Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Norweigan oil fund

nbim.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 339 posts

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#141

Post by YeahSureWhyNot »

BluffFace wrote: post #3
cheeky78 wrote: post #2

Isn't this contributing to climate change? The economy everyone uses as an example to replace the current system in the US...

Perhaps this is why they can afford many government programs that the US simply cannot. Without a prolific income stream comparable to Norwegian oil, the only way to provide more social services is to tax individuals and businesses harder. Tax any group too heavily and you create brain drain, which hurts in the long run.

yeah also take a look at how many immigrants and refugees they let into their country. the number is probably very close to 0.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#142

Post by ramblerman »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #64
lr4444lr wrote: post #34

The Norwegian success is the single biggest piece of evidence as to why the Venezuelan catastrophe was largely avoidable, and the fault of irresponsible leadership.

Is anybody claiming otherwise? It seems pretty obvious that someone there messed up majorly for a long time.

The people who barricaded the Venezuelan embassy when there was an attempted coup against Maduro for one.

There is a big ideological drive to show that communism works, and as such all the problems Venezuela faces are just imperialism at work (In their argument).

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#143

Post by buboard »

godelski wrote: post #127
belltaco wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't the point of UBI is for everyone to leave their careers. If anything, it's the opposite.

Which is exactly why UBI is generally suggested to give below the poverty line. Enough to survive but not enough to be comfortable. Enough to get you through downturns but not enough where you'll abandon a well paying job.

Which is why i can't fathom why every business would not raise their prices to match the UBI minimum. I mean it's not like there would be anyone who can't afford that.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#144

Post by pkaye »

jdavis703 wrote: post #108
maxerickson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be easy to make social security solvent far into the future. There's no shortage of resources to do it, just lack of political will. One step would be to move it away from an insurance model and raise the cap on contributions. Another would be to modestly increase the contribution rates.

If they do raise the cap on contributions people should have the option of either paying more in to social security or paying more into an uncapped IRA or 401(k).

Maybe a social security tax on capital gains.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#145

Post by eloff »

Majromax wrote: post #90
maxerickson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be easy to make social security solvent far into the future. There's no shortage of resources to do it, just lack of political will. One step would be to move it away from an insurance model and raise the cap on contributions. Another would be to modestly increase the contribution rates.

> One step would be to move it away from an insurance model and raise the cap on contributions. Another would be to modestly increase the contribution rates. This is essentially what happened in the mid-90s with the Canada Pension Plan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1996_refor... ): an increase of contribution rates to move beyond PAYGO solvency to a partial advance-funding model. As a result, th…

The downside of that is the Canadian pension doesn't provide a livable amount. One ex tech worker in Calgary who's collecting pension now told me it pays his electric bill.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#146

Post by mruts »

pytester wrote: post #62
lr4444lr wrote: post #34

The Norwegian success is the single biggest piece of evidence as to why the Venezuelan catastrophe was largely avoidable, and the fault of irresponsible leadership.

Except every other oil dominated country - e.g. Iraq, Libya, half of Africa is more like Venezuela (worse even), than Norway. The oil curse is very real and, for Venezuela, largely unavoidable.

That’s not true, the Saudis do very well for themselves. The entire citizen population is given massive handouts, and it seems to be working out okay. Corruption isn’t very bad, at least compared to other oil states.

Also Kuwait is doing good as well, and they have a retarded amount of oil.

But, in general, I agree that it often hurts instead of helps. But select countries like the US, Norway, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia have become very prosperous from natural resources and nothing terrible has happened because of it.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#148

Post by wefarrell »

philip1209 wrote: post #5
cheeky78 wrote: post #2

Isn't this contributing to climate change? The economy everyone uses as an example to replace the current system in the US...

The fund started with oil money, but now focuses new investments on renewable energy sources: https://www.wsj.com/articles/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund-b...

Bear in mind that decision is practical rather than ideological - they're hedging their dependence on the fossil fuel industry.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#149

Post by kwhitefoot »

throwaway2019V wrote: post #131
cagenut wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stand this ideological sports-team type of commentary, so just to add some real information and context (after my downvote): Venezuela produces ~70k barrels per person per day. Norway produces a little more than half as much total oil, but with one-sixth the population it works out to ~330k barrels per person per day. An order of magnitude per-capita difference.

That's not an order of a magnitude. Even then, so, Venezuela produces 1/5th per capita the oil of Norway. Why doesn't there exist a fund with $37k/person in Venezuela?

You could ask a similar question of the UK.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#150

Post by DanCarvajal »

coliveira wrote: post #86
DanCarvajal wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. Government spending is roughly 38% of GDP and in Norway it's 48%. I think it's safe to say that the U.S. can and does spend a lot, the debate is more towards what ends and how. I'm inclined to think we do a really poor job, with numerous reasons why. Source: https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm

Most spending in the US is squandered around war and socialism to the rich. The country has doing little int the last few decades to support science and combating global warming; they're also cutting social programs.

Like I said, various reasons.

Though in terms of science I'm not sure you're correct. U.S. spends above age in R&D spending as a percentage of GDP. Source: https://data.oecd.org/chart/5Dtz

Post reply on HN