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

241–250 of 339 posts

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#241

Post by marvin »

dkural wrote: post #212
marvin wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh, I’m not really opposed to a strong social safety net at all, if it came across like that. In fact, a basic income system would be very interesting to try out. Everything doesn’t have to be optimized for productivity; it’s quality of life and individual choice that matters.

I’m just opposed to some aspects of the sustainability and wisdom of the current Norwegian system, as well as slightly disillusioned regarding the lack of quality debate around this in the country :)

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#242

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

varjag wrote: post #235
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about Norwegian climate: you don't work - you freeze to death in winter. In a dozen of generations an idea that everyone must work hard becomes an obvious thing.

Norwegian climate in the most populated areas isn't particularly harsh.

Snow and ice 5-7 months of the year in Oslo...

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#243

Post by atemerev »

sp332 wrote: post #214
atemerev wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree. Land rights are more complicated than that, indeed.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#244

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

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?

Venezuelan oil costs more per barrel to extract than Norwegian oil...

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#245

Post by graeme »

rfwhyte wrote: post #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.

>while my country decided that the benefits should go to the wealthy and multi-national corporations.

This doesn’t follow. I think Alberta mostly used its oil revenues to fund current operating expenses, spreading the wealth around in a short term way to the populace at large.

Though royalties probably also have been too low.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#246

Post by odonnellryan »

outside1234 wrote: post #230
mdorazio wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha. Here in the US where we produce more than double what Canada does, there isn't even an oil fund.

The oil fund is Exxon, which is in the S&P 500, which is in your 401k.

Only available to people who have the means or opportunity to invest. We're taking from everyone and giving to few.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#247

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

varjag wrote: post #235
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about Norwegian climate: you don't work - you freeze to death in winter. In a dozen of generations an idea that everyone must work hard becomes an obvious thing.

Norwegian climate in the most populated areas isn't particularly harsh.

Exactly.

Norwegian climate is not so harsh that it makes life an perpetual fight for survival. But it's nasty enough to slap one's lazy nose every once in a while.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#248

Post by fulafel »

lnsru wrote: 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...

I wonder which model is better for phasing out oil/gas extraction, which is a precondition to stopping climate change. It might be bad for the voting public to be invested in oil.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#249

Post by dromtrund »

a-priori wrote: post #171

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…

Whenever Starbucks try to break into a new city, they'll lower their prices, allowing their stores to take a loss for the first few years, just to starve out the competition. Smaller shops don't have the economical buffer to fight this, and Starbucks eventually take their customer bases and becomes the dominating shops.

Norway already has state grants for innovative startups, which when boosted by oil money, could generate a similar environment for entrepreneurs and innovative business, allowing people and companies to take larger risks. If this is executed correctly, it would make Norway the spearhead of whatever the next oil is, since companies from other countries will get pushback from their investors when taking the same risks or going for years without generating revenue.

When the oil runs out in 20 to 50 years, the future of the norwegian ecomony depends on finding new industries. Any spending of oil money that doesn't go towards securing this is irresponsible, IMO.

Post reply on HN