Could the natural resource curse become the natural resource blessing?

[Bugz]

The natural resource curse being the fact that most countries with abundant natural resources actually have very low growth rates compared to those with low natural resources (which goes against the flow of logic).

But with oil becoming scarce & the global economy becoming more protective, could we see these resource-abundant countries, i.e. Russia, becoming the new super-rising economies of the first century of the new millennium or is it going to be a Frontlines: Fuel of War scenario -> war, conflict & more war with invasions like that of Iraq happening more & more (i.e. blame terrorism and invade for the natural resources).

It's an interesting discussion to be honest and might provide us with the answer of why exactly resource abundant countries do so badly in terms of economic growth.

 

[SilverHood]

Resources are useless without:
a) The ability to process them into something useful
b) The manufacturing capability to use the processed resource
c) The technology and know how to design and engineer a manufacturing capability that can compete on a global market
d) The funds to achieve a, b and c
e) The political integrity and social stability required to ensure that funds go towards bettering the country economically rather than the political elite.

Russia fails e and so I can't see it becoming a super economy. Apart from parts of western Russia, the rest of the country is still a backwater, and with the intimidation of foreigners / foreign businesses, they'll never be able to compete with other global players. They make their money selling oil and gas... as we saw when the oil price tanked, so did the Russian economy.

One country to watch out for though, is Brazil. They seem to have all their bases covered. They just need time. Give it another generation and they will be up there with China and the USA.

As a general point though, resource wealth matters very little if your country is run like a banana republic. Compare the state of African economies and you'll quickly see that the stable countries are the ones best off regardless of their mineral wealth. Watch South Africa join its Zimbabwe neighbor if they don't get their act together.

 

[Chilly]

The uk has been nicking other people's stuff and selling it back to them for centuries, that's why we became so rich. These days we steal people's money and then lend it to them Far more efficient.

 

[rynnor]

China doesnt have much in the way of resources but that wont be a problem because it has done deals with every tinpot dictator around the world

 

[Tom]

The UK and US both have huge natural resources, and I don't see either of those countries suffering particularly.

 

[Sparx]

What Huge natural resources does UK have?

 

[Helme]

What Huge natural resources does UK have?

Chavs

 

[rynnor]

What Huge natural resources does UK have?

Well we had a lot of oil/natural gas, we have a lot of coal, we have lots of tin/copper/iron ore, decent stone and we once had good fishing grounds.

 

[Wij]

Chavs can be burnt alive to power mobile phone chargers.

 

[xane]

But with oil becoming scarce

This is the flaw in your analysis, oil is not "becoming scarce", you would be more factually correct in saying "cheap oil is scarce at the moment", but that's something that could change in an instant with technological advances and would not be applicable to your prediction.

Western economies rely on less interference from government, this yields free market innovation. Once oil becomes economically unproductive (if it isn't already so), then innovation will develop cheaper ways of extracting energy, probably away from oil. What is more likely is that Western economies will advance with efficient alternative energy* leaving China and Russia using expensive fuels and gradually becoming more uncompetitive.

The reason why Western countries do well is down to ideology, it's as simple as that.

I don't disagree with your conclusions, war is definitely more likely, however, it will be fought over ideologies not resources, its the same continuing battle; liberalism versus supremacist totalitarianism, just like the 20th century wars against fascism and communism.

* = nuclear.

 

[rynnor]

Chavs

Heh - at least we were luckier than Sweden - all they have is wood and iron ore - not much good without coal/oil...

Still at least u have Ikea

 

[Marc]

The natural resource curse being the fact that most countries with abundant natural resources actually have very low growth rates compared to those with low natural resources (which goes against the flow of logic).

But with oil becoming scarce & the global economy becoming more protective, could we see these resource-abundant countries, i.e. Russia, becoming the new super-rising economies of the first century of the new millennium or is it going to be a Frontlines: Fuel of War scenario -> war, conflict & more war with invasions like that of Iraq happening more & more (i.e. blame terrorism and invade for the natural resources).

It's an interesting discussion to be honest and might provide us with the answer of why exactly resource abundant countries do so badly in terms of economic growth.

Can you show me your proof that the iraq invasion was for oil.

Cheers in advance

 

[Sparx]

Well we had a lot of oil/natural gas, we have a lot of coal, we have lots of tin/copper/iron ore, decent stone and we once had good fishing grounds.

We have barely enough gas to power the country, most of ours comes from the continent. Coal yes but its not a main source of power anymore (grannies prefer burning books )

We dont have enough resources to look after this little island, thats why we import so much

 

[Ch3tan]

Can you show me your proof that the iraq invasion was for oil.

Cheers in advance

Show proof it was for anything else... WMD's erm no, they already admitted that was bullshit.


Overthrow a dangerous dictator.... erm no, lots more dangerous dictators out there doing far worse, but without oil in their countries.

 

[kirennia]

Resources are useless without:
a) The ability to process them into something useful
b) The manufacturing capability to use the processed resource
c) The technology and know how to design and engineer a manufacturing capability that can compete on a global market
d) The funds to achieve a, b and c
e) The political integrity and social stability required to ensure that funds go towards bettering the country economically rather than the political elite.

The US have been abusing smaller countries who cannot muster any of those 5 points for decades now. Lend said country money so ensure they're indebted to them, when they inevitably fail to pay back their debts, offer to buy either resources, buy nationalised businesses or offer to help get more money by building US based refineries on their land. All of a sudden, they can exert their dominance over the smaller country and none of the beneifts of having larger resources go to those who reside there.

Can you show me your proof that the iraq invasion was for oil.

Cheers in advance

Can you show anyone proof that it was for anythingelse? If a country goes to war and in turn gains profit from it in any form without first satisfying the initial objectives set out, sure they can argue that wasn't what they were doing it for but it doesn't make it justified, especially when the target gets no say in the matter.

 

[rynnor]

We have barely enough gas to power the country, most of ours comes from the continent. Coal yes but its not a main source of power anymore (grannies prefer burning books )

We dont have enough resources to look after this little island, thats why we import so much

Yes the Gas is a lot less but the main reason we arent self sufficient in Gas is Mrs Thatchers drive to gas only power stations otherwise we'd be ok for domestic uses.

We dont use coal again for political reasons around the miners strikes - we could build a load of polluting coal fired power stations n run em for centuries if we chose to.

 

[xane]

Overthrow a dangerous dictator.... erm no, lots more dangerous dictators out there doing far worse, but without oil in their countries.

It was for oil, and to overthrow a dangerous dictator.

Saddam invaded Iran, then Kuwait, for oil, the West repelled him to restore the balance of power, having and expansionist tyrant in charge of more oil was not a good thing for anyone.

A dictator is only "dangerous" when they expand outside their own countries, in that sense, Saddam was "far worse" than any other.

 

[Sparx]

Thats why you just leave North Korea to its own devices

 

[Aoami]

Thats why you just leave North Korea to its own devices

If we knew Iraw had no WMD's then it was ok to go there and boot Saddam out. It's common knowledge that North Korea do, therefore making it a massive risk to attack them, surely?

 

[Bugz]

What creates economies that can't utilise natural resources (i.e elitism and autocracy?).

Is it the fact they command so much wealth in terms of natural resources they don't feel the need to improve their economies to utilise it (the top dogs can sell oil for example, become blinking rich & be done with it).

Or the geography/climate. Most autocracy takes place in a different type of climate etc. to democracy & equality-driven society.

China is a good example of how autocracy has developed and changed over time from it's early definitions. China is under one-party rule but that party understands the fabrics of economic development - institutional stability, property rights for society & good trade links.

What is stopping somewhere like Russia or indeed Brazil from doing the same?

 

[Raven]

The UK imports more food than it produces, we don't have the land available to feed our own population. Pretty stupid really.

 

[Ch3tan]

It was for oil, and to overthrow a dangerous dictator.

Saddam invaded Iran, then Kuwait, for oil, the West repelled him to restore the balance of power, having and expansionist tyrant in charge of more oil was not a good thing for anyone.

A dictator is only "dangerous" when they expand outside their own countries, in that sense, Saddam was "far worse" than any other.

Yes, we were so threatened by his expansion that we waited over 10 years to go back and finish the job.

 

[rynnor]

Saddam invaded Iran, then Kuwait, for oil, the West repelled him to restore the balance of power, having and expansionist tyrant in charge of more oil was not a good thing for anyone.

A dictator is only "dangerous" when they expand outside their own countries, in that sense, Saddam was "far worse" than any other.

Actually the West was cheering him on and actually aiding him when he invaded Iran and the Kuwait expansion was initially ok'd by the US.

Its difficult to see why they then turned on him so badly if not for oil resources?

 

[Sparx]

Perhaps he banged Bush's daughter and thats why he was pissed

Ive been on the wrong side of plenty of fathers, granted none of them accused me of having WMDs but there were definate plans to invade

 

[xane]

The UK imports more food than it produces, we don't have the land available to feed our own population. Pretty stupid really.

We import because it makes economic sense to do so, and because of EU regulations, we export over £10 billion worth of food products, it is completely incorrect to state we cannot feed ourselves.

 

[ECA]

The UK imports more food than it produces, we don't have the land available to feed our own population. Pretty stupid really.

That isn't true, we do have the land. It's just cheaper to buy food from elsewhere than grow our own... so we buy poorer countries food... who then get their food from a poorer countries and so on until you get to some african countries who have nobody cheaper to buy food from but sell theirs to us.

The solution to stopping "world hunger" is to require every country to be produce it's own food because we sure as fuck don't have a problem with not enough land or not enough people wanting to produce it.

 

[xane]

Yes, we were so threatened by his expansion that we waited over 10 years to go back and finish the job.

I doubt that was the choice of the US/UK, they'd have flattened him in 1991 given the option.

 

[Calaen]

What is stopping somewhere like Russia or indeed Brazil from doing the same?

The Mafia!!

 

[xane]

Actually the West was cheering him on and actually aiding him when he invaded Iran and the Kuwait expansion was initially ok'd by the US.

Its difficult to see why they then turned on him so badly if not for oil resources?

Most of the serious aid to Iraq occurred after Saddam failed attacking Iran, the danger then became Iran counter-invading, which was equally as bad.

Saddam may have well believed he "got the ok" from the US, the truth is that the US considered the Iraq-Kuwait relationship to go up and down, after all, only a few years earlier Kuwait was supporting Iraq against Iran.

The real surprise is how Saddam turned on all his former Arab allies, the worry of oil and expansionism was far greater in Saudi Arabia and the other oil states.

The western and soviet powers were quite happy to stand by and let them all kick the cr*p out of each other, as long as no-one got a monopoly on the oil.

 

[Marc]

Show proof it was for anything else... WMD's erm no, they already admitted that was bullshit.


Overthrow a dangerous dictator.... erm no, lots more dangerous dictators out there doing far worse, but without oil in their countries.

Can you show anyone proof that it was for anythingelse? If a country goes to war and in turn gains profit from it in any form without first satisfying the initial objectives set out, sure they can argue that wasn't what they were doing it for but it doesn't make it justified, especially when the target gets no say in the matter.

Erm...

Bugz made a statement, I asked for his proof, Why are you two jumping in asking me to show proof that it was for anything else when I never claimed it was. I dont know the reasons, I just want Bugz to prove it was for oil.