Iran nationalized their oil industry, and they got a CIA-backed coup for their troubles.
Chile's story is a strange duality of murder and relative economic prosperity. It is extremely difficult to say whether it was "worth it".
But, the most important thing is that we say it happened, just like you did.
“The only thing that protected Chile from complete economic collapse in the early eighties was that Pinochet had never privatized Codelco, the state copper mine company nationalized by Allende. That one company generated 85 percent of Chile’s export revenues, which meant that when the financial bubble burst, the state still had a steady source of funds…. By 1988, when the economy had stabilized and was growing rapidly, 45 percent of the population had fallen below the poverty line. The richest 10 percent of Chileans, however, had seen their incomes increase by 83 percent. Even in 2007, Chile remained one of the most unequal societies in the world—out of 123 countries in which the United Nations tracks inequality, Chile ranked 116th, making it the eighth most unequal country on the list.”
You can read her go deeper into this subject in her 2008 blog post here: https://naomiklein.org/response-attacks/
The economy under Pinochet was actually quite mediocre:
"By the end of the dictatorship, Chile's average real per capita GDP had grown by only 1.6% per year, a result very close to economic stagnation; 18% of the population was unemployed and 45% below the poverty line. In 1990, Chile’s average GDP per capita, calculated on the basis of purchasing power parity, was only US $4,590, lower than Brazil’s, which at that time, after the “lost decade” of the 1980s, was $6,680. To define this as a "success" is, to say the least, intellectual impudence, if not contemptuous ideological propaganda."
Taken from here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/myths-abo...
Naomi Klein is a incredibly left wing journalist who's conclusion had all already been made before she did the research. I would argue that much of her book is incredibly badly research and bordering on straight up conspiracy theory nonsense. Her book is absolutely not up to any standard of economic or any social science resource.
It is true that Pinochet did not produce some kind of economic miracle. That part is mostly correct.
However one can also argue that the alternative path Allende wanted to go down was incredibly unlike to produce even those results.
Because of how Pinochet was was removed, helped Chile on a different path that was good for it, even if many people still don't like it.
All that said, I'm against US intervention in other countries.
The shock doctrine is really intersecting book and as far as remember 1/4 of it is just references and links to points she is making or stories she describes
As oppose to your 'leveled unbiased opinion', as its just that - an opinion unsupported by a single fact.
My opinion is not unbias, as is nobodies, and I agree with one of the main points, that there was no economic miracle. However taking the whole book at face value will give you a totally distorted one-sided view of the topics.
You might as well read a book by Bill O'Reilly and claim its a balanced an accurate representation on the topics. But of course only Republican journalists are bias.
I still hold out some hope for Bolivia. Of course it's tragic that the new "Christian" coup government has harmed so many indigenous people. In doing so, however, they may have overplayed their hands. Indigenous and unionists aren't knuckling under. There are some inland areas the police and military no longer dare to tread. The coup government that CIA picked out in Bolivia are nearly as hapless as Guaidó and his gang. It will be interesting to see whether Bolivia appears on the popular news in USA once in 2020...
The level of ruin the bolivarian revolution has brought to my country with the help of Cuba is just appalling. At this point we need all the help available, it's been 20 years already of mismanagement and corruption at levels never before seen in the region.
I think you are underestimating the international bankers' power and resolve. Guaido was a special guest at the state of the union address and both parties along with trump praised him and gave him a standing ovation. Something like that doesn't happen unless a coup in venezuela is pre-ordianed. It also shows that politics and the divisive theatrics are just for show. They are distractions to dupe the american people. Both parties and trump serve the same international banking masters, not the american people.
> It will be interesting to see whether Bolivia appears on the popular news in USA once in 2020...
It won't.
What's interesting is the sudden rise of the pro-coup messaging on social media and of the course the odd downvoting of comments pointing out the coups. I guess the bankers' weren't happy just buying nytimes op-eds. Now they are trying to buy social media influence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/contributors/vene...
Joanna Hausmann is a daughter of a "venezuelan" banker who got ousted by venezuelans. She is a youtuber "comedian" and I guess that is good enough to get an op-ed piece on the nytimes about a major geo-politic issue. But then again, the nytimes was created by a banker...
CIA themselves are on shakier ground than they used to be. They expected to be ordering Pres. Pence around by now. Now the "grown-up" Democrats have "chosen" Biden (as I predicted in 2017), with whom Trump will play as a cat torments a mouse. Say what you will about his speed habit, at least the Cheeto isn't already sundowning halfway through the afternoon. After he wins this year, Trump will be far more interested in shuttering CIA than in tolerating their further misadventures abroad.
Above, I was actually referring to Hausmann père, not Hausmann fille. The Hausmann (what a traditional Venezuelan name!) family run sort of a low-rent one-stop yes-we'll-take-black-budget-funds shop. Prof. Hausmann is at the K-school, which I guess explains why he didn't actually stop working for Guaidó when he promised Harvard administration he would. He's hoping to land at CFR...
Venezuela also nationalised their oil industry with Chavez but they were already in a very weak spot and of course not a nuclear power (or close to being one). Oil price dropping was the huff&puff that brought the house down.
Have you seen the film “There will be blood”? While not biographical, the gist is people were and are willing to do what it takes to “win”.
I don't know if the cynicism is warranted or helpful really. Of course every country has bad actors and every system has problems but there are real differences and improvements possible.
People have a very bad idea of what corruption actually is. Low level bribes don't really make a difference anywhere. What really matters is corruption at the highest levels, that change how the whole economy works, and these you only hear when the (proverbial) dam breaks.
Also, US simply made significant portion of corruption legal by calling it lobbying. In all the other countries it's a corruption, but not in US because they simply renamed it.
Really interesting one because it drifted from being the most likely theory to a "conspiracy theory" pretty rapidly. Once Barr said he was going to get the bottom of it, the media coverage mostly dried up.
Lobbying is legal in every free country on earth. What specifically are you referring to?
Off course culture of people matter but systemic rot arises when existing people work in what essentially is sometimes a negative sum game. Fights between heterogeneous groups over limited resources exist and far too often much powerful foreign powers do interfere to make the best of the situation for themselves.
Do you vote in elections? Why? Your options(tm) have been pre-purposed so nothing you do matters.
This is the highest form of corruption.
That's not really corruption so much as it is not having much of a say in who the national leaders are. As the other comment mentioned, corruption is more like having to pay bribes to the police at traffic stops, bribes to get government services, etc.
In some countries, if I were stopped by the police I'd fully expect and try to "Can I pay the fine here?" In the US I'd fully expect that trying to do so would get me worse legal trouble.
Corruption is world wide, no doubt, but it doesn't occur with the same frequency worldwide.
What you're describing is low level corruption. Now consider how many construction projects and government services are being 'outsourced' or 'privatized' and take wild guess how much money is ending up in the wrong pockets at that game. Not to mention the lack of quality control and general oversight that often comes along with it.
That's much worse than some traffic cops taking a cut or bribe. Which is also bad. But first the major corruption should be dealt with.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
> On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[14] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh Party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[53][54][55] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mosaddegh considered unfair.
"The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me"
At worst you can say he wanted to be dictator but the dictator wouldn't let him, but arguing that somehow Mosaddegh is the bad guy for resisting such an obvious power grab is ridiculous. Being constitutional doesn't excuse a coup.
Declassified Documents Reveal CIA Role In 1953 Iranian Coup : NPR https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-docume...
For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states’ rights — Quartz https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-w...
>In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved.
https://stepfeed.com/these-old-photos-of-dubai-show-how-much...
Note that while in resource effect they are the opposite, in terms of resource exploitation structure they are close.
Both cases nationalized their oil production - yeah, some ME states had a Western monopoly first, but that was decades ago. For the last 30 years, nearly all ME countries have nationalized their production.
The difference has more to do with governance structures, industrialization (Norway already had industry when oil was discovered) and resource curse.
An exclusive political and economic system is always stifling towards those excluded. I would turn this discussion a bit around, that having natural resources is irrelevant to the well being of the people if the political and economic institutions are not inclusive. And for inclusive states natural resources likely should contribute only a portion of GDP with healthy investments in other sectors as well.
All the diamonds and gold in the world is irrelevant to the wellbeing of the common people if they are repressed... And if they are not repressed, the relative value of such resources is diminished as other economic activity should be available as well, then.
You are leaving out the fact that a lot of natural resources is a huge incentive for someone to try to repress a population.
1- UAE seems to be doing well. Dubai has diversified beyond oil mainly as a finance (money laundering?) and transportation hub.
2- Kuwait has KIA which seems similar to the Norway model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Investment_Authority and it has considerable market cap.
3- Qatar invested heavily on local infrastructure. They have world class universities, a new extensive metro system, an excellent airport, and well maintained roads.
Sure there are some failed examples: Saudi Arabia could have been much better especially that they make lots of money from religious tourism. Libya could have been another Qatar. Iraq could have been at least stable. So...
It isn’t a coincidence that an Iraqi advised them. He saw the model in Kuwait.
≥At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government.
Conflicts with...
≥At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people.
These are both examples of government ownership of the resources. Humanitarian differences don't magically make one government owned and not the other.
≥The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith.
>So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was.
This is theological bigotry plain and simple yet I never see it called out in tech forums when politics comes up. The idea that people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle East, are simply too blinded by their traditions to ascend towards a way of life resembling what we westerners have is outright ignorant and devalues the very real social movements that happen in these regions.
And even if you do believe that the theocratic leanings of the region's social movements and policy makers are detrimental with regard to distributing economic gains back to the people, so what? These broad generalizations about faith add nothing useful to the dialogue as far as coming up with solutions. It might shock some people to realize that it's possible to tackle economic development and social wellbeing without demonizing cultural keystones. I'd even go so far as to argue that this sort of theological shaming is actually toxic towards generating solutions because it promotes a narrative that there won't be progress until they give up on their misguided ways.
≥It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up.
Again, this sort of description only promotes a narrative where these people are misguided infants, prisoners shackled in allegorical caves by their leaders, who can't see the raw deal they've been dealt. These people aren't stupid, they are aware that their governments are often self serving in the same way that Chinese and Russian people know their governments aren't as perfect as they pretend to be. But again, so what? People have to play the hands they're dealt and some even take pride in certain aspects of that hand. These surface level criticisms only sound compelling to western audiences because most of us have no real awareness of the street level politics in these regions and therefore no idea what social action or change even looks like.
>So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future.
This is a valid economic criticism for which belittling these people's faith served no point. Sure, cultural factors can accelerate innovation and financial growth. That doesn't immediately indicate that the problem is theocratic. Industry isn't a culture, it's a combination of skill sets and infrastructure. China is the world's second largest economy and has become one of the few nations considered able to pose a growing risk to America's military hegemony, Europe can't even make that claim despite having vastly more in common with the US culturally.
The penultimate point being, it's shallow and easy to make hand gesture arguments when the only people in the conversation are equally distant from the realities being discussed. That doesn't mean we have no responsibility to at least try not to be intolerant, if anything it's when our audience largely agrees with us that we have a greater responsibility to be interpretive and self critical.
It's interesting to see those two statements adjacent to each other. China is a tremendous world power, but if I understand the history correctly, it arrived at this point after a series of (sometimes extreme) cultural and economic upheavals that prioritized modernization over traditional culture.
The first part is really amusing. America become rich because while Europe was fighting world wars, US was making money on them. US joined WW2 by the very end when it was evident that Germany lost, and arrived just in time to colonize its share of Europe that remains colonized to this day.
Also the fact that US dollar is the world's exchange currency also benefits US immensely. US can print astronomical amounts of money and the whole world becomes poorer with each printed bill. No other country in the world has the same position. If Iran would be in the same position, they would be just as rich without all the "multi-cultural" "liberty" fluff.
Bollocks. The US joined the war because they cut off oil supplies to Japan and Japan saw future conflict as inevitable -- and struck first. They bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941 -- and the war didn't end until 1945. In 1941 Germany had beaten France, the UK, Norway, Denmark, and was on a path to steamroll Yugoslavia, Greece, and possibly the USSR.
> just in time to colonize its share of Europe that remains colonized to this day.
The US military is still in Europe because the NATO is fine with the US footing the cost of defense spending. "Colonized" my fat ass, the reason the EU is able to throw around grand farm subsidies is because the US is paying for missile defense and aircraft carriers.
Footing the cost of defense spending is a sweet lie for the population of the occupied countries. And some of them are actually paying for this "help". South Korea, for example, had to increase the payments for the US "protection". BTW, this is exactly parlance that criminals use to justify racket: "You pay us for protection, pal. Win-win!"
And I also forgot that US spies all over the world. Every computer device has numerous CIA backdoors. This obviously provides huge advantage to US businesses.
Wow, what a story! Thanks for sharing.
Or, why do we have to tiptoe around clearly inferior thought?
People in the US can still claim federal land in the US for basically free, if they are going to mine productive minerals due to The General Mining Act of 1872[1]. Oil and coal leases are different and the government takes a 8%-12.5% royalty. Still not very much. Most of the value goes to a large number of people in the country, not to the government.
[1] https://www.nbim.no/contentassets/3d447c795db84a18b54df8dd87...
I think using only the oil as the explanation is a bit too simple. There is a well functioning social democracy in place, with a high level of trust both in the government and in the other inhabitants.
Or maybe Nigeria.
In terms of Norway, I don't think that nationalisation is really the correct concept as different countries, especially communist ones, view the idea differently.
I prefer to avoid the terms altogether and to refer to the qualities of the people themselves who are individually involved.
>So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall?
Actually the Ba'athist dictators and monarchs are against the faith. The only country in Middle East with proper theocratic state is the Iranians, and they are doing "alright" so far as a middle power who is in a decades-long cold war with the current Superpower.
You might want to look into who propped up these monarchs and despots.
If Norway wasn't a european nation, it too would have been toppled and destroyed by the US or european powers for their oil.
> So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was.
Religion had nothing to do with it. It's geopolitics. Also, middle eastern nations have some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund
> Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers
The US and Russia are. Norway isn't ( not in total volume at least ). Venezuela could be but due to US sanctions they are not. Not to mention the US led regime change venezuela is about to experience which will once again destabilize and impoverish venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
> Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term
Solar hasn't made much of a dent and won't make a dent anytime soon. Oil demand has increased while solar is just a tiny blip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...
At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government.
At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people.
The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith.
So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall?
It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up.
So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future.
[1]: https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...