3 ms·

I'm aware that comparison he's trying to draw, but the comparison has to be fair. First, most obviously, Australia has almost 5 times the population of Norway!

I'm aware that comparison he's trying to draw, but the comparison has to be fair. First, most obviously, Australia has almost 5 times the population of Norway! Second, if we're going to start increasing the scope of exports we're including, to make a fair comparison we should include minerals in Norway's total (not just Australia's), and we should really include other resources that Norway has that Australia doesn't (rather than just picking a category where Australia has larger exports). What are the numbers in this case? Again, I think this works out to a per capita endowment of that is still much, much larger for Norway, but you'd actually have to do a bit of work to check.

barrkel 8y ago
Compare respective sovereign wealth funds: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/09/24/how-to-not-spend-it https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/09/24/h... IMO you're on a hiding to nothing trying to support your position that the comparison isn't valid. The economic export situation is structurally quite similar between Norway and Australia, and the difference in how they've handled it is vast, far greater than any multiple in population.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  Huh? No one disputes that the countries handle things differently. But if you want to say that one way of handling things is better, and the only evidence you give are better outcomes, then inputs ought to be similar. But if one country has 30 times or 3 times the input (corresponding to oil or most natural resources, respectively), then this is a very poor comparison unless you do a lot more work to correct for it.
  - jpatokal 8y ago
    Here's a simple way of looking at it: Norway has converted its resources into a $1 trillion pot of funds, while Australia has, to a first approximation and over a longer time frame, zero or less (the country runs a budget deficit). So it doesn't really matter if the input is 3 or 30 times bigger if the function converting it into output is broken.

barrkel 8y ago

Compare respective sovereign wealth funds: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/09/24/how-to-not-spend-it https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2016/09/24/h... IMO you're on a hiding to nothing trying to support your position that the comparison isn't valid. The economic export situation is structurally quite similar between Norway and Australia, and the difference in how they've handled it is vast, far greater than any multiple in population.

jessriedel 8y ago
Huh? No one disputes that the countries handle things differently. But if you want to say that one way of handling things is better, and the only evidence you give are better outcomes, then inputs ought to be similar. But if one country has 30 times or 3 times the input (corresponding to oil or most natural resources, respectively), then this is a very poor comparison unless you do a lot more work to correct for it.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  Here's a simple way of looking at it: Norway has converted its resources into a $1 trillion pot of funds, while Australia has, to a first approximation and over a longer time frame, zero or less (the country runs a budget deficit). So it doesn't really matter if the input is 3 or 30 times bigger if the function converting it into output is broken.