Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Yes, but I am not convinced that the examples you highlight are systematically or structurally different from the others. If I didn't know better (and based on the graph alone, I don't) I'd say that they are simply at the unfortunate end of the noise.

Now, as anyone who has ever played poker will know, being on the unfortunate end of the statistical noise can be rather painful, so in that sense that observation is relevant. But I think that there are more convincing arguments to be made than a bad roll of the demographic dice, if we want to draw geopolitical conclusions.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon May 26th, 2008 at 11:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They all happen to be former Soviet republics without their own energy resources.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 26th, 2008 at 11:46:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can also compare the net oil imports to a country's currency reserves. It turns out that US and some European countries don't have a very thick cushion to protect themselves form rising oil prices, but the economic impact (a function of GDP) is not too dire. However, Belarus and Tajikistan are vulnerable both because they import a large amount of oil relative to their GDP but also relative to their reserves, so they can't shield the blow and it's going to hurt. I'll leave the geopolitical implications to you...




When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 26th, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series