Cheap resources are usually seen as an advantage. At first glance, the logic seems simple: if a country has cheap energy, cheap raw materials, cheap labor, cheap loans, cheap land or cheap access to markets, then it has a strong starting position. Production costs less, goods can be sold more actively, the budget can be filled faster, the population can be promised more, and business can be given the feeling of easy growth.
But in political economy, cheap does not always mean strong. Sometimes a cheap resource does not develop a system, but relaxes it. It reduces the pressure to modernize, hides poor governance, creates dependence, forms false expectations and postpones the crisis into the future. While the resource is available, a country may look stable. When the price changes, when access is reduced, when an external supplier begins to dictate conditions, it becomes clear that there was no real stability.
The main problem with a cheap resource is not the low price itself. The main problem is the behavior that this low price creates. The state begins to promise stability. Business stops rushing to modernize. People build personal plans based on former availability. A habit of ease appears inside society. And any habit built on an external resource sooner or later turns into vulnerability.
From the point of view of the Basic Law of Political Economy, a cheap resource acts not only on production, the budget or the trade balance. It enters the personality, changes behavior, forms choice, moves demand and restructures the movement of money:
Personality → Behavior → Choice → Demand → Money
If a person, business or state gets used to a cheap resource, the entire chain changes. Behavior becomes less cautious. Choice becomes less rational. Demand becomes tied to the old price. Money begins to move according to a model that works only while the old conditions remain. When conditions change, turbulence enters not only the economy. It enters the personality itself.
A Cheap Resource Removes the Pressure to Develop
Limitation often forces a system to become smarter. When energy is expensive, business looks for ways to save, upgrade equipment, reduce losses and calculate costs more accurately. When labor is expensive, companies begin to automate processes, increase productivity, train people and manage time better. When capital is expensive, projects go through stricter selection, because a mistake becomes too costly. When land is expensive, cities pay more attention to planning, density, infrastructure and logistics.
A cheap resource removes this pressure. It allows a system to avoid correcting mistakes for a long time. Production may remain outdated, logistics inefficient, governance primitive, losses high and infrastructure overloaded. In the short term, this is not always visible, because the cheap resource covers the gap. Where another economy would be forced to rebuild, the owner of the cheap resource can continue living according to the old scheme.
This is the trap. The system begins to perceive the absence of pain as proof of health. But the absence of pain does not always mean strength. Sometimes it means that the problem has been temporarily covered by a resource. Cheap energy hides technological backwardness. Cheap labor hides low productivity. Cheap loans hide the weakness of the business model. Cheap raw materials hide the absence of complex industry.
While other economies learn to work more precisely, faster and in more complex ways, a resource-based system can continue spending what it received from geography, history or political circumstances. Externally, it may seem rich. Internally, it may fail to create enough complexity. And it is complexity, the ability to produce not only raw materials but also products, not only mass but also quality, not only volume but also sustainable added value, that determines the future strength of an economy.
A Low Price Creates the Illusion of Efficiency
A cheap resource often allows a system to look efficient without being efficient in essence. A company may sell cheaper than competitors not because it is better organized, but because it pays less for energy, labor or raw materials. A state may demonstrate budget revenues not because its economy produces a complex product, but because it sells a resource for which there is external demand. A city may seem successful not because it is well governed, but because it lives on cheap land, cheap labor or an external money flow.
In such a situation, the system confuses a favorable position with its own quality. It begins to believe that its model works. But it is not the model that works. It is the temporary advantage that works. As soon as the resource becomes more expensive, access to it is limited, the market changes or the supplier begins to change the rules, the old scheme starts falling apart.
Real efficiency is not visible during a period of cheap access. It is visible when the resource becomes limited, but the system is still able to produce, sell, maintain quality and develop. A strong economy does not live only through a cheap input. A strong economy withstands a change in the input price and keeps moving.
Low cost can be deceptive. A product may be cheap not because of good organization, but because of poorly paid labor. Electricity may be cheap not because of technological efficiency, but because of political subsidies or old infrastructure. Credit may be cheap not because of a healthy economy, but because of artificially soft monetary policy. Externally, everything looks convenient. Internally, weakness accumulates.
Cheap Resources Form Dependence
The most dangerous side of a cheap resource is habituation. Business, the state and society begin to build behavior around one source of convenience. If cheap energy is always nearby, no one rushes to change the technological base. If cheap money is easily available, debts grow faster than real value. If cheap labor is constantly present, automation is postponed. If raw materials are easy to sell, complex industry begins to look secondary.
This creates not only economic dependence, but also behavioral dependence. People, companies and state structures begin to expect that the resource will always be available. This expectation enters plans, budgets, loans, prices, salaries, political promises and personal decisions. The system stops perceiving the resource as limited. It perceives it as the background of life.
Dependence is dangerous because during a calm period it looks like the norm. Budgets are built on the old price. Business models are built on former access. The population builds expectations on the old level of expenses. The state builds political stability on the old distribution. But one day the external environment changes. This may be war, sanctions, an energy crisis, a technological transition, a demographic collapse, a change in trade routes or simply a price increase. Then it becomes clear that the system has no backup mechanism.
At that moment, the cheap resource of the past turns into the expensive weakness of the present. It was cheap at the entrance, but became expensive at the exit, because the system did not use the period of availability for development. It used it to continue the old model.
Cheap Labor Can Keep a Country in Poverty
Cheap labor is often perceived as an advantage for business. It is possible to produce at a lower cost, hire more people, keep prices low and compete through expenses. But if an economy relies on cheap labor for too long, it can get stuck at a low level of productivity.
The employer does not invest in technology, because it is easier to replace one cheap person with another cheap person. The state does not push modernization, because formal employment is preserved. The worker does not receive a strong incentive to improve qualifications, because the market still pays labor poorly. As a result, a country may have many employed people, but little real development.
Cheap labor also limits internal demand. People with low incomes buy less, spend more cautiously, postpone major decisions and do not create a strong market for complex goods and services. Business may seem to win on salaries, but it loses on a weak consumer. The economy becomes wide but poor: many people work, much time is spent, but the system does not rise to a new level.
In the logic of the Basic Law of Political Economy, the personality is especially important here. A person with low income forms a different behavior. He does not build a long trajectory. He narrows his choice. He transfers demand into the most basic categories. His money moves not into development, but into survival. Therefore, cheap labor can be profitable for an individual employer, but harmful to the entire system if it becomes the permanent foundation of the economy.
Cheap Energy Can Delay the Technological Transition
Energy is one of the clearest examples. Cheap energy supports production, reduces costs and helps industry and the population. But it can also freeze the old model for a long time. Factories do not rush to modernize. Homes are built without serious energy efficiency. Transport remains fuel-hungry. Cities spread outward. Consumption grows without calculation.
The system lives as if the price of energy will not change. But energy is always connected to politics, infrastructure, external markets, technology and security. When cheap energy disappears, the pressure comes immediately to several points. Business costs rise, goods become more expensive, purchasing power falls, pressure on the budget increases and people change their behavior.
An economy that learned in advance to save energy withstands such a blow more easily. An economy that got used to spending without calculation receives not simply higher bills. It receives a crisis of its entire way of life. Prices, routes, habits, plans, investments and political moods change.
This is why cheap energy can be dangerous if it becomes a foundation for carelessness. It is useful as a temporary advantage, but harmful as an excuse for inaction. If the period of cheap energy is not used for modernization, the future rise in price becomes much more painful.
Russia and Cheap Raw Materials as an Instrument of Dependence
The example of Russia shows that cheap raw materials can be not only an economic offer, but also a political instrument. When a country offers its neighbors cheap gas, cheap oil, preferential supplies, discounts, delays or special conditions, this may look like help. But in political-economic logic, such a resource often creates not development, but dependence.
The promise of cheap raw materials from Russia must always be viewed not only through price. The more important question is what behavior this price forms in another country. If a state begins to build industry, the budget, tariffs, social promises and political stability around a cheap Russian resource, it gradually loses room for maneuver. Formally, it receives a benefit. In reality, it ties its system to an external center.
This is where cheap raw materials become a way to influence the personality and the behavior of society. People are promised affordable energy, stable tariffs, jobs, low expenses and the preservation of the old way of life. Business builds calculations on a preferential price. The state builds the budget and political promises on former access. But the source of this availability is not inside the country. It is located with the supplier, which can change the conditions at any moment.
This creates hidden turbulence. While the resource flows, society is calm. When the supplier changes the price, reduces supplies, sets political conditions or creates uncertainty, turbulence enters the personality. A person does not always understand geopolitics, but he sees rising bills, pressure on prices, a threat to work, reduced confidence and the collapse of the former plan of life.
In this logic, the desire of Russian power to destabilize the space around it appears not only through direct pressure. It appears through the creation of dependence. First, neighbors are offered a cheap resource. Then a habit forms around this resource. Then the habit turns into political vulnerability. After that, it is enough to change the conditions in order to create tension inside society, the economy and the authorities.
Belarus as an Example of Resource Attachment
Belarus is one of the clearest examples of such attachment. The International Energy Agency states that, because of limited domestic resources, Belarus depends on imports from Russia to cover most of its energy needs, and that high dependence on Russian oil and gas makes energy efficiency and renewable energy development important for energy security.
On the surface, such a model may look profitable. The country receives energy, industry works, the population can be offered more convenient tariffs, and the authorities can speak about stability. But in depth, another structure appears. The economy begins to depend not only on the price, but also on the political will of the supplier. Any dispute over price, supplies, transit or integration conditions immediately becomes not only an economic issue, but also a question of internal stability.
In this model, Belarus receives not only raw materials. It receives a form of behavior. The state gets used to relying on the Russian resource. Business gets used to a certain cost level. People get used to a certain level of expenses. The political system gets used to the idea that an external raw-material support helps preserve internal stability.
But this very support makes the system vulnerable. If the resource flow changes, pressure appears in many places at once. Production faces rising costs. The budget faces a lack of money. The population faces rising prices. The authorities face a decline in trust. This is how cheap raw materials, which earlier looked like a guarantee of stability, turn into a mechanism of pressure.
Lithuania and Belarus: Expensive Resources Against Cheap Dependence
The comparison between Lithuania and Belarus clearly shows why a cheap resource by itself does not make a country stronger. These are two neighboring countries that came out of one historical space, but chose different development trajectories. Belarus is about three times larger than Lithuania: in 2024, the population of Belarus was about 9.13 million people, while the population of Lithuania was about 2.89 million people. The difference is approximately 3.16 times. The territorial gap is almost the same: the land area of Belarus is about 202,910 km², while Lithuania has about 62,674 km², meaning Belarus is about 3.2 times larger.
At first glance, Belarus should have had a stronger economic position: more land, more people, more industrial inheritance and closer access to cheap Russian resources. But the result shows the opposite. In 2024, Lithuania’s nominal GDP was about 84.87 billion dollars, while Belarus’s GDP was about 75.96 billion dollars. This means that smaller Lithuania created an economy larger than the Belarusian one by about 8.91 billion dollars.
The gap is even stronger in GDP per person. If nominal GDP is divided by population, Lithuania has about 29.4 thousand dollars per person, while Belarus has about 8.3 thousand dollars per person. The difference is about 3.5 times in favor of Lithuania. And this is the key point: Lithuania achieved this result not through a cheap resource support, but in a more expensive European environment, where the price of energy, labor, standards, regulation and modernization is higher.
Belarus had another advantage for a long time: access to Russian oil, gas, markets, loans, discounts and politically connected conditions. The International Energy Agency directly states that Belarus strongly depends on imports of fossil fuels, mainly from Russia. Lithuania, by contrast, after 2022 ended its dependence on Russian energy imports, although it still depends on imported fossil fuels in general.
This is why the comparison becomes revealing. Belarus is larger, has more population, more territory and used cheap Russian resource support for longer. But Lithuania, being roughly three times smaller and living in more expensive conditions, creates a larger total GDP and about 3.5 times higher GDP per person. This shows that the size of territory, the number of people and a cheap resource do not guarantee strength.
Lithuania took the more difficult path. Expensive resources, European requirements, competition, the need for energy efficiency and the break with Russian dependence created pressure. But this pressure forced the economy to become more complex. The country had to increase productivity, change infrastructure, search for new markets, rebuild energy, develop services, logistics, technology and a more open economic model.
Belarus received softer conditions, but became more deeply tied to an external center. Lithuania received harsher conditions, but through them reached a higher value of the economy per person. Therefore, the comparison between Lithuania and Belarus is not a dispute about the size of a country. It shows the difference between development through pressure and dependence through a cheap support. Cheap raw materials can calm a system. An expensive environment can force it to calculate, modernize and build resilience.
The Post-Soviet Space and the Trap of Promised Cheap Life
In the post-Soviet space, cheap Russian raw materials often worked as a promise to preserve the old order. The logic was understandable: there is no need to fully rebuild the economy, no need to modernize industry quickly, no need to sharply change the energy system, because Russia is nearby and can provide a resource that is cheaper, more convenient or more familiar.
But this familiarity is dangerous. It keeps countries inside old infrastructure, old routes, old technological links and the old psychology of dependence. Instead of building their own resilience, some systems begin to wait for external relief. Instead of long modernization, a short discount is chosen. Instead of a complex transition, the familiar supplier is chosen.
The promise of cheap raw materials becomes a clear sign of future turbulence when it comes together with political meaning. If the supplier speaks not only about price, but also about “brotherhood,” “a common space,” “shared history,” “special relations” and “the right choice,” the resource is no longer simply a commodity. It becomes part of behavior. Through the resource, loyalty, expectation, fear of loss and dependence on an external center are formed.
In such a situation, cheap raw materials do not strengthen the country. They slow down its maturation. A country can live for years in a state of incomplete choice: formally independent, but economically tied; politically sovereign, but energetically dependent; socially stable, but only on the condition that the external discount remains. This is not real stability. This is delayed turbulence.
Europe and Russian Gas
The European example shows the same mechanism, but on another level. For a long time, part of the European economy perceived Russian gas as a convenient and profitable resource. It helped industry, reduced costs, supported the familiar energy model and created the feeling of rational economic cooperation. But after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission directly connected the REPowerEU plan with the need to gradually phase out Russian fossil fuels, and also described Russian energy supplies as an instrument of pressure and an attempt to divide Europe.
Here the key mistake of a cheap resource appeared. While the price was convenient, the risk was underestimated.
- While gas was flowing, dependence was perceived as normal trade.
- While industry was working, political vulnerability seemed distant.
But when the supplier began to use energy as a weapon, economic benefit turned into a security issue. The European Commission separately describes the energy crisis as the result of Russia’s use of gas supplies as a weapon.
Europe began to move out of this dependence through diversification of supplies, reduced gas consumption, infrastructure development, joint purchases and acceleration of the energy transition. In January 2026, the Council of the EU reported the formal adoption of rules for a step-by-step ban on imports of Russian pipeline gas and LNG, with a full ban on LNG from the beginning of 2027 and on pipeline gas from autumn 2027. The same statement indicated that Russian gas still accounted for about 13% of EU gas imports in 2025.
This shows the main point: a cheap resource can look economically profitable for many years, but at a critical moment it turns into a channel of turbulence. It puts pressure on prices, industry, consumer behavior, budgets, political decisions and society’s trust in its own system.
The Promise of Cheap Raw Materials as a Way to Destabilize a System
Cheap raw materials become especially dangerous when they are used not as ordinary trade, but as an instrument of political influence. In that case, the supplier sells not only gas, oil, electricity or raw materials. It sells the feeling of protection. It forms in another country the habit of relying on an external support. It creates behavioral dependence.
First, the system receives relief.
- Expenses are lower.
- Prices are softer.
- Social dissatisfaction is lower.
- Business is calmer.
- The authorities are more confident.
Then this relief turns into the norm. Then the norm turns into expectation. Then expectation turns into political vulnerability.
This is where the mechanism of destabilization is located. It is not necessary to strike immediately. It is enough to accustom the system to a cheap resource, and then make this resource conditional, unstable or politically loaded. Then turbulence appears inside the country itself. People begin to become angry at their own authorities, business begins to demand compensation, the budget begins to look for money, and political forces begin to use the irritation of society.
Thus, an external supplier gains the ability to influence the internal behavior of another system. It does not control every person directly. It changes the conditions in which a person makes decisions. Through the price of energy, the behavior of a family changes. Through the price of raw materials, the behavior of business changes. Through pressure on the budget, the behavior of the state changes. Through anxiety, the choice of society changes.
Therefore, the promise of cheap raw materials from Russia in the post-Soviet space and Europe can be considered an alarming signal. It often carries not only economic benefit, but also a political trap. Especially when, together with the low price, there appears a demand for loyalty, silence, concessions, rejection of an independent course or preservation of old ties.
Political Promises Around Cheap Resources Create Turbulence of the Personality
Cheap resources rarely remain only an economic topic. Political promises are almost always built around them. States, parties, governments and large corporations form in people the feeling that energy, housing, fuel, loans, social payments, food, transport or jobs will remain accessible. The population is effectively told: the old price will remain, the system will compensate for the blow, the standard of living will be protected.
At the first stage, such promises calm society. The personality stops perceiving the resource as limited. A person builds life not from the real state of the system, but from the promised state. He takes a loan, chooses a profession, buys housing, opens a business, votes, plans the future and forms personal expectations based on the thought that the state or the market will continue to support the old conditions.
But when the promise collides with reality, turbulence of the personality begins. A person sees that the old picture of the world no longer works. He was told that energy would be accessible, but bills are rising. He was told that loans would remain bearable, but interest rates are rising. He was told that work would be stable, but the sector is shrinking. He was told that the state would protect the standard of living, but compensation is not enough. He was told that the system controls everything, but everyday life becomes less predictable.
This is where a cheap resource turns not only into an economic problem, but also into a psychological one. Turbulence enters the personality. A person loses the old support, because his behavior was built on a promise, not on stable reality. He begins to doubt not only the government, but also his own decisions. A feeling of deception, anxiety, irritation and an internal rupture appears between what was promised and what is happening in life.
In the logic of the Basic Law of Political Economy, this has direct meaning. If a state promise affects the personality, it changes behavior. If behavior changes, choice changes. If choice changes, demand changes. If demand changes, the movement of money changes. Therefore, an unfulfilled state promise does not remain only a political mistake. It passes through the person and returns to the economy in the form of fear, refusal to buy, falling trust, protest voting, migration, business closures, money accumulation or movement into the shadow economy.
When a Promise Replaces Real Stability
The political danger of a cheap resource increases when power turns it into an image of the future. The population is effectively told: former availability will remain, the state will hold prices, external markets will continue to buy, the budget will continue to pay, the system will continue to compensate. Such a model creates not just an economic expectation. It creates a personal picture of the world.
A person begins to perceive the promised stability as part of his life. He does not analyze the source of this stability every day. He simply lives inside it. Therefore, a sharp change in price, conditions or guarantees is perceived not as a normal market correction, but as the destruction of personal order. For the state, this is especially dangerous, because the crisis of trust begins not in statistics, but in everyday life.
If a person is used to one energy price, one availability of credit, one logic of payments, one level of expenses, a change in conditions breaks his behavior. He begins to save, refuse, postpone, become angry, search for alternatives or leave the system. At the level of millions of people, this is no longer a private reaction. This is a change in social behavior.
This is why promises made by some countries can create turbulence of the personality even more strongly than the price increase itself. The price itself is unpleasant, but understandable. A deceived expectation destroys trust. And trust is one of the hidden resources of the economy. When it disappears, money begins to move differently. People buy less, invest more cautiously, trust institutions less and more often choose defensive behavior.
A Cheap Resource Makes a System Vulnerable to an External Blow
Any system is tested not in a calm period, but at the moment when conditions change. The blow may be a price increase, loss of a market, closure of a route, technological shift, sanctions, war, a change in trade rules, demographic decline or loss of trust. If a system is built on a cheap resource, the blow goes deeper, because it touches not one sector, but the entire model of behavior.
The producer does not understand how to work at another price. The consumer does not understand how to live with other expenses. The state does not understand how to replace the former income. Business does not understand how to compete without the old advantage. People do not understand why the promised stability has disappeared.
At that moment, the true cost of the cheap resource appears. It was profitable while conditions remained. But it became the cause of weakness when the system faced change. A country that used a cheap resource for modernization receives a chance to adapt. A country that used it for self-comfort receives a crisis.
Here it is important to distinguish between two types of behavior. The first type: a cheap resource is used as a temporary window for building a more complex economy. The second type: a cheap resource is used as a foundation for preserving the old model. In the first case, the resource helps the system become stronger. In the second case, it helps the system avoid noticing its own weakness for longer.
An Expensive Resource Sometimes Creates a Stronger Economy
An expensive resource by itself does not guarantee development. High prices can destroy business, reduce incomes and put pressure on society. But an expensive resource forces calculation. It does not allow a system to live long inside an illusion. Where energy is expensive, there appears an interest in efficiency. Where labor is expensive, there appears an interest in technology. Where land is expensive, there appears an interest in planning. Where capital is expensive, there appears an interest in the quality of projects.
Limitation forms discipline. Discipline forms governance. Governance forms resilience. Therefore, some strong economies grew not from an abundance of cheap resources, but from the need to compensate for their shortage with organization, technology, trust, law, education and accurate calculation.
A system that does not have an easy resource is forced to build complexity. It learns to sell not raw materials, but products. Not mass, but quality. Not a low labor price, but competence. Not temporary luck, but a repeatable model. Not a political promise, but a real ability to withstand changing conditions.
In this sense, an expensive resource can be a painful, but useful signal. It forces reality to be seen. A cheap resource often does the opposite. It creates a soft environment in which weakness can seem normal for a long time.
When Cheap Becomes Expensive
Cheap resources are useful only when the system uses them as a starting advantage, not as a substitute for development. They give time, money, room for maneuver and the possibility to accelerate modernization. But they become harmful if they turn into a habit, a political promise and the foundation of social self-comfort.
The low price of a resource does not automatically make a country strong. It simply creates conditions. Everything then depends on behavior. If the state directs the resource period toward technology, infrastructure, education, productivity, the quality of institutions and a complex economy, the cheap resource becomes a springboard. If the state uses it to preserve the old model, the cheap resource becomes a trap.
The greatest danger appears when a promise of eternal stability is built around a cheap resource. People begin to plan life on the basis of this promised stability. Business begins to build models on former availability. The state begins to buy trust through distribution. But reality is always stronger than a promise. When the resource becomes more expensive or disappears, the crisis enters not only the budget, production and prices. It enters the personality.
Turbulence of the personality becomes the first real sign of a systemic failure. A person changes behavior, narrows choice, restructures demand and moves money differently. Millions of such changes create a new economic and political reality. Therefore, cheap resources are not always a blessing. Sometimes they simply postpone the moment when the system will have to pay the real price for its unwillingness to develop.
Russia, Belarus, the post-Soviet space and Europe show the same pattern at different scales. Cheap raw materials can look like help, benefit or rational cooperation. But if dependence is created around them, they turn into an instrument of pressure. First the resource makes life cheaper. Then it forms a habit. Then the habit becomes political vulnerability. And then any change in conditions creates turbulence of the personality, society and the entire system.
Final Conclusion: Cheap Does Not Replace Development
A cheap resource by itself does not make a country strong. It can give time, reduce costs, make the launch of production easier, support the budget and temporarily soften pressure on society. But everything then depends on how the system uses this advantage. If a cheap resource becomes the foundation of modernization, it can help a country move to a new level. If it becomes a substitute for modernization, it turns into a trap.
The main mistake begins when the state, business and society start perceiving a cheap resource as a permanent norm. People build life on promised availability. Business builds calculations on the old price. The state builds political stability on distribution and promises. But the resource may become more expensive, disappear, become conditional or turn into an instrument of pressure. Then the old ease disappears, and with it disappears the illusion of stability.
This is why the example of Russia, Belarus, the post-Soviet space and Europe shows a deeper pattern. Cheap raw materials can look like help, benefit or rational cooperation. But if dependence is created around them, they become a mechanism of influence. First the resource makes life cheaper. Then it forms a habit. Then the habit becomes political vulnerability. And then any change in conditions creates turbulence inside the personality, society and the entire system.
The comparison between Lithuania and Belarus strengthens this conclusion. Belarus is larger by population and territory, and for a long time had access to cheap Russian resource support, but Lithuania, with smaller size and a more expensive environment, creates higher GDP per person. This means that expensive resources do not always weaken a country. Sometimes they force the system to calculate, modernize, raise productivity, search for new markets and build a more complex economy.
Everything returns to the Basic Law of Political Economy:
Personality → Behavior → Choice → Demand → Money
Cheap resource
- First enters the personality as a feeling of ease.
- Then it changes behavior: the person, business and state begin to act less cautiously.
- Then it changes choice: the system chooses not development, but preservation of the familiar model.
- After that, demand changes: society demands the continuation of cheap life.
- And finally, the movement of money changes: money goes not into modernization, but into holding the old scheme.
When the resource becomes more expensive or disappears, the entire chain begins to move in reverse.
- The personality loses confidence.
- Behavior becomes anxious.
- Choice becomes defensive.
- Demand contracts.
- Money leaves development and goes into survival.
This is how a cheap resource, which once seemed like an advantage, turns into a source of systemic turbulence.
Therefore, the question is not whether a resource is cheap or expensive. The question is what behavior it creates. If the resource forces a country to develop, it becomes strength. If the resource accustoms a country to dependence, it becomes a future weakness.
A strong system is not the one that receives something cheap, but the one that can create value even when cheap is no longer available.
Iv.Spolan
Author of the model “Basic Law of Political Economy”
