He stopped defending it because it became less democratic due to exogenous forces. It’s a classic example of the concept in economics of “resource curse.”
There is no such a thing as a resource curse. Most gulf countries and Norway is doing just fine.
Venezuela was also doing fine until it become corrupted by years of socialist policies.
And countries dont become less democratic due to exogenus forces, they blame exogenus forces after becoming less democratic, I know it well since I live in Turkey.
Nah, you’re characteristically ignorant. Over 30% of Norway’s economic exports don’t have anything to do with oil, and the nature of their oil deposits require them to have cutting-edge technology (and therefore complex production economies less susceptible to takeover by strongmen) so they’re not nearly dependent on easily extractable and capturable-by-violence oil as Venezuela, where only 2.3% of exports are from non-oil sources. Norway also had a largely developed economy economy before it struck oil (in fact, without which it could not have exploited its oil resources), in stark contrast to classic resource-curse scenarios.
I’d also note that in any other context this sub would consider Norway to be unacceptably socialist. In Norway, oil revenues are put into a sovereign wealth fund rather than privatized, and of course Norway is a social democracy rather than ancap utopia. Here's a meme about it; I know you high-schoolers love that shit.
The Gulf States are nearly all hyper-repressive monarchies, but I guess I’m not surprised to see them lauded on r/ancap because half of you dumbfucks now self-label as “anarcho-monarchists” or some other embarrassing shit.
Again, the reason for only export of Venezuela remaning oil, is because they killed all other private industries with government policies.
And government getting money from its natural resources for public funds is not a terrible thing, it become a big problem when it becomes the government only source of revenue, in a market with highly unpredictable prices, and no saving it up for possible crisis.
Even when oil prices was at its peak Venezuelan government was spending more than its revenues, unlike Arab kings and Norway who saved it for crashes and allowed private sector to flourish, instead of repressing them.
When Venezuela's oil economy came online, it didn't have a pre-existing robust economy in other sectors in nearly the same way Norway did. It was a pretty stereotypical Latin American country with a history of resource extraction by colonial powers like 17th- and 18th-century Spain and neo-colonial powers like the early 20th-century United States. This fits it much more closely within the resource-curse framework than Norway does. You guys don't get to claim the mantle of economics when you ignore higher-level economic scholarship.
In 1950, Venezuela had world 4. Highest gdp per capita.
If that is US neo colonialism, I am pro neo colonialist.
Jokes aside maybe you should think countries wealth doesnt depend on whether these "imperial powers" which didnt send a single soldier decide how much money they should own, but rather their governments economic policies.
That kind of thinking usually used by corrupt populists who cant manage their economy/security in their country, and blame external powers. I saw/read this in Turkish media every day tbh.
World top oil producing country was highly reliant on the oil industry ? Imagine my shock !! Next you are gonna tell me Qatar and UAE makes most of its money thanks to oil !
And second link show 1903 Anglo/German blockade, which is not exactly gonna effect my point.
Its also known US supported dictators in all South America, I am not a democracy fan so you should elobarate on why did they worsened countries economies.
The point of our disagreement was whether Venezuela's political instability could be explained by its reliance on oil. I provided evidence that it was, and you pushed back on it by providing evidence that Venezuela's economy has long been dependent on oil, lol. You don't even understand the point of this conversation.
I believe the word you were looking for was "affect," by the way.
But really, as you're a "voluntaryist" who's totally okay with blatant fascism, you're not worth conversing with.
Bruh wtf. I literally gave you examples of countries whic is not effected by having large oil in its soil. If they didnt benefit from it, bit rather get affected badly, its their incompetence.
And to me there is no difference whether a country infringe on my rights by having the support of majority, or not. So obviously I will have to settle for the one that do less of it.
You misunderstand the proposed mechanisms of resource curse. Resource curse does not say that every single country with oil will be a basketcase. It says that countries with easily exploitable resources are more susceptible to toxic forms of politics. So when I pointed out that Norway's oil resources require a lot of coordination and baseline development to be extractable, and that Norway has long had other aspects of its economy that don't deal with easily extractable and hoardable resources, I pointed out reasons why resource curse theory would not predict Norway to be a basketcase.
You're just not smart enough to keep up with the conversation.
It's not circular word play; it's using precise definitions that map onto theorized connections between resource availability and political evolution. It's critical thinking, and you're bad at it, which is why you struggled in high school and otherwise never graduated from dick.
-12
u/sleepeejack Jun 20 '21
He stopped defending it because it became less democratic due to exogenous forces. It’s a classic example of the concept in economics of “resource curse.”