4 ms·

Norway is wealthy because of its strong institutions. Nigeria and Venezuela have more oil, Azerbaijan and Libya too, but for them it's a curse not a blessing. N

Norway is wealthy because of its strong institutions. Nigeria and Venezuela have more oil, Azerbaijan and Libya too, but for them it's a curse not a blessing. Norway has the rule of law, low corruption, people have confidence in their government, and the government looks out for the people. With or without oil, these things are tremendous assets. If oil were to become worthless tomorrow, Norway would continue to do quite well. After all, Denmark has only a tenth of Norway's oil reserves, and about the same population. That doesn't make them ten times poorer, in fact their GDP per capita is only 20% lower.

rootsudo 5y ago
This, but it's also agency too. People in those "other" countries never grew up in a safe, stable and reliable society. What they see is the old system of explore and exploit.
- anovikov 5y ago
  That's right, but here goes the question: colonialism provided a way to "export" safe, stable and reliable societies. And people rejected it. Was it a mistake?
  - space_fountain 5y ago
    I think most people would say colonialism did a poor job of explaining safety at least. Instead it was often powered by racism and subjugation. We do desperately need to find a way to help countries develop, but on the balance colonialism doesn’t seem to be it
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      > We do desperately need to find a way to help countries develop. Hold our currencies.
      - space_fountain 5y ago
        In that the solution is to give them money? Because they doesn't seem to have worked so well either? Or do you mean that really foreign policy is just about keeping the dollar dominate
        throwaway210222 5y ago
        It means that every midlle-clas person, and every foreign and local company in the developing world is obsessed with "getting their money out". And this rational fear is becuase our currencies continue to devalue. You did ask.
        space_fountain 5y ago
        No that's interesting and seems possible. I'm not sure which way the causality works. I think I haven't really seen great examples of isolationism working for development, but maybe some combination of capital controls and confidence in the countries trajectory are helpful
  - pydry 5y ago
    Colonialism certainly liked to think it was "civilizing the savages" but that was far from its true intended purpose or effect.
  - rootsudo 5y ago
    That's another fun conversation of governance, rights and nation building. Which, ironically has plagued South America for quite a while - The reason Colombia and Venezuela have similar flags is they had the same wars and fight for freedom. They freed themselves from Spain and then became the institutions we know today. Corrupt, semi corrupt nation states, not on a national level but influence can be bought. Africa no idea, but that's the thing, was it fully rejection? Not every country can be the United States in terms of fighting for freedom, gaining independence and being successful. You can still go into many parts of New England and see lots of British influence. Also Florida, and see much Spanish influence. It isn't as much as "export" but building, having a plan and the problem then (and possibly event today) is that the people who are successful, ethical, moral and such are living comfortable lives. Prisoners were most of the people that were on the Spanish ships that sailed to Venezuela and Colombia and built much of that, alongside prisoners were political refugees such as Jewish people and people who were destitute. Religious political refugees too, bad enough stuff but not exactly criminal. You can kinda align it today with the people who are ground on troops with USA in AFghanistan, where we exported our way of life for 20 years. Overnight, erased. The people there didn't want it, we didn't leave anyone part of the military behind and whomever had some influence slid into power or fled for their life. -- I don't even know where to begin w/ Africa, I'm not up to date on their History or such besides some/much used to belong to the French.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      Algeria and Guinea rejected it.
  - nromppl 5y ago
    Colonization provides a "safe, stable and reliable society" only as much as prison provides a "safe, stable and reliable living". Your average colony is a stunted caricature of a country, with borders and an economy that only make sense in the context of servitude to a remote power. The only consistently prosperous form of former-colony is the type where the colonizers just removed and replaced the native population entirely - an extension of their own society into newly-emptied land. USA, Canada, Australia, etc. There is no prosperity for the locals under colonialism. It's either servitude or erasure. And you're surprised people rejected it? And you're questioning if it was a mistake to reject it?
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    > colonialism provided a way to "export" safe, stable and reliable societies. I had to read this a few times to be sure this really was the point you were trying to make. One of many examples on how this is absolutely abhorrently untrue: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free...
nowayman1 5y ago
No - Norway hasnt been treated like Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya because Norway is a white western country. Thus, neither the US/UK/France nor others will topple democratic regimes in Norway to get at the resources. Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya on the other hand are "expendable" nations where western powers clear the slate and build as they like. Usually in the name of Democracy, but really in the name of money. A perfect example is Iraq -- the US installed Saddam Hussein, then armed him, let me rule the country to despair, then the US spent two decades removing him and re-destroying the country. All the while, cheap to free oil was extracted from the nation for the benefit of western powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya are corrupt because the US/UK/others install corrupt regimes and topple democratic ones.
- Jensson 5y ago
  Do you really argue that Muammar Gaddafi was democratically elected? He ruled as a dictator for 40 years until the Arab spring toppled his regime. He didn't come to power thanks to western influence, rather his coup was based on the anti west group.
- mirekrusin 5y ago
  What about Brazil?
  - dundarious 5y ago
    The Jakarta Method came to Brazil to install a military dictatorship, then after that ended, didn’t they have good growth under Lula and more questionably under Dilma?
- no_butterscotch 5y ago
  I'm not disputing that Western nations have meddled in these countries too much. But it seems like you're completely absolving these countries and peoples of all responsibility for their country and themselves, that in and of itself seems like the Western elites' "these people can't help themselves" approach. The reality is likely a mix somewhere between the two, variable for each country and circumstance.
mogadsheu 5y ago
They’ve managed to maintain their wealth in social order largely because they’re neighbors of the British and friendly with them. And they’re part of NATO. When Philips struck at Ekofisk some very smart people in the US/UK came to help them develop. Norway was (by their own account) a country of scattered fishing villages.
- hanche 5y ago
  > Norway was (by their own account) a country of scattered fishing villages. By whose account, again? I grew up in Norway just before the oil boom started, and I never thought of the country that way. We had lumber, we had cheap hydroelectric power that we used to process aluminium and make fertiliser, and we were practically a global superpower in terms of ocean shipping. True, we weren’t rich in the way we are now, far from it – but weren’t that poor either. A big part of our success as an oil producing nation is that we weren’t simply letting the (mostly) American oil producers just come in and do as they pleased; instead, we insisted on building our own expertise and running the business on our own terms. We hit many snags along the way, but it has paid off in the long run.
lucb1e 5y ago
> Norway has the rule of law, low corruption, people have confidence in their government, and the government looks out for the people. With or without oil, these things are tremendous assets. I think you missed that they have tons of hydro power available which is iirc cheaper or at least on par with burning fossil fuel, so they don't even need oil. Cheap power basically runs down their hills. (Similar to how in Iceland the hot water just spawns out of the ground. Yes I'm a little jealous.)
londons_explore 5y ago
Could the fact Norway's oil is offshore be a big part of this difference? Only the best prepared attackers can wrestle control of those oilfields from the government and their delegates. Whereas if oil is over land, all it takes is a few determined people to shut down production for weeks.

rootsudo 5y ago

This, but it's also agency too. People in those "other" countries never grew up in a safe, stable and reliable society. What they see is the old system of explore and exploit.

anovikov 5y ago
That's right, but here goes the question: colonialism provided a way to "export" safe, stable and reliable societies. And people rejected it. Was it a mistake?
- space_fountain 5y ago
  I think most people would say colonialism did a poor job of explaining safety at least. Instead it was often powered by racism and subjugation. We do desperately need to find a way to help countries develop, but on the balance colonialism doesn’t seem to be it
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > We do desperately need to find a way to help countries develop. Hold our currencies.
    - space_fountain 5y ago
      In that the solution is to give them money? Because they doesn't seem to have worked so well either? Or do you mean that really foreign policy is just about keeping the dollar dominate
      - throwaway210222 5y ago
        It means that every midlle-clas person, and every foreign and local company in the developing world is obsessed with "getting their money out". And this rational fear is becuase our currencies continue to devalue. You did ask.
        space_fountain 5y ago
        No that's interesting and seems possible. I'm not sure which way the causality works. I think I haven't really seen great examples of isolationism working for development, but maybe some combination of capital controls and confidence in the countries trajectory are helpful
- pydry 5y ago
  Colonialism certainly liked to think it was "civilizing the savages" but that was far from its true intended purpose or effect.
- rootsudo 5y ago
  That's another fun conversation of governance, rights and nation building. Which, ironically has plagued South America for quite a while - The reason Colombia and Venezuela have similar flags is they had the same wars and fight for freedom. They freed themselves from Spain and then became the institutions we know today. Corrupt, semi corrupt nation states, not on a national level but influence can be bought. Africa no idea, but that's the thing, was it fully rejection? Not every country can be the United States in terms of fighting for freedom, gaining independence and being successful. You can still go into many parts of New England and see lots of British influence. Also Florida, and see much Spanish influence. It isn't as much as "export" but building, having a plan and the problem then (and possibly event today) is that the people who are successful, ethical, moral and such are living comfortable lives. Prisoners were most of the people that were on the Spanish ships that sailed to Venezuela and Colombia and built much of that, alongside prisoners were political refugees such as Jewish people and people who were destitute. Religious political refugees too, bad enough stuff but not exactly criminal. You can kinda align it today with the people who are ground on troops with USA in AFghanistan, where we exported our way of life for 20 years. Overnight, erased. The people there didn't want it, we didn't leave anyone part of the military behind and whomever had some influence slid into power or fled for their life. -- I don't even know where to begin w/ Africa, I'm not up to date on their History or such besides some/much used to belong to the French.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    Algeria and Guinea rejected it.
- nromppl 5y ago
  Colonization provides a "safe, stable and reliable society" only as much as prison provides a "safe, stable and reliable living". Your average colony is a stunted caricature of a country, with borders and an economy that only make sense in the context of servitude to a remote power. The only consistently prosperous form of former-colony is the type where the colonizers just removed and replaced the native population entirely - an extension of their own society into newly-emptied land. USA, Canada, Australia, etc. There is no prosperity for the locals under colonialism. It's either servitude or erasure. And you're surprised people rejected it? And you're questioning if it was a mistake to reject it?
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  > colonialism provided a way to "export" safe, stable and reliable societies. I had to read this a few times to be sure this really was the point you were trying to make. One of many examples on how this is absolutely abhorrently untrue: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free...

nowayman1 5y ago

No - Norway hasnt been treated like Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya because Norway is a white western country. Thus, neither the US/UK/France nor others will topple democratic regimes in Norway to get at the resources. Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya on the other hand are "expendable" nations where western powers clear the slate and build as they like. Usually in the name of Democracy, but really in the name of money. A perfect example is Iraq -- the US installed Saddam Hussein, then armed him, let me rule the country to despair, then the US spent two decades removing him and re-destroying the country. All the while, cheap to free oil was extracted from the nation for the benefit of western powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme Nigeria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Libya are corrupt because the US/UK/others install corrupt regimes and topple democratic ones.

Jensson 5y ago
Do you really argue that Muammar Gaddafi was democratically elected? He ruled as a dictator for 40 years until the Arab spring toppled his regime. He didn't come to power thanks to western influence, rather his coup was based on the anti west group.
mirekrusin 5y ago
What about Brazil?
- dundarious 5y ago
  The Jakarta Method came to Brazil to install a military dictatorship, then after that ended, didn’t they have good growth under Lula and more questionably under Dilma?
no_butterscotch 5y ago
I'm not disputing that Western nations have meddled in these countries too much. But it seems like you're completely absolving these countries and peoples of all responsibility for their country and themselves, that in and of itself seems like the Western elites' "these people can't help themselves" approach. The reality is likely a mix somewhere between the two, variable for each country and circumstance.

mogadsheu 5y ago

They’ve managed to maintain their wealth in social order largely because they’re neighbors of the British and friendly with them. And they’re part of NATO. When Philips struck at Ekofisk some very smart people in the US/UK came to help them develop. Norway was (by their own account) a country of scattered fishing villages.

hanche 5y ago
> Norway was (by their own account) a country of scattered fishing villages. By whose account, again? I grew up in Norway just before the oil boom started, and I never thought of the country that way. We had lumber, we had cheap hydroelectric power that we used to process aluminium and make fertiliser, and we were practically a global superpower in terms of ocean shipping. True, we weren’t rich in the way we are now, far from it – but weren’t that poor either. A big part of our success as an oil producing nation is that we weren’t simply letting the (mostly) American oil producers just come in and do as they pleased; instead, we insisted on building our own expertise and running the business on our own terms. We hit many snags along the way, but it has paid off in the long run.

lucb1e 5y ago

> Norway has the rule of law, low corruption, people have confidence in their government, and the government looks out for the people. With or without oil, these things are tremendous assets. I think you missed that they have tons of hydro power available which is iirc cheaper or at least on par with burning fossil fuel, so they don't even need oil. Cheap power basically runs down their hills. (Similar to how in Iceland the hot water just spawns out of the ground. Yes I'm a little jealous.)

londons_explore 5y ago

Could the fact Norway's oil is offshore be a big part of this difference? Only the best prepared attackers can wrestle control of those oilfields from the government and their delegates. Whereas if oil is over land, all it takes is a few determined people to shut down production for weeks.