Some economists are silly. There was a serious contention that Russia's natural resources were a curse. That oil and gas were leading to currency over-valuation, de-industrialisation and unemployment. Surely, the failure to take full advantage of natural resource richesse springs from policy mistakes, not the existence of resources.
This ridiculous argument (coming from a reputed expert in energy policy) of a resource curse, the Dutch disease, the adverse impact of oil export revenues, led to the observation that it can always be left in the ground utilising a costless storage opportunity, used to take foreign policy advantage, used to invest nationally to promote further growth.
If poverty of resources were a prerequisite of growth, beggars would ride.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
an energy expert writes ...
yes that is indeed the height of silliness
(though it is also true that Putin grinds his teeth at the thought no-one wants their useless trucks etc: when the Chinese asked to buy gas, he tried to get them to buy gas and machinery 50:50 by value ... the Chinese laughed)
Isn't 'growth' a bit old-fashioned, and 'sustainability' the new will'o-the-wisp in our post-modern, pre-apocalyptic, peak-everything era?
What do you do with some expert at the end of your fork (oh yes, all Angels have forks, not just fallen angels) and he is full of pride in his expertise, patronising in his gender and American-ness, and tells you he wrote the discussion paper (well, his think tank) as if that settles it?
I did my best, ND, pointed out there was more flexibility for the delivery of, particularly, gas than was generally regcognised (I think that's what you had said - that liquid gas can be loaded, delivered and landed and distributed relatively flexibly and at low cost - so behaved rather like other exports, but I was seriously lacking an energy expert whispering in my ear (or taking my place).
The man wanted his specialism to be at the centre of things; but it isn't, it's a part of economic strategies that is particularly constrained by physical realities: like have you got any, and have you got pipelines that cross many political domains, and can you turn it on and off in useful time, etc.
What his whole argument amounted to was don't think you can push us about just because you've got some vast proportion of the resources of the planet in what is currently your territory. Disguised as, having lots of oil and gas damages your economic health.
Raven, growth is to sustainability as government is to state. We all used to think working and producing things people wanted was a good way to make a living but now we're supposed to think in terms of such grandeur - what is happening to the air, water, earth, and fire, that only the state, that permanent administrated entity, as opposed to government, that deliverer of what the electorate put it there for for a limited period - meets the need; and so it is that many of us have retired hurt and take our handouts and keep quiet.
OT, but ...
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/for-students-interested-in-doing-graduate-work-related-to-nietzsche.html
if only, if only !
ND, these indulgences are not for people earning their livings; they are for the young who have yet to shoulder the everyday grind. As you know. You've had your chance at all that, we can't live more than one life and you chose another life (or lives even).
Gulp. Sob. We all need at least two goes.
Post a Comment