But I doubt I have said much you don’t already know. All of this is a compelling economic case against the tar sands and its pipelines without my having appealed to that ultimate game changer and species killer, climate change.
Whatever the consequences in the past of staple specialization, there has never been a staple as deadly as oil is today.
Oil matters to Alberta’s economic growth but matters less – and need not much matter if there was a willingness to consider alternatives – to Canada’s economic growth.
Economic historians, even those (like myself) who are proponents of the staple thesis, know that as well as staple exports, there are always other significant influences on the economy, such as more or less autonomous waves of migration, increasing population, expanding domestic markets, and the growth of cities as centres of creativity.
These are the most developed and most economically rich countries which he explains is the western nation that includes The United States and our allies.
What Are The Basic Arguments Of The Staple Thesis
The rest that he talked about in the book is everyone else including the Soviet Union, Middle Eastern countries, and the Asian countries. Samuel Huntington I would say didn’t really use evidence to prove his argument rather then estimation of what is to come.
And then, they’re so shameless as to claim (correctly) that when the price of oil and the Canadian dollar fall – eliminating the Dutch disease to which they never admitted – eastern manufacturing benefits.
The mainstream media are then complicit in spreading this impossible message, at best displaying a remarkable unwillingness to engage in straightforward economic analysis.
But oil is power and the more you rely on it, the more it imposes its will, dominating the economy and denying alternatives (Harper’s version of Thatcher’s TINA: “There is No Alternative”).
Economic historians talk of “path dependency,” of the difficulty of shifting the way things are done from one path to another.