3 ms·

Yes, the general term for this phenomenon is the "resource curse," also known as the "paradox of plenty." This term refers to the situation where countries with

by czl 2y ago

Yes, the general term for this phenomenon is the "resource curse," also known as the "paradox of plenty." This term refers to the situation where countries with an abundance of natural resources (like minerals, oil, or gas) tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. This can happen because the elites who control the resources do not need to rely on the population for economic productivity and can maintain power without public support, often leading to authoritarian regimes and social inequities. The elites in the countries that suffer this rely on countries who are buying from them and if democracies made it illegal to do business with such countries many would not be sustainable. And the curse can be avoided. Norway has successfully avoided the resource curse through creation of a sovereign wealth fund (Government Pension Fund Global) to manage surplus oil revenues but to accomplish this it had a long-standing tradition of democracy and rule of law ensuring government accountability.

29athrowaway 2y ago
Norway is a country with low population. Most difficult problems a country faces are proportional to population size. Using Norway as an example incurs the risk of following examples that do not scale to larger population sizes. AI could cause a problem similar to the resource curse. Because you could have a strong service economy while having 99% unemployment.
- czl 2y ago
  Above I said Norway "had a long-standing tradition of democracy and rule of law ensuring government accountability". I think it is that tradition that matters far more than having a small vs large population. As far as population goes I think what matters is how homogenous the population is such that there is a general feeling of all being "in the same tribe". A population that has large identifiable groups (blacks, whites, latios, asians, Jews, Indians, ...) can have these groups not caring for each other and even working against each other vs sharing and cooperating with each other. I think multiculturalism is far better than ethno-nationalism however it is also far harder than ethno-nationalism.

by czl 2y ago

29athrowaway 2y ago

Norway is a country with low population. Most difficult problems a country faces are proportional to population size. Using Norway as an example incurs the risk of following examples that do not scale to larger population sizes. AI could cause a problem similar to the resource curse. Because you could have a strong service economy while having 99% unemployment.

czl 2y ago
Above I said Norway "had a long-standing tradition of democracy and rule of law ensuring government accountability". I think it is that tradition that matters far more than having a small vs large population. As far as population goes I think what matters is how homogenous the population is such that there is a general feeling of all being "in the same tribe". A population that has large identifiable groups (blacks, whites, latios, asians, Jews, Indians, ...) can have these groups not caring for each other and even working against each other vs sharing and cooperating with each other. I think multiculturalism is far better than ethno-nationalism however it is also far harder than ethno-nationalism.