[perl4ever]

"People don't get pissed when income from a shared resource (petroleum for instance) is divided among people living on the land or in the country"

I think that statement is worth considering a bit more. For instance, Alaska and Saudi Arabia fit that description, setting aside whatever "on the land" means.

I don't know if people "get pissed" about it, but it has been noticed that such a situation oftentimes doesn't seem to result in a healthy economy/society.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

[kijin]

The resource curse mostly affects poor African countries with terrible governance. The revenue from the valuable resource usually goes straight into the pockets of whoever holds the most power, triggering a fierce competition for who can get away with the most corruption. I don't think any of these countries have tried the Alaskan model of just paying everyone an equal dividend, so that's a huge confounding variable.

[perl4ever]

Well, you're just asserting the causal relationship goes the other way.

And..just because Alaska isn't that bad doesn't mean it couldn't support the hypothesis. It's not California. Of course, California has a lot of resources too, so one could also say it's not New Jersey, or New York.

I suppose that Alaska does make a case that giving away a "citizens dividend" can be done without attracting the world to move there and making it unmanageable.