4 ms·
I guess what I don't understand is why thought this was good news. Look around the world at countries whose economies depend on non-labor-intensive natural reso
by asolove 16y ago
I guess what I don't understand is why thought this was good news. Look around the world at countries whose economies depend on non-labor-intensive natural resource extraction. Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc. These resources form a natural monopoly and quickly become the subject of political power.
- k33n 16y agoI guess it's a good thing we replaced the Taliban with the CIA then.
- eru 16y agoThe US replaced the Soviets with the Taliban first.
- SwellJoe 16y agoBaby steps...
- thebigshane 16y agoI get your point, but that's not really accurate. More precisely, US prevented Soviet rule in Afghanistan by actions that ended up creating the Taliban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
- eru 16y agoThanks for giving more information.
- sprout 16y agoSeems to be going great for Norway.
- houseabsolute 16y agoCanada too.
- eru 16y agoThose places have good government, I guess that's what saves them.
- houseabsolute 16y agoI guess so, but then the claim boils down to: - It is bad to be resource rich and have a bad government. - It is good to be resource rich and have a good government. Why not instead just say - How good things are will significantly depend on how good the government is. Since that claim holds true for both resource rich and resource poor countries.
- eru 16y agoYes. But we can add another (non-trivial) claim: If you have bad government, resources make it harder to transition to a good government.
- mmphosis 16y agoNot Canada. Resources in Canada are a mixed blessing. Google "canadian tar sands"
- joeyo 16y agoNorway got really lucky: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabd...
- InclinedPlane 16y agoI believe the truth is a bit different. Resources are irrelevant. What's relevant is local governance and culture, that'll make a bigger difference to individual success or suffering than having or not having resources. What resources change is how much outside observers notice. Are the millions of people living in squalid hell-holes under corrupt regimes any better off for not having resources? Hardly, it's more just that the world doesn't give a shit, because their plight isn't interesting.