The reason that CA and TX got so profitable is because they were resource rich to begin with (oil/gas in TX, agriculture in CA), and large amounts of water were diverted to CA in the case of its agriculture (to say nothing of its own rare mineral wealth). To my knowledge, oil wasn't a huge deal in the 1840's when we took the American SW …
The reason that CA and TX got so profitable is because they were resource rich to begin with (oil/gas in TX, agriculture in CA), and large amounts of water were diverted to CA in the case of its agriculture (to say nothing of its own rare mineral wealth). To my knowledge, oil wasn't a huge deal in the 1840's when we took the American SW from Mexico as we were still transitioning from sailing ships to steam-powered ones fueled by coal. Oil became really important around the time WWII was being fought (a good look at this energy transition can be found here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10), and so Texas' natural resource wealth didn't really come into the picture until a good 100 years after it was taken.
Israel took water aquifers from Palestine via the West Bank. In order to make agriculture work in that arid part of the world, you need fresh water sourcing, which is the reason why Israel invests so much in desalinization plants for fresh water production. The Jordan River aquifers in the West Bank are one of the main reasons Israel doesn't want to cede those territories to a future Palestinian state. I guess my point here overall is that industry isn't what's in question, material resources are, and the prevalence of industry often relies on the presence of those resources to begin with. Would Texas be Texas if it weren't for its oil/gas wealth?
OK, you make a very good point. But in a counterfactual world in which America gave CA and TX back to Mexico in the early 20th century, or never conquered them in the first place, would we have Hollywood, the Texas Medical Center, and Disneyland? I'm guessing not. Natural resources matter, but so do institutions and governments. (Would a hypothetical Mexico that had never lost CA and TX be wealthier than today's actual Mexico? Most likely. Would it also have better institutions? Who knows?)
Re: sharing aquifers and water rights in Palestine/Israel, that is a logistical, bread-and-butter question that is very important and also downstream of "can Palestinians agree to let Israel exist without repeatedly killing Israelis y/n?"
If Palestinians settled down to peaceful two-state coexistence with Israel, I'd be 100% in favor of wealthy nations donating $$$ for building a giant desalination plant in Gaza, heck, I'd be happy to donate some of my own money.
To be fair, we might be better off as a country without Hollywood and Disneyland (less decadence, distraction, and complacency as a peoples). The Texas Medical Center might not even exist had oil and gas not become relevant, because Texas wouldn't be rich enough to stand it up without that mineral wealth.
I imagine everyone would be happy to build giant desal plants as an aided compromise in getting to a 2-state solution. The problem is that Israel doesn't want to give up those lands and Hamas would rather fight Israel than govern a country of its own (see the Taliban's recent governing headaches after finally catching the car and getting the US to leave). So even if the world offered, Israel might not take it and Hamas definitely wouldn't. This conflict only ever ends when the Palestinians abandon/kill off Hamas and when Israel decides that it's willing to give up the land it's currently letting its own settlers inhabit.
People know more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities and worship their wealth while allowing the rise of a billionaire class and knowing fuck all about foreign policy or economics, but sure, Hollywood is a national blessing lol (I may or may not be jaded about American culture haha)
The reason that CA and TX got so profitable is because they were resource rich to begin with (oil/gas in TX, agriculture in CA), and large amounts of water were diverted to CA in the case of its agriculture (to say nothing of its own rare mineral wealth). To my knowledge, oil wasn't a huge deal in the 1840's when we took the American SW from Mexico as we were still transitioning from sailing ships to steam-powered ones fueled by coal. Oil became really important around the time WWII was being fought (a good look at this energy transition can be found here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10), and so Texas' natural resource wealth didn't really come into the picture until a good 100 years after it was taken.
Israel took water aquifers from Palestine via the West Bank. In order to make agriculture work in that arid part of the world, you need fresh water sourcing, which is the reason why Israel invests so much in desalinization plants for fresh water production. The Jordan River aquifers in the West Bank are one of the main reasons Israel doesn't want to cede those territories to a future Palestinian state. I guess my point here overall is that industry isn't what's in question, material resources are, and the prevalence of industry often relies on the presence of those resources to begin with. Would Texas be Texas if it weren't for its oil/gas wealth?
OK, you make a very good point. But in a counterfactual world in which America gave CA and TX back to Mexico in the early 20th century, or never conquered them in the first place, would we have Hollywood, the Texas Medical Center, and Disneyland? I'm guessing not. Natural resources matter, but so do institutions and governments. (Would a hypothetical Mexico that had never lost CA and TX be wealthier than today's actual Mexico? Most likely. Would it also have better institutions? Who knows?)
Re: sharing aquifers and water rights in Palestine/Israel, that is a logistical, bread-and-butter question that is very important and also downstream of "can Palestinians agree to let Israel exist without repeatedly killing Israelis y/n?"
If Palestinians settled down to peaceful two-state coexistence with Israel, I'd be 100% in favor of wealthy nations donating $$$ for building a giant desalination plant in Gaza, heck, I'd be happy to donate some of my own money.
To be fair, we might be better off as a country without Hollywood and Disneyland (less decadence, distraction, and complacency as a peoples). The Texas Medical Center might not even exist had oil and gas not become relevant, because Texas wouldn't be rich enough to stand it up without that mineral wealth.
I imagine everyone would be happy to build giant desal plants as an aided compromise in getting to a 2-state solution. The problem is that Israel doesn't want to give up those lands and Hamas would rather fight Israel than govern a country of its own (see the Taliban's recent governing headaches after finally catching the car and getting the US to leave). So even if the world offered, Israel might not take it and Hamas definitely wouldn't. This conflict only ever ends when the Palestinians abandon/kill off Hamas and when Israel decides that it's willing to give up the land it's currently letting its own settlers inhabit.
"we might be better off as a country without Hollywood and Disneyland"
Booooooo
Substack really needs a downvote button! :)
People know more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities and worship their wealth while allowing the rise of a billionaire class and knowing fuck all about foreign policy or economics, but sure, Hollywood is a national blessing lol (I may or may not be jaded about American culture haha)