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

321–330 of 339 posts

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#321

Post by tomstoms »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #319
fulafel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Time will tell it seems. Norway is very invested in at least appearing to get out of the oil business and into renewables. Couple pretty significant moves include renaming Statoil to Equinor and rebranding all of their gas stations (many in Scandinavia are branded as Circle K now). Norway very much wants to get out of the perception of being rich because of oil.

Statoil did not rebrand their gas stations although it could appear to be the case. First they separated the operation into a new subsidiary called Statoil fuel & retail, which they then sold to Couche-tard, a Canadian convenience store multinational. The deal preserved the right to use the statoil brand for some time. Then couche-tard rebranded them to Cirkle K as part of a global strategy.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#322

Post by kwhitefoot »

tristanperry wrote: post #49
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...

It may have in the early days (just like many countries' oil programmes), however now the fund is helping to provide subsidies which makes gasoline cars more expensive than electric cars (amongst other policies), and hence Norway is now one of leaders of EV adoption (per person): https://www.greencarfuture.com/electric/how-norway-so-many-e...

There is nothing in that article that says that the oil fund subsidises the purchase of EVs. As far as I know the oil fund is not used directly for such purposes, can you provide a reference?

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#323

Post by kwhitefoot »

YeahSureWhyNot wrote: post #198
ceejayoz wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway > In 2017, Norway's immigrant population consisted of 883,751 people, making up 16.8% of the country's total population. This includes both foreign-born and Norwegian-born with two foreign-born parents, and four foreign-born grandparents. In this population, 724,987 are foreign-born immigrants, while 158,764 are Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents. The ten most…

so more like 130k real refugees 2% of total populationthat have been handpicked and all paperwork in order or now compare rhat to UK, France or USA where the number is close to 10% where 1/3 of them are illegal, don't speak the language and don't pay any taxes.

Not sure where you get the 130k from but yes Norway is strict about applying the rules on refugee status, economic migrants are sent back out unless they qualify for a residence permit (have a job so they can support themselves and their dependents). For those who are allowed in Norway provides free or cheap language classes, accommodation, and enough money to live on. However, unlike other countries, refugees who are granted asylum are not allowed to live just wherever they like, they are scattered around the country and effectively can only move when they can provide the money to do so on their own. So one doesn't get the same degree of concentration of foreign people as one gets, for example, in Sweden where until recently such a policy did not exist. My impression is that this has made Norway a less popular destination for those who are, or cannot prove that they are not, economic migrants.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#324

Post by kwhitefoot »

laurencerowe wrote: post #257
kwhitefoot wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could ask a similar question of the UK.

The UK has the same amount of oil spread across 12x as many people. Yes, the Tories wasted it but it could never have had the same impact on the whole UK that it had on Norway. Perhaps if Scotland had been independent (most of the UK's oil is in its waters) it would have been similar.

Nonetheless it would have ha some positive impact, And, while I'm as anti Tory as anyone there does not appear to have been a lot of objection to the way the oil income was handled from other parties.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#325

Post by fulafel »

atq2119 wrote: post #301
fulafel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The beauty of the Norwegian oil fund is that it isn't invested in oil . The fund grows from oil revenue, but it invests in all sorts of things that are specifically not oil. So there's not much conflict regarding oil divestment.

I agree that the fund's diversification helps some. But the fund is still fed from the oil income. And some of the oil income is spent in state budget, not all of it goes into the fund. And this is in addition to all the money being pumped into the economy from the oil industry (Norway has high wages, most Teslas per capita, etc). I think the financials of the citizens are much more connected to the oil profits than in other developed oil producing countries like the USA/UK/Netherlands.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#326

Post by nshung »

badestrand wrote: post #147

This transparency is just admirable, with investments down to the exact real estate properties that is invested in. Just beautiful.

So much transparency is that, in Norway, you can look up the yearly income of anyone online on the government's website :)

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#327

Post by londons_explore »

kristofferR wrote: post #252
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.

As a Norwegian this is quite funny. At least the last few decades we've been super focused on not working too hard to such a degree that it's often characterized as national lazyness by the Norwegian press. If a Thursday is a national holiday it is VERY common to take Friday, and maybe Monday off too. We look down on many countries, like the US, because they tend to overwork and prioritize work over life. Our success…

If Norway didn't have such valuable natural resources, I suspect the "don't work so hard" approach would leave it with starving people...

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#328

Post by londons_explore »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #319
fulafel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Time will tell it seems. Norway is very invested in at least appearing to get out of the oil business and into renewables. Couple pretty significant moves include renaming Statoil to Equinor and rebranding all of their gas stations (many in Scandinavia are branded as Circle K now). Norway very much wants to get out of the perception of being rich because of oil.

'appearing' being the word.

They won't stop extracting oil until there is no oil left.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#329

Post by imtringued »

buboard wrote: post #188
lordnacho wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I wonder if it's about being developed, vs being about having a high-trust society? Thats a virtuous loop. You institutions work because you trust that strangers trust your institutions.

Yes, that is how trust works.

Re: Norweigan oil fund

#330

Post by conjectures »

sgt101 wrote: post #195
conjectures wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a question I ask. The UK policy was, effectively, 'paaarty!'

Well - capitalise trade in The City of London; without the oil it's pretty clear London wouldn't have developed the way it did.

Rather than the story of financial degregulation?

Sceptical.

Post reply on HN