3 ms·

In the Netherlands it was surely a wasted opportunity. They used the money mostly to prop up some services and fill short-term gaps in the budget. Should have s

by touwer 2mo ago

In the Netherlands it was surely a wasted opportunity. They used the money mostly to prop up some services and fill short-term gaps in the budget. Should have saved it like Norwy. It's awful

fmajid 2mo ago
Both the UK and the Netherlands budgets relied heavily on wealth extraction from India and Indonesia respectively during the colonial era (~$50 trillion over 200 years for the UK and around $34T for the Netherlands). That kind of money spigot is hard to wean a country off from, and tends to mask all sorts of governance failures, so it was inevitable the oil windfall would be used to plug the imperial shortfall. The difference with Norway is it was never a colonial power.
- throwaway2037 2mo ago
  > $34T for the Netherlands Woah, that is pretty wild claim between Netherlands and Indonesia. I tried to Google for more info. It seems like this claim can be attributed to the current president of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto. He said 31T USD in a recent speech. I follow Indo news a little bit. This guy makes some pretty wild claims. I doubt the previous president Joko Widodo (who is much more reliable) would make such a claim. It does not seem that Prabowo has offered any serious evidence to defend this claim. > That kind of money spigot is hard to wean a country off from, and tends to mask all sorts of governance failures, so it was inevitable the oil windfall would be used to plug the imperial shortfall. Again, I can speak more for the Netherlands here. Indonesia became independent in 1949. The Groningen gas field was discovered in north Netherlands in 1959, and full scale extraction started in 1963. So what did Netherlands do between 1949 and 1963 to "plug the imperial shortfall"? (No trolling: That is a lovely turn of phrase. Is it your own?) > The difference with Norway is it was never a colonial power. As understand, Norway alternated between a colony of Sweden or Denmark. (Please correct if I have that wrong.)
  - fmajid 2mo ago
    My turn of phrase, yes. The immediate after-war years were quite grim, even after £1B Marshall plan ($13B in 2026 dollars) reconstruction aid, almost as much as Germany got. In 1850 the colonial income represented half of all government revenues, but in 1870 that was dismantled and privatized to benefit the elite. Most of the UK’s imperial looting went to the elite from the very beginning, of course. Norway was in personal union with the kings of either Sweden or Denmark, so not quite the same as being a colony, but they themselves were not colonizers (unlike Denmark in Greenland).

by touwer 2mo ago

In the Netherlands it was surely a wasted opportunity. They used the money mostly to prop up some services and fill short-term gaps in the budget. Should have saved it like Norwy. It's awful

fmajid 2mo ago

Both the UK and the Netherlands budgets relied heavily on wealth extraction from India and Indonesia respectively during the colonial era (~$50 trillion over 200 years for the UK and around $34T for the Netherlands). That kind of money spigot is hard to wean a country off from, and tends to mask all sorts of governance failures, so it was inevitable the oil windfall would be used to plug the imperial shortfall. The difference with Norway is it was never a colonial power.

throwaway2037 2mo ago
> $34T for the Netherlands Woah, that is pretty wild claim between Netherlands and Indonesia. I tried to Google for more info. It seems like this claim can be attributed to the current president of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto. He said 31T USD in a recent speech. I follow Indo news a little bit. This guy makes some pretty wild claims. I doubt the previous president Joko Widodo (who is much more reliable) would make such a claim. It does not seem that Prabowo has offered any serious evidence to defend this claim. > That kind of money spigot is hard to wean a country off from, and tends to mask all sorts of governance failures, so it was inevitable the oil windfall would be used to plug the imperial shortfall. Again, I can speak more for the Netherlands here. Indonesia became independent in 1949. The Groningen gas field was discovered in north Netherlands in 1959, and full scale extraction started in 1963. So what did Netherlands do between 1949 and 1963 to "plug the imperial shortfall"? (No trolling: That is a lovely turn of phrase. Is it your own?) > The difference with Norway is it was never a colonial power. As understand, Norway alternated between a colony of Sweden or Denmark. (Please correct if I have that wrong.)
- fmajid 2mo ago
  My turn of phrase, yes. The immediate after-war years were quite grim, even after £1B Marshall plan ($13B in 2026 dollars) reconstruction aid, almost as much as Germany got. In 1850 the colonial income represented half of all government revenues, but in 1870 that was dismantled and privatized to benefit the elite. Most of the UK’s imperial looting went to the elite from the very beginning, of course. Norway was in personal union with the kings of either Sweden or Denmark, so not quite the same as being a colony, but they themselves were not colonizers (unlike Denmark in Greenland).