3 ms·

We used to. We stopped when transportation costs came down far enough. We do not ship raw materials to the space station, because transportation costs are high

We used to. We stopped when transportation costs came down far enough. We do not ship raw materials to the space station, because transportation costs are high.

dalke 13y ago
Oh? When did we ever have a refinery above a deep-sea oil well? When was the diamond cutting industry ever primarily located at diamond mines? I can think of any number of examples where high transportation costs were never high enough to cause the production site to control "industry" in general, or even the specific industry it was in. Consider ivory. For several hundred years, Greenland was the main supplier of ivory - specifically walrus ivory - to Europe, until elephant ivory from Africa became more abundant in the 1400s. But Greenland's dominance of a handful of goods (polar bear fur being another), did not lead to "industry controlled by" Greenland. Beaver pelts would be another example. The market was in Europe, the trapping was done in the US (due to near extinction of the Eurasian beaver). The individual trappers in the American wilds did not control or dominate the fur market - it was the trading companies which did that. And again I mention South Africa. Its "estimated share of world platinum production amounted to 77%; kyanite and other materials, 55%; chromium, 45%; palladium, 39%; vermiculite, 39%; vanadium, 38%; zirconium, 30%; manganese, 21%; rutile, 20%; ilmenite, 19%; gold, 11%;" and so on. But the market is so large and complex that domination of those niches doesn't naturally lead to domination of the entire market by South Africa. And overall market domination is what stcredzero proposes for Mars. But I can be wrong. What is your scenario for how economics will "favor industry controlled by Mars"?
- stcredzero 13y ago
  > When did we ever have a refinery above a deep-sea oil well? Refineries are generally located near the ocean, which is to say, economically "close" to transportation. Ivory, beaver pelts, and platinum are/were relatively concentrated forms of wealth. Terrestrial transportation is not as big an issue with those as it was with, say, the proximity of iron and coke in the US in the earlier days of the industrial revolution. The key point here, is that those resources were controlled by the US. > The individual trappers in the American wilds did not control or dominate the fur market - it was the trading companies which did that. They clearly didn't control such trade without local representatives. Nor did Europe retain such control in the long run. > But the market is so large and complex that domination of those niches doesn't naturally lead to domination of the entire market by South Africa. Because with modern transportation, everything is now fairly "close." Unless you are dealing with quite large quantities, location is often no longer an issue on Earth.

We used to. We stopped when transportation costs came down far enough. We do not ship raw materials to the space station, because transportation costs are high.

dalke 13y ago

Oh? When did we ever have a refinery above a deep-sea oil well? When was the diamond cutting industry ever primarily located at diamond mines? I can think of any number of examples where high transportation costs were never high enough to cause the production site to control "industry" in general, or even the specific industry it was in. Consider ivory. For several hundred years, Greenland was the main supplier of ivory - specifically walrus ivory - to Europe, until elephant ivory from Africa became more abundant in the 1400s. But Greenland's dominance of a handful of goods (polar bear fur being another), did not lead to "industry controlled by" Greenland. Beaver pelts would be another example. The market was in Europe, the trapping was done in the US (due to near extinction of the Eurasian beaver). The individual trappers in the American wilds did not control or dominate the fur market - it was the trading companies which did that. And again I mention South Africa. Its "estimated share of world platinum production amounted to 77%; kyanite and other materials, 55%; chromium, 45%; palladium, 39%; vermiculite, 39%; vanadium, 38%; zirconium, 30%; manganese, 21%; rutile, 20%; ilmenite, 19%; gold, 11%;" and so on. But the market is so large and complex that domination of those niches doesn't naturally lead to domination of the entire market by South Africa. And overall market domination is what stcredzero proposes for Mars. But I can be wrong. What is your scenario for how economics will "favor industry controlled by Mars"?

stcredzero 13y ago
> When did we ever have a refinery above a deep-sea oil well? Refineries are generally located near the ocean, which is to say, economically "close" to transportation. Ivory, beaver pelts, and platinum are/were relatively concentrated forms of wealth. Terrestrial transportation is not as big an issue with those as it was with, say, the proximity of iron and coke in the US in the earlier days of the industrial revolution. The key point here, is that those resources were controlled by the US. > The individual trappers in the American wilds did not control or dominate the fur market - it was the trading companies which did that. They clearly didn't control such trade without local representatives. Nor did Europe retain such control in the long run. > But the market is so large and complex that domination of those niches doesn't naturally lead to domination of the entire market by South Africa. Because with modern transportation, everything is now fairly "close." Unless you are dealing with quite large quantities, location is often no longer an issue on Earth.