[jm_l]

Having valuable natural resources historically seems to be a big detriment to stable democratic governance.

[robocat]

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

  The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty or the poverty paradox, is the phenomenon of countries with an abundance of natural resources (such as fossil fuels and certain minerals) having less economic growth, less democracy, or worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for and exceptions to the adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.

[throwaway211]

I take your resource curse and raise you a Prebisch-Singer hypothesis

> Prebisch–Singer hypothesis argues that the price of primary commodities declines relative to the price of manufactured goods over the long term, which causes the terms of trade of primary-product-based economies to deteriorate. As of 2013, recent statistical studies have given support for the idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prebisch%E2%80%93Singer_hypoth...

Derived demand (copper) is likely to be more price sensitive than demand for the end good (AI services) over the long run due to substitution that can occur in factor inputs. Meaning Prebisch-Singer's true again.

[awinter-py]

acemoglu development econ paper on this worth a read

follows postcolonial trajectories of coastal countries used for ports + trade vs inland countries used for resource extraction labor

[testrun]

Not always. Australia, Canada, Norway and USA as counter examples.

[energy123]

I would argue Australia suffers from a lite version of the resource curse. There's undue control over politicians and resulting political resistance to invest in things that would diversify economic complexity or go against mining interests. Norway however is a strong counter example.

[fritzo]

Witness Bougainville