11 ms·
On one hand, it's unfair that a country already very rich with natural resources discovers more of them. On the other hand, if there is a country which can be
by sofixa 2y ago
On one hand, it's unfair that a country already very rich with natural resources discovers more of them.
On the other hand, if there is a country which can be trusted to exploit natural resources in a way that benefits the whole country and its population, and not fall down the resource curse[1], it's Norway.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
- 7thaccount 2y agoThere are a lot of unfair things in the world :)
- zer00eyz 2y ago> in a way that benefits the whole country and its population Selling oil to the world and buying Nestle stock. Great for Norway, too bad for everyone else. Its akin to apple and musk saying "fuck it where gonna split the pie with every one in CA" and the rest of America getting bupkis. Norway is a model for good for NORWAY, not a model for good.
- iwontberude 2y agoApple is not the reason why Silcon Valley is the way it is, this is emergent and not in any agents control. Let’s not forget Apple has large campuses around the US and in Ireland.
- analognoise 2y agoEspecially Ireland, because that’s how you can shelter a bunch of your profits from taxes. Apple cares about Ireland as much as they can abuse them to not pay their share of taxes.
- selectodude 2y agoApple has had a pretty large office in cork since 1980.
- dmix 2y ago> Norway is a model for good for NORWAY, not a model for good. Why should a country prioritize other countries over their own interests, particularly when it comes to economics? Everyone does that I guess it's only bad when youre doing well or something, then you're obliged to be the world's benefactor. We're not even talking about donating to developing countries either.
- zer00eyz 2y agoThe line is very arbitrary... > Why should a country prioritize other countries over their own interests, particularly when it comes to economics? Everyone does that Why should a person prioritize other people over their own interests, particularly when it comes to economics? Everyone does that... I guess it's only bad when youre doing well or something, then you're obliged to be the peoples's benefactor. We're not even talking about donating to developing people either.
- supplied_demand 2y ago==The line is very arbitrary...== Is it? Countries are not people. Democracies like Norway, are comprised of many people who elect officials to represent their interests as a people. How is that the same as an individual person?
- zer00eyz 2y agoSo it's fine for Norway to sell oil and buy nestle for the good of its people. But it's bad for the ultra rich to do the same?
- supplied_demand 2y agoWhat "good of its people" are the ultra rich serving? They are serving the good of themselves, no other people involved. When Norway sells oil, lots of that money goes to a generous social safety net that supports people of Norway. The analogy doesn't really work.
- rqtwteye 2y agoIt beats the model of the rest of the world where billionaires get resources for cheap and then sell oil to the world and buy Nestle stock. "Its akin to apple and musk saying "fuck it where gonna split the pie with every one in CA" and the rest of America getting bupkis." It beats taking the whole pie and complaining about taxes.
- CamperBob2 2y agoHonestly, it seems like the "rare earth elements" are considered "rare" because people didn't bother looking for them until recently. They seem to be pretty widely distributed in reality, just not always easy to access.
- ajuc 2y agoYup. Lead is less common in Earth's crust than: - lithium - cobalt - neodymium - lanthanum - ytrium - scandium - cerium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth... We simply had far more uses for lead till very recently.
- KptMarchewa 2y agoThat's the case with great majority of the limited minerals.
- dagw 2y agoThey seem to be pretty widely distributed in reality That's the problem. They're 'everywhere', but generally in such low concentrations that it just isn't profitable to extract them.
- fifilura 2y agoI agree. It seems like these news got old pretty quickly https://lkab.com/en/press/europes-largest-deposit-of-rare-earth-metals-is-located-in-the-kiruna-area/ https://lkab.com/en/press/europes-largest-deposit-of-rare-ea...
- karaterobot 2y agoThis is my understanding as well. Until recently, it wasn't worth the cost for most countries to secure their own supplies, so they just bought them from the countries that sold them cheaply. When push comes to shove—or, when rare earth metals because strategic—it's a question of "do we want to invest in digging up our own?" not "gee, do we have enough of this stuff in the ground at all?".
- smegsicle 2y agoalso unfair number of fjords
- mogadsheu 2y agoThe thing about Norway is that it’s a cold, barren, remote place where very few people want to live. Most of the year it’s cold and gray, and most of the country is uninhabitable. The result is that its natural resources haven’t been consumed to the degree that most developed countries’ resources have, and there aren’t as many people to consume them. I find it a strangely fair situation. Their luck comes from having friendly neighbors who care about their well-being and responsible development.
- samastur 2y agoWhat the hell are you talking about? I've been to Norway 4-5 times and will visit again in about a month. It's wonderful throughout and wish we could live there.
- b112 2y agoThat, and the heroes that risked life and limb to start those first oil rigs, many dying, so a poor country could use the wealth to help its own people.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoNorway has been relatively wealthy since 1870...
- anonyfox 2y ago> where very few people want to live just as a sole data point: been there a few times, and my personal ideal weather _is_ cool/gray/wet with ideal outside temperature of 15C. I can withstand the cold, but find it hard to tolerate heat (as in >20C). Purely from a weather perspective, I'd move there. What holds me back is that I also need dense urban surroundings nearby with all the buzz it brings (cyberpunk style) - norway is lacking that, including Oslo. _Too_ quiet/beautiful/peaceful for my liking.
- NegatioN 2y agoWhat gets most foreigners is usually the darkness in the winter, and not the temperature fwiw. It's hard to describe, but many people end up quite depressed.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- blackhawkC17 2y agoNorway already had a developed, functional economy before discovering oil, so it didn't fall into the resource curse. In contrast, any developing country that discovers a valuable resource will almost always devolve into corruption and, at worst, conflict because their weak institutions can easily be corrupted by internal and external parties. A case study is my country (Nigeria), a notoriously corrupt oil-dependent cratered economy. I'm honestly happy for Norway to find more resources. Any country that demonstrates responsible use of resources for internal development deserves more..this includes most of Western and Northern Europe plus the US and Canada.
- snowpid 2y agoDo (educated) people in Nigeria see Norway as a role model for political development? Also how is Botswana seen in Nigeria? (If this questions arent too broad, my apologies)
- blackhawkC17 2y ago> Do (educated) people in Nigeria see Norway as a role model for political development? Corruption and incompetence are too rampant here, so the Norwegian model will never work—nobody thinks of it. We also have 40 times the population and fewer resources than Norway, making it impossible. > Also, how is Botswana seen in Nigeria? Almost no one thinks of it, lol. But it's arguably the best African country for the average citizen, owing to relatively low corruption and a high value for the rule of law. Compared to Europe, Bostwana is a backwater, but in Africa, it's currently our peak :(
- epolanski 2y agoFrom what I've read about Botswana is way ahead on many matters compared to most of Europe (e.g. gender equality).
- blackhawkC17 2y agoEven if that were true (I doubt it), Botswana remains way behind on economic prospects for the average individual, the core issue when we talk about development. > Based on these estimates, 17.2 percent of the population in Botswana (446 thousand people in 2021) is multidimensionally poor, while an additional 19.7 percent is classified as vulnerable to multidimensional poverty (509 thousand people in 2021). https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-Profiles/MPI/BWA.pdf https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/Country-Profiles/MP...
- dncornholio 2y agoThis has absolutely nothing to with what is fair. They just lucky. Nothing unfair, unless you think about who put the metals there.
- screye 2y agoIt's unfair. Period. But nothing in the world has ever been fair. So unfair as it maybe, it's also normal. General question, has any high HDI country fallen prey to the resource curse? (Maybe California and some communist nations?) Norway has done well, and they've done very very well.... But, high HDI, no immigration, cultural homogeninity and infinite money hack does make it seem like they're playing on easy mode. Many countries with lower starting HDI have navigated around their resource curses just as well (Singapore, Botswana). Norway deserves credit, but it is an ineffective blueprint for nations looking to beat their own economic traps.
- EA-3167 2y agoTruthfully it's neither fair nor unfair, it's academic. These minerals are not actually rare, they're ubiquitous, but they're energetically and environmentally unfavorable to exploit. China does it because of their um... unique economic system, and lack of eff's to give about the environmental consequences. Everyone else would have to pay a fortune in energy costs and another fortune mitigating environmental effects, which makes them economically unfavorable to exploit. For Norway, just like Wyoming and a dozen other places this same story has played out, this changes nothing.
- dr-detroit 2y ago[dead]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> it seem like they're playing on easy mode Now consider their climate and centuries of war.
- Epa095 2y agoIt's literally called 'Dutch disease', so there's the answer to your question ;-)
- wizardforhire 2y agoThis recent real life yore video backs up your claims https://youtube.com/watch?v=RO8vWJfmY88&pp=ygUJTm9yd2F5IG9w https://youtube.com/watch?v=RO8vWJfmY88&pp=ygUJTm9yd2F5IG9w
- jmyeet 2y agoNorway isn't a lucky outlier. Norway's control over resource extraction is simply tolerated by the United States because they're a European nation. When other countries try and do anything similar, which can include just broaching the subject of nationalizing resource extraction, their (often democratically elected) governments get overthrown in a coup by some fascist government with mysterious connections to the CIA who will always give production contracts to Western companies. And if that fails, just starve ("sanction") them until they comply. Examples: - Guatemala (1954) [1] - Cuba (1952 and the many later attempts to assassinate Castro) [2] - Iran (1953) after the Iranian parliament passed legislation to nationalize the oil industry [3] - Syria (1949) [4] - Congo (1960) [5] There are dozens of these. These countries aren't mysteriously poor. They haven't failed. They have been active exploited and their wealth stolen. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Cuban_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Cuban_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran_coup [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1949_Syrian_coup_d%27%C3... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis
- mywittyname 2y agoNot having a democratically-elected government overthrown by a global superpower because of their location sounds an awful lot like luck. Especially when the superpower in question has a habit of doing so. There's probably more to it. The USA is powerful, but it's not infinitely powerful. The same strong institutions that have kept Norway from falling to the resource curse have likely contributed to its ability to maintain its autonomy with soft power. If Norway's government turned into a revolving door of corrupt dictators, it's likely the USA would have a different approach for dealing with the country.
- jmyeet 2y agoNorway has resources, strategic geographical positioning (North Sea, Arctic, Danish Straits) and has proximity to the (then) Soviet Union so the US couldn't afford to lose Norway to the Soviet sphere of influence. The US couldn't risk another Iran.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]