$1 Trillion In Minerals Found In Afghanistan 688
a user writes "American geologists working with the Pentagon have discovered deposits of iron, copper, cobalt, gold, and lithium of incredible bounty, amounting to nearly $1 trillion. In fact, the lithium deposits are so vast, an internal Pentagon memo has stated that Afghanistan could become the 'Saudi Arabia of lithium.' The wealth of the deposits completely flattens the current GDP of Afghanistan, estimated at about $12 billion. Mining would completely transform the economy of Afghanistan, which presently is propped up by the opium trade and foreign aid. However, it could take decades for extraction to reach its full potential due to the war, the lack of heavy industry in the country, and a corrupt national government."
That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations. The taxpayers and the government will never see any of that money.
Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.
Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.
This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.
Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?
The wealth should be for the Afghanis, not the western powers who will now try to put in ''development teams'' -- who, in reality, will try to get as much of the profits into western coffers.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?
It will benefit the gov't of Haliburton.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was exactly my thought.......how much oil revenue from Iraq has gone back to Iraq? George Bush doesnt seem to be starving or living in poverty does he. The easy way to find out who benfits is to see which members of the US government have investments in mining corps and bingo......the benficiary is there....oh yeah and their off shore bank accounts. Im not saying the current government is as corrupt as the last but????????? And another thought........why have the Pentagon been prospecting in a country
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Interesting)
To be clear, our "war" in Afghanistan isn't just about blowing up weddings (although that is a terrible part of it); we are also trying to "nation build", which means establishing things like schools, other government services, government itself, and the beginnings of an economy not based on heroin and terrorism.
I'm not involved in this project but I imagine that part of that last effort was that we sent out some scientists to poke around and see if there were some natural resources that might help. Apparently they hit the jackpot, but digging the jackpot out of the ground might cause more problems than it solves (it's difficult to predict).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Best I can tell the people actually doing the nation building in afghanistan are the Chinese.
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/14136 [larouchepac.com]
So this is coverage of a December new york times artice and the LPAC article was in April, kind of late. Doing a search on larouchepac.com on china and afghanistan give a number of hits this year. Now the way things work, everyone important has known about the mineral deposits for a while. So, if you feel like saying something interesting, try speculating on how this might be
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. Sure, they've provided all kinds of great benefits to their populace, but their rate of spending is going to outpace their oil reserves in the future. Some estimate the unemployment levels to be 25% or more. Yeah, that's sustainable.
Relatedly: for a few years in the 80s, I worked with a number of Soviet researchers. They once commented that there was a shortage of paper in the USSR. I asked how that could be, with the vast forests it had -- couldn't they set up more paper mills? Their response:
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Afghanis should get rich, but the wealth extraction requires expertise they don't have (killing each other has been more fun down the centuries).
Expect leases to go up for bid as in Iraq. This is probably for the best, as competing major nations can buy in rather than fight over the nasty little place.
Absent international intervention, what we know would happen is that the Taliban would take over and we'd have "rich Taliban". Money wouldn't turn these people into secular freethinkers overnight, they'd just be rich peasants.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
We used to be 'rich peasants' too, we used to be fundamentalists too (Recall the Catholic church in the dark ages and later on various forms of cultural fundamentalism), then we got rich by trade and various forms of mineral wealth.
Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.
It has always bothered me that we in the developed world seem to have this idea that we can 'fix' the world, we seem to have this idea that we can just swoop in to a country which has a culture and history which is radically different from ours and impose our cultural values of 'freedom' on them.
We used to be brutal and fundamentalist here in the western world and no-one came here to tell us how to live, instead we killed each other and did any number of horrible things and then eventually got tired of doing those things and settled down into what we known as the modern world.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.
That was Clinton's big idea back when he promoted China's entry into WTO, wasn't it? But what actually happened is that they just got rich, yet they are not any more democratic than before. I think they did get more nationalistic, though, so that's something.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they need to be democratic? They're obviously doing just fine without democracy.
That's my point though, democracy does not equal freedom; in fact freedom is completely separate from democracy.
Democracy is a way of making a functioning state, not a way of ensuring the freedoms of people in that state.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Insightful)
I like how everyone always says that the Chinese population are deceived by their government into a state of blissful ignorance. The USA has to have the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) "everything is fine, trust us" government in history. National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP. The US government will *never* be able to retire this debt, not in the lifetime of anyone alive today. Yet, it manages to still sell bonds on the bond market. It still funds public works through borrowing. It still bails out the very corporate sector that holds the majority of its debt. The US population still spends large amounts of credit card "money" on idiotic items that they don't need.
And nobody asks questions about a war that deepens this debt significantly every year.
How does nobody notice that the house you just built is on a train track and the freight train just appeared around the bend?
The mind boggles.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it is possible that the following statements can both be true at the same time:
1. The Chinese are governed by a totalitarian state that oppresses individual freedom and is corrupt, and this isn't right.
2. The US Government is losing its democratic ideals and suffers from corruption, and this also isn't right.
This isn't a who-is-better-us-or-them contest. The fact that the US needs reform doesn't mean that China does not.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK is "still paying off" debt from WWII, and in fact still has some debts on the books from before the Napoleonic wars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Why? Because despite your not understanding it, the smart people who run the UK government know that it is better to roll over that debt than to pay it off. I won't explain it to you; get an economics textbook.
So saying that debt will not be paid off in our lifetime is insufficient cause for alarm. I don't know how long your threshold is for when things aren't "fine", but if things can be projected out for two hundred years, I think it's reasonable to say that things are "fine". There MAY BE OTHER very good reasons to be concerned, but you didn't list any of them.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
"National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP."
My current personal debt is approximately 220% if my gross yearly income. About 70% of it is secured by tangible assets.
Our government does have a debt near 90% of GDP, but if it started selling off assets, even less tangible assets such mineral rights, they might be able to secure as much as 30% of that.
So by the numbers, I am way worse off than my government. Except that I have income, and I can direct my income to pay off my debt. My government shows little inclination to pay down the debt, and in fact is increasing it at an alarming rate.
This is the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
National debt stands at almost 90% of GDP.
I don't think you know what the difference between a debt and deficit is. A debt is caused by a deficit. There's a deficit that's 90% of the country's GDP. That means that the government spends our GDP plus 90% of it again, on shit.
Um, you have debt and deficit confused. It is the US gross debt that is getting close to 90% of GDP, not the annual deficit which is projected to be a "mere" trillion-plus for 2010.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge."
You are forgetting Saudi Arabia, made an incredibly wealthy country by any standard due to its recently found oil minerals, yet one of the most repressive fundamentalist regimes on the planet, source of the 9/11 terrorists, and source of the extreme Wahabi sect of Islam which promotes Sharia law in Western countries including the US, and which with Saudi Arabia's wealth, is being paid for world wide. Another Saudi Arabia, under the Taliban, would be frightening.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Informative)
You are forgetting Saudi Arabia, made an incredibly wealthy country by any standard
What about the income of the average Saudi citizen? What is the distribution of incomes across all of society? Unequal distribution of wealth is a known driver of social unrest.
NY Times [nytimes.com]: "While poor Saudis line up for hours to obtain water in Jidda, others are able to take advantage of America's new-found disdain for gas-guzzling four-wheel-drives by snapping up imported cars."
American Chronicle [americanchronicle.com] "Currently, almost all of the oil wealth that flows into Saudi Arabia goes directly into the hands of the royal family. What that means is, roughly 5000 people control all of the money in the country leaving the other 20,850,000 living anywhere between lower middle class and abject poverty. "
Regardless, I would argue that Saudi Arabia is in fact getting more open - there are almost 8 million internet users [google.com]. Even behind an Internet filter, the average citizen is getting access to more information than they did 10 years ago.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Rich peasants isn't a problem, rich rulers and poor peasants is. The problem with most historical cases of raw material resource discovery in countries that don't already have a stable and representative government is that the money goes to the existing oligarchs. Look at what happened in any of the former British colonies, for example. Most of the money went to taxes in Britain (not the colony), to companies like the East India Company, and to the individuals in charge. Compare this with something like the North Sea or Alaskan oil reserves, both of which were used to fund government spending in the areas containing them.
If this money is used to do what the USA should have done when the USSR collapsed - invest in education and development of Afghanistan - then it's great. If it's used to make tribal leaders and foreign investors rich, not so great.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Insightful)
It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.
I have two words for you: Saudi Arabia
How long have they been rich? How freer are they now than before?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
then we got rich by trade and various forms of mineral wealth.
Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.
Yeah. Like, say, Nigeria, which propped itself to a stable democratic society thanks to the profits from all that oil [wikipedia.org]. ~
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give you a huge counter-example: Saudi Arabia. I could list dozens of other countries, especially in the continent of Africa, which have huge mineral wealth but corrupt governments. Mineral and resource wealth does not always bring about freedom. Expecting the rest of the world's path to
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Informative)
A republic is referred to as a "representative democracy" but those are weasel words
No those are orthogonal terms. The USA is both a representative democracy and a republic. The UK is a representative democracy but not a republic. The PRC is a republic but not a representative (or direct) democracy.
A republic is a state where power is not vested in a hereditary monarch. A democracy is a state where the ultimate power is vested in the people. A representative democracy is one where individual decisions are made by representatives of the people, as opposed to a direct democracy (see some ancient Greek city states and modern Switzerland) where decisions are made directly by the people.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this would have to be a huge boon for Pakistan as well. With Afghanistan being land-locked there are only 2 directions to the sea to ship it out, Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan would be wise to collect fees for providing the infrastructure to get ore to port.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly is throwing different nouns in the same sentence absent any contextual connection an argument?
Comparing Southerners to Afghans, or throwing the very country that's compared into the comparison sentence, or comparing US Christians to Middle-Eastern Islamics, or the poor people of the Middle East to the poor people of the US is just ridiculous. In the context we're discussing, they're simply not comparable. If you think they are, that would explain why you make such a poor argument.
Also, how exactly is 100 years of GDP in wealth not of great worth? You don't think that will change a country? Really? $1 Trillion of found wealth would be a huge thing for the US, for Afghanistan it's an absolute game-changer. They will never, ever get the big countries fingers out of there now, and should be planning how to survive being the towel between two dogs. Somebody savvy enough could turn that into as much profit as the minerals themselves are worth, somebody foolish will practically pack it up and ship it out at their own cost just trying to curry favor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"What business does anyone outside Afghanistan have saying who should rule there?"
These are issues of power, it doesn't "matter" if they have any "business" (in the sense of ideals) in the region.
In the real world, actors will act, works will be done, and every situation exploited for advantage by someone thus dictating that the wise participate to THEIR advantage.
The world isn't fucking Star Trek and there is no Prime Directive.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
This development may actually be the worst thing possible for the people of Afghanistan.
The discovery of oil or abundant mineral wealth in many African states has caused severe corruption, wars, and generally speaking, bad times for those citizens. Specifically, Nigeria -> oil -> widespread government corruption and little development of general population. Congo -> diamonds -> civil war that's lasted for decades.
If those states are any hint of what happens when lots of valuables are discovered in a weakly governed state, then there's going to be trouble in Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
severe corruption, wars, and generally speaking, bad times for those citizens.
I’m sorry, but how is this different from the last decades and maybe even centuries in Afghanistan? ;)
I don’t think anyone down there can still remember good times.
It’s really incredibly sad.
If Afghanistan were a person, that person would have been the victim of the “Super Adventure Club [wikipedia.org]” (a club of Fritzl [wikipedia.org]s), locked in the basement and raped for decades.
It’s a surprise that there are still healthy and normal people down there. We’d probably have gone berserk with a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Afghan government under Karzai (who are recognized by the world as the legal rulers of Afghanistan) has the right to pass whatever laws they like governing the running of their country.
If the land the minerals sits on is land owned by the government (e.g. land owned by the government and leased to farmers to farm on) then the government gets to say who can and cant mine those minerals. If the land is owned by private individuals, the government can still set rules for the mining of those minerals.
In eit
The poor will see nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, no. You must start with a healthy government before mineral riches become a boon to the average citizen, let alone the poor.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/91538/vanguard-rebels-in-the-pipeline [hulu.com]
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.
My understanding is that US citizens must pay taxes in the USA even if they work abroad, but that's not the case for every other nationalities. So part of these salaries will go to the USA and part not.
Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.
Of which country? Corporations have proven to be very good at paying taxes where they cost them less money. Check this [bloomberg.com] for an example.
This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.
That's exactly what happened everywhere oil or minerals have been discovered around the world. Middle East currently enjoys highest standard of living than the rest of the world thanks to half a century of massive oil extraction. Oh wait...
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that US citizens must pay taxes in the USA even if they work abroad
As a US citizen that works abroad, I have to FILE taxes, but pay nothing. I basically declare that I made a certain amount working abroad and was taxed in that country. I declare I made 0 in the US, and I owe 0 US taxes. Apparently making rather large sums of money overseas is different, according to the H&R Block person who helps me file.
Also, bringing over 10K back into the US is taxed.
Note: I live in a 1st world country that the US is quite friendly with. It may be different in Afghanistan.
This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.
That's exactly what happened everywhere oil or minerals have been discovered around the world. Middle East currently enjoys highest standard of living than the rest of the world thanks to half a century of massive oil extraction. Oh wait...
The United Arab Emirates has a fairly high standard of living because of the discovery of oil there. Before discovering it, they were scraping by on fishing.
... president of the UAE at its inception, ... directed oil revenues into healthcare, education and the national infrastructure. [bbc.co.uk]"
However, it's not a 1 step process. The 2nd step has a lot to do with it: "The late Sheikh Zayed,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The USA is unique in this requirement.
Since you have not submitted any forms y
Mineral deposits almost never reduce poverty. (Score:5, Informative)
The vast majority (99%+) of Sierra Loeneans who spend their lives in poverty, toiling to find diamonds, have never seen a finished and cut diamond. Many never even find a single diamond. Sierra Leone ranks amongst the five least developed countries.
A single gold mine in Mali will produce $1.5BN (USD) and has made a 0.07% reinvestment ($100k) in schools from its World Bank loan. The words of one worker, “[w]e read on the Internet that AngloGold has pronounced that Morila is the most profitable gold mine in the world, and yet most workers here get no lodging or training, or even health care. In South Africa, AngloGold is paying for the anti-retrovirals for its staff that are HIV-positive, and here they take all our medical costs out of our salaries.” Mine companies often pay only hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in lease fees.
Rutile is 95% titanium dioxide and Sierra Leone’s deposits of rutile may account for as much as 30% of the world’s supply, and the U.S. government lists it as a “strategic metal” to be stockpiled by the U.S. defense department. Sierra Leone is pock-marked by destroyed farmland and displaced communities, all in the name of rutile and diamond minining.
Another poster made an allusion to the mid-east, but Africa I think is a much better example as oil actually has been good for the average person in some mid-east countries, but these are fairly stable and developed countries. To look at natural resource reserves in unstable and undeveloped countries, versus stable, one only has to look at Oman and Yemen (both oil-rich and neighbors, one has GDP per capita 10x of the other). West Africa is a much better comparison to Afghanistan than Kuwait or the UAE (so if you want to make the mid-east comparison, skip Dubai and look at Yemen).
For a good read (and my source for much of the info above) I would recommend Joan Baxter's Dust from our Eyes.
Re:Mineral deposits almost never reduce poverty. (Score:5, Informative)
A few points
"Randgold Resources is also committed to the integration of environmental and social impact management into its business activities, and operates to international standards in this regard. On the social responsibility front, Morila last year spent more than US$160 000 on direct community development while Loulo spent more than US$240 000 on projects ranging from building and equipping schools to malaria control programmes," he said.
Bristow said Mali presented an outstanding example of what this approach could achieve. He noted that over the past 10 years, Randgold Resources alone had invested and reinvested more than US$1 billion there. During that time, the mines it developed at Morila and Loulo - in areas where there had been little economic activity other than subsistence farming - had paid US$500 million directly to the government in taxes, royalties and dividends. It was the largest single taxpayer in the country as well as its largest private-sector employer...
Mining can be damaging to the environment and to communities, and it is important that a close eye be kept on the industry, especially when it operates in countries with weak governments. But, the assumption that mines are inherently destructive, and that mining companies are inherently evil, is wrong.
To address your points. (Score:5, Informative)
[2] Morila did get a $150M loan, yes (source: Joan Baxter). These types of loans usually call for community investment, that is the point of the World Bank (ostensibly anyway), to develop countries, not to make mine owners richer (although you can make a good argument for the inverse! See documentary: Life and Debt). As to whether they got this loan, I tend to trust Joan Baxter on this matter (she's a BBC correspondent, etc), although I don't have her book handy (I loaned it to a colleague).
[3] Claims of community reinvestment are now standard practice, sure. Note: you are citing mining companies press released. According to BP's web site they are "unaware of any reason" that would have caused their "share price movement." This just happens to be a timely example, but I think it's a good one, in that it's pretty obvious what caused their share price movement (I assume their argument would be that they are still quite profitable despite their current environmental catastrophe — while that may be true, this argument is spin, at best). I am extremely dubious of any claims made by mining interests as to what they are investing in communities. I'd rather believe neutral sources (like BBC reporters) who actually VISIT these areas and report on what they've seen. "Investing" $240,000 might mean they have a $200,000/yr consultant on payroll and he had $40,000 in expenses while "researching" how to help the community.
Quoting your press released, "in areas where there had been little economic activity other than subsistence farming..." Maybe those farmers were happy. Now there is "economic activity" there, but are the farmers more or less impoverished? I'll bet more. We are debating whether minerals in undeveloped countries bring people out of poverty, mind you, not whether mining companies pay taxes.
[4] Ghana is the most stable of western African countries, and thus the least applicable to Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I'm happy to talk about it. I'll be spending three months in Ghana this year doing infectious disease work, so I'm reasonably versed on its issues. As you stated, Ghana might be the best case example. Even so, a third of the country lives on less than a dollar a day, and although that percentage has come down a lot, and they may well meet their MDG for poverty by 2015, it's still not great. More than half the country lives on less than $2/day. 40 years ago South Korea and Ghana had the same per capita income (source: council on foreign relations). Still think mining has brought Ghanaians out of poverty? PPP GDP nowadays for Korea = $27000, Ghana = $1400. No contest as to who is still mired in poverty. I'll admit that I have a biased perspective, when I see children dying because their parents couldn't afford the twenty-six cent cost of a measles inoculation, three dollars for malaria treatment, or ten dollars for a bed net. And I have yet to witness mining or oil extraction doing much to help fix this. Sierra Leone, Nigeria, etc, the story is always the same
[5] To address the last sentence of your post, "But, the assumption that mines are inherently destructive, and that mining co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even so, a third of the country lives on less than a dollar a day, and although that percentage has come down a lot
[...]
Still think mining has brought Ghanaians out of poverty?
Yes. It might not be as effective in reducing poverty as say, removing developed world trade barriers to agricultural products, but I'd say you already have evidence that mining (which according to the CIA constitutes 25% of Ghana's economy) does help Ghana's citizens.
As to your rebuttal to point 5, I think most of us are aware that mining isn't a clean industry and a lot of rock and earth has to be moved and processed in order to get the valuable minerals and metals. It doesn't warrant the vilifica
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it isn't a guarantee, that hardly makes it a bad thing in and of itself.
It does provide a chance for Afghanistan to get out of the hole it is currently in.
The country needs a functioning economy and government. Natural resources, while probably the worst in terms of often being easily "captured" by corruption or the dictator/royalty/etc are great in terms of ease of ramping up.
Afghanistan is not going to build a functioning financial services export sector in the next decade, or even a functioning factor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There has never been any country that became rich based on large mineral resources. The countries that have the largest mineral resources, like Brazil, Nigeria, Angola, etc. don't just became rich because of this. Rich countries are rich because they have know-how, not because they have resources (some do, but that is not why they're rich)
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Informative)
This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
The percentage of a corporation's revenue that ends up in the hands of any of it's workers not having a CxO title is very small, especially in non-service industries (such as mining).
Corporations don't increase salaries just because they're making more money, just like they don't decrease product prices just because labour/inputs costs went down. Both markets are set by the offer-vs-demand balance, not by a specific company's success.
It's more likelly that the additional wealth from mining in Afghanistan would end up in:
- Extra bonuses for CxOs and directors
- Extra dividends/stock price increases for shareholder
- Money misdirected to some "big men" in the Afghanistani administration
- Protection money for the local warlords
- Extra profits for weapons dealers for the weapons bought by the Afghanistani government and the local warlords so that the above-mentioned "big men" and warlords can hold on to the new wealth generating mining areas.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Informative)
Saudi Arabia has not had its oil resources benefit the citizens. Last time I was there you could see white (whites are normally first class citizens and not immigrants) citizens beg on the streets. In saudi arabia you cant have a successful business because if you have, someone from the royal family will come by and tell you that you have a partner, or that you have a paper to sign. So no one in saudi tries to be successful at business, they just do as to go buy. Now, when I was there I saw people live in tents, no it was not during hajj season, and no it was not in some desert, it was inside a city, they were there for a few days, until the police came and throwed them away. In saudi arabia, citizens are poor, non-citizens are poor, only some privileged families are richer than average, these are the families that have contacts with the royal families. If you dont have contact with the royal family you are not even going to have functioning running water in your house.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless products get cheaper because there are more resources, and thus market prices will naturally fall more easily. Try to think of indirect ramifications, and not immediate monetary gains.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Informative)
Panama [wikipedia.org]. Bosnia [bbc.co.uk]. Also, you could ask any citizen of South Korea whether they'd rather be part of North Korea.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Insightful)
...except for a minimal peacekeeping force of a few hundred thousand military advisors.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Insightful)
it's FUD. mining companies pump bulk cash into economies and employ 10,000's of people. if you want to know who the real villains are, take a look at where all the royalties go - government coffers. corrupt government are the problem not mining companies. companies are neither good nor evil, they just want to do business.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Interesting)
This article from the Atlantic would beg to differ. Basically, the benefits to the economy are extremely short-lived for the populace, with all long-term possible gain from the natural resources going to the mining companies.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-next-empire/8018/ [theatlantic.com]
The Price of being the sole superpower (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's Great But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations.
And those corporations employ people, people who need haircuts, food, transportation, cell phones, and other stuff, people who pay taxes, people who need to get educated, people who get salaries.
And while it might be nice for Afghanis if Afghanistan could become the Switzerland of Asia--you know, build nice hotels, make world-class chocolate, and handle large, shady monetary transactions anonymously--that's not in the cards. This may not be quite as good, but it still beats the Taliban and ... well, whatever economic basis Afghanistan had before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those corporations will ask for the local gov to take out a loan to build roads, dams, power, export networks.
If they're smart, they are going to say to the corporations "we let you build it, but only if we get cheap power from you".
Will the taxes collected and "haircuts, food, transportation, cell phones" balance the loans?
Well, the people engaging in that economic activity have received the benefit and that can't be retroactively taken away.
Have a look and South America, Africe ect. Loans where cheap but
Exactly NONE of it is leaving Asia (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Exactly NONE of it is leaving Asia (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're confused. You seem to think the point of having troops in Afghanistan is to achieve some lofty goal, like ridding them of the Taliban (impossible) or "bringing Democracy to them" (laughable, see the history of how well the soviets did "bringing Socialism to them.")
No. The reason we're there - the only reason - is so that the money pump can operate transferring cash from USG coffers into the pockets of the military industrial complex. That's the whole thing, right there. Everything else is purest propaganda. We're not being "saved" from terrorism, the Afghanis have zero interest in our culture, the Taliban (if not by name, then certainly by culture) has a complete and utter lock on the region and the more we beat on them, the more sympathy they get. Which works great, because then we pump more dollars into the war, and the beat goes on.
The Afghan war represents the longest single conflict the US has actively been involved in (that means actually fighting.) The cost (profit) of the Afghan war so far [costofwar.com] has been 277,444,750,000 as I write this, it's more now by quite a bit. Follow the link, take a look. Remember: Every dollar spent goes into someone's pocket. They're not burning up, being lost or otherwise leaving the economy. They go directly from the US government into the pockets of the military and those that supply the military. Primarily the latter.
And what does the average person on the street here in the US benefit from this nearly 300 billion dollar corporate welfare program? Well, if you're employed by the defense industry, quite a bit. Otherwise, nothing. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are much more likely to produce terrorists now than they were before. Which, from the point of view of the MIC, is good, because that means more -- more wars, more airport scanners, more "security", etc. From the POV of the politicians, it means more erosion of the constitution ("emergencies", y'know), and more and more power focused in federal hands.
Our society has become the world's poison pill. I wish it weren't; I wish we had managed to make a constitutional republic work, it does seem like the optimum model, but we never really got close, and now... now I think it's too late. There is so little of either an honest republic, or a constitutional basis underlying what does exist... and our "democracy" is so twisted into a two-parties-not-of-the-people model... I can't see how we can pull back from the brink here.
Re:That's Great But... (Score:5, Insightful)
I call this the Switzerland/Nigeria dichotomy: would you rather be a citizen of Switzerland, whose wealth is in the labor of its people, or Nigeria, whose wealth comes out of the ground?
It isn't that we're going to end up staying there indefinitely. It's that when we leave there will be a government that values the people little more than it would a spade for digging stuff out of the ground, and that will suit us fine.
Cue the "civilian contractors" (Score:3, Insightful)
What i can see happening is some Family Man getting into a meeting with a bunch of local folks and cutting a deal that goes like:
1 You don't shoot my people and make sure that that IED [redacted] doesn't get used on the roads we need (and will be building)
2 as we get the stuff mined and processed you get a cut of X%
3 my people of course will be helping you get rid of your "problems"
No going home now! (Score:2)
I guess that means the US won't be in any hurry to leave now.
And if you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And if you (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget China shares a border with Afghanistan
I get real tired of this (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't understand finance on a national level there's nothing wrong with that, but please do not make stupid comments. No, China does not own the mortgage on the US. What's more they are not the loan shark who has a debt they can call due whenever they like (which cannot be done with a mortgage by the way, the term of the loan is specified by contract).
What China has done is invest in US securities. They have purchased US Treasure bonds/notes/etc. What those are is IOUs. They basically say "The US government promises to pay you X American dollars on Y date." The specifics vary, some pay interest at defined times, others are ones that pay face value on a given date, and are purchased at a discount. Regardless, they are all IOUs, the government promises to pay you money later. It isn't a debt you can call due, only way to get money early is to sell them, for a discount, to someone else.
What's more you may have noticed that I said they are paid in American dollars. All US securities are paid out in US dollar amounts. Also, with the exception of TIPS, they are specified in a numerical amount. So a note will pay $1000, or will pay 3% interest or the like. That means if the value of the US dollar drops drastically, so does the value of your security. They don't pay you in your own currency, so you can't say "Well our currency is worth 6 times as much now so you owe us 6 times what the note says." They pay in US dollars.
Then there's the fact that a large part of China's currency having value and legitimacy is the reserves of US securities they hold. It is an investment, like any other, and without it, their currency would have problems. May seem silly to you but it is how the world works.
So this is not a case of China holding all the cards. It is more a case of economic mutually assured destruction. For China to attempt to liquidate all their US holdings would be disastrous to them as well. Putting all those bonds on the market would badly depress prices as it shook confidence of investors. China would have to suffer a massive loss to be able to do it, which would hurt their economy likely worse than it hurt the US's.
Also there's a very real possibility they could lose everything. So as I said, the notes are only worth something because they US says they are. Also it isn't as though they are physical notes/bonds anymore, they are just entries in a computer at the Department of Treasury. So, suppose China threatens the US with the liquidation of all bonds if the US doesn't let them in Afghanistan. In response the US confers with their allies and reaches a deal: This amounts to economic warfare and by US and International law, in the cases of war assets of the country can be frozen or nulled. Or all Chinese securities go away. The other countries like this, they also own US securities and they don't want to see the value of these tank. Now, all of a sudden, china has nothing. A massive amount of their net worth has been wiped out. They can't use the notes as leverage because they are void.
So please, enough with the "China owns the US!" crap. No, they don't, neither do any of the other holders of US notes (including the government itself and many US citizens).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another "The US doesn't manufacture anything," post. That's not just wrong, it is the opposite of right. Not only does the US still manufacture products, it is still the #1 producer of manufactured goods in the entire world. That's right, more than any other nation. There's all kinds of things out there the US produces, heavy machinery, computer processors, advanced materials, etc, etc.
Now China is on track to become the #1 producer in about 2020 is they keep growing like they are. However none of that chan
They're fucked now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. They're fucked. Their best hope was that all the dopes would get bored and get out. Now there's not a chance in hell of that happening.
Re:They're fucked now. (Score:4, Insightful)
More to the point, they no longer have any chance at becoming a healthy democracy now that the incentives for corruption are so huge.
They're never was anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Afghanistan isn't really a proper country. Its a load of seperate tribal areas with a border drawn around then that really represents where the surrounding countries end rather than where afghanistan starts. Is effectively ungovernable and has been throughout recorded history. The tribes come together against any outside aggressors but as soon as they're gone they turn in on themselves and the inter tribal conflicts start again. I don't expect this to change anytime soon.
Re:They're fucked now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Pretty much.
For a country and its people to benefit from that kind or resource they need a good government and structurally sound society right from the start. Otherwise the big corporations and foreign governments are going pitch up in the vacuum and carve up the riches for themselves.
What the Afghans need more than anything is for everyone else to butt out and leave them alone.
Handy (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, isn't it lucky that the USA has invaded already - it saves them having to invent a thin pretext to invade later! Of course, the conspiracy theorists will probably be saying that this was all already known and was the pretext for the invasion but didn't make it public knowledge until now so that people wouldn't make a mental link between the resources and the invasion....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Definitively, only conspiracy theorists could believe it was already known and the pretext for the invasion. Personally, I have always supported the war for freedom the U.S. is ready to sacrifice so much for in Afghanistan. The same when it was for saving the world from weapons of mass destruction by having to invade Iraq. Only conspiracy theorists could come up with the option that it was only a way to put oil resources between American hands. Crazy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it is. You see, you are assuming the same people profiting from the enterprise are the same ones footing the bill. The one's profiting will buddies of Bush and Cheney. Execs of Haliburton, etc, etc. The one's left holding the bill are the American citizens.
Re:Handy (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the relative wealth and GDP of East and West, I'd say it worked out pretty well for the population at large. But be assured: the US spent a lot of money making sure that the Nazis were defeated, and it was going to get its payback.
Re:Handy (Score:5, Interesting)
As a german, that comment makes me puke. Of course not everything done to us by the US after the war was out of pure altruism, but hey, we just happend to lay waste to a huge part of the developed world. Allowing germany to continue to exist should be considered *nice* in that situation. And helping us to develop into a fairly wealthy country was fucking awesome. (Oh, and rose-colored "ostalgie" glasses aside, whatever politically fuelled the US did to us was topped tenfold by what the russians did to east germany.)
I do not approve of everything the US does today, but saying their behavior after WWII was "the opposite of benefiting the greater good" is so far from beeing reasonable I might have to consider I just have been trolled.
Haliburton to the rescue! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure the fair and honest Haliburton people will find a way to mine it exclusively and give the locals a fair share.
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, you mean like how all of the oil wells that were drilled by U.S. companies and then "nationalized" keeps Iran from becoming corrupt and evil, and run by religious fanatics? Thank for explaining that. Your understanding of the issue is clearly different than mine.
Corrupt and evil? Run by religious fanatics? Sounds like the USA, where almost every senator cites God as his reason for doing almost anything. And let's not forget "Thank god for general motors" etc in the meeting where they decided to sue California if we went ahead with our emissions restrictions. The Japanese (who also are known to be religious) could manage these targets, but US automakers couldn't. But God apparently thinks it's OK.
Believing that Iran's leaders are insane is the result of a steady die
my darling friend (Score:3, Insightful)
you didn't happen to notice the military suppression of democracy activists exactly a year ago in iran?
the usa does plenty of evil in the world, and is full of bible thumping assholes, but this is its first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm [umkc.edu]
meanwhile, this is the beginning of iran's constitution:
Beter later than never. (Score:5, Informative)
The Economist had an interesting story about it something like one year ago. I couldn't find it unfortunately.
Confirmed. I heard about it several months ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Sad comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Half the people here could use more lithium (Score:5, Funny)
Invade! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait...
Gold.. (Score:3, Interesting)
So are we going to get to see the price of gold plummet again like it did in the 90's? Could be very interesting times for everyone who bought into the Goldline / Beck fiasco.
Civilization Ho! Firesign Theatre (Score:4, Insightful)
We are never leaving Afghanistan (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no president, not Obama, not his successor, that will extract us from Afghanistan now. Now it's about real money. To leave would be to cede everything to the Chinese, who would march in *tomorrow* and annex Afghanistan as "West China." And there would be *fuck all* anyone would be able to do about it. And the Taliban would not survive either. The Chinese will not give quarter/tolerate that bullshit. They will not play fair.
The Great Game never died.
--
BMO
That's ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
Ridiculous story (Score:3, Insightful)
Ridiculous.
Someone needs to inform whomver wrote this story:
* Mining-company geologists have been scouring the globe for centuries, looking for mineral deposits that are economically recoverable.
* Minerals do not know about arbitrary political boundaries, making it highly unlikely that this "treasure-trove", if it exists, is wholly contained in Afghanistan.
* Minerals are heavy and hard to extract, which makes it paramount that there be things that Afghanistan has none of, such as rail lines, roads, ports, docks, electricity, coal, fresh water, chemicals, a stable government, a stable economy, and much more. Lacking just one of those items can make mining an impractical venture.
* No bank is going to loan the hundreds of millions to billions needed to even begin to extract these minerals. Banks do not loan money into war zones with no history of a stable government or protection of private property, and when the only source of quasi-stability, the US military, is on a countdown to leave the country.
Re:CNN said this could make it the saudi arabia (Score:4, Insightful)
Saudi Arabia is poor, because the downstream value of the oil is lost. The sales values goes to the corrupt ruling family, the ordinary Saudi lives in poverty.
It will be the same in Afghanistan. The raw material will be ripped out at the lowest cost (lowest cost meaning maximum pollution) and the real wealth of downstream value add will take place out of Afghanistan.
Just like the raw opium.
Re:CNN said this could make it the saudi arabia (Score:5, Informative)
Saudi Arabia is not poor, and by that I mean the people are not poor. The government spreads the oil money around a fair bit. They import people to be poor, er, I mean to do the work the Saudis don't want to.
Re:CNN said this could make it the saudi arabia (Score:4, Informative)
".....The sharing of family wealth has been a critical component in maintaining the semblance of a united front within the royal family. An essential part of family wealth is the Kingdom in its physical entirety, which the Al Saud view as a totally owned family asset. Whether through the co-mingling of personal & state funds from lucrative government positions, huge land allocations, direct allotments of crude oil to sell in the open market, segmental controls in the economy, special preferences for the award of major contracts, outright cash handouts, and astronomical monthly allowances, - all billed to the national exchequer - all told, the financial impact may have exceeded 40% of the Kingdom's annual budget during the reign of King Fahd. Over decades of oil revenue-generated expansion, estimates of royal receipts have varied, ranging as low as an unlikely $50 billion and as high as well over $1 trillion. [5]. This method of wealth distribution has allowed many of the senior princes & princesses to accumulate largely unauditable wealth and, in turn, pay out, in cash or kind, to lesser royals and commoners, and thereby gaining political influence through their own largesse.
During periods of high oil prices as were the late 70s, early 80s, and again, immediately after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, national income has outpaced the developmental needs & social obligations of the Saudi government and the effects of royal skimming were diminished. From the mid 80s through the 90s, when international crude oil prices dropped to the teens and below, the subsequent shortfall in income, and the availability of surprisingly limited financial reserves (when compared to such countries as Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates which continued to grow during crude price droughts because of dividends generated from years of prudent investments.)[6]. According to well-publicized but unsubstantiated reports, King Abdullah has intentions to reduce the Al Saud share of the budget, an act which may sow discontent within the royal family, but would be popular with the Kingdom's citizenry."
Fact is no one knows really how much the Royal family keep and how much gets shared.
Saudi Arabia has the wealth to never export oil but to process it all on shore. INstead that potential excess to invest in expensive downstream processing goes in to the royal family.
Afghanistan will be the same.
Have a read of :
http://www.amazon.com/Plowing-Sea-Nurturing-Sources-Developing/dp/0875847617 [amazon.com]
Re:Dammit! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't have to occupy a country to benefit from its resources. We did a very good job mangling Latin American economies without maintaining an occupying force. We'll benefit by doing nothing; I'd imagine deposits that large would drive down the global price for those minerals.
Bigger problems are what the summary mentions: Lack of heavy industry and corruption. Corruption increases with the square of the distance from Kabul. Bureaucratic processes are intentionally long and complicated; bribes at eac
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great! Maybe now we can make our money back. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd guess its' the cost of recruiting and training his replacement, plus death benefits. I'm sure that death is responsible for only a very small fraction of personnel turnover, so the replacement cost is probably a drop in the bucket. That leaves death benefits which appear to be $100k per KIA.
So if the US got their hands on, say, 10% of the estimated $1 trillion, that could pay for around 1 million dead soldiers. Now obviously the cost of recruiting replacements would skyrocket before the death-toll got anywhere near 1 million, but you can get around that with a draft.
Hang on, were you being rhetorical?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are Robert McNamara AICMFP.