Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Jabzy"
channel.
-
68
-
19
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
@TheWoollyFrog
I'm talking about both past and present.
Past, because it has affected the maritime economies of the countries in question (where Russia couldn't do trade in the Pacific for 9 months out of the year as a result, this was only solved in 1897.
Present, because it still affects the speed with which goods can be delivered around the world, takes billions to build and tens of millions to maintain. This affects 1) shipping capacity 2) shipping price.
"So, icebreakers are not expensive today"
Yeah, right. Tell that to the U.S. government. ~$1B/unit.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34391/191#:~:text=As%20shown%20in%20Table%201,%242%2C619%20million%20(i.e.%2C%20about%20%242.6
"Sure, they are not empires but they don't need to be in order to have a good gdp and gdp per capita."
This is all still because of port access. The many countries of the EU can economically develop through trade, because the bloc allows them to use Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, ports to sell and receive goods. Russia was denied EU membership because it was "too big."
So, what other options are we left with? China? We already border the Pacific as they do, are able to traverse their waters, and they're in an economic war with the U.S.. So much for free trade.
And Vladivostok still freezes, increasing shipping costs.
Even if EU membership were allowed, how would that work? Russia's best and brightest would leave en masse (many already do), European goods would destroy domestic production, and make Greek crisis look like a child's plaything.
Your solution does not address the reality of Russia's situation. Tourism has a limited capacity- not everyplace can be a hotspot. Every other industry relies on supply chains, and marine trade is crucial.
"And lastly, the answer to all your worries is free trade"
This assumes all countries will be beneficiaries and act in good faith- they do not. The U.S., for example, blocked Palau's membership into the WTO unless they repealed their recent law banning turkey glands from being sold in the country (which was causing cancer in its residents).
More vulnerable nations are thus subject to continued to exploitation, just by the U.S. instead of a regional power.
I suppose that's something you'd like, though.
"Turns out you can move stuff into your country by road or rail without the need of a warm deepwater seaport OR having to pay a neighbouring country tariffs and taxes."
Okay... I've gotten my Karelian fish to Murmansk... now how do I send it to Brazil for sale?
OH, RIGHT.
Your analogy was so pea-brained I almost fell out of my chair. To cross maritime borders and access markets outside your own continent, you need ocean access.
If Russia tried to send everything via rail, its goods (maintenance fees for its own rails, and transit fees for foreign rails) would become so expensive as to be uncompetitive with seafaring countries' alternatives.
I can't believe I have to explain something so simple. Sending goods by water is ~10X cheaper than ant land transport. No amount of good governance will make a dent in that gap.
Unless Russia gains a warm water port, we will forever remain poorer than the coastal countries. This is still true today, with Atlantic-facing countries richer than Central European ones.
"dOn'T tElL mE wHat iS aCcePtAbLe tO dO"
Indeed, don't. You're American, you've never known what that's like.
Perhaps when the West Coast becomes uninhabitable, you'll get a taste.
6
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1