Live data from Hacker News

Norweigan oil fund

nbim.no

211–220 of 339 posts

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#211
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway was lucky to be a very developed society before oil was discovered. In most countries oil is a curse

I wonder if it's about being developed, vs being about having a high-trust society? In a lot of places people will immediately get suspicious if you say you're setting up a government fund to hold everyone's money. For the benefit of society, of course.

Probably high-trust, but those who support the Nordic model would argue that this trust is developed. One of the goals is to have cohesion. That is the idea behind for example having universal systems. This trust arguably didn't exist when ~25% of both countries population left the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway for the United States.

(I wouldn't be sure Norway could do this today either).

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#212
post #193

I did some quick math and with their current annual return rate of 5.8%, the returns from the the Oil Fund could finance the government's budget entirely once it gets to be about $2T in size. That's about 2x its current size. That's still about 20 years away at their current growth rate, and the government budget would probably increase by then, but it's still probably achievable. What happens then? Norway could theo…

Unfortunately (as a Norwegian), that is never going to happen. Norway's is a success story, but there is a darker side to the oil fund. This money will be spent on something. Our public sector has a tendency to grow without questioning from any political group, such that the total tax level stays the same, regardless of any incomes from the oil fund. Currently, 1/3 of working-age Norwegians work in the public sector.…

I agree with your general argument - one thing to nitpick. Full time parental leave is not a bad thing in creating social wealth. Domestic labor is often unappreciated - until one has to do it or pay for it. I wouldn't lump those in with what you clearly consider "unproductive" use of human capital and labor. You get the benefit of a meal or a clean house, and if you pay for a maid and a cook, it also shows up on the national statistics for GDP.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#213

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.

But what to say about Americans, who squandered natural resources to help the rich, and now the funding to their own social security is en route to insolvency?

>But what to say about Americans, who squandered natural resources

Yeah, they squandered their natural resources on the way to becoming the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the planet...

How can people say things like this with a straight face? The fact that there are some tough political issues that have or may span a couple decades doesn't erase centuries of history, or millennia of future prospects.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#214
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does capitalism decide who gets extraction rights for natural resources?

The discoverer? And then whoever wants to buy the extraction rights from her at the market price? What’s even the problem?

So whoever discovers something automatically owns it? What if I discover an oil field that continues under someone else's land - is it mine because I discovered it? Do I get to take all the oil as long as the extraction equipment is only on my land? If my extraction activities lower the value of their land, do I owe them damages?

My point is not to actually get into these details but to point out that capitalism does not give the answers. Capitalism can only start after you have nailed down the rules about how public and private property work.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#215
post #73
post #28

Wow! These people must be extraordinary to use oil money this way! Not kidding! Never been in Norway, but in countries I have ever been this would be barely possible due to corruption and the needs of the politician’s buddies. Like yachts, private jets, Bentleys and Vertu phones. This $186k/person isn’t far from what average German poses: https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/617492/cd59713c156ad...

Norway was lucky to be a very developed society before oil was discovered. In most countries oil is a curse

Wasn't most of the middle east pretty undeveloped before oil?

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#216
One of the most mind blowing things to me, is that where I'm from (Canada) we've pumped almost 2.5 times more oil and gas than Nowrway over the past 30 years, yet our "oil fund" is somewhere around $20 Billion. Norway decided the benefits of resource extraction should be universal, while my country decided that the benefits should go to the wealthy and multi-national corporations.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#217

"On average, the fund holds 1.4 percent of all of the world’s listed companies." This blew my mind.

Meaning a stake in 1.4% of companies, no indication of size of stake?

No, meaning it owns 1.4% of the global public equity market.

They have some $700bn in stocks. The market cap of the S&P 500 is $25tn. If they held US large cap stocks only they would have almost 3% of each one of the S&P 500 companies.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#218
post #215
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway was lucky to be a very developed society before oil was discovered. In most countries oil is a curse

Wasn't most of the middle east pretty undeveloped before oil?

Most of the middle east is underdeveloped today. There's been some progress (sometimes huge progress, such as Iran), but it may be a generation or more before they really catch up.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Norway had a per-capita GDP 10x that of Venezuela when they launched their fund. The option was a luxury that they were granted by already being a fairly wealthy country. Also, consider if 25% of Norway's oil revenue is sufficient to provide a basic functioning government. Now you have Norway saving 75% of their oil revenue every year, and Venezuela still sucking 5% out of other funds, resulting in a long-term extrem…

Venezuela was the 4th highest GDP as recently as the 50s. It saw sharp declines in economic health after Chavez and Maduro.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#220
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the UK has a far larger population, so it would be worth far less per capita. It's sobering to remember that Norway started this fund only in 1990. The UK mooted but cabinet ultimately rejected a North Sea Oil fund on similar lines in 1975. It was suggested by Tony Benn while he was Energy Minister. All that did materialise was the British National Oil Corporation (later Britoil having been privatised by Th…

The UK was more or less on it's knees in 1975, I think that without North Sea Oil there would be very little chance that it could have build the services economy and infrastructure it did in the 80's and 90's. I think that you also give our politicians too much credit in terms of managing a fund; remember that the UK was the biggest recipient of marshall aid after the war, and it spent it on patrolling an empire that…

As was most of the western world, recovering from the oil crisis of 73, and experiencing chaos as a result through the rest of the decade. Hardly unique to the UK.

UK was largest recipient of Marshall aid for having the most need along with France only slightly behind. Being used as you say for maintaining world power status, and into the general treasury fund. We spent less on infrastructure during Marshall aid than without! They pissed that away just like was done with all oil revenues.

Considering the vast majority of oil revenues went on empty tax cuts and benefit spending through Tory created recessions, I'm not sure we'd have noticed the difference. 1 or 2p off income tax barely registers. I know I noticed none of Lawson's tiny bribes. At all. :p

The politicians would not, and should not be managing it being better served as some sort of apolitical hands off trust. I don't think politicians manage Norway's fund. Now there is little doubt that it would not have survived the privatisation and asset stripping of the eighties on unscathed, but, like the NHS there's no reason to suppose it would have been destroyed. The Tories debated but chose not to re-privatise the NHS in 51. Thatcher had a selection of industries that were felt were beyond the pale that were subsequently privatised by later administrations. Created in 75 might have been a bit late for achieving adequate perception in the public consciousness so who knows.

Still, it remains one of the very many great missed British opportunities that could easily have been a couple of trillion or more by now. 15 years of additional contributions and growth. There's many nations have sovereign wealth funds now, we easily could have too.

Post reply on HN