Will Qatar Always Be Rich?
foreignpolicy.com
foreignpolicy.com
This is why the Saudis destroy old buildings and are building a giant ugly clocktower hotel in Mecca.
Buildings that are too iconic, even "earlier gen Arab buildings designed to diminish iconography" can become too iconic in their own right.
Generic glass skyscrapers are totally fine (for now).
Muslims historically (and now too) took great pride and put great effort into architecture and calligraphy. Gulf Arab leaders are idiotic noveaux riche on steroids, and the only thing their building plans have to do with Islam is that they evoke Islamic eschatology, which predicts that towards the end of times, "shepherds will compete to build black towers" or something like that.
> And that pattern is completely normal in these states. It’s easy to think of it as kind of mercenary in some sense. And that’s not, I think, a false analogy. And it creates a variety of different sorts of conflicts in a sense but also advantages because one of the things that this means is that you don’t get the buildup in many of the Gulf states of civil society in the form that we understand it. You don’t get the uppity lawyers, the difficult journalists. That is contained by the fact that the vast majority of the people in those kinds of positions don’t have citizenship rights. So for the point of view of the stability of the regime, it actually has an upside. You might say they are less loyal, but they’re also more disposable. This is part of the mercenary model, and we should take the mercenary analogy seriously because it’s really in the military that is most pronounced.
Will the middle east be able to turn their current mountains of cash in to a functioning economy without oil? My guess is no, primarily because their current cultures are not well adapted to thriving in a complex economy with many human resources that can't just be pumped out of the ground.
It will take extraordinary leadership for any of the gulf states be successful post combustion. Oman though, is a model that might make it and lead others. But it's not the way to bet.
> So the obvious way of doing this is simply various types of share participation where rather than making a loan, a bank takes a stake and then the person receiving the money from the bank has the option of buying the bank out progressively like it’s essentially an equity-stake type model.
Would that work in the west?