8 ms·

The vast contradictions in the world of countries with a lot of natural resources is both enlightening and depressing. At one end of the spectrum is Norway, wh

by cletus 7y ago

The vast contradictions in the world of countries with a lot of natural resources is both enlightening and depressing. At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government. At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith. So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall? It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up. So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future. [1]: https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...

mullingitover 7y ago
> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. Iran nationalized their oil industry, and they got a CIA-backed coup for their troubles.
- quaquaqua1 7y ago
  Allende did the same in Chile with the copper mines and CIA delivered the same medicine in kind. Chile's story is a strange duality of murder and relative economic prosperity. It is extremely difficult to say whether it was "worth it". But, the most important thing is that we say it happened, just like you did.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    Don't forget bolivia last year. The first native american president got ousted by a international bankers/cia led coup. And of course, the coming overthrow of venezuela in the coming months led by the same culprits.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Happily, it seems their efforts have failed in Venezuela, in vaguely humorous fashion. Juan Guaidó no longer holds any elected office, although he has enjoyed the hundreds of millions of dollars he has received from CIA. (USA taxpayers will put up with literally anything.) There was just a hung jury on the embassy protectors persecution. Hausmann can't figure out whether he is a professor or an IDB rep. Good times! I still hold out some hope for Bolivia. Of course it's tragic that the new "Christian" coup government has harmed so many indigenous people. In doing so, however, they may have overplayed their hands. Indigenous and unionists aren't knuckling under. There are some inland areas the police and military no longer dare to tread. The coup government that CIA picked out in Bolivia are nearly as hapless as Guaidó and his gang. It will be interesting to see whether Bolivia appears on the popular news in USA once in 2020...
      - ErneX 7y ago
        Evo had a parallel election office set up to manipulate the results of the election. And before you link the recent "MIT study", yeah please don't. That was paid by Mark Weisbrot, a Hugo Chavez paid shill. The level of ruin the bolivarian revolution has brought to my country with the help of Cuba is just appalling. At this point we need all the help available, it's been 20 years already of mismanagement and corruption at levels never before seen in the region.
        bosswipe 7y ago
        Bolivia's GDP has more than doubled in that time period.
      - dntbnmpls 7y ago
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  As most people do who talk about this online, you neglect to mention that in the lead up to the coup, Mossadegh was constitutionally dismissed and yet tried to hold onto power. Doesn't that make him the attempted usurper? It's not like the US put their own figurehead in government after the coup. They just gave it back to the person who was literally the head of the recognized state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état > On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[14] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh Party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[53][54][55] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mosaddegh considered unfair. "The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me"
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    because there are literally declassified docs that show the point was the oil and not "democracy". this is like saying the american civil war was about states rights. it's called a pretext and if it weren't for declassified docs in this case (and secessionist writing in the other case) we'd never hear the end of it (but since all that documentation does exist, it can in fact be neglected) Declassified Documents Reveal CIA Role In 1953 Iranian Coup : NPR https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-documents-reveal-cia-role-in-1953-iranian-coup https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-docume... For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states’ rights — Quartz https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/ https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-w...
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >"The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me" At worst you can say he wanted to be dictator but the dictator wouldn't let him, but arguing that somehow Mosaddegh is the bad guy for resisting such an obvious power grab is ridiculous. Being constitutional doesn't excuse a coup.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  I wondered how Mexico nationalized it's oil industry and found out what happened was they nationalized in 1938. Before the oil companies and wall street could really move against them WWII started and the issue became moot.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  Typical resource curse. Corruption to the max (African countries with diamonds, every non-western country with oil). Venezuela also nationalised their oil industry with Chavez but they were already in a very weak spot and of course not a nuclear power (or close to being one). Oil price dropping was the huff&puff that brought the house down.
  - lettergram 7y ago
    Corruption is common in every country, some countries are just better at propaganda. Have you seen the film “There will be blood”? While not biographical, the gist is people were and are willing to do what it takes to “win”.
    - hdjejdjd 7y ago
      Comments like yours that think corruption in the west is anything comparable to the shit world are always so funny to read - like it's a neon light saying you've traded fealty to being reflexively contrarian for anything resembling reasoned informed thought. Like how clueless are you? It's pathetic you're talking about propaganda while spewing hack nonsense. It's very telling that on the subject of corruption, you have to bring up a made up movie to act like you have a clue.
    - jrumbut 7y ago
      In the US I have gotten or been part of getting a driver's license, building permits, government jobs, and government contracts and have never paid a bribe, been offered one, or seen someone else do so except in a newspaper story. I don't know if the cynicism is warranted or helpful really. Of course every country has bad actors and every system has problems but there are real differences and improvements possible.
      - newyankee 7y ago
        The difference is US or Western countries are already mature. I am sure different types of corruption existed there in 19th century when the country was still expanding. Off course culture of people matter but systemic rot arises when existing people work in what essentially is sometimes a negative sum game. Fights between heterogeneous groups over limited resources exist and far too often much powerful foreign powers do interfere to make the best of the situation for themselves.
inawarminister 7y ago
>The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith. >So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall? Actually the Ba'athist dictators and monarchs are against the faith. The only country in Middle East with proper theocratic state is the Iranians, and they are doing "alright" so far as a middle power who is in a decades-long cold war with the current Superpower.
xyproto 7y ago
Only 18% of the GDP of Norway is from oil and gas, though. Even without any savings, Norway would probably end up similar to other Nordic states.
- ac29 7y ago
  Their oil-funded sovereign wealth fund has a value of 1T USD [0]. If they manage to achieve modest 4.4% returns, those returns would represent 10% of GDP. Last year, it returned 187B USD [1], or the equivalent of 42% of GDP (though I don't believe the fund's returns are considered part of GDP). [0] https://www.nbim.no/en/ https://www.nbim.no/en/ [1] https://www.nbim.no/contentassets/3d447c795db84a18b54df8dd87d3b60e/spu_annual_report_2019_en_web.pdf https://www.nbim.no/contentassets/3d447c795db84a18b54df8dd87...
  - xyproto 7y ago
    Yes, but the other Nordic states does not have similar savings, but are still doing well. I agree that it's a huge advantage, but I'm not convinced that the oil has been key for Norway. I think using only the oil as the explanation is a bit too simple. There is a well functioning social democracy in place, with a high level of trust both in the government and in the other inhabitants.
soperj 7y ago
>At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. I mean, US and Canada are the same here. Just instead of Monarchs you have CEOs, and the religions name is capitalism.
fsloth 7y ago
"At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people." An exclusive political and economic system is always stifling towards those excluded. I would turn this discussion a bit around, that having natural resources is irrelevant to the well being of the people if the political and economic institutions are not inclusive. And for inclusive states natural resources likely should contribute only a portion of GDP with healthy investments in other sectors as well. All the diamonds and gold in the world is irrelevant to the wellbeing of the common people if they are repressed... And if they are not repressed, the relative value of such resources is diminished as other economic activity should be available as well, then.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  > All the diamonds and gold in the world is irrelevant to the wellbeing of the common people if they are repressed... And if they are not repressed, the relative value of such resources is diminished as other economic activity should be available as well, then. You are leaving out the fact that a lot of natural resources is a huge incentive for someone to try to repress a population.
  - fsloth 7y ago
    Sure, you need something with a capital output to create an imbalance of wealth. But usually the capital output of any society is sufficient to incentivise exclusivity and repression. Even humans just surviving generally create a capital surplus - and no matter how small - taking that is sufficient to make few individuals wealthy.
CMCDragonkai 7y ago
And people think the refugee problem is bad now. Wait till all the middle eastern economies collapse.
nradov 7y ago
Venezuelan oil exports have collapsed due to a mix of foreign sanctions, corruption, and government incompetence.
- loeg 7y ago
  And low quality crude means they can't afford to pull it out of the ground when prices are low.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - HenryBemis 7y ago
    Yes, Venezuela managed to put themselves into a corner. Russia has been saving billions in foreign currency for "a rainy day". Venezuela didn't have the discipline of Russia and of course doesn't have the military might either.
yyyk 7y ago
"At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts... At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families" Note that while in resource effect they are the opposite, in terms of resource exploitation structure they are close. Both cases nationalized their oil production - yeah, some ME states had a Western monopoly first, but that was decades ago. For the last 30 years, nearly all ME countries have nationalized their production. The difference has more to do with governance structures, industrialization (Norway already had industry when oil was discovered) and resource curse.
Angostura 7y ago
> What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall? https://stepfeed.com/these-old-photos-of-dubai-show-how-much-the-uae-has-changed-0441 https://stepfeed.com/these-old-photos-of-dubai-show-how-much...
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. You might want to look into who propped up these monarchs and despots. If Norway wasn't a european nation, it too would have been toppled and destroyed by the US or european powers for their oil. > So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. Religion had nothing to do with it. It's geopolitics. Also, middle eastern nations have some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund > Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers The US and Russia are. Norway isn't ( not in total volume at least ). Venezuela could be but due to US sanctions they are not. Not to mention the US led regime change venezuela is about to experience which will once again destabilize and impoverish venezuela. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ... > Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term Solar hasn't made much of a dent and won't make a dent anytime soon. Oil demand has increased while solar is just a tiny blip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...
du2hehehdy 7y ago
This analysis seems superficial and xenophobic. I doubt it'll get many down votes on HN because pro Nordic and European statements rarely get much criticism, neither do infantalizing statements about people who practice a religion, but it's none the less fairly exemplary of an increasingly common western attitude that simultaneously promotes a shallow understanding of other cultures while simultaneously pretending to be enlightened because it's arguing in favor of 'the people'. ≥At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government. Conflicts with... ≥At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. These are both examples of government ownership of the resources. Humanitarian differences don't magically make one government owned and not the other. ≥The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith. >So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. This is theological bigotry plain and simple yet I never see it called out in tech forums when politics comes up. The idea that people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle East, are simply too blinded by their traditions to ascend towards a way of life resembling what we westerners have is outright ignorant and devalues the very real social movements that happen in these regions. And even if you do believe that the theocratic leanings of the region's social movements and policy makers are detrimental with regard to distributing economic gains back to the people, so what? These broad generalizations about faith add nothing useful to the dialogue as far as coming up with solutions. It might shock some people to realize that it's possible to tackle economic development and social wellbeing without demonizing cultural keystones. I'd even go so far as to argue that this sort of theological shaming is actually toxic towards generating solutions because it promotes a narrative that there won't be progress until they give up on their misguided ways. ≥It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up. Again, this sort of description only promotes a narrative where these people are misguided infants, prisoners shackled in allegorical caves by their leaders, who can't see the raw deal they've been dealt. These people aren't stupid, they are aware that their governments are often self serving in the same way that Chinese and Russian people know their governments aren't as perfect as they pretend to be. But again, so what? People have to play the hands they're dealt and some even take pride in certain aspects of that hand. These surface level criticisms only sound compelling to western audiences because most of us have no real awareness of the street level politics in these regions and therefore no idea what social action or change even looks like. >So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future. This is a valid economic criticism for which belittling these people's faith served no point. Sure, cultural factors can accelerate innovation and financial growth. That doesn't immediately indicate that the problem is theocratic. Industry isn't a culture, it's a combination of skill sets and infrastructure. China is the world's second largest economy and has become one of the few nations considered able to pose a growing risk to America's military hegemony, Europe can't even make that claim despite having vastly more in common with the US culturally. The penultimate point being, it's shallow and easy to make hand gesture arguments when the only people in the conversation are equally distant from the realities being discussed. That doesn't mean we have no responsibility to at least try not to be intolerant, if anything it's when our audience largely agrees with us that we have a greater responsibility to be interpretive and self critical.
njarboe 7y ago
And somewhere off the spectrum is the United States where individual property owners own the mineral rights. Not much worry of one entity selling a whole country full of oil for peanuts in that case.
- dboreham 7y ago
  No they don't. Google "split estate". <googles> Hmm even better there is now a movie with that title. I know about this because the land my home sits on can be drilled for oil and gas because long ago someone (the railroad company who were given the land by the federal government, probably) sold the mineral rights. Also the federal government owns vast tracts of mineral rights.
  - njarboe 7y ago
    I understand that mineral rights and surface rights can be separated. I should have mentioned that, as many people are unaware of the fact. What I was highlighting was that in the US individuals and/or companies own property rights to sub-surface minerals below private land, not the government, unlike most countries. People in the US can still claim federal land in the US for basically free, if they are going to mine productive minerals due to The General Mining Act of 1872[1]. Oil and coal leases are different and the government takes a 8%-12.5% royalty. Still not very much. Most of the value goes to a large number of people in the country, not to the government. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      Save for the multitude of sovereign nations within the US that aren't allowed to control their mineral rights.
csomar 7y ago
> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. 1- UAE seems to be doing well. Dubai has diversified beyond oil mainly as a finance (money laundering?) and transportation hub. 2- Kuwait has KIA which seems similar to the Norway model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority and it has considerable market cap. 3- Qatar invested heavily on local infrastructure. They have world class universities, a new extensive metro system, an excellent airport, and well maintained roads. Sure there are some failed examples: Saudi Arabia could have been much better especially that they make lots of money from religious tourism. Libya could have been another Qatar. Iraq could have been at least stable. So...
- frandroid 7y ago
  Iraq had a decent human development index before Gulf Wars 1 & 2, and the intervening sanctions. (I don't want to downplay the brutality of Hussein's regime, guilty of some genocides, but.)
redlock 7y ago
This is very ignorant. Norway’s model was taken from Kuwait (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority) It isn’t a coincidence that an Iraqi advised them. He saw the model in Kuwait.
DSingularity 7y ago
Deceived by religion? You think it is that simple? Those "monarchs and despots" have powerful allies in Washington. Those allies provide them with the lists and the material resources necessary to remain in power. It is simple to just paint an entire population as moronic but reality is more complex. Western nations have colonized the middle east. Colonialism has evolved from direct rule by occupying forces to indirect rule through proxy dictators.
- sh87 7y ago
  Any references backing these broad claims ?
  - anticodon 7y ago
    Where would someone find such references? Is a closely guarded secret. Most of the evidence is circumstantial. It's not in the US interest or in the proxy dictator interest to disclose such information.
mikorym 7y ago
> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Or maybe Nigeria. In terms of Norway, I don't think that nationalisation is really the correct concept as different countries, especially communist ones, view the idea differently. I prefer to avoid the terms altogether and to refer to the qualities of the people themselves who are individually involved.

by cletus 7y ago

mullingitover 7y ago

> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. Iran nationalized their oil industry, and they got a CIA-backed coup for their troubles.

quaquaqua1 7y ago
Allende did the same in Chile with the copper mines and CIA delivered the same medicine in kind. Chile's story is a strange duality of murder and relative economic prosperity. It is extremely difficult to say whether it was "worth it". But, the most important thing is that we say it happened, just like you did.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  Don't forget bolivia last year. The first native american president got ousted by a international bankers/cia led coup. And of course, the coming overthrow of venezuela in the coming months led by the same culprits.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Happily, it seems their efforts have failed in Venezuela, in vaguely humorous fashion. Juan Guaidó no longer holds any elected office, although he has enjoyed the hundreds of millions of dollars he has received from CIA. (USA taxpayers will put up with literally anything.) There was just a hung jury on the embassy protectors persecution. Hausmann can't figure out whether he is a professor or an IDB rep. Good times! I still hold out some hope for Bolivia. Of course it's tragic that the new "Christian" coup government has harmed so many indigenous people. In doing so, however, they may have overplayed their hands. Indigenous and unionists aren't knuckling under. There are some inland areas the police and military no longer dare to tread. The coup government that CIA picked out in Bolivia are nearly as hapless as Guaidó and his gang. It will be interesting to see whether Bolivia appears on the popular news in USA once in 2020...
    - ErneX 7y ago
      Evo had a parallel election office set up to manipulate the results of the election. And before you link the recent "MIT study", yeah please don't. That was paid by Mark Weisbrot, a Hugo Chavez paid shill. The level of ruin the bolivarian revolution has brought to my country with the help of Cuba is just appalling. At this point we need all the help available, it's been 20 years already of mismanagement and corruption at levels never before seen in the region.
      - bosswipe 7y ago
        Bolivia's GDP has more than doubled in that time period.
    - dntbnmpls 7y ago
oh_sigh 7y ago
As most people do who talk about this online, you neglect to mention that in the lead up to the coup, Mossadegh was constitutionally dismissed and yet tried to hold onto power. Doesn't that make him the attempted usurper? It's not like the US put their own figurehead in government after the coup. They just gave it back to the person who was literally the head of the recognized state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état > On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[14] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh Party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[53][54][55] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mosaddegh considered unfair. "The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me"
- throwlaplace 7y ago
  because there are literally declassified docs that show the point was the oil and not "democracy". this is like saying the american civil war was about states rights. it's called a pretext and if it weren't for declassified docs in this case (and secessionist writing in the other case) we'd never hear the end of it (but since all that documentation does exist, it can in fact be neglected) Declassified Documents Reveal CIA Role In 1953 Iranian Coup : NPR https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-documents-reveal-cia-role-in-1953-iranian-coup https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-docume... For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states’ rights — Quartz https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/ https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-w...
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >"The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me" At worst you can say he wanted to be dictator but the dictator wouldn't let him, but arguing that somehow Mosaddegh is the bad guy for resisting such an obvious power grab is ridiculous. Being constitutional doesn't excuse a coup.
Gibbon1 7y ago
I wondered how Mexico nationalized it's oil industry and found out what happened was they nationalized in 1938. Before the oil companies and wall street could really move against them WWII started and the issue became moot.
HenryBemis 7y ago
Typical resource curse. Corruption to the max (African countries with diamonds, every non-western country with oil). Venezuela also nationalised their oil industry with Chavez but they were already in a very weak spot and of course not a nuclear power (or close to being one). Oil price dropping was the huff&puff that brought the house down.
- lettergram 7y ago
  Corruption is common in every country, some countries are just better at propaganda. Have you seen the film “There will be blood”? While not biographical, the gist is people were and are willing to do what it takes to “win”.
  - hdjejdjd 7y ago
    Comments like yours that think corruption in the west is anything comparable to the shit world are always so funny to read - like it's a neon light saying you've traded fealty to being reflexively contrarian for anything resembling reasoned informed thought. Like how clueless are you? It's pathetic you're talking about propaganda while spewing hack nonsense. It's very telling that on the subject of corruption, you have to bring up a made up movie to act like you have a clue.
  - jrumbut 7y ago
    In the US I have gotten or been part of getting a driver's license, building permits, government jobs, and government contracts and have never paid a bribe, been offered one, or seen someone else do so except in a newspaper story. I don't know if the cynicism is warranted or helpful really. Of course every country has bad actors and every system has problems but there are real differences and improvements possible.
    - newyankee 7y ago
      The difference is US or Western countries are already mature. I am sure different types of corruption existed there in 19th century when the country was still expanding. Off course culture of people matter but systemic rot arises when existing people work in what essentially is sometimes a negative sum game. Fights between heterogeneous groups over limited resources exist and far too often much powerful foreign powers do interfere to make the best of the situation for themselves.

inawarminister 7y ago

>The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith. >So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall? Actually the Ba'athist dictators and monarchs are against the faith. The only country in Middle East with proper theocratic state is the Iranians, and they are doing "alright" so far as a middle power who is in a decades-long cold war with the current Superpower.

xyproto 7y ago

Only 18% of the GDP of Norway is from oil and gas, though. Even without any savings, Norway would probably end up similar to other Nordic states.

ac29 7y ago
Their oil-funded sovereign wealth fund has a value of 1T USD [0]. If they manage to achieve modest 4.4% returns, those returns would represent 10% of GDP. Last year, it returned 187B USD [1], or the equivalent of 42% of GDP (though I don't believe the fund's returns are considered part of GDP). [0] https://www.nbim.no/en/ https://www.nbim.no/en/ [1] https://www.nbim.no/contentassets/3d447c795db84a18b54df8dd87d3b60e/spu_annual_report_2019_en_web.pdf https://www.nbim.no/contentassets/3d447c795db84a18b54df8dd87...
- xyproto 7y ago
  Yes, but the other Nordic states does not have similar savings, but are still doing well. I agree that it's a huge advantage, but I'm not convinced that the oil has been key for Norway. I think using only the oil as the explanation is a bit too simple. There is a well functioning social democracy in place, with a high level of trust both in the government and in the other inhabitants.

soperj 7y ago

>At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. I mean, US and Canada are the same here. Just instead of Monarchs you have CEOs, and the religions name is capitalism.

fsloth 7y ago

"At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people." An exclusive political and economic system is always stifling towards those excluded. I would turn this discussion a bit around, that having natural resources is irrelevant to the well being of the people if the political and economic institutions are not inclusive. And for inclusive states natural resources likely should contribute only a portion of GDP with healthy investments in other sectors as well. All the diamonds and gold in the world is irrelevant to the wellbeing of the common people if they are repressed... And if they are not repressed, the relative value of such resources is diminished as other economic activity should be available as well, then.

cortesoft 7y ago
> All the diamonds and gold in the world is irrelevant to the wellbeing of the common people if they are repressed... And if they are not repressed, the relative value of such resources is diminished as other economic activity should be available as well, then. You are leaving out the fact that a lot of natural resources is a huge incentive for someone to try to repress a population.
- fsloth 7y ago
  Sure, you need something with a capital output to create an imbalance of wealth. But usually the capital output of any society is sufficient to incentivise exclusivity and repression. Even humans just surviving generally create a capital surplus - and no matter how small - taking that is sufficient to make few individuals wealthy.

CMCDragonkai 7y ago

And people think the refugee problem is bad now. Wait till all the middle eastern economies collapse.

nradov 7y ago

Venezuelan oil exports have collapsed due to a mix of foreign sanctions, corruption, and government incompetence.

loeg 7y ago
And low quality crude means they can't afford to pull it out of the ground when prices are low.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  Yes, Venezuela managed to put themselves into a corner. Russia has been saving billions in foreign currency for "a rainy day". Venezuela didn't have the discipline of Russia and of course doesn't have the military might either.

yyyk 7y ago

"At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts... At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families" Note that while in resource effect they are the opposite, in terms of resource exploitation structure they are close. Both cases nationalized their oil production - yeah, some ME states had a Western monopoly first, but that was decades ago. For the last 30 years, nearly all ME countries have nationalized their production. The difference has more to do with governance structures, industrialization (Norway already had industry when oil was discovered) and resource curse.

Angostura 7y ago

> What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall? https://stepfeed.com/these-old-photos-of-dubai-show-how-much-the-uae-has-changed-0441 https://stepfeed.com/these-old-photos-of-dubai-show-how-much...

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. You might want to look into who propped up these monarchs and despots. If Norway wasn't a european nation, it too would have been toppled and destroyed by the US or european powers for their oil. > So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. Religion had nothing to do with it. It's geopolitics. Also, middle eastern nations have some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund > Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers The US and Russia are. Norway isn't ( not in total volume at least ). Venezuela could be but due to US sanctions they are not. Not to mention the US led regime change venezuela is about to experience which will once again destabilize and impoverish venezuela. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ... > Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term Solar hasn't made much of a dent and won't make a dent anytime soon. Oil demand has increased while solar is just a tiny blip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...

du2hehehdy 7y ago

This analysis seems superficial and xenophobic. I doubt it'll get many down votes on HN because pro Nordic and European statements rarely get much criticism, neither do infantalizing statements about people who practice a religion, but it's none the less fairly exemplary of an increasingly common western attitude that simultaneously promotes a shallow understanding of other cultures while simultaneously pretending to be enlightened because it's arguing in favor of 'the people'. ≥At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government. Conflicts with... ≥At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. These are both examples of government ownership of the resources. Humanitarian differences don't magically make one government owned and not the other. ≥The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith. >So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. This is theological bigotry plain and simple yet I never see it called out in tech forums when politics comes up. The idea that people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle East, are simply too blinded by their traditions to ascend towards a way of life resembling what we westerners have is outright ignorant and devalues the very real social movements that happen in these regions. And even if you do believe that the theocratic leanings of the region's social movements and policy makers are detrimental with regard to distributing economic gains back to the people, so what? These broad generalizations about faith add nothing useful to the dialogue as far as coming up with solutions. It might shock some people to realize that it's possible to tackle economic development and social wellbeing without demonizing cultural keystones. I'd even go so far as to argue that this sort of theological shaming is actually toxic towards generating solutions because it promotes a narrative that there won't be progress until they give up on their misguided ways. ≥It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up. Again, this sort of description only promotes a narrative where these people are misguided infants, prisoners shackled in allegorical caves by their leaders, who can't see the raw deal they've been dealt. These people aren't stupid, they are aware that their governments are often self serving in the same way that Chinese and Russian people know their governments aren't as perfect as they pretend to be. But again, so what? People have to play the hands they're dealt and some even take pride in certain aspects of that hand. These surface level criticisms only sound compelling to western audiences because most of us have no real awareness of the street level politics in these regions and therefore no idea what social action or change even looks like. >So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future. This is a valid economic criticism for which belittling these people's faith served no point. Sure, cultural factors can accelerate innovation and financial growth. That doesn't immediately indicate that the problem is theocratic. Industry isn't a culture, it's a combination of skill sets and infrastructure. China is the world's second largest economy and has become one of the few nations considered able to pose a growing risk to America's military hegemony, Europe can't even make that claim despite having vastly more in common with the US culturally. The penultimate point being, it's shallow and easy to make hand gesture arguments when the only people in the conversation are equally distant from the realities being discussed. That doesn't mean we have no responsibility to at least try not to be intolerant, if anything it's when our audience largely agrees with us that we have a greater responsibility to be interpretive and self critical.

njarboe 7y ago

And somewhere off the spectrum is the United States where individual property owners own the mineral rights. Not much worry of one entity selling a whole country full of oil for peanuts in that case.

dboreham 7y ago
No they don't. Google "split estate". <googles> Hmm even better there is now a movie with that title. I know about this because the land my home sits on can be drilled for oil and gas because long ago someone (the railroad company who were given the land by the federal government, probably) sold the mineral rights. Also the federal government owns vast tracts of mineral rights.
- njarboe 7y ago
  I understand that mineral rights and surface rights can be separated. I should have mentioned that, as many people are unaware of the fact. What I was highlighting was that in the US individuals and/or companies own property rights to sub-surface minerals below private land, not the government, unlike most countries. People in the US can still claim federal land in the US for basically free, if they are going to mine productive minerals due to The General Mining Act of 1872[1]. Oil and coal leases are different and the government takes a 8%-12.5% royalty. Still not very much. Most of the value goes to a large number of people in the country, not to the government. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Save for the multitude of sovereign nations within the US that aren't allowed to control their mineral rights.

csomar 7y ago

> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people. 1- UAE seems to be doing well. Dubai has diversified beyond oil mainly as a finance (money laundering?) and transportation hub. 2- Kuwait has KIA which seems similar to the Norway model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority and it has considerable market cap. 3- Qatar invested heavily on local infrastructure. They have world class universities, a new extensive metro system, an excellent airport, and well maintained roads. Sure there are some failed examples: Saudi Arabia could have been much better especially that they make lots of money from religious tourism. Libya could have been another Qatar. Iraq could have been at least stable. So...

frandroid 7y ago
Iraq had a decent human development index before Gulf Wars 1 & 2, and the intervening sanctions. (I don't want to downplay the brutality of Hussein's regime, guilty of some genocides, but.)

redlock 7y ago

This is very ignorant. Norway’s model was taken from Kuwait (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority) It isn’t a coincidence that an Iraqi advised them. He saw the model in Kuwait.

DSingularity 7y ago

Deceived by religion? You think it is that simple? Those "monarchs and despots" have powerful allies in Washington. Those allies provide them with the lists and the material resources necessary to remain in power. It is simple to just paint an entire population as moronic but reality is more complex. Western nations have colonized the middle east. Colonialism has evolved from direct rule by occupying forces to indirect rule through proxy dictators.

sh87 7y ago
Any references backing these broad claims ?
- anticodon 7y ago
  Where would someone find such references? Is a closely guarded secret. Most of the evidence is circumstantial. It's not in the US interest or in the proxy dictator interest to disclose such information.

mikorym 7y ago

> At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Or maybe Nigeria. In terms of Norway, I don't think that nationalisation is really the correct concept as different countries, especially communist ones, view the idea differently. I prefer to avoid the terms altogether and to refer to the qualities of the people themselves who are individually involved.