41 ms·

Living in Australia it breaks your heart to see how much this country has squandered a similarly historic natural resources boom. Instead of taxing it heavily

Living in Australia it breaks your heart to see how much this country has squandered a similarly historic natural resources boom. Instead of taxing it heavily and using it to build an enormous pool of money for the common good, we've simply handed it over to private interests. Australia has also squandered opportunity in its retirement system: 2.6 trillion in high fee individual accounts (1% given away to the financial sector in fees every year!) instead of in a sovereign wealth fund like Norway's with a fraction of the admin costs. Every country with an interest in a wealthy, fair society should be following in Norway's footsteps. Fun fact: Norway is mostly socialist. The government owns the majority of the country's wealth.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
netsharc 8y ago
Someone replied to you but he deleted it. I meant to continue the conversation with: If this article (referencing a 2008 paper) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-... is to be believed, the UK had the same thing, but the money went to tax cuts for the rich. So it does smell like corruption to me. [He talked about some conservative governments being corrupt, to which I think:] Conservatism is a con anyway, selling austerity as a pain that the citizenry needs to suffer to get a "healthy economy", which means cutting budgets where somehow the solution is to outsource things (e.g. with the NHS), meaning the private companies owned by the elites rake in the money. And then they sell the "it's the immigrants who are overtaxing our resources" to get the public to vote for Brexit. (Where less EU regulations mean the elite will have more power to influence the government to allow worker exploitation)
- Thlom 8y ago
  In Norway it’s EU regulations that makes it easier for the conservatives (and the last 20-30 years the social democrats) to privatize the economy and exploit workers. EU is a neoliberal project with some benefits for the common man.
  - vnorilo 8y ago
    Norway is not in the EU.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - lixtra 8y ago
      Nonetheless, plenty of EU driven rules apply in Norway. So gp’s statement could be true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relati...
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Mostly around trade, so that Norwegian products can be sold in the EU and vice versa without secondary inspections. Only 21% of EU laws apply to Norway, and I don’t see any evidence that the EU could do anything like force Norway to privatize things.
  - thefounder 8y ago
    How did you come to that conclusion? My complain with EU was it's driven too much by social(ist) policies at least compared with the US? At least the money that goes into small agriculture is upsetting.
    - lenticular 8y ago
      The EU is quite neoliberal. Austerity was the policy there after the recession. It has also presided over a massive financialization of the European economy. The US is far out of the political mainstream with other wealthy countries. In comparison to where they were 20 years ago (as opposed to where the US is now), Europe has shifted markedly right economically. The subsidies of agriculture are kind of ludicrous, I agree.
- laurencerowe 8y ago
  While this is true, proportionally the oil dividend is much smaller for the UK (60M population) than Norway (4M population.)
- keithpeter 8y ago
  Using common goods to finance tax cuts is a conservative party policy and it has been mentioned in their manifestos, although not in bald terms. They could therefore argue for a mandate for the policy.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    With tongue-in-cheek apologies to Thatcher, the problem with capitalism in the UK is that you eventually run out of public assets to sell off :)
    - keithpeter 8y ago
      Education and the health service (think buildings and land as assets for the latter) are the two remaining ones apart from something like the road system. I'm sure they will try these soon.
      - EliRivers 8y ago
        Didn't they already have a shot at education? That whole Academies mess. Although the master plan to make every school an "academy" [0] was shot down days after it was announced. [0] This is a weird, UK government definition of the word. Don't think Plato.
ancorevard 8y ago
I don’t know what your definition of socialism is which makes it difficult to respond to you. But in any historical manner, Norway is not a socialist society. We now have more freedom of choice in the market place than most countries and also compared to our own history. Norway was more socialist after the Second World War, where many industries was built up by the government. But since the 80s our government slowly divested from almost all these industries leading to much more affordable prices and greater competition. It’s a great country to start up companies and create wealth. There are aspects of Norway that is socialist, but the country by historical standards and by the very definition is far far from being socialist. It is difficult to categorize countries as socialist or free markets, since all countries has a bit of a mix. However, it is easy to see what it is decidedly not. Compared to socialist countries like USSR, East Germany, North Korea, Venezuela, we can all agree that Norway is not like those, it is indeed far closer to free markets than compared to socialism.
- EGreg 8y ago
  Most people use the word socialism incorrectly. They look at social democracy which is just markets with redistribution and safety nets, and they say “socialism”. Any welfare programs that help the poor - they say “socialism”. They look at cities and countries engaging in State Capitalism and call it socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of the Means of Production. Examples of textbook socialism include: Communes and Kibbutzes Co-operative housing Credit Unions Employee owned corporations Open source projects And you can have democratic governance of larger structures, which MAY be called socialism: The public stock market (capitalism and socialism can coexist).
  - gcb0 8y ago
    and then there's the definition from countries too close to nazi germany and/or the ussr at some point in its history: a term they will politely but enfaticaly deny, always.
    - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
      Nazi Germany was of course an example of national-socialism, which was a branch of fascism, not socialism. The name is very difficult for people to understand (although loads of people willfully misunderstand it), but saying it was socialism is like saying the Democratic People's Republic of Koreais an example of why democracy or republicanism is terrible.
EGreg 8y ago
Russia squanders it all the time
nugget 8y ago
I wouldn't call Norway socialist so much as credit them for having had excellent governance. They invested the taxes they collected very wisely for the long-term common good of their citizens. Any country with any system of governance would be capable of this, but it turns out most human beings when given sufficient political power tend towards corruption and waste. Alaska, in the US, has followed a similar model to Norway with the Alaska Permanent Fund. Alaska issues annual dividend checks to every resident which is, as far as I know, the closest thing to a working UBI model in the world.
- wwweston 8y ago
  So... sufficiently good governance pursuing the general welfare of citizens is indistinguishable from socialism? ;)
  - kebman 8y ago
    Because Socialism implies nationalizing private companies. Norway does not. In fact the last 50 years they've done nothing but privatization, while retaining stocks in certain key businesses - which is nothing like the traditional autocratic control known from Socialism. Heavy taxation is also not Socialism. Otherwise the British taxation of their American colonies could be deemed to be the same, while they were clearly not. Instead (largely) American companies accept the heavy taxation of the oil industry in Norway for two reasons. First of all, it is on sovereign Norwegian territory. Second, they still go home with a cool profit at the end of the day. Keeping the tax profits from that venture, and investing it in order to make it grow, is not Socialist either. In fact that could be seen as directly contrary to Socialist doctrines. In fact it can be viewed as a completely Capitalist doctrine! But one where the people benefits from those invesments, since the Sovereign Wealth Fund is designed to work for the benefit of its owners, who just happens to be the Norwegian people.
CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>Australia has also squandered opportunity in its retirement system: 2.6 trillion in high fee individual accounts (1% given away to the financial sector in fees every year!) instead of in a sovereign wealth fund like Norway's with a fraction of the admin costs. There are advantages to having hundreds of thousands of individual accounts over one sovereign wealth fund. The latter is a case of putting all your eggs in one basket. Centralization poses enormous risks. Reducing fees by having a smaller number of fund managers managing a larger amount of capital can also reduce the ROI, as a result of fund managers having to limit their objects of investment to very large companies/projects that can efficiently utilize large capital infusions.
- djrobstep 8y ago
  Seems to me it's the opposite. The holdings of the Norway fund are more diversified than any given Australian fund, simply because a larger pie can be sliced up into more slices. You can view the Norway fund's holdings on their website: https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/holdings/holdings-as-at-31.12.2018/ https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/holdings/holdings-as-at-31.1... It seems pretty diversified to me! A larger fund also has advantages for ROI (even putting aside the much lower fees) because you can be a more activist shareholder and invest in more sophisticated ways.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    Of course a gigantic fund will be more diversified than any single small fund. But the aggregate diversity of all of the funds that all of the individual accounts invest in will be greater than that of any single fund. >>A larger fund also has advantages for ROI (even putting aside the much lower fees) because you can be a more activist shareholder and invest in more sophisticated ways. Small fund managers are free to invest in large funds to gain these advantages. They have the added advantage of being able to select from smaller cap investment options as well.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tryptophan 8y ago
black-tea 8y ago
I had a Norwegian girlfriend for a time and I can tell you they just think differently to us (British) people. While in Britain, and by extension the US, people just want more, more, more and constantly thin they are being ripped off, in Norway they feel happy with what they already have and think in very modest terms. She was one of the few women I've dated who didn't go shopping for fun every week. Very refreshing for me as a frugal person aiming to retire early. I miss her actually.
- njepa 8y ago
  I think an important point to make is that it isn't that people in the Nordic countries are happier with less as such. It is that they already have, or have access to, the things they need to be relatively happy. If you don't then of course it is a constant struggle to compensate. Unfortunately I think this is rapidly changing.
  - germinalphrase 8y ago
    I would be curious what the advertising landscape is like in Norway vs (for instance) the US. Clearly many Americans have their essential needs covered, and yet there seems to be a constant advertising driven pull for more and more to achieve ‘real’ happiness.
    - njepa 8y ago
      > Clearly many Americans have their essential needs covered [...] Not in the same way. You can even be quite wealthy and still have very negative consequences from getting fired, evicted or having the housing market crash. Not only as result of the direct or financial consequences, but also to your sense of freedom and self-image. I guess you could say that the Nordics at their best isn't so much about being happy, as in the pursuit of happiness, but about being trouble free.
- gniv 8y ago
  I have recently learned about Janteloven, and it was a revelation when trying to understand the people in the Nordic countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
StreamBright 8y ago
>> Fun fact: Norway is mostly socialist. The government owns the majority of the country's wealth. This is not the definition of socialism. "The Nordic model refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionised while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism."
- djrobstep 8y ago
  It absolutely is the definition of socialism: socialism is common ownership of the means of production. Most of Norway's wealth is government-owned, thus it is mostly socialist. I'm not sure why people get so vehement about denying this fact. Perhaps because it requires acknowledging that socialism actually works really well?
  - Gravityloss 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy I think social democracy is probably closer. There's free enterprise and the government owns some part of some companies.
  - holenda 8y ago
    Most of Norway's wealth is definitely not owned by the government, where do you get this from? It's mostly owned by corporation's and the people. Statoil and some other large companies are partly owned by the government, but there are many wholly owned privat oil companies competing with them.
  - StreamBright 8y ago
    I am not sure why wikipedia disagrees with you. Probably because Norway is not a socialist country. Government is not equal to the workers. If workers owned means of production, it would have been a socialist country. This is simply not true. Most of companies in Norway are not owned by workers. I gues this will help you to understand: "Ownership: In a capitalist economy, property and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals. In a socialist economy, the state owns and controls the major means of production. In some socialist economic models, worker cooperatives have primacy over production" Finally, no socialism never has been working very well. There is not a single example of it working well in all recorded human history.
kebman 8y ago
It is a complete myth that Norway is "mostly socialist". Norway is a market economy with a strong focus on regulation and welfare for its people. If it was Socialist, it would have nationalized all private property by now - which it haven't, and in fact it is in the process of privatizing even more previously state-owned products and services. Heavy taxation does not imply Socialism, although the Sovereign Wealth Fund can certainly be attributed to the Labour movement of Norway.
- cygx 8y ago
  Socialism does not mean government ownership of the means of production: Remember, anarchism (think Proudhon, Bakunin) is also part of the socialist movement...
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I believe “Democratic Socialist” would be the correct term for their market arrangement: free market with a strong government backdrop against poverty or illness.
sundvor 8y ago
Yep. Try being a Norwegian living in Australia and seeing up close how they've done it all wrong. To explain it is like talking about the rainbow to someone born 100% blind; the corruption and ineptitude just stinks. The same goes for their attitudes towards taxing pollution / promoting EVs, but that's a side story.
- dade_ 8y ago
  And apparently no effective oversight of their largest financial institutions: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/chronican-shocked-at-depth-of-misconduct/news-story/0b73c63d799547334094cdd4f0e4cff9 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/chron... The stories about Rosemary Rogers are bewildering.
- njepa 8y ago
  Unfortunately it might be even more frustrating seeing the Nordic countries trying to dismantle any good idea and advantage they had. Hopefully Norway has enough inertia to not squander the fund.
GordonS 8y ago
I'm Scottish and kind of feel the same way - Scotland has a similar population to Norway, but Scotland has little to show for decades of oil and gas extraction. I really wish we'd started a fund like Norway did :(
unixhero 8y ago
The fun fact is incorrect: Not correct. Norway's form or government is Social Democratic. A progressive form of modern democracy. Mind you; Our government is this season run by a coalition of a center right and a right wing party.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

netsharc 8y ago

Someone replied to you but he deleted it. I meant to continue the conversation with: If this article (referencing a 2008 paper) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-... is to be believed, the UK had the same thing, but the money went to tax cuts for the rich. So it does smell like corruption to me. [He talked about some conservative governments being corrupt, to which I think:] Conservatism is a con anyway, selling austerity as a pain that the citizenry needs to suffer to get a "healthy economy", which means cutting budgets where somehow the solution is to outsource things (e.g. with the NHS), meaning the private companies owned by the elites rake in the money. And then they sell the "it's the immigrants who are overtaxing our resources" to get the public to vote for Brexit. (Where less EU regulations mean the elite will have more power to influence the government to allow worker exploitation)

Thlom 8y ago
In Norway it’s EU regulations that makes it easier for the conservatives (and the last 20-30 years the social democrats) to privatize the economy and exploit workers. EU is a neoliberal project with some benefits for the common man.
- vnorilo 8y ago
  Norway is not in the EU.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lixtra 8y ago
    Nonetheless, plenty of EU driven rules apply in Norway. So gp’s statement could be true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relati...
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Mostly around trade, so that Norwegian products can be sold in the EU and vice versa without secondary inspections. Only 21% of EU laws apply to Norway, and I don’t see any evidence that the EU could do anything like force Norway to privatize things.
- thefounder 8y ago
  How did you come to that conclusion? My complain with EU was it's driven too much by social(ist) policies at least compared with the US? At least the money that goes into small agriculture is upsetting.
  - lenticular 8y ago
    The EU is quite neoliberal. Austerity was the policy there after the recession. It has also presided over a massive financialization of the European economy. The US is far out of the political mainstream with other wealthy countries. In comparison to where they were 20 years ago (as opposed to where the US is now), Europe has shifted markedly right economically. The subsidies of agriculture are kind of ludicrous, I agree.
laurencerowe 8y ago
While this is true, proportionally the oil dividend is much smaller for the UK (60M population) than Norway (4M population.)
keithpeter 8y ago
Using common goods to finance tax cuts is a conservative party policy and it has been mentioned in their manifestos, although not in bald terms. They could therefore argue for a mandate for the policy.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  With tongue-in-cheek apologies to Thatcher, the problem with capitalism in the UK is that you eventually run out of public assets to sell off :)
  - keithpeter 8y ago
    Education and the health service (think buildings and land as assets for the latter) are the two remaining ones apart from something like the road system. I'm sure they will try these soon.
    - EliRivers 8y ago
      Didn't they already have a shot at education? That whole Academies mess. Although the master plan to make every school an "academy" [0] was shot down days after it was announced. [0] This is a weird, UK government definition of the word. Don't think Plato.

ancorevard 8y ago

I don’t know what your definition of socialism is which makes it difficult to respond to you. But in any historical manner, Norway is not a socialist society. We now have more freedom of choice in the market place than most countries and also compared to our own history. Norway was more socialist after the Second World War, where many industries was built up by the government. But since the 80s our government slowly divested from almost all these industries leading to much more affordable prices and greater competition. It’s a great country to start up companies and create wealth. There are aspects of Norway that is socialist, but the country by historical standards and by the very definition is far far from being socialist. It is difficult to categorize countries as socialist or free markets, since all countries has a bit of a mix. However, it is easy to see what it is decidedly not. Compared to socialist countries like USSR, East Germany, North Korea, Venezuela, we can all agree that Norway is not like those, it is indeed far closer to free markets than compared to socialism.

EGreg 8y ago
Most people use the word socialism incorrectly. They look at social democracy which is just markets with redistribution and safety nets, and they say “socialism”. Any welfare programs that help the poor - they say “socialism”. They look at cities and countries engaging in State Capitalism and call it socialism. Socialism is collective ownership of the Means of Production. Examples of textbook socialism include: Communes and Kibbutzes Co-operative housing Credit Unions Employee owned corporations Open source projects And you can have democratic governance of larger structures, which MAY be called socialism: The public stock market (capitalism and socialism can coexist).
- gcb0 8y ago
  and then there's the definition from countries too close to nazi germany and/or the ussr at some point in its history: a term they will politely but enfaticaly deny, always.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    Nazi Germany was of course an example of national-socialism, which was a branch of fascism, not socialism. The name is very difficult for people to understand (although loads of people willfully misunderstand it), but saying it was socialism is like saying the Democratic People's Republic of Koreais an example of why democracy or republicanism is terrible.

EGreg 8y ago

Russia squanders it all the time

nugget 8y ago

I wouldn't call Norway socialist so much as credit them for having had excellent governance. They invested the taxes they collected very wisely for the long-term common good of their citizens. Any country with any system of governance would be capable of this, but it turns out most human beings when given sufficient political power tend towards corruption and waste. Alaska, in the US, has followed a similar model to Norway with the Alaska Permanent Fund. Alaska issues annual dividend checks to every resident which is, as far as I know, the closest thing to a working UBI model in the world.

wwweston 8y ago
So... sufficiently good governance pursuing the general welfare of citizens is indistinguishable from socialism? ;)
- kebman 8y ago
  Because Socialism implies nationalizing private companies. Norway does not. In fact the last 50 years they've done nothing but privatization, while retaining stocks in certain key businesses - which is nothing like the traditional autocratic control known from Socialism. Heavy taxation is also not Socialism. Otherwise the British taxation of their American colonies could be deemed to be the same, while they were clearly not. Instead (largely) American companies accept the heavy taxation of the oil industry in Norway for two reasons. First of all, it is on sovereign Norwegian territory. Second, they still go home with a cool profit at the end of the day. Keeping the tax profits from that venture, and investing it in order to make it grow, is not Socialist either. In fact that could be seen as directly contrary to Socialist doctrines. In fact it can be viewed as a completely Capitalist doctrine! But one where the people benefits from those invesments, since the Sovereign Wealth Fund is designed to work for the benefit of its owners, who just happens to be the Norwegian people.

CryptoPunk 8y ago

>>Australia has also squandered opportunity in its retirement system: 2.6 trillion in high fee individual accounts (1% given away to the financial sector in fees every year!) instead of in a sovereign wealth fund like Norway's with a fraction of the admin costs. There are advantages to having hundreds of thousands of individual accounts over one sovereign wealth fund. The latter is a case of putting all your eggs in one basket. Centralization poses enormous risks. Reducing fees by having a smaller number of fund managers managing a larger amount of capital can also reduce the ROI, as a result of fund managers having to limit their objects of investment to very large companies/projects that can efficiently utilize large capital infusions.

djrobstep 8y ago
Seems to me it's the opposite. The holdings of the Norway fund are more diversified than any given Australian fund, simply because a larger pie can be sliced up into more slices. You can view the Norway fund's holdings on their website: https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/holdings/holdings-as-at-31.12.2018/ https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/holdings/holdings-as-at-31.1... It seems pretty diversified to me! A larger fund also has advantages for ROI (even putting aside the much lower fees) because you can be a more activist shareholder and invest in more sophisticated ways.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  Of course a gigantic fund will be more diversified than any single small fund. But the aggregate diversity of all of the funds that all of the individual accounts invest in will be greater than that of any single fund. >>A larger fund also has advantages for ROI (even putting aside the much lower fees) because you can be a more activist shareholder and invest in more sophisticated ways. Small fund managers are free to invest in large funds to gain these advantages. They have the added advantage of being able to select from smaller cap investment options as well.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tryptophan 8y ago

black-tea 8y ago

I had a Norwegian girlfriend for a time and I can tell you they just think differently to us (British) people. While in Britain, and by extension the US, people just want more, more, more and constantly thin they are being ripped off, in Norway they feel happy with what they already have and think in very modest terms. She was one of the few women I've dated who didn't go shopping for fun every week. Very refreshing for me as a frugal person aiming to retire early. I miss her actually.

njepa 8y ago
I think an important point to make is that it isn't that people in the Nordic countries are happier with less as such. It is that they already have, or have access to, the things they need to be relatively happy. If you don't then of course it is a constant struggle to compensate. Unfortunately I think this is rapidly changing.
- germinalphrase 8y ago
  I would be curious what the advertising landscape is like in Norway vs (for instance) the US. Clearly many Americans have their essential needs covered, and yet there seems to be a constant advertising driven pull for more and more to achieve ‘real’ happiness.
  - njepa 8y ago
    > Clearly many Americans have their essential needs covered [...] Not in the same way. You can even be quite wealthy and still have very negative consequences from getting fired, evicted or having the housing market crash. Not only as result of the direct or financial consequences, but also to your sense of freedom and self-image. I guess you could say that the Nordics at their best isn't so much about being happy, as in the pursuit of happiness, but about being trouble free.
gniv 8y ago
I have recently learned about Janteloven, and it was a revelation when trying to understand the people in the Nordic countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

StreamBright 8y ago

>> Fun fact: Norway is mostly socialist. The government owns the majority of the country's wealth. This is not the definition of socialism. "The Nordic model refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionised while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism."

djrobstep 8y ago
It absolutely is the definition of socialism: socialism is common ownership of the means of production. Most of Norway's wealth is government-owned, thus it is mostly socialist. I'm not sure why people get so vehement about denying this fact. Perhaps because it requires acknowledging that socialism actually works really well?
- Gravityloss 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy I think social democracy is probably closer. There's free enterprise and the government owns some part of some companies.
- holenda 8y ago
  Most of Norway's wealth is definitely not owned by the government, where do you get this from? It's mostly owned by corporation's and the people. Statoil and some other large companies are partly owned by the government, but there are many wholly owned privat oil companies competing with them.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  I am not sure why wikipedia disagrees with you. Probably because Norway is not a socialist country. Government is not equal to the workers. If workers owned means of production, it would have been a socialist country. This is simply not true. Most of companies in Norway are not owned by workers. I gues this will help you to understand: "Ownership: In a capitalist economy, property and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals. In a socialist economy, the state owns and controls the major means of production. In some socialist economic models, worker cooperatives have primacy over production" Finally, no socialism never has been working very well. There is not a single example of it working well in all recorded human history.

kebman 8y ago

It is a complete myth that Norway is "mostly socialist". Norway is a market economy with a strong focus on regulation and welfare for its people. If it was Socialist, it would have nationalized all private property by now - which it haven't, and in fact it is in the process of privatizing even more previously state-owned products and services. Heavy taxation does not imply Socialism, although the Sovereign Wealth Fund can certainly be attributed to the Labour movement of Norway.

cygx 8y ago
Socialism does not mean government ownership of the means of production: Remember, anarchism (think Proudhon, Bakunin) is also part of the socialist movement...
village-idiot 8y ago
I believe “Democratic Socialist” would be the correct term for their market arrangement: free market with a strong government backdrop against poverty or illness.

sundvor 8y ago

Yep. Try being a Norwegian living in Australia and seeing up close how they've done it all wrong. To explain it is like talking about the rainbow to someone born 100% blind; the corruption and ineptitude just stinks. The same goes for their attitudes towards taxing pollution / promoting EVs, but that's a side story.

dade_ 8y ago
And apparently no effective oversight of their largest financial institutions: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/chronican-shocked-at-depth-of-misconduct/news-story/0b73c63d799547334094cdd4f0e4cff9 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/chron... The stories about Rosemary Rogers are bewildering.
njepa 8y ago
Unfortunately it might be even more frustrating seeing the Nordic countries trying to dismantle any good idea and advantage they had. Hopefully Norway has enough inertia to not squander the fund.

GordonS 8y ago

I'm Scottish and kind of feel the same way - Scotland has a similar population to Norway, but Scotland has little to show for decades of oil and gas extraction. I really wish we'd started a fund like Norway did :(

unixhero 8y ago

The fun fact is incorrect: Not correct. Norway's form or government is Social Democratic. A progressive form of modern democracy. Mind you; Our government is this season run by a coalition of a center right and a right wing party.