5 ms·

Norway is probably the best managed petrostate. The key appears to be directing revenues into foreign investment and use the gains to pay for social programs ov

Norway is probably the best managed petrostate. The key appears to be directing revenues into foreign investment and use the gains to pay for social programs over long periods of time, rather than dumping money into your economy.

avgcorrection 3y ago
In the Americas. Being a petronation on the edge of America’s backyard evidently works fine. America won’t try to coup that part of the world. (As far as I know.)
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Canada and Denmark (Greenland) would have a word with you.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    What point are you trying to make besides being a contrarian? Tell me.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      1. The foreign policy decisions made by administrations during the Cold War are no longer implemented anymore. The Cold War is as distant in 2023 as WW2 was in 1980. The world in 2023 is different from the world in the 1970s which is different from the world in the 1940s. 2. The institutional changes that caused Venezuela's dramatic slide only really began to take hold in the 2000s, and were exacerbated by the global collapse in commodity prices in the 2012-15 period. 3. Plenty of petro-states across South and Central America have in 2023 reached a state of development comparable to eastern members of the EU (ie. In the 0.7 or high development range). 4. GDP per capita is a crummy metric to compare economic development. GDP (and ergo per capita GDP) are metrics to benchmark production, not social development, which are better measured when looking at metrics such as HDI, Life Expectancy, Literacy Rate, Median Income, Childhood Mortality Rate, etc. Even though Venezuela had a very high GDP per capita in the late 1970s/early 1980s, it was extremely unevenly distributed. In fact, in the time period that Venezeula had the 4th highest GDP per capita, it's Gini Coefficient (the metric for wealth inequality) was 0.500 [0]. This is in line with Angola and Zimbabwe today, and was much worse than other nations across South America. By that time period, the kind of interventions you saw in Chile, Guatemala, etc were not as vogue, with the Iran-Contra Scandal acting as the final nail in the coffin for any direct clandestine intervention. Venezuela's problems today are caused by Venezuela's leaders mismanaging the economic dividend in the 2000s and elites on both sides of the aisle in Venezeula working to undermine institutions to their benefit. [0] - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-05147-2_18 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-05147-2_...
      - avgcorrection 3y ago
        I wouldn’t have guessed that your point was about Venezuela.
piva00 3y ago
> The key appears to be directing revenues into foreign investment and use the gains to pay for social programs over long periods of time, rather than dumping money into your economy. Which was a policy suggested by an Iraqi (Farouk al-Kasim) to the Norwegian government. [0] [0] https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...

avgcorrection 3y ago

In the Americas. Being a petronation on the edge of America’s backyard evidently works fine. America won’t try to coup that part of the world. (As far as I know.)

alephnerd 3y ago
Canada and Denmark (Greenland) would have a word with you.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  What point are you trying to make besides being a contrarian? Tell me.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    1. The foreign policy decisions made by administrations during the Cold War are no longer implemented anymore. The Cold War is as distant in 2023 as WW2 was in 1980. The world in 2023 is different from the world in the 1970s which is different from the world in the 1940s. 2. The institutional changes that caused Venezuela's dramatic slide only really began to take hold in the 2000s, and were exacerbated by the global collapse in commodity prices in the 2012-15 period. 3. Plenty of petro-states across South and Central America have in 2023 reached a state of development comparable to eastern members of the EU (ie. In the 0.7 or high development range). 4. GDP per capita is a crummy metric to compare economic development. GDP (and ergo per capita GDP) are metrics to benchmark production, not social development, which are better measured when looking at metrics such as HDI, Life Expectancy, Literacy Rate, Median Income, Childhood Mortality Rate, etc. Even though Venezuela had a very high GDP per capita in the late 1970s/early 1980s, it was extremely unevenly distributed. In fact, in the time period that Venezeula had the 4th highest GDP per capita, it's Gini Coefficient (the metric for wealth inequality) was 0.500 [0]. This is in line with Angola and Zimbabwe today, and was much worse than other nations across South America. By that time period, the kind of interventions you saw in Chile, Guatemala, etc were not as vogue, with the Iran-Contra Scandal acting as the final nail in the coffin for any direct clandestine intervention. Venezuela's problems today are caused by Venezuela's leaders mismanaging the economic dividend in the 2000s and elites on both sides of the aisle in Venezeula working to undermine institutions to their benefit. [0] - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-05147-2_18 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-05147-2_...
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      I wouldn’t have guessed that your point was about Venezuela.

piva00 3y ago

> The key appears to be directing revenues into foreign investment and use the gains to pay for social programs over long periods of time, rather than dumping money into your economy. Which was a policy suggested by an Iraqi (Farouk al-Kasim) to the Norwegian government. [0] [0] https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...