3 ms·

That's a form of the resource curse. Portuguese economy relied heavily on exploiting the colonies. They then used the wealth they acquired to purchase foreign g

That's a form of the resource curse. Portuguese economy relied heavily on exploiting the colonies. They then used the wealth they acquired to purchase foreign goods. Their domestic economy didn't develop properly, as exploitation and trade were more lucrative. That became a major issue once industrialization moved the focus of economy away from primary production. Something similar also happened to Spain.

somewhereoutth 4y ago
Indeed. And now they have a new resource curse - tourism. Like mining, tourism benefits wealth holders (hotel owners etc) much more than wealth creators (the people cooking the food, making the beds). Not many jobs in the tourism sector are high skilled / high paid, and too much of it crowds everything else out.
- convolvatron 4y ago
  that's the first time I've ever heard labor being referred to as 'wealth creators'. that's a term usually applied to capital.
  - somewhereoutth 4y ago
    I'm sure 'Big Capital' would want you to think that! But more seriously, (good) human activity creates wealth - wealth being 'a better world' or 'nice things' or 'human happiness' or 'peace' or 'more toys' or the many other ways of understanding it. Capital is an agglomeration of wealth employed to create more wealth - however without human activity and human direction it can do nothing, instead it amplifies such activity and direction. Furthermore, as society moves to post-industrialisation, the most important wealth creation will require much less capital investment, and much more human effectiveness. In a capitalist society, wealth holders are trusted to direct capital more nimbly and effectively (for ~50% of the economy in modern economies) than the state. As such, they can be understood as creating wealth too. However, it is a simple matter for them to delegate to wealth managers, while creaming off an over-sized share of the proceeds. The trick then is to replace wealth holders with commonly beneficial capital ownership vehicles - i.e. pensions and sovereign wealth funds, while keeping a lid on the wilder excesses of the appointed wealth managers.

somewhereoutth 4y ago

Indeed. And now they have a new resource curse - tourism. Like mining, tourism benefits wealth holders (hotel owners etc) much more than wealth creators (the people cooking the food, making the beds). Not many jobs in the tourism sector are high skilled / high paid, and too much of it crowds everything else out.

convolvatron 4y ago
that's the first time I've ever heard labor being referred to as 'wealth creators'. that's a term usually applied to capital.
- somewhereoutth 4y ago
  I'm sure 'Big Capital' would want you to think that! But more seriously, (good) human activity creates wealth - wealth being 'a better world' or 'nice things' or 'human happiness' or 'peace' or 'more toys' or the many other ways of understanding it. Capital is an agglomeration of wealth employed to create more wealth - however without human activity and human direction it can do nothing, instead it amplifies such activity and direction. Furthermore, as society moves to post-industrialisation, the most important wealth creation will require much less capital investment, and much more human effectiveness. In a capitalist society, wealth holders are trusted to direct capital more nimbly and effectively (for ~50% of the economy in modern economies) than the state. As such, they can be understood as creating wealth too. However, it is a simple matter for them to delegate to wealth managers, while creaming off an over-sized share of the proceeds. The trick then is to replace wealth holders with commonly beneficial capital ownership vehicles - i.e. pensions and sovereign wealth funds, while keeping a lid on the wilder excesses of the appointed wealth managers.