Can you describe the "Wealth Creating Engine" that has enabled American Greatness...

[alexey]

Because native Americans like native Africans and Native South Americas did not domesticate large burden carrying Animals as they did in Europe, China and the Middle east. Thus they didn't have as much use for the wheel or just as importantly the plow... A dude with a horse and wheel can carry the load of 20 men. A dude with a wheel and no beast to carry the load is not nearly the same advantage.

Ultimately this failure to domesticate animals, Likely because their weren't any to domesticate on the geographically restricted zones.. ( Animals tend to migrate in their temporate zones again from east or west rather than north and south.. ) Thus again the long east to west expanse of the EurAsia contenant was a huge advantage for any developing society..

Interesting points about the wheel.

I would think that cultural diversity is another important factor in innovation. Having so many different people accross Eurasia offered unmatched opportunities for innovation and spreading of inventions.

[Hubbs]

Longest Post Ever :comicbookguy:

Yeah, I didn't think it would be quite that long, but I like to break posts down and address each thought individually. I could have just made it nothing but long paragraphs, but I feel like that's harder to read.

[alexey]

You've emphatically stated over and over again that the government giving someone money increases overall demand. The only way that's possible is if the money is coming out of thin air, because otherwise giving that money to one person prevents someone else from having the exact same amount, and therefore accomplishes nothing at all when it comes to changing overall demand.

There is another possibility. Government can take money from somebody who would not spend it and give it to somebody who would.

[Burgold]

Yeah, I didn't think it would be quite that long, but I like to break posts down and address each thought individually. I could have just made it nothing but long paragraphs, but I feel like that's harder to read.

No worries. I think we've all been guilty of it to a degree, but goodness sir, if you're going to write something that long and put that much effort into it you ought to at least get paid for it. Mind you, I didn't read it because it was intimidating in scope so I can't confirm if it's genius or tripe, but that was not a quick effort... and it even came with graphics and a power point presentation.

I will have to downgrade it a bit for lack of animation and audio clips though.

[Hubbs]

There is another possibility. Government can take money from somebody who would not spend it and give it to somebody who would.

How is that money not being spent? Nobody ever answers this question. If he buys a long-term bond, the seller of the bond gets the money. If he puts it into the most conservative long-term mutual fund on the planet, companies get the money. If he puts it in the bank, it will be loaned out almost immediately. If he buys gold, the seller of the gold gets the money. Someone always gets the money unless we're taxing someone who stuffs money under his mattress, and we don't have any ability whatsoever to know who's doing that.

[Hubbs]

No worries. I think we've all been guilty of it to a degree, but goodness sir, if you're going to write something that long and put that much effort into it you ought to at least get paid for it. Mind you, I didn't read it because it was intimidating in scope so I can't confirm if it's genius or tripe, but that was not a quick effort... and it even came with graphics and a power point presentation.

I will have to downgrade it a bit for lack of animation and audio clips though.

I'll throw in a podcast next time to top it all off.

You might want to skim through it and see if any individual parts grab your attention, though, since you've been keeping track of the discussion.

[alexey]

How is that money not being spent? Nobody ever answers this question. If he buys a long-term bond, the seller of the bond gets the money. If he puts it into the most conservative long-term mutual fund on the planet, companies get the money. If he puts it in the bank, it will be loaned out almost immediately. If he buys gold, the seller of the gold gets the money. Someone always gets the money unless we're taxing someone who stuffs money under his mattress, and we don't have any ability whatsoever to know who's going that.

Money under the mattress generates no demand, so that's an easy example.

You are talking about increasing overall demand, so any increase in demand would qualify. Would you agree that money in different places generates different levels of demand?

For example, I'd think that buying a ton of gold would generate less economic activity in the US than spending the same money on building a bridge.

[Hubbs]

Money under the mattress generates no demand, so that's an easy example.

Are you honestly suggesting that we implement some sort of program which will attempt to determine who's got money stuffed under the mattress at any given time, and then specifically tax those people because they're not saving money in a way we deem appropriate?

That sounds draconian as hell.

Would you agree that money in different places generates different levels of demand? You are talking about increasing overall demand, so any increase in demand would qualify.

For example, I'd think that buying a ton of gold would generate less economic activity in the US than spending the same money on building a bridge.

You're doing the same thing Peter keeps doing - thinking about the immediate outcome of two scenarios, and then stopping.

I could just as well ask, "What generates more economic activity? Buying ten thousand used cars or building a bridge?" and then insist repeatedly that it doesn't matter that the people selling the used cars will have to find a new form of transportation, that they won't spend money on that transportation no matter what form it takes, that if they save money they won't either spend the savings on other activities or "save" in the form of giving the money to someone else to spend, and that if they end up spending more money that the excess money simply evaporated rather than going towards some form of economic activity. No, the only thing that matters is the immediate outcome of the two activities in question, and clearly building a bridge generates more activity than mere property transactions. This will always be true as long as the debate is not about the sum total of economic activity, but instead two snapshots of economic activity.

It all comes back to broken windows. As long as the person selling the ton of gold doesn't stuff the money under his mattress, someone else will get the money. More importantly, if we have to choose one or the other, the "someone else" in question won't get the money if we build a bridge instead of buying the gold.

[PeterMP]

Look at the gold/Dow ratio I posted. That's actually a pretty good way to measure inflation vs. gold.

No it isn't. It is good to see how stocks move as compared to gold. They both can move independently of inflation.

But if I had to guess, it looks like gold has been flat, and there have been bubbles in the dow. Of course, stocks also pay dividends.

I'd suggest that the past 30 years are the least relevant, because we've been in the middle of our pure paper/digital currency experiment.

Any way, from what I've read it doesn't really matter:

"In his bestselling book Stocks for the Long Run, Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel reports that a dollar invested in gold in 1801 would have grown to just $1.95 at the end of 2006"

But I guess 200 years of data is worthless too. Now, I will admit, it might be that 1801 was cherry picked, but unless you want to post something else, I don't see any reason to not believe it.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1946

I'm "hung up" on the fact that your argument is that people buying gold is bad for the economy, and when I point out that the opposite is far more likely, your response is an articulate way of saying, "Well, I don't care."

You're correct that when general businesses receive money via stock offerings, they put that money to use doing whatever it is they do. I've never quibbled with that statement. But that's what you're hung up on, because you don't expand the mental exercise to anything beyond that. "When people buy gold, they're not buying stocks, which means that companies have less money to do what they do." No, that's not actually how it works. And when I show you the numbers which reveal that not only is it not that simple, but that if you're right about there ultimately being a difference then we should very much encourage people to not buy too many stocks, you never provide an explanation as to why those numbers are somehow incorrect. On top of that, you don't explain why people buying gold at the "correct" price is fine, but people buying it at the "incorrect" price is somehow a problem.

Because buying anything at the wrong price is an ineffecient use of money.

Let's try this. Is it better for the economy if everybody makes perfect decisions with their money or if everybody makes bad decisions with their money?

Your hung up on a point I'm not making. Long term, buying gold isn't a good investment. It doesn't even keep up with inflation. It is a poor way for most people to save their money. Its value going up, therefore, represents bad decisions by people. When people make bad decisions, that's bad for our economy.

That by itself tells us nothing about whether or not the rise in prices is in line with how valuable gold has been historically. Back in the late 80's, gold jumped to over $800. Off the top of my head, I would assume that even using the BLS inflation numbers, $800 then was more than $1250 now.

Sure. If you go back to the last bubble, the current bubble makes perfect sense. If I go back to 1928, the current stock is vastly under valued.

the Fed measures the base money supply, the total US credit market, and the velocity of money all the time. That's your answer on inflation. Not the BLS numbers.

And how are those three variables are related to the graph you gave?

Yes, those dastardly animal spirits. Of course, when someone loses money, someone else or plural someone-elses gain the exact same amount. Or, to technically be more accurate, when someone loses value - be it represented by money or represented by the going price for stocks, gold, whatever - someone else or plural someone-elses gain the exact same amount of value. Always. (And everywhere.)

Sure.

And the same logic was true in 1929. There was no reason for the great depression.

Both can't be wrong. Gold is saying we're due for hardcore inflation. Bonds are saying we're due for hardcore deflation (or at least a long, long spell of the lowest inflation we've ever seen).

There's not a 3rd option (or more)?

I believe I'm being perfectly fair when I say that your evidence so far has been the fact that the price of gold has gone up very quickly since 2007, and is now out of line with where a projection of its price would be if you were to use the period from 1990 to 2007 as your trend. That's not really a lot of evidence.

It is more evidence than you have posted.

But there were also businesses centered around the oil bubble. There were actually a lot more businesses centered around that than there are around gold right now. And applying your same argument there, the oil bubble popping should have been a giant disaster. Why wasn't it? (Hint: The answer actually isn't "because we all need oil," even though I'd guess that you'll certainly try to say that it is. And the reason why that isn't the answer lies at the heart of what's wrong with the economic view you're offering.)

It is your model for why recession happen. My point is that it is inadequate. The fact that it doesn't explain a recession after the oil bubble is fine with me.

Off the top of my head, I'd actually guess that gold is needed for more things now than it was 100 years ago, because a lot of specialized high-tech industries use it.

I doubt it, especially when you consider that it was used to make currency 100 years ago. Plus, there has been continual mining of it over the last 100 years.

[Henry]

The Soviet Union shared three of those four factors. And I know you mentioned it, but there was a problem. You attribute too much to temperate climates - anthropologic evidence suggests that harsh climates might actually be beneficial to a society's development. Ultimately, you're discounting the most important part of the equation - economic freedom. I used to think that that was nothing more than an easy way to get applause during a speech, that the real reason the US has become so dominant was the size, the population, the natural resources. The more I studied economics, the more I changed my mind.

Uh. No the Soviet Union had one of those factors: People. They had a lot of land but much of it was no good. There's a reason we were sending wheat to them during the height of the cold war, and it's not because they could grow it themselves. Their culture was a mess. Dictatorship followed by communism. Hard work was hardly rewarded in either system. Their location was such that they had French troops marching through their lands in the 19th century and Germans running amok in their lands throughout much of the 20th. They had our missles on their doorstep throughout Western Europe throughout the Cold War, whereas we had to merely contend with their one failed attempt to put some missiles in Cuba.

I'm not discounting economic freedom at all. That falls under our cultural advantage. I'm simply not giving it ALL the credit.

[alexey]

Are you honestly suggesting that we implement some sort of program which will attempt to determine who's got money stuffed under the mattress at any given time, and then specifically tax those people because they're not saving money in a way we deem appropriate?

Negatory. I brought up money under the mattress as a response to the following statement:

"You've emphatically stated over and over again that the government giving someone money increases overall demand. The only way that's possible is if the money is coming out of thin air," - Hubbs

You're doing the same thing Peter keeps doing - thinking about the immediate outcome of two scenarios, and then stopping.

I could just as well ask, "What generates more economic activity? Buying ten thousand used cars or building a bridge?" and then insist repeatedly that it doesn't matter that the people selling the used cars will have to find a new form of transportation, that they won't spend money on that transportation no matter what form it takes, that if they save money they won't either spend the savings on other activities or "save" in the form of giving the money to someone else to spend, and that if they end up spending more money that the excess money simply evaporated rather than going towards some form of economic activity. No, the only thing that matters is the immediate outcome of the two activities in question, and clearly building a bridge generates more activity than mere property transactions. This will always be true as long as the debate is not about the sum total of economic activity, but instead two snapshots of economic activity.

It all comes back to broken windows. As long as the person selling the ton of gold doesn't stuff the money under his mattress, someone else will get the money. More importantly, if we have to choose one or the other, the "someone else" in question won't get the money if we build a bridge instead of buying the gold.

Buying a bridge increases demand for steel, asphalt, and American construction workers. Buying gold increases demand for child labour in Ghana gold mines. Do you see a meaningful difference between these?

I am trying to find common ground with you. Your posts are wordy, but they notoriously avoid my attempts to find common ground. Please let me know what aspects of my point you agree with, if any, and I will build on that.

[21cents]

Honestly if you think about it americans arent that wealthy. Yes we do live a wealthy life style. But everything is based on credit, we dont own anything. From our house to our cars everything is credit. Without credit we would be pretty bad off.

[Hubbs]

Negatory. I brought up money under the mattress as a response to the following statement:

"You've emphatically stated over and over again that the government giving someone money increases overall demand. The only way that's possible is if the money is coming out of thin air," - Hubbs

I know. But since you were talking about the government increasing demand by taking cash from people who wouldn't spend it, it was a legitimate question. I'm glad you think that tax would be a bad idea. (Plus, it would be incredibly unlikely to actually have an effect, because anyone who's so afraid of any investment at all that they choose to stuff money under the mattress is going to make sure that they have as much there as they want to have, so they'll simply compensate for the tax by reducing spending in other areas.)

Buying a bridge increases demand for steel, asphalt, and American construction workers. Buying gold increases demand for child labour in Ghana gold mines. Do you see a meaningful difference between these?

I am trying to find common ground with you. Your posts are wordy, but they notoriously avoid my attempts to find common ground. Please let me know what aspects of my point you agree with, if any, and I will build on that.

So there are only corrupt producers of gold, not anything else - like the iron ore that goes into steel? Not coal, which is strip mined via awful practices and which will power some of the machines that produce the parts of the bridge? Not oil, which is being sucked out of the earth by rigs like BP's? And there aren't plenty of legitimate Western or Asian gold mining companies? They're not traded on various Western/Asian stock exchanges? You can't buy their stock right now, supporting gold mines that don't involve child labor? And the vast, vast majority of gold sellers in America aren't everyday people and businesses who aren't involved in mining, and who won't go on to use the money in perfectly legitimate ways?

If you have to resort to claiming that buying a particular commodity is inherently evil, you've probably run out of better arguments.

That said, I appreciate your effort to remind me that you're trying to find common ground. I know that I need to be "reeled in" from time to time, and I do think that you're one of the smarter members of this board, even if you have a liberal inclination that's probably as strong as my libertarian inclination. :pfft: I'd like to reach common ground, too.

I understand that part of what you're saying is the same as what Peter's saying, which I'll get to tomorrow when I have more time. My effort there is actually more to show that free-floating prices are by far the most efficient way of determining the value of any good, service, or asset than to cheerlead for gold in particular - the only reason gold ever came up is because Peter said in a different thread that increased demand for gold was inherently harmful to the economy. I'm trying to demonstrate that if gold buyers are behaving irrationally, then the gold sellers are behaving rationally, and they gain just as much as the buyers lose, which in turn means that all individuals and businesses who benefit from the total economic activity of the gold sellers gain just as much as the individuals and businesses who benefit from the total activity of the gold buyers lose. Is there some common ground there?

[alexey]

I know. But since you were talking about the government increasing demand by taking cash from people who wouldn't spend it, it was a legitimate question. I'm glad you think that tax would be a bad idea. (Plus, it would be incredibly unlikely to actually have an effect, because anyone who's so afraid of any investment at all that they choose to stuff money under the mattress is going to make sure that they have as much there as they want to have, so they'll simply compensate for the tax by reducing spending in other areas.)

I think that money invested in different places generates different amount of economic activity. Moving money from one place to another can result in increased (or decresed) demand. The mattress case is an extreme example of that.

So there are only corrupt producers of gold, not anything else - like the iron ore that goes into steel? Not coal, which is strip mined via awful practices and which will power some of the machines that produce the parts of the bridge? Not oil, which is being sucked out of the earth by rigs like BP's? And there aren't plenty of legitimate Western or Asian gold mining companies? They're not traded on various Western/Asian stock exchanges? You can't buy their stock right now, supporting gold mines that don't involve child labor? And the vast, vast majority of gold sellers in America aren't everyday people and businesses who aren't involved in mining, and who won't go on to use the money in perfectly legitimate ways?

If you have to resort to claiming that buying a particular commodity is inherently evil, you've probably run out of better arguments.

I resorted to an extreme hypothetical in order to illustrate my point. I was hoping for you to say something like Yes or No

(e.g. yes in that particular hypothetical money spent on a bridge generates more demand, or no it does not)

That said, I appreciate your effort to remind me that you're trying to find common ground. I know that I need to be "reeled in" from time to time, and I do think that you're one of the smarter members of this board, even if you have a liberal inclination that's probably as strong as my libertarian inclination. :pfft: I'd like to reach common ground, too.

I understand that part of what you're saying is the same as what Peter's saying, which I'll get to tomorrow when I have more time. My effort there is actually more to show that free-floating prices are by far the most efficient way of determining the value of any good, service, or asset than to cheerlead for gold in particular - the only reason gold ever came up is because Peter said in a different thread that increased demand for gold was inherently harmful to the economy. I'm trying to demonstrate that if gold buyers are behaving irrationally, then the gold sellers are behaving rationally, and they gain just as much as the buyers lose, which in turn means that all individuals and businesses who benefit from the total economic activity of the gold sellers gain just as much as the individuals and businesses who benefit from the total activity of the gold buyers lose. Is there some common ground there?

It makes sense to me from a gold buyer/seller perspective, but not from the larger economy perspective.

It seems to me that money invested in stocks generally "does more work" than money invested in gold. If people move their money from stocks to gold, their money now does less work.

I understand your point, but does investment in gold generate as much activity as investment in other things? Compare gold to stocks of a small startup company. Let's say I end up holding either gold or those stocks forever.

government spending borrowing taxing stimulus stuff

Here is my point about government. Yes debts are bad, very bad, and for many reasons. However, the government can use borrowed or tax money towards investments that spur economic activity and end up being beneficial in the long run... e.g. government borrows and invests $5, private startup companies build on that, invest, and make $100, then proceed to pay $10 in taxes. Government pays back $7 debt plus interest and keeps the $3. America wins.

(you can say that the government is fundamentally incapable of executing such a policy, but that's a separate discussion...)

[DCSaints_fan]

Let me get this straight. You're not only arguing that America didn't have nice places to live stretching from east to west - like, I don't know, virtually all of America - you're also arguing that Native Americans couldn't domesticate any animals because of their migration patterns, when the very essence of domestication involves not letting the animal in question migrate outside of your control?

That's a hell of a stance to take.

Native Americans and Africans couldn't domesticate many useful animals because there weren't there to domesticate (With regards to the Americas, the llama is a notable exception, but nowhere near useful as a horse or camel). Most animals are not prone to domestication - they have to have a certain social behavior with a dominant leader whereby the human simply takes over. The American bison does not have this behavior.

Eurasia also enjoyed a substanial advantage with most of its land-area being more on the east-west axis with few bottenecks as opposed to Africa and Americas. This allowed all types of exchanges - domesticated crops, animals, and diseases, to spread more readily. Grain which was domesticated in the middle east spread more readily west into the Near East, North Africa and Europe than maize did from Mexico north into present day USA.

Jared Diamond goes into this in great detail in Guns, Germs and Steel... if I wasn't so lazy I'd quote the relevant sections.

[alexey]

Hubbs,

How about a different angle on this... Capitalism requires risk taking. What would happen if too many people become too risk averse with their capital?

[JMS]

Interesting points about the wheel.

I would think that cultural diversity is another important factor in innovation. Having so many different people accross Eurasia offered unmatched opportunities for innovation and spreading of inventions.

Yes agreed. but I was paraphrasing an argument made in by Jarad Diamond, professor of geography at the University of California in his famous book Guns, Germs and Steel. In which he tried to explained why some civilizations thrived and some declined when they came into contact. Who had the strongest germs was typically a decisive factor. And that was directly influenced by which culture domesticated and lived with large foul smelling beasts of burden.

[JMS]

On Washington, Lincoln, TR and FDR all being liberals.... I knew that would get you because you don't know what the word liberal and conservative mean. In your lexicon liberal is bad and conservative is good. Thus how can America's best and most accomplished and respected Presidents possible be liberals.... Easy, because your definition is self surving and inaccurate.

A Liberal by definition is someone who looks for a new way to solve a problems. A person who looks forward. High rewards but also high risks. New also means untested unknown...but it's also tied to all progress.

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

A conservative is someone who looks backwards in order to solve problems. Goes back to known good solutions. Lower Risk. Proven Answers.

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values

In the evolution of the US constitution it was liberals like John Adams and Jefferson who are credited with creating something new. It ws the conservatives such as Hamilton who are credited in making sure the new governemnt worked.

Washington, The guy who helped design a government that didn't even have an income tax?

Washington was a Revolutionary. It's the extreme left position on the political scale.

Lincoln, Socially, sure. You know I'm a huge gay rights supporter, right?

The republican party in lincolns time was known as the Radical Republicans. Lincoln was an abolitiononist and the GOP was invented to abolish slavery. It was a totally new and extreme left position.

Teddy Roosevelt, Big fan of Teddy. Especially in the Presidents Race at Nationals games.

Teddy was a huge trust buster. He created the national parks system, He created the FDA. He was a self described liberal progressive.

FDR... Great leader, not so great with economics. Although in his defense, Hoover couldn't ever decide what the hell his economic principles were, and left FDR with a giant mess. I taper my criticism of FDR because by the time he actually got to the White House, the economic solutions I would have advocated were probably off the table. The same goes for Obama to a certain extent, although you have to admit that the stimulus package didn't have much actual stimulus in it.

We agree FDR was a liberal. You haven't answered my question yet. If FDR didn't end the great depression in 1933, when did it end? What economic indicators didn't FDR turn around in his first complete year in office (1934)? What economic source supports your economic indicators as bing determinative for diagnosing depressions/recessions?

Not good with the economy? FDR had two of the largest challenges any president ever faced. Both directly pertained to the economy and he used both to strengthen Amercia. I challenge you to find a historian who doesn't put FDR among the four greatest Presidents. He was among the longest tenured, most sucessful, and most influential.

[Thiebear]

I always thought it was proven:

Dictatorships dominate the world geography but have no money and give nothing to others

Capitalist type Countries give by factors of 10? more to all?

[PeterMP]

I understand that part of what you're saying is the same as what Peter's saying, which I'll get to tomorrow when I have more time. My effort there is actually more to show that free-floating prices are by far the most efficient way of determining the value of any good, service, or asset than to cheerlead for gold in particular - the only reason gold ever came up is because Peter said in a different thread that increased demand for gold was inherently harmful to the economy. I'm trying to demonstrate that if gold buyers are behaving irrationally, then the gold sellers are behaving rationally, and they gain just as much as the buyers lose, which in turn means that all individuals and businesses who benefit from the total economic activity of the gold sellers gain just as much as the individuals and businesses who benefit from the total activity of the gold buyers lose. Is there some common ground there?

Which leaves me making the point I made in the other thread. The same thing is true for every transaction, which means there should never be a recession/depression.

More importantly, you leave out what would actually be best for the economy- if gold sellers AND buyers were both acting rationally. The economy gets in trouble when too many people (or too much money) act irrationally.

(Of course that would mean gold buyers would be doing something different with their money, and gold would have never gotten to its current value.)

**EDIT**

Of course, your response to the point that we should never have a recession was that we have recession when large numbers of people lose their jobs.

Of course, even when a large number of people lose their jobs, this means somebody somewhere benefits (e.g. there is cheap labor, the companies where people lost their jobs most be doing poorly and they are competing against other companies that now will gain more business, etc.)

This lead us to discuss the fact that the market was slow to respond to real world actions (e.g. when people lose their job, the other businesses haven't responded fast enough for there to be a job for them to walk into so you get increases in unemployment and recessions) (I'll add here, I believe this is good evidence that the free market can essentially completely "fail" (as it continually is slow to respond to real world events) for no reason other than it is slow (which seems to me to be a silly thing to trust your economic well being too).

More importantly though to this conversation is why did the people lose their jobs. The underlying problem is that people made a bad decisions about their business. Money was invested into something that didn't work out. The money was used ineffeciently. If the people had done something with their money that did work out (the money was use effeceintly), then the people wouldn't have lost their job.

The inefficient use of money is bad for the economy.

Buying gold for most people as an investment is an inefficient use of money.

So is hiding your money under your matress.

[alexey]

Yes agreed. but I was paraphrasing an argument made in by Jarad Diamond, professor of geography at the University of California in his famous book Guns, Germs and Steel. In which he tried to explained why some civilizations thrived and some declined when they came into contact. Who had the strongest germs was typically a decisive factor. And that was directly influenced by which culture domesticated and lived with large foul smelling beasts of burden.

It's an interesting idea, but I think it has more pretty elegance than explanatory power... I get the same impression from Malcolm Gladwell.

Better germs could come from more trade, or for example urban environments. Those things indicate economic development. Economic development means better military. Stuff like that.

[PeterMP]

Native Americans and Africans couldn't domesticate many useful animals because there weren't there to domesticate (With regards to the Americas, the llama is a notable exception, but nowhere near useful as a horse or camel). Most animals are not prone to domestication - they have to have a certain social behavior with a dominant leader whereby the human simply takes over. The American bison does not have this behavior.

I don't think this is really accurate.

Horses and dogs have this sort of social behavior, but most domestic animals don't.

Zebra herds are a little different than horses, but not much (zebras tend to stay in family units with a male and several females (which are ranked by time in the family group), and the young) even in larger herds.

Cows, goats, and sheep are all essentially "herd" animals not really different than buffalo, antelopes, or gazelles.

Pigs and cats are pretty much solitary animals.

[JMS]

It's an interesting idea, but I think it has more pretty elegance than explanatory power... I get the same impression from Malcolm Gladwell.

Better germs could come from more trade, or for example urban environments. Those things indicate economic development. Economic development means better military. Stuff like that.

Yes you are absolutely right.... and you can credit my poor and incomplete paraphrasing of Diamond's premise for your objection....

Daimond places many benifits to a broad latatudinal landmass, I think he had seven of them.... One is domesticated animals. Another is trade. Not just trade as you envisioned spreading Germs. But also trade in that Europe benifited from plant staples like wheat, and rice which they got from geographically dispersed cultures which they had contact from only because of this enhanced ability to trade. Crops which were vital in creating the populations which further added to the cultures ability to produce germs.

Daimond makes the case that man, like animals, was more likely to migrate, settle and trade in similar temporate zones from east to west than extreme zones going from north to south. Thus Italy was more likely to have trade ties with China than a pre Brazilian culture would have ties with a pre Canadian culture even though the distances might be similar.... Which also fortified the Germs on Eurasia as apposed to Africa but especially the more remote Pacific Islands and the civilizations of the Americas.

[JMS]

Zebra herds are a little different than horses, but not much (zebras tend to stay in family units with a male and several females (which are ranked by time in the family group), and the young) even in larger herds.

Pete you should read the book. He goes into great details on zebras and lama's too. One would think Zebras would be similar to horses, but evidently they are not. Zebras are not domesticatable. They have never been domesticated even though it's been tried many times. Diamond spends a good half chapter on Zebras...

Cows, goats, and sheep are all essentially "herd" animals not really different than buffalo, antelopes, or gazelles.

Nope... Buffalo's Antelopes and Gazelles have never been domesticated, while cows, oxen, sheep and goats were... Diamond makes the case that Buffalo and Antelopes while strong enough to be useful, were not tempormentally suited to domestication. They could work fine one day and the next day kill their owner. Not a profitable aid to subsistance farmers.

Gazelles not sure he covered.

Still one of the large differences between Eurasia and the civilizations she dominated across the pacific islands and America's was that she had domesticated animals while they did not. Whcih added to Eurasian natives germs at the expense of those she came to dominate. Great societies like the American Indians, Aztecs, and Incan's were devistated by Western Germs long before western armies defeated them.

Daimond who won the pulitzer in 1998 attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (including North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while attempting to refute the belief that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority.

[Predicto]

I don't think this is really accurate.

Horses and dogs have this sort of social behavior, but most domestic animals don't.

Zebra herds are a little different than horses, but not much (zebras tend to stay in family units with a male and several females (which are ranked by time in the family group), and the young) even in larger herds.

Cows, goats, and sheep are all essentially "herd" animals not really different than buffalo, antelopes, or gazelles.

Pigs and cats are pretty much solitary animals.

Read Guns Germs and Steel. It is time well spent.