4 ms·
It's not surprising. There's a theory which says that having resources that can be extracted from the ground makes it less likely that a country will develop on
by nindalf 7y ago
It's not surprising. There's a theory which says that having resources that can be extracted from the ground makes it less likely that a country will develop on any axis - economically, in education, health, democracy etc.
There are many theories about why this happens [1] but the one that I agree with the most is the one found in the book The Dictator's Handbook - it's simply not in the interest of the ruler of such a place to develop the country. Here's a trailer of that book by CGPGrey - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
- shadowprofile77 7y agoSo why do countries like Canada, the U.S.A or Norway have persistent long-term prosperity? Furthermore why do many other middle-income countries have natural resources but still manage to incrementally see their overall quality of life improve?
- Can_Not 7y agoWe pay the dictators, they give us raw materials and our fair share of the surplus value from their slave's labor. The dictators enjoy glorious wealthy lifestyle and we get goods manufactured cheaply. Everybody wins.
- shadowprofile77 7y agoI specifically mentioned three countries that are just what the comment above described, resource rich nations that gained a significant portion of their initial or long term wealth creation from the materials they extracted from their own soil, but somehow managed to remain relatively well administered, fairly free and mostly democratic. Your criticism has it's valid aspects but it's secondary to the point I was making.
- Can_Not 7y agoWe do a really good job of outsourcing slavery to colony nations.