barren and homes seized in foreclosure, many farm families were forced to leave. Migrants left farms in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Colorado and New Mexico, but all were generally referred to as "Okies". The second wave of the Great Migration by African Americans from the South (esp. the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Texas) to the North was larger, involving more than 5 million people, but it took place over decades, from 1940 to 1970.[15] Also to note the small but influential migration of Mexican-Americans of dust-bowl and poverty stricken areas of Texas (see Tejanos), New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, as they headed westward to other Hispanic communities and farming valleys of California.[citation needed]
    And we all know that gov't responded to the Great Depression and massive drought with liberal policies....

  16. #16
    What does that have to do with democracy?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    What does that have to do with democracy?
    Within democracies are variations of policy, liberal to conservative. Millions moved to CA looking for the gov't to "do something" after the Dust Bowl (FDR etc).

    But the article also mentioned what "starts wars". No, not Islam as much as water and food-related issues. Global food reliant on oil for transportation, oil prices going up, all commodities rising, Russia banning exports of winter wheat, US corn grown for fuel....food and fuel inflation.

    We spend a lot of time on this forum debating liberal-progressive-moderate-libertarian-conservative policies, from economics to finance, regulations or subsidies, even obesity related to diet or cheapest foods. We spend billions in foreign aid, trillions on military Wars, but budget cuts are being made in Health and Education, environment and infrastructure.

    Can irrigation create democracy where rainfall is infrequent? No, because the ruler’s hand is always ready to divert the river or close the dam. All the wealth a farmer has built up is in jeopardy if his water supply can be cut off.
    Can democracy be laissez-faire where rainfall is infrequent? Should Big Ag or Monsanto keep the farms producing by lobbying to divert rivers or close dams? Not if the aquifers are being depleted. Can Japan just import all their drinking water or wash off radiation from produce? Desalinization won't remove radiation either.

    Yeah, I'd say rainfall is crucial to human health and welfare, and how societies expect a democracy to operate if there's too much or too little. People will go to the streets with pitchforks over bread and water, before doing that for a religious fight.

  18. #18
    I fail to see what democracy has to do with laissez faire economics. Nor do I see the relevance of the Dust Bowl to wars (or violence of any kind).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I fail to see what democracy has to do with laissez faire economics. Nor do I see the relevance of the Dust Bowl to wars (or violence of any kind).
    That's because your drawers are too tight.

  20. #20
    Are we back to the "everything is relevant to everything else" train of thought?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Are we back to the "everything is relevant to everything else" train of thought?
    Are you back to critiquing posters and speaking in third person, instead of going with the flow?

    If you don't care to discuss water/rainfall as an important (and mostly overlooked) "commodity" that affects people and politics, feel free to take your caboose elsewhere.

  22. #22

  23. #23
    I don't think you guys realize how easy it is to get a statistically significant finding when you have a large enough number of observations...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I don't think you guys realize how easy it is to get a statistically significant finding when you have a large enough number of observations...
    As always, XKCD to the rescue:

    http://xkcd.com/882/

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    As always, XKCD to the rescue:
    Does not compute
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    They weren't in the least democratic though.

    I'd also debate the middle class comment further, but it still stands that the hypothesis the article is raising is blatantly wrong, overly simple, and not as grand as its made out to be.
    Tough crowd, huh. Maybe I shouldn't have posted the article since y'all are focusing on that, instead of water as a valuable 'commodity' that affects all others. Including oil. I've never seen any chart or comparison of the indirect value of water, let alone some analysis of how much water costs.

    Farmers know how much they spend on gas or diesel for their machinery, plus transportation costs. They know prices of animal feed and fertilizers. If they use mechanized irrigation they know the costs of machinery and fuel. They'd know price of water from a water company, but not if its their own well or cistern water. But crops like corn and cotton are heavy water users....maybe more than oil/gas.

    Arid oil rich nations have to import their food and we need to import their oil. Oil is considered the valuable commodity, and we all pay a premium for that, even in hidden costs. I thought it would be interesting to consider Water as the most valuable and precious resource. Bottled water has become very important, one of the first things needed in disasters. It's even sold in vending machines. Contaminated water makes millions of people sick every day, then we treat the disease but not the water....


  27. #27
    Water is a valuable and necessary resource to humanity, but abundance or lack of it does not directly correlate with the amount of freedom a group of people have, or whether or not a democratic government will be present.
    . . .

  28. #28
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Does not compute
    Only if it's still 2008 - look at the RSS feed
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Water is a valuable and necessary resource to humanity, but abundance or lack of it does not directly correlate with the amount of freedom a group of people have, or whether or not a democratic government will be present.
    Too much or too little will have people demanding XYZ of their government, though. Global Food, Political Food --- part of everyday life now --- Water is becoming political, too. Remember recent droughts when Georgia and Florida residents were fighting over depleting reservoirs to send water out of state? Delaware River Valley downstream water customers are fighting over natural gas Frakking in upstate New York.

  30. #30
    I'd also love to see how commodity traders would treat Water, if it was considered a legitimate and tradable commodity on par with hog futures or grain futures. Instead of being "buried" in things like Corn or Coca Cola. I haven't run the numbers or anything, but Coke and Pepsi are front runners for making profit on bottled waters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •