BobG
Science Advisor
- 352
- 88
nikkkom said:It probably will get *better* - they will have fewer $$$ for buying arms.
Greg Bernhardt said:This could make for an interesting discussion on what happens to the middle east and north africa. If it's bad now, what happens when they don't have any money.
Actually, I think the result will be different in each country.
Some of your smaller Middle East countries (UAE, etc) have always seen oil money as a very volatile resource (they're at the mercy of the big oil producers like Saudi Arabia when it comes to controlling oil prices). They've used their oil money to move into other areas and have actually invested in their people. They have very modern cities, a more Westernized culture, and would probably survive a crash in oil prices. (I've always felt that if one wanted to spread democracy to the Middle East for some reason, they should start with the smaller, more westernized countries - not a country like Iraq.)
Your big oil producers have tended towards maintaining their "traditional" culture, but with increased wealth. Part of that is obviously that significant change would result in a change in leadership - and what leader wants that? I think the larger producers that have tried to play it both ways - Iran with a very closed social culture while trying to keep up technologically, for example - will have it the worst. In countries where leaders kept as much oil money for themselves, your leaders will be less wealthy, but the average person won't see a huge difference - hence little turmoil.
In other words, the extremes do okay. The countries in the middle have serious problems. Which is kind of interesting. Usually being on the extremes is a bad thing.
At least there would be less reason to invade a neighbor for a resource that was worth less? Or enough desperation to invade a neighbor to compensate for having to sell for less? I don't really know how that would play out.
