Norway that horrid place ;-)

[macdoc]

This entire series of articles should be must do reading for all Canadians to see how badly mismanaged our resources are and for libbies on how to run a nation......

Secrets to Norway's Petro-Wealth: Lessons for Canada?



At the moment when Canada is making the transition to petro-state, ironing out internal agreements among provinces and external deals with major powers including China and the United States, The Tyee sent veteran energy issues journalist Mitch Anderson to Norway to learn why that nation has been able to amass a $600 billion savings fund for its population of under 5 million, a stark contrast to the situation here.

The series is part of a larger project, "Canada's Transition to a Better Energy Future," produced by The Tyee in collaboration with Tides Canada Initiatives Society.

http://thetyee.ca/Series/2012/08/01/Nor ... th-Series/

[SteveB]

600 billion for 5 million..wow, they are insanely rich. I think all Americans are in debt by 5 figures.

[Jason]

Meh. That pipeline through B.C.? Yeah, it's going to be bombed more times a week than a schoolhouse in the Gaza strip. Oil state for the U.S.? Nope.

[SteveB]

Bombed? Wth are you talking about, Pord?

[Jason]

There's massive opposition to it by just about every band that hasn't been bought out (a few have taken a couple million to buy their vote). If it gets pushed through you can count on a lot of angry Injuns. When Injuns get really angry they blow up stuff - stuff like the pipeline that's 'ruining their land' and is unguarded for hundreds of kilometres.

[ronmcd]

Ooh, interesting. Of course there are lessons for more than Canada

Deficit? Non existent – Norway has the largest budget surplus of any AAA rated nation in the world. Growth is “only'”3.7% ; inflation is 1.4% ; unemployment at 3.3% is the lowest in Europe and poverty is almost too low to measure. This is a country which regularly tops the global quality-of-life indexes. So what is the secret? Why have economies like Norway been largely immune to economic crisis that left countries like Britain as debt zombies, kept going only by zero interest rates and money printing?

Well, oil for a start. Norway is Europe's largest exporter. Mostly the revenues have been parked in the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which is now the third largest in the world and worth $500bn. The government is only allowed to take a tiny amount out each year, so this wealth accumulates without generating inflation.

When you visit Norway you really appreciate how giddily altruistic the Scots were in in the 1970s and 80s - giving their oil away in exchange for the Barnett handout and a couple of savage industrial recessions. The Scottish people were the ultimate ragged-trousered philanthropists: the only nation, region, principality or state in the world to have discovered oil and never to have directly benefited.

...

There are so many lessons for Scotland here, it's hard to know where to begin. Obviously, if Scotland had benefited from its oil wealth since 1970 it would be a very different country to the one it is today. It is doubtful whether we would still have some of the worst mortality rates for middle aged people in Europe, as the Glasgow Centre for Population Health reported this week. Also, Scotland is not backward or naïve in favouring collective solutions like free higher education and elderly care, which are all regarded as essential pillars of the Norwegian welfare state. The 'feel' of Norwegian society is very much like Scotland, in terms of social expectations and outlook. Looking at Norway today, it is hard to argue that Scotland could fail to be an extremely successful independent country, were the Scots to vote Yes - though they don't seem to minded to take this optionOnce independent, Scotland would probably find a place as one of the energy rich small nations of the true arc of Nordic prosperity.

http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... wrong.html

[Coito ergo sum]

The reason is quite simple: plenty.

4.5 million people, and as much oil as an oil-rich Arab nation, plus hydroelectric power, timber, fish and other raw materials and basic industries being harvested to such a degree that they bring in workers from all over the world to do the work for them.

Think how much oil Canada would have to drill for and export in order to have the same per-capita revenues generated? Canada has about 9 times the population of Norway. To produce that much oil, Canada would have to increase its oil production to about 24,000,000 bbl/day from its current 3,400,000 bbl/day. That's as much as the entire Arab League produces, and would put Canada just behind OPEC.

By comparison, Norway produces like 2,500,000 bbl/day with 4.5 million people in its population. Canada produces 3,400,000 bbl/day with 35,000,000 people.

[laklak]

Now don't go injecting any of that right-wing "logic" into the discussion, CES. It's obviously because of their Socialist gummint.

[Ian]

It's both, laklak. Norway puts away a huge amount into a fund for the day when the oil supplies run out. Many Arab OPEC nations do nothing of the sort. A century from now, when the oil era is well over (I hope!), I expect Norway will still have a high standard of living. Some other petro-states, not so much.

[Coito ergo sum]

Now don't go injecting any of that right-wing "logic" into the discussion, CES. It's obviously because of their Socialist gummint.

It's been my theory for many Moons that socialism can only really work well in a "state of plenty."

I base that on the idea that capitalism is based on the assumption that resources are scarce, and that capitalism is a way to efficiently allocate scarce resources. When you have a free market, then prices will rise and fall with demand, generally speaking. As demand goes up, the price goes up until demand starts to fall again because the price gets to high and people look for alternatives or do without it.

Socialism, on the other, has to assume that there is plenty of resources so that they can all just be allocated to whoever supposedly "needs" them.

Where resources are plenty, in Norway, you can have a prosperous, yet socialist, society, since they have enough money to pay everyone's bills every year, no problem. There is no poverty, because if people don't want to work, they just get a decent apartment and a living that allows them to travel and have a nice life without working, and it doesn't break the budget. However, in a country that doesn't have enough money to do that for everyone, to try to do what Norway does would break the bank and the system would simple be unworkable, unsustainable -- it would die.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's both, laklak. Norway puts away a huge amount into a fund for the day when the oil supplies run out. Many Arab OPEC nations do nothing of the sort. A century from now, when the oil era is well over (I hope!), I expect Norway will still have a high standard of living. Some other petro-states, not so much.

Norway, even up into the 1980s, did not have this super-high standard of living. It only got the standard of living when it entered a state of plenty. Plentiful oil allows them to save for a rainy day. From the 19th century, through most of the 20th century, up until and even including the 1980s, people left Norway to work elsewhere because they didn't have a lot of good jobs available. The late 1980s and 1990s brought on a sea change, and the reverse started happening.

So, they control immigration by keeping people out (they let some in, but nothing like the liberal immigration policies of places like Canada and the US), and they bring in foreign workers to work on the oil rigs and such, but they keep the profits. For their population, they have the highest oil production in the world. The US has only 4 times the oil production of Norway, but the US about 75 times the population of Norway. Canada has 9 times the population of Norway and only about 1.5 times the oil production.

That is what does it. That amount of per capita revenue brought in makes it easy to pay the bills for everyone.

A Norwegian in his 30's has a good chance of having a parent who regularly shat in an outhouse has a child. LOL.

[MrJonno]

It's been my theory for many Moons that socialism can only really work well in a "state of plenty."

Well nothing works unless there is a state of quite a bit

The market place don't work too well if the hungry decide to go and burn it down, like to think of welfare as protection money to pay the peasants not to burn my house down, sure I might use if I'm down on my luck but its actually more important for people who are actually doing quite well and don't claim it

[Azathoth]

It is a shit place to be a teapot though

[Coito ergo sum]

It's been my theory for many Moons that socialism can only really work well in a "state of plenty."

Well nothing works unless there is a state of quite a bit

The market place don't work too well if the hungry decide to go and burn it down, like to think of welfare as protection money to pay the peasants not to burn my house down, sure I might use if I'm down on my luck but its actually more important for people who are actually doing quite well and don't claim it

Sure, but the idea of socialism is that there is plenty for everyone. It's the rise or fall together idea. That sounds nice in theory, until one realizes that if 4 people are at dinner, and there is only enough food to feed 3 of them, and that 3 person quantity is spread around to all four, then all of them go hungry.

[MrJonno]

Sure, but the idea of socialism is that there is plenty for everyone. It's the rise or fall together idea. That sounds nice in theory, until one realizes that if 4 people are at dinner, and there is only enough food to feed 3 of them, and that 3 person quantity is spread around to all four, then all of them go hungry.

Not sure thats my idea of socialism, I think there is enough for no one to starve but thats not the same as thinking there is enough for everyone to live in total luxury.

As far as I'm concerned socialism is a believe in society and without that society nothing is impossible including capitalism