[yunohn]

Norway is a European country, that no Western gov would colonize or disrupt. This is the primary factor around avoiding “corruption” by oil. Developing countries get baited and coerced into extractive economies that benefit the developed ones - modern colonialism.

All this talk around foresight and smarts painfully ignores reality.

[tw04]

So Russia is colonized? Canada? Brazil? Heck the US for that matter?

You act as if the middle east is the only collection of countries beholden to oil exports, and the only countries making what would otherwise be considered short-sighted moves based on those exports.

[markdown]

> Canada? Brazil? Heck the US for that matter?

Yes to all three. How could you have forgotten the colonisation of North America?

[yunohn]

> is colonized?

It’s almost as if you’re being intentionally obtuse. The established term (that I used) is “modern” colonialism - it doesn’t necessarily involve physical colonization, rather systematic external control.

Russia has been tussling with the West for a prolonged period now. Regardless, they are the second largest exporter of oil to the USA. (1)

Canada is an American, Western country. Not sure why they would fall under my reasoning, which was specifically about non-Western countries. The USA is the one usually leading this oil-hungry warring - it’s even a meme at this point.

Brazil has various issues, most stemming from external influences corrupting the local political powers. Oil is just one of them, they are also coerced to deforest their country for European exports. (2)

(1) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-24/russia-oi...

(2) https://e360.yale.edu/digest/major-portion-of-brazils-export...

[tw04]

>It’s almost as if you’re being intentionally obtuse. The established term (that I used) is “modern” colonialism - it doesn’t necessarily involve physical colonization, rather systematic external control.

I'll ignore the part where you started off by attacking me and point out: I obviously wasn't saying any of the countries you outlined were LITERALLY colonies, so don't imply I did. Thanks.

>Russia has been tussling with the West for a prolonged period now. Regardless, they are the second largest exporter of oil to the USA. (1)

Right... their entire economy is based on "extractive economies".

>Canada is an American, Western country. Not sure why they would fall under my reasoning, which was specifically about non-Western countries. The USA is the one usually leading this oil-hungry warring - it’s even a meme at this point.

Again, their economy is based on "extractive economies" - Canada is entirely beholden to exporting natural resources to western nations, and they are one of the so-called "western" countries you claim this doesn't happen to.

>Brazil has various issues, most stemming from external influences corrupting the local political powers. Oil is just one of them, they are also coerced to deforest their country for European exports. (2)

So.... a western nation subjected to systematic extraction?

[wintermutestwin]

Compare and contrast US/Brit actions when:

a) Norway nationalizes their oil

b)Iran nationalizes their oil.

[mrDmrTmrJ]

The idea that strong currency, due to oil exports, kills a manufacturing sector is named the "Dutch Disease" after the Netherlands experience post 1977.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

So a country without colonial intervention was still severely harmed. I'd argue similar dynamics apply to resource intensive US states - e.g. West Virginia. The article is largely about how an Iraqi helped Norway avoid the same fate which is really cool.

Certainly over-throwing the Iranian government was terrible. But the key point is that the core economic problem of a resource sector 'crowding out' productive investment is a completely separate issue that occurs frequently in western countries that feature near zero political interference.

[wintermutestwin]

Thanks for the high value response!

I was less trying to make a bumpersticker point and more fishing for interesting perspectives like these to broaden my understanding of complex political/economic issues.

[seventhtiger]

Saudi Arabia also nationalized its oil with only positive consequences. How you do it is important. Seizure within weeks vs acquisition over years.

[rramadass]

Exactly !

[MichaelZuo]

The obvious difference is that Norway fairly compensated the very few assets on the ground owned by foreign parties at the time. Whereas Iran had massive assets on the ground mostly owned by foreign parties, that were ‘compensated’ at fire sale prices?

[yunohn]

Why were foreign assets on-ground in the first place? When is the last time you heard of a Western country having foreign assets extracting value/resources from within their borders?

[vimy]

France state companies suck their Belgian subsidiaries dry. Energy, banks are the two big ones. They tried the same with KLM, the Dutch airline, with less success.

[rramadass]

You are quite right.

However, we cannot also completely deny that they have had some foresight/smarts (and a large dose of luck) in managing their Oil boom.