Thurs March 7: some followup questions for the notes (questions A to G)

Greetings everyone... before we begin, be it known that I will need -- from each of you -- copies of ALL emails you have sent to ALL sources you have contacted. Please collect all such correspondence into one document, so that I can get an accurate measure of how many people you have located, emailed and gotten a response from.

Greetings once again,

Now that you have sent in the first round of notes, I thought it might be a good idea to derive some questions from them, and answer them too. (It's also a good idea not to be "overly succinct" in your explanations; lets just say of minimum of six complete sentences per answer are in order here.) Here are my questions for you:

A) The very first slide talks about the division between "haves" and "have nots", between people (and nations) that have got wealth, and those that don't. The author also notes that

"Energy and other resources are distributed unevenly among countries."  

My question to you is this: "What IS a resource, anyway? What defines something as being a resource? Is a resource automatically a resource, or does it have to become one

B) There are many times when you will hear or read about resources being "limited". If people believe that this is the case, what might they do about it? I would like you to list at least two possible reactions to this idea of "limited resources", one is that is positive, and one that is shall we say NOT so positive. How are either of these reactions caused by the notion of "limited resources"?

C) On the second slide, the "pessimistic viewpoint" slide, there is a statement which runs as follows

"Usually, when there is a need for a product, the market fills that need.  However, what happens when no market exists for a product?  The market may not be ready for the production of a particular product."

This makes it sound as if "the market" is some abstract entity, or perhaps some visitor from a distant planet. Which is clearly nonsense.

So, what IS "the market"? What is meant by "the market"? (Be forewarned, throwing back prepackaged definitions you find online here will NOT help you. This is something which you are going to have to think about) 

D) Also on this same slide, it has been stated that 

"The last concern is that investment is not allocated equally around the globe but rather is concentrated in only a few locations.   A lack of investment seriously limits some areas’ opportunities for growth."

To my mind, this makes it seem that there will never be economic development in some parts of the world, because people who HAVE money to invest will never invest it in those regions. Here's a question: how did the people with investment money come by it in the first place? How did the countries they come from get rich in the first place? 

E) Slides 5 and 6 talk about "Rostow's theory of economic development", which has several stages or steps. In the first step, there is a very low level of economic development, yet in the very next step, the "preconditions for economic growth arise".

The question: HOW does this happen? How do you achieve economic growth of any kind where previously there was none?

F)   Rostow goes on to say that FOREIGN INVESTMENT precede any serious economic growth. Again, here's the question: WHY would anyone invest money in some place that previously had little or no economic growth? What are they seeing that others do not?

G) On Slide 7, the assertion is made that there are some places on earth that might not ever experience economic growth the way some other places have;

"Nepal’s economy may never look like Denmark’s because the two countries’ cultures and histories are inherently different"

While it is true that countries can have vastly different cultures, does this mean that some cultures are inherently superior to others? And if so, how can you tell which ones are which? Which cultures are more receptive to economic growth? For example, in my youth it would have been considered laughable to think that China and India would become emerging economic superpowers; yet now they are

Please send your thoughts my way. By email. With your name and "A - G" in the subject line

cheers,

Mr. L