The $2 Trillion Project to Get Saudi Arabia’s Economy Off Oil

It could be said of the salafi sect of Islam that rules/controls Saudi Arab. But Islamic practices are as varied as any other religion. Unfortunately the percentage of conservative Muslims could be higher, than perhaps other religions (or practices), which managed to evolve. But I dare say, a lot of the stagnation is due to the geo politics of the region (or simply Oil economy and vested interests of US). Which wanted just strong allies, which could ensure stability and flow of Oil at cheap enough prices.

> Remember that Islam is not just the book, it is the people that practice it.

But even within Islamic cultures its so varied, if you look at people in Saudi Arabia, to those in Iran, to those in Turkey, to those in India/Pakistan, to those in Indonesia.

So lets look at history of Iran, which under the 1st Shah brought in lot of modernity. And was about to settle into a British like monarchy, when Mossadegh was democratically elected in 1952, and 2nd Shah was playing a retired monarch's role. Unfortunately Mossadegh was too ambitious and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, and CIA and MI contrived to plan a coup and forced Shah 2nd to come back. Which later on resulted in 79 Islamic revolution.

So that single incident set Iran back by perhaps 50 years, in terms of reforms and modernity.

So some facts (like your terse and singular classification) may actually be not so, but be a lot layered and complex .

It also feels to me that Islamic society is lagging behind Christianity in a few regards, so some of what we may now perceive as bad or even evil traits may just vanish over time anyway.

Is this for deals happening outside the Gulf (i.e. buying London or NYC property), or for all kinds of transactions, even within the Gulf?

Sometimes it takes a dictator to bring about democracy, simply because he dictates it that way.

See: http://clarionproject.org/analysis/islamists-using-democracy...

We have to face the reality here; if the "religious sect" is so powerful that it can challenge the absulotist monarch, then it's definitely powerful enough to play divide-and-conquer with different democratic parties.

That said, I can understand, to a degree "comfort" netting him, etc. It is a head of state, but more importantly, the whole government/ruling family is quite mysterious. You have no idea how practical his ideas will be, especially at that scale.

Still, though, you're right. Any amount of serious journalism here would have been welcome.

Not always, unless you are doing a hit piece. Sometimes it is also a task to simply gather information on a subject that people know very little about. Sometimes the process of gathering info is so sensitive that you don't want to do anything to influence the observations you make like cause discomfort and create moments of silence.

There were some important revelations in this article. It shows the leadership is trying to make changes. It highlights the stakes involved. It shows the geopolitical map of Saudi Arabia. That is not fluff.

No it's not. It is, as a whole, the job of journalism to do that, but not necessarily a specific journalist's job.

A journalist's job is to tell the truth, not necessarily the whole truth. There is often quite a bit of value in getting the perspective of a single person or entity on a specific subject without attempting to add full and complete context.

It's in Bloomberg's best interests to make the ME look less like a one-trick pony so general market consensus goes up (any volatility = TV going off mute + viewership retention & people going to their Bloomberg terminals, etc).

It's in the journo's best interests because he gets '8 exclusive unprecedented hours' upping his profile so his executive editor will choose him for the next interview with Bill Gross or whomever.

It's in the House of Saud's best interest for a wide variety of reasons. Everyone's got to get their pound (Franc, greenback, yen, ruble, or .. )

W/r/t having a nation with a PR/lobby in the US - I guarantee you every nation with a GDP of eh maybe half a trillion will have one. Look at the registered employee list of K-street firms and their clientele.

The closest thing you'll get to 'hard hitting questions' (and I'm not talking hit-pieces, I'm talking about Kronkite and Murrow) is the BBC Newshour (Lyse Ducette and Owen Bennet Jones -- though Americans find it dry, I couldn't love their coverage more, although it's a bit of a family love-affair), PBS Newshour (basically everyone on their staff), and to some extent Shane & Sooresh's VICE which has retained some of the best producers and on-the-ground coverage I've seen in recent news.

I am not a lover the SA regime, but it's important that one's lack of geopolitical knowledge doesn't spread more misinformation.

https://geopoliticsmadesuper.com/2016/04/20/why-saudi-arabia...

In short: liberal democracy requires liberal elites to be present and not vastly outnumbered. Without this condition fulfilled what you get after a revolution is what you had before despotism: tribalism and sectarianism, permanent civil war and the likes.

I think the relationship between the West and western-supported regimes is a lot more complicated.